Some see Fresno's DUI crackdown as a model
- Thread starter Michigander
- Start date
- Status
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Aggravated DUI
Modified scenario: Cop stops drunk from getting in vehicle, notes driver's license, puts him in cab. Idiot drunk decides having to come back tomorrow to get car is "inconvenient" and sneaks back to his car, starts home, causes wreck.
Now the court has evidence that the drunk was actively given a chance to avoid a citation (as well as the accident). The charge becomes "aggravated DUI" and the guy does hard time.
You give the guy a shot. He declines the common-sense approach and causes mischief. You smack him upside the head with a brick.
This allows the not-entirely-committed-to-stupidity guys to reconsider their ways and straighten out. It provides serious deterrent effect for the more dedicated morons, and removes the pathological idiots from circulation.
Modified scenario: Cop stops drunk from getting in vehicle, notes driver's license, puts him in cab. Idiot drunk decides having to come back tomorrow to get car is "inconvenient" and sneaks back to his car, starts home, causes wreck.
Now the court has evidence that the drunk was actively given a chance to avoid a citation (as well as the accident). The charge becomes "aggravated DUI" and the guy does hard time.
You give the guy a shot. He declines the common-sense approach and causes mischief. You smack him upside the head with a brick.
This allows the not-entirely-committed-to-stupidity guys to reconsider their ways and straighten out. It provides serious deterrent effect for the more dedicated morons, and removes the pathological idiots from circulation.
ArfinGreebly hypothetical
Interesting hypothetical. I can think of some people who won't like it when the inevitable crashes occur: The property owners whose property is damaged, the persons injured by the driver, or the deceaseds' survivors. I can think of some who would like it: The lawyers who get rich off of their 1/3 contigency fees from suing the governments behind the "policy" (and, oh yes, it would be "sold" as a policy even if not an official-I forget the name of the case, begins with an "M." And, by the way, the proper nomenclature for suits against officers and government entities abusing civil rights under the mantle of "state" authroity is Tile 42 section 1983-in my haste to get home to She Who Must Be Obeyed, I misedited.).
Respectfully, your proposal has the effect, albeit unintended, of making the violation an "aw, shucks" event, with the officer implicit in rolling the dice to see if (A) the offender will try the Sneaky Pete (and you admit this will likely happen, I think, at least impliedly in your hypothetical) and (B) the "Sneaky Petes" will not have a wreck. The communication is this: "Sneak back and be REALLL careful driving home and you will be ok!" And so it goes.
How about this-we arrest people who break the law (without, of course, violating their civil rights), they tell two friends, and so on. Will this stop everyone from DUI (driving while impaired)? No. Will it have an impact. I humbly say "Yes."
In one jursidiction, for example, deaths as a consequence of DUI increased by approximately 474% over a four-year period. Coincedentally, that area's practice had been to reduce or dismiss DUI's to negligible, if any, offense with no significant consequences. After one year of actually following the law, at least to a greater extent, the number of fatalities caused by DUIs decreased by about 46%. DUI arrests decreased, across the board, by 50% or more per agency. Where the cops working less? Probably not-the message (assuming you agree that everything we do is communication) was apparently curbing (no pun intended) people from driving after too much ETOH. Now, before some statistics guru asks "but is n>100," no, but I propose the correlation bears consideration.
Granted, it would be hard to ever say that you specifically saved a life by making an arrest (an in the jurisdiciton I invoke as anedoctal, one is arrested, not cited, for DUI-why? so you won't sneak back and drive, in great part!)--it is a function of numbers. Personally, every impaired driver definitely off the road makes me feel better about my family being out there. Someone earlier pointed out, accurately, that life is risk, but I don't want to throw my child in front of a car to make the prophecy self-fulfilling, and I don't want to endorse people who can't stay on their side of the road to drive.
And, respectfully, how the heck does the idea of arresting criminals (and that is what a DUI driver is, even though they are usually not your stereotypical thug or whatever) metamorphisize (sp?-I'm too tired to get the Webster's right now) into a valiant stand for individual rights? One doesn't possess a right to drive on a public road and such-although this will gall some of you, that is a privilege, with regulations and requirements. And that privilege doesn't include a right to operate a vehicle while chemically impaired.
