Women are responsible for an increasing number of drunk-driving arrests, according to data released today by the NHTSA. FBI statistics (PDF) show that DUI arrests of men fell 7.5 percent between 1998 and 2007, while the arrest rate for women climbed by nearly 29 percent in the same period. In absolute terms though, men still drink and drive far more: 626,371 DUI arrests of men were made in 2007, compared to 162,493 for women. According to NHTSA’s new Alcohol Impaired Drivers Involved In Fatal Crashes study (PDF) though, state-by-state analysis confirms that women are working towards evening the score.
In 2008, the number of alcohol- impaired female drivers remained flat or increased in 15 States, comprising about 20 percent of the number of female alcohol-impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes nationwide. In comparison, the corresponding percentage for males was about 17 percent in the 13 States where the number of alcohol-impaired drivers remained flat or increased.
Women were also found to be more likely to have two or more passengers as well as passengers under 14 when involved in a fatal accident while intoxicated. In those cases, it was found that intoxicated female drivers represented 62 percent of the fatalities, while passengers were only 18 percent. Wyoming, Kansas and New Hampshire were the only states to see a rise in fatal alcohol-caused crashes among men and women.
Very tragic.. Makes you wonder if cops were letting women off easy before or if women are just doing it more.
I can’t imagine the stress that some of these women must be under. Single moms with little kids and no dad to bring home a paycheck or take care of the house. Married women that haven’t worked in years staring into the abyss as hundreds of thousands of dad’s are being laid off every month.. month after month after month…
Scary times.. Scary times..
I would say stress has little to do with it and being an alcoholic does. I remember reading somewhere that most convicted drunk drivers are alcoholics.
What I don’t understand is why these people need to be driving around. I get it – you come home from work and you start downing G&Ts until you pass out. Fine, as long as you’re at home. For the DUI crowd, after your first DUI wouldn’t you just stop at the store on the way home pick up a bottle and just enjoy it in the comfort of your own home?
Why do they insist on driving around?
Because they ran out of booze and they’re out to get more!
Actually, most of the DUI cases I’ve seen are people driving home from the bar/club.
jmo : Why do they insist on driving around?
Because we allow them to.
Some reports suggest that up to 5% of drivers on the roads at night may have a blood alcohol level higher than .10
In my city the police often refrence their tough stance on drunk drivers by deploying checkstops. Where they stop all traffic on the road looking for drunks.
Most studies into car accidents in the UK and North America conclude that accidents are rarely caused by speed alone and up to 40% are cause by drunks…how is it I have seen one checkstop in the 15 years I have been driving? I pass about 3 speed traps a day though…
“Women are responsible for an increasing number of drunk-driving arrests.”
That could be because more and more police officers are women. They may also eat shoots and leaves. ;)
Seriously though, when the BAC limit keeps getting lowered by legislators under relentless pressure from MADD, and prosecutors are even able to get convictions of people UNDER the limit, this statistical trend should come as no real surprise.
–chuck
Actually, most of the DUI cases I’ve seen are people driving home from the bar/club.
This. Also, we need more bars within walking distance. If zoning laws are so stupid as to put bars 20 miles away from a persons home, don’t be surprised when you have more DUIs!
Because they ran out of booze and they’re out to get more!
A DUI will cost you a fortune, thousands and thousands in fines, legal fees, massive insurance premiums etc. Just invest in a case of booze, when you wake up sober check the case, if your low, buy more booze before you start drinking again.
Or as BDB suggests – move to within walking distance of a bar.
“Officer, why is that house in the middle of the road?”
So far this year in my county there has not been 1 auto related fatality involving a sober driver – every fatality has involved some drunk driver. Amazing how safe our autos are nowadays, we have the ability to have zero fatalities, yet the drunks are all over the roadways killing themselves/others.
Having 2 retired cops ( 1 captain, 1 chief detective) in the family, I must say its sad but true. If your a guy its slim to slimmer. A woman, much better chance especially if shes a hottie and you’re the only unit to respond. If the sarge pulls up right after you, that greatly reduces her chances…
jmo,
Sober people are hardly ever rational to begin with, and you’re wondering why drunks are being irrational :) You can’t easily change people, but you can change the system to keep the majority from making the dumb decision.
Here’s an idea: allow liquor stores to operate a 24-hour delivery service, pizza-style. This way people will be able to get more booze late at night without having to go to a bar or taking a 1-hour drive to another county/state. Save lives, create a nice nighttime industry, and make people happy.
Seriously, I can’t get a bottle of vodka on sunday here, or anytime after 9, but I can go to a bar at 11pm, drink myself silly, and go home. Talk about stupid; sleepy and tipsy at the same time is asking for a disaster.
In other words, the bar industry has a hand in it.
jmo, I was kidding …
BDB:
Also, we need more bars within walking distance. If zoning laws are so stupid as to put bars 20 miles away from a persons home, don’t be surprised when you have more DUIs!
Here here! Motion to build Scroats & Hos Neighborhood Bar next to BDB’s home! Free parking, urinal/vomitorium, open trash pit, and fight club in the yard! Do I have a second? NIMBYism strikes again.
Zoning, MADD, police gender bias, lowering of legal BAC levels, phases of the moon, and my love of Shell V-Power have nothing to do with drunk drivers. All bullshit aside, if you’re having a drink, you better have a plan to travel with someone else in command, or be damn sure you’ve metabolized your alcohol before driving. If not, you’re just another self-centered drunk tempting fate, and you’ll get no pity from me. Talk to someone who’s had their life torn apart by a drunk driver before giving them a pass.