Interesting hypothetical. I can think of some people who won't like it when the inevitable crashes occur: The property owners whose property is damaged, the persons injured by the driver, or the deceaseds' survivors. I can think of some who would like it: The lawyers who get rich off of their 1/3 contigency fees from suing the governments behind the "policy" (and, oh yes, it would be "sold" as a policy even if not an official-I forget the name of the case, begins with an "M." And, by the way, the proper nomenclature for suits against officers and government entities abusing civil rights under the mantle of "state" authroity is Tile 42 section 1983-in my haste to get home to She Who Must Be Obeyed, I misedited.).
Respectfully, your proposal has the effect, albeit unintended, of making the violation an "aw, shucks" event, with the officer implicit in rolling the dice to see if (A) the offender will try the Sneaky Pete (and you admit this will likely happen, I think, at least impliedly in your hypothetical) and (B) the "Sneaky Petes" will not have a wreck. The communication is this: "Sneak back and be REALLL careful driving home and you will be ok!" And so it goes.
How about this-we arrest people who break the law (without, of course, violating their civil rights), they tell two friends, and so on. Will this stop everyone from DUI (driving while impaired)? No. Will it have an impact. I humbly say "Yes."
In one jursidiction, for example, deaths as a consequence of DUI increased by approximately 474% over a four-year period. Coincedentally, that area's practice had been to reduce or dismiss DUI's to negligible, if any, offense with no significant consequences. After one year of actually following the law, at least to a greater extent, the number of fatalities caused by DUIs decreased by about 46%. DUI arrests decreased, across the board, by 50% or more per agency. Where the cops working less? Probably not-the message (assuming you agree that everything we do is communication) was apparently curbing (no pun intended) people from driving after too much ETOH. Now, before some statistics guru asks "but is n>100," no, but I propose the correlation bears consideration.
Granted, it would be hard to ever say that you specifically saved a life by making an arrest (an in the jurisdiciton I invoke as anedoctal, one is arrested, not cited, for DUI-why? so you won't sneak back and drive, in great part!)--it is a function of numbers. Personally, every impaired driver definitely off the road makes me feel better about my family being out there. Someone earlier pointed out, accurately, that life is risk, but I don't want to throw my child in front of a car to make the prophecy self-fulfilling, and I don't want to endorse people who can't stay on their side of the road to drive.
And, respectfully, how the heck does the idea of arresting criminals (and that is what a DUI driver is, even though they are usually not your stereotypical thug or whatever) metamorphisize (sp?-I'm too tired to get the Webster's right now) into a valiant stand for individual rights? One doesn't possess a right to drive on a public road and such-although this will gall some of you, that is a privilege, with regulations and requirements. And that privilege doesn't include a right to operate a vehicle while chemically impaired.
Jeff F
Member
Where I live you get in as much or more trouble riding a horse drunk then driving a car drunk.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Standing Wolf said:
That's perspicacious, my friend! It bears a lot of truth! We are what we tolerate, aren't we. Thank you for that angle. I'll add it to my list of perspectives.
Woody
You can live free holding the stock and possibly never have to pull the trigger, or you can try to live free at the muzzle. I prefer to hold the stock and live free. Those at the muzzle never seem to fare quite so well. B.E.Wood
wally
Member
I'm far more threatened every day by idiot drivers talking on cell phones and not paying attension, than by drunk drivers!
--wally.
--wally.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
really wally?
could you substantiate that? do cell phone drivers really kill more folks or is it just that you think they might?
could you substantiate that? do cell phone drivers really kill more folks or is it just that you think they might?
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Biker said:
It is contagious, so be careful who you share toilets with. 
Woody
"If they silence the sound of my voice, they'll surely hear the sound of my gun - if I decide to use something subsonic, that is!" B.E.Wood
shooting the drunk driver
Assuming that this solution is offered as a real argument, two things come to mind: First, the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and many similar provisions in state constitutions, prohibit cruel and unusual punishments, which comprise those punishments not proportionate to the offense. Even though every impaired driver is a potential vehicular homicide waiting to happen, no one I know can predict who would kill someone and thus even remotely merit anticipatory ultimate punishment. Further, the State's taking of a life, even though allowed under the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the 8th, allows this ultimate penalty only under the most severe circumstances, with a most evil mens rea. Although someone who drives impaired, much less kills someone while so driving, is not necessarily the best role model, their mens rea does not rise to the level of an intentional murderer.
Second, under the Constitution, we are all innocent until proven guilty and are entitled to a jury trial by our peers when accused of a crime that involves even short periods of incarceration. Obviously, the proposed solution would negate that right.
How about this: We seek some point between "Death Squads" and "Gee, bubba, it's all right until you kill someone" and enforce the laws? Maybe save some lives? Of course, the above is predicated on the assumption that by "shooting" drunk drivers we mean to shoot to kill.
Assuming that this solution is offered as a real argument, two things come to mind: First, the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and many similar provisions in state constitutions, prohibit cruel and unusual punishments, which comprise those punishments not proportionate to the offense. Even though every impaired driver is a potential vehicular homicide waiting to happen, no one I know can predict who would kill someone and thus even remotely merit anticipatory ultimate punishment. Further, the State's taking of a life, even though allowed under the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the 8th, allows this ultimate penalty only under the most severe circumstances, with a most evil mens rea. Although someone who drives impaired, much less kills someone while so driving, is not necessarily the best role model, their mens rea does not rise to the level of an intentional murderer.
Second, under the Constitution, we are all innocent until proven guilty and are entitled to a jury trial by our peers when accused of a crime that involves even short periods of incarceration. Obviously, the proposed solution would negate that right.
How about this: We seek some point between "Death Squads" and "Gee, bubba, it's all right until you kill someone" and enforce the laws? Maybe save some lives? Of course, the above is predicated on the assumption that by "shooting" drunk drivers we mean to shoot to kill.
Deavis
Member
Prove to me that is any different than irresponsible gun owners. You are prejudging and assuming that because the operator of a motor vehicle is intoxicated, based on a standard that has nothing to do with that person's capabilities as a driver, he is somehow dangerous. The fact is that you can't make that judgement without seeing their driving andymore than you can say a gun owner is dangerous without knowing him.
Driving while intoxicated is not inherently more dangerous than driving while putting on makeup, having a conversation with the backseat, or driving too aggresively. They have run all sorts of simulation exercises at universities and show that the degradation of a drunk driver (whatever that means) is no more severe than other distracted drivers because the driver who has been drinking is often concentrating on driving properly much more than other drivers. You can look them up, they came out of Iowa IIRC.
Any distraction of a driver COULD endanger other road users, but it is the ability of the driver that makes the difference. The difference is that you are prejudiced against alcohol and immediately assume that a driver who has had a few must be endagering someone. That is like assuming that a liberal with a gun is going to have a ND and kill someone at the range. Both are bogus and based on projection of your values without logic.
Michael Andretti is probably a better driver than you when he is drunk and driving at 120mph. You are probably a better driver drunk than a 92 year old Grandpa with poor hearing and eyes that haven't been checked in 4 years. The only thing that should be important is their driving at the moment. If they are a danger, bust them. If not, don't. They hurt someone, put them in jail for a LONG time. Punish the crime they commit, not the crime they could commit.
Just maybe education and training is the key.
Bill Wood of American Motorcyclist Association has an interesting perspective in the September, 2006, issue of the AMM magazine:
*************
Sometimes, the only way to understand what's going on right under your own nose is to see it from a long way off.
At least, that's the way it seems to me right now. A couple of months ago, I wrote a column about distracted drivers ("Look Out!" July issue) following the release of a federal study indicating how dangerous these people are to the rest of us. As we detailed in a story in the same issue ("What We're Up Against"), various distractions, like talking on the phone, eating, reading, etc., can make a driver up to nine times more likely to hit you on the highway.
My own observations from my 40-mile round-trip commute each day left me feeling that we're facing a pretty hopeless situation, since the army of eye makeup applying, newspaper reading, coffee and cigarette juggling, cellphone yakking drivers seems to grow almost by the week.
That is, until I saw this issue from a different perspective.
Recently, BMW flew a group of journalists over to Germany for our first chance to ride the new R1200R. (Yeah, I know: southern Germany, the Alps, someone else's brand new motorcycle it just seems so unfair to me, too.)
You'll read about the new bike next month, and you can get a preview of the company's industry-first traction control system on page 18 this month. But in between all that, I got a chance to notice something else during my time in Germany: Apparently, people don't have to drive like idiots.
Let me point out first that the average German road is a much greater challenge to negotiate than a typical highway here in the States. City streets tend to be narrow, with cars parked inches away. Out in the country, we encountered lots of two lane roads carrying much more traffic than you'd find on similar roads over here. And then, of course, there's the Autobahn, which has a posted limit of 130 kilometers per hour (times .62, that's about 80 mph), and an unofficial limit just short of infinity (seriously, on one open stretch the Beemer's speedo was showing 200 kph-you do the math-and my rear-view mirrors were filled with an Audi flashing its brights for me to get out of the way). It all sounds like a formula for vehicular carnage, right? But that's not what we found at all.
The main impression we got of German drivers was one of exceptional competence. In short, they just don't seem to do the dumb things you expect from Americans-even under extreme conditions. How extreme? Here's one example:
We're on a scenic mountain road so narrow there's no center line. On this summer afternoon, everybody is making use of it. And I mean everybody.
There's normal traffic-cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles. Plus a group of bicycle racers on a training ride, fitting in between all the motor vehicles.
But there's much more. A vintage car racing organization is hosting a timed run along this road, so we roll under a start banner, then pass several checkpoints before reaching an end banner. Oh yeah, and the whole road runs through open range land, which means there are cows.
In a span of about 20 seconds, I pass two cows partially on the road surface, five oncoming bicyclists, two open wheel race cars, three family sedans and a tour bus. And here's the amazing part: No one seems fazed by this in the least! Everybody stays focused, works through the obstacles and keeps moving, like this happens every day.
If these drivers can deal with all that, "normal" driving must be a breeze.
And apparently, it is. When I got back to the office, I did a little research and discovered that, on a per capita basis, Germany has about half as many traffic fatalities as we do in the U.S. If we had a similar fatality rate, we'd save nearly 20,000 lives a year.
How do they do that? Part of the answer may be related to their licensing requirements. The mini¬mum driving age in Germany is 18, and extensive training, including supervised experience in a variety of traffic settings, is required before you can attempt to pass the demanding license test. (In addition, handheld cellphone use is illegal.)
But it goes beyond that. Every place we went, we got the impression that Germans take driving, and riding, seriously. They expect each other to be competent on the road.
I don't know if this expectation results in the strict licensing laws, or the licensing laws result in a national focus on highway competence. But either way, this tells me that stupidity doesn't have to be part of the driving experience.
At least not in Germany. Maybe it's a concept that will catch on here someday.
Bill Wood is AMA director of communications.
Bill Wood of American Motorcyclist Association has an interesting perspective in the September, 2006, issue of the AMM magazine:
*************
Sometimes, the only way to understand what's going on right under your own nose is to see it from a long way off.
At least, that's the way it seems to me right now. A couple of months ago, I wrote a column about distracted drivers ("Look Out!" July issue) following the release of a federal study indicating how dangerous these people are to the rest of us. As we detailed in a story in the same issue ("What We're Up Against"), various distractions, like talking on the phone, eating, reading, etc., can make a driver up to nine times more likely to hit you on the highway.
My own observations from my 40-mile round-trip commute each day left me feeling that we're facing a pretty hopeless situation, since the army of eye makeup applying, newspaper reading, coffee and cigarette juggling, cellphone yakking drivers seems to grow almost by the week.
That is, until I saw this issue from a different perspective.
Recently, BMW flew a group of journalists over to Germany for our first chance to ride the new R1200R. (Yeah, I know: southern Germany, the Alps, someone else's brand new motorcycle it just seems so unfair to me, too.)
You'll read about the new bike next month, and you can get a preview of the company's industry-first traction control system on page 18 this month. But in between all that, I got a chance to notice something else during my time in Germany: Apparently, people don't have to drive like idiots.
Let me point out first that the average German road is a much greater challenge to negotiate than a typical highway here in the States. City streets tend to be narrow, with cars parked inches away. Out in the country, we encountered lots of two lane roads carrying much more traffic than you'd find on similar roads over here. And then, of course, there's the Autobahn, which has a posted limit of 130 kilometers per hour (times .62, that's about 80 mph), and an unofficial limit just short of infinity (seriously, on one open stretch the Beemer's speedo was showing 200 kph-you do the math-and my rear-view mirrors were filled with an Audi flashing its brights for me to get out of the way). It all sounds like a formula for vehicular carnage, right? But that's not what we found at all.
The main impression we got of German drivers was one of exceptional competence. In short, they just don't seem to do the dumb things you expect from Americans-even under extreme conditions. How extreme? Here's one example:
We're on a scenic mountain road so narrow there's no center line. On this summer afternoon, everybody is making use of it. And I mean everybody.
There's normal traffic-cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles. Plus a group of bicycle racers on a training ride, fitting in between all the motor vehicles.
But there's much more. A vintage car racing organization is hosting a timed run along this road, so we roll under a start banner, then pass several checkpoints before reaching an end banner. Oh yeah, and the whole road runs through open range land, which means there are cows.
In a span of about 20 seconds, I pass two cows partially on the road surface, five oncoming bicyclists, two open wheel race cars, three family sedans and a tour bus. And here's the amazing part: No one seems fazed by this in the least! Everybody stays focused, works through the obstacles and keeps moving, like this happens every day.
If these drivers can deal with all that, "normal" driving must be a breeze.
And apparently, it is. When I got back to the office, I did a little research and discovered that, on a per capita basis, Germany has about half as many traffic fatalities as we do in the U.S. If we had a similar fatality rate, we'd save nearly 20,000 lives a year.
How do they do that? Part of the answer may be related to their licensing requirements. The mini¬mum driving age in Germany is 18, and extensive training, including supervised experience in a variety of traffic settings, is required before you can attempt to pass the demanding license test. (In addition, handheld cellphone use is illegal.)
But it goes beyond that. Every place we went, we got the impression that Germans take driving, and riding, seriously. They expect each other to be competent on the road.
I don't know if this expectation results in the strict licensing laws, or the licensing laws result in a national focus on highway competence. But either way, this tells me that stupidity doesn't have to be part of the driving experience.
At least not in Germany. Maybe it's a concept that will catch on here someday.
Bill Wood is AMA director of communications.
SnWnMe
Member
They are not different, they are the same as irresponsible gun owners. I don't think that I tried to separate the two in my OP.
You are right, I can't make judgements about fellow gun owners I meet at the range until they do something stupid. And I don't make judgements about drunks until they do something stupid (like driving) because of things like this
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2004/809905.pdf
and this
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm
and this
http://www.nih.gov/about/researchresultsforthepublic/AlcoholRelatedTrafficDeaths.pdf
Please show me data where it shows that drunks are more careful drivers. Of course, ALL distracted or impaired drivers are hazards to us but we are not talking about folks on cell phones or are putting on make up in this thread. We are talking about folks who choose to have a drink, then get behind the wheel and join the rest of us on the roads. You maybe a world class F1 driver but that does not give you the right to engage in dangerous activities on a public thoroughfare.
Nio
Member
How some of you can equate drinking and driving with firearm ownership is WAY beyond me.
There were 16,694 alcohol-related fatalities in 2004 – 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year.
How can you defend that?
Nio
There were 16,694 alcohol-related fatalities in 2004 – 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year.
How can you defend that?
Nio
SnWnMe
Member
Some cannot separate RKBA and responsible firearm ownership from irresponsible behaviour not protected nor guaranteed by anything in the BoR.
Deavis
Member
Yup, come get a license over here, it makes the tests in the U.S. look like a pre-school class. Many Americans fail the practical test 2 or 3 times before they pass it. It isn't a joke and the first thing you learn, when you come up to an intersection, is that you have to trust the driver next to you to do the right thing (right before left). So, when you roll up to an unmarked intersection and turn right without looking to your left (which is REALLY hard to do) you know that the car to your left will stop and yield. If you stop or hesitate to make that turn, you fail the test. When you are on the AUtobahn, people get out of the way for you, they are actively paying attention and driving competently. I'm darn proud of my Führerschein, even if the name is a bit misleading
Easy, I'm not. I'm telling you that the people who cause those accidents, whether it is from booze or makeup deserve to be in jail. I am defending the right of a person to not be convicted of a crime they MAY commit. My point is that you cannot prejudge a person who drinks and call them irresponsible because even after a few drinks they may still be a better driver than you. Some of you think the simple act of consuming alcohol and driving is irresponsible, well, I disagree. It may be irresponsible for you but not every person in the world will cause an accident when they drink and drive. If they don't break the traffic laws and don't cause an accident, then I don't care what their distraction or BAC is. You don't have to be a perfect driver to be a safe driver, once again, you just have to be safe enough to not cause an accident or break a law. This is no different than 20/40 vision to drive vs. 20/20, would it be best to have 20/20, sure but you don't need it to be an effective driver.
Much like many people on here defend the right of everyone, no matter how smart or cautious, to buy a weapon, I defend the same right to drive their car until they prove they can't do it responsibly. I trust that they won't make a mistake, if they do, then they should pay the price for that mistake. I'm okay with the danger that liberty presents to me because I'm not willing to judge someone guilty of a crime they have not yet committed. As soon as they do something wrong, unsafe lane change, run a red light, collision, throw the book at them and don't let them out of jail.
Lastly, the BOR doesn't define every right you have, it simply puts into words some of the important ones (I won't go into the driving right vs. priviledge thing).
Read my posts, I'm not defending the accidents that a drunk driver does cause, I'm saying that like many other people who are distracted, until they act irresponsibly, you should not convict them because you don't like what they are doing. I'm defending the liberty a free society grants people until they make a mistake. Like I said, you are assuming that a person who has been drinking is a danger, and I'm saying you are prejudging them without taking into account that their behaivor may not be dangerous. You can't seperate drinking and driving responsibly from drinking to the state of stupid and plowing through a median.
Nio
Member
So....we shouldn't bother about the mad bomber planting the bomb or setting the timer...we should only do something when the bomb actually goes off...
Nio
SnWnMe
Member
Deavis
My fault is that I see drunk driving as irresponsible behaviour when, according to you, it is not for as long as they don't hit anything.
Fair enough.
My fault is that I see drunk driving as irresponsible behaviour when, according to you, it is not for as long as they don't hit anything.
Fair enough.
You do realize that the government defines an "alcohol-related accident" as any accident in which any of the particpants had any amount of alcohol in their system, right?
So if I'm driving sober and my buddy is passed out drunk on the back seat and I drive off a cliff, its an "alcohol-related accident."
And if you're driving sober a rear end me while I'm stopped at a light, and my BAC is .01%, its an "alcohol-related accident."
Its very similar to when the ant-gun folks say that you're 42 more times likely to shoot a family member or friend than a criminal, then define friend "as anyone you've ever met", regardless if they are intent on harming you or not.
Or say that X number of children die by gunfire everyday, then define children as anyone up to 21 (or even 23) years old, conviently including large numbers of gang members.
See how that works? Or can you only see how the propaganda works when it's used against something near and dear to your heart?
Propaganda is a very powerful thing. Beware.
I urge you again to read this link:
http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09#a162
Absolutely amazing, when you consider that drunk driving fatalities are at the absolute lowest they've ever been. It's a case of diminishing returns, to get that last 5% more will be spent than getting that 95% drop, and also more measures that are frankly, orwellian.
On a related note, does anyone know anything about the history of open container laws in vehicles and when they became common. I've never really understood why I could drink a beer before getting into my car and drive legally as long as my bac checks out, but not have that beer in the cupholder of the car and drink it as I'm going. Its terribly non-PC to say that people should be able to drink and drive but as long as they're not under the influence I dont see the problem...
Autolycus
Member
You know that breathmints and mouthwash can bring your BAC higher. So can some cold medicines. But nonetheless it is for the children right?
- Status