This. Also, we need more bars within walking distance. If zoning laws are so stupid as to put bars 20 miles away from a persons home, don’t be surprised when you have more DUIs!
I agree. And as far as the NIMBY issue goes it’s possible to zone things so they are close enough to walk to without actually being in anyone’s backyard.
“and fight club in the yard”
Hey, the first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
@toasty
Amen to V-Power. Awesome fuel. Anywho, I live in a major city’s downtown core. Comes in handy when I want to go out and drink. That aside, it does not have to be a “my backyard” issue. My city has a pretty good public transit system. Take the train or a bus. But the problem always will come back to a person being drunk and not wanting to leave their car somewhere. The only real solution is to get people to leave their cars home…not likely.
Only solution is to DEPLOY CHECKSTOPS. I never see them, even though my city appearantly uses them. I live downtown, bar central, but I never see checkstops coming home or leaving. And in 15 years of driving here, the only one I did see was in a remote suburb.
Too bad drunks get jail time and not fines. I say add fines to the possible jail time a drunk faces. Getting a bonus 500 bucks to the city everytime you catch a DUI may make the police more likely to patrol/set traps for them…just like the police do for speeding…I see 3 speed traps a day as opposed to 1 checkstop in 15 yrs.
Here here! Motion to build Scroats & Hos Neighborhood Bar next to BDB’s home! Free parking, urinal/vomitorium, open trash pit, and fight club in the yard! Do I have a second? NIMBYism strikes again.
You prudish types especially should stop going to these types of bars.
Anyway, this is about smart ways to minimize a problem, not the usual law & order bullshit that never goes anywhere.
Building more bars seems an odd solution to drunk drivers, but I’ll bite.
With few exceptions, “Walking Distance to Bar” is going to be in someone’s neighborhood that’d rather not have a bar…within walking distance. Zoning can be changed, but when the majority of people support NOT allowing a bar in their neighborhood (see above for a variety of reasons), the Walking Drunk isn’t going to have political support for their cause. I’ve never heard of a neighborhood association lobbying for easier bar access, and I don’t wonder why. This isn’t national healthcare; multiple solutions are available to the vexing problem of A to B, without operating a vehicle.
Here’s a way to at least separate DUI convicts from their own cars: Boot ’em! Joe Drunk can start his car, change the oil, even wax it, but he’s got to leave it booted in his driveway until his sentence is complete. No storage, lease, insurance, registration, or other fees for taxpayers to bother with, and at least that’s one less car for the drunk to use for a repeat offense. Sure, he can borrow a car, but the number of friends lending Mr. Boot their car would be extremely short.
agenthex, let the non-prudish, non-“usual law & order bullshit” solutions flow like nectar from your keyboard! How would you address the drunk driver issue?
Anyway, this is about smart ways to minimize a problem, not the usual law & order bullshit that never goes anywhere.
Unfortunately, “smart” solutions rarely go hand in had with a problem caused by morons, unless you are willing to violate civil liberties.
A drunk woman just raised our taxes, she broad sided one of our Phoenix Fire Department pumpers sending it into a line of stopped waiting cars. How much does a large pumper cost?
Damn drunks.
toasty:
Here’s a way to at least separate DUI convicts from their own cars: Boot ‘em!
never.
gonna.
happen.
dot.
com.
Drunk driving and its attendant fines, fees, punishments, counseling sessions, etc. is a BUSINESS. (Especially in NY state).
Wiping out the working drunk’s vehicle makes it impossible for him/her to pay. In NY, it’s all about money.
A financially successful co-worker of mine is a 3x (or 4x???) convicted drunk driver. I suspect he still has a drinking problem.
Wanna stop people like that from driving drunk? Extended probation with random blood testing for alcohol over a period of 5 years. But that would cost – and the last thing those with an interest in the system want to do is fix the problem.
Ultimately, the solution to DUI is at the personal level. If a friend is about to commit DUI, stop them. If that means tossing their keys into a snowbank, better that than one more bloody crash. If a stranger is clearly too drunk to drive, try working with them to arrange a ride. Bar staff will occasionally pay cab fare, and maybe the drunk just needs a reminder to call a friend. Some areas have tollfree ride hotlines. If you frequent bars, jot down the number and pass it around.
By the time law enforcement is involved, some damage has already been done, even without an accident. At the least, the driver has hosed their driving and criminal record, and will likely spend a large chunk of money before being relicensed. Domestic violence used to be a largely unreported crime, but after a societal change, it’s now taken much more seriously. We’re on the way to that with DUI, but obviously still have work to do.
ihatetrees, good points. As for your probation plan, that seems unlikely as well, but the drunk could be charged whatever costs are associated with the probation process.
Here’s a compromise: Perhaps booting cars would be done for repeat offenders, and they could prove their driving sobriety by interlock during their five year probation.
I know it’s apples-to-oranges, but what are Germany’s DUI laws like? Many years ago, I heard Germany revoked licenses for LIFE on DUI convictions. What are other countries’ solutions for DUI?
Scroats & Hos Neighborhood Bar next to BDB’s home!
I’m thinking a nice restaurant/bar – outside seating, decent food, good booze, expensive enough to keep the riffraff out but reasonable enough to go once or twice a week with the wife, when you don’t feel like cooking.
Folkdancer
Educated Guess is that a new pumper runs $400-600k based upon how it is outfitted and how many bells & Whistles it comes with.
DIY breathalyzers, with the explicit understanding that the cops’ BAC reading will trump yours. Even at home, just knowing what one drink or two will do to you (be it under the limit or over) will help gauge your understanding when you’re out.
To quote SAM KINISON:
“Its not that we want to drink and drive…BUT WE CAN’T FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET THE CAR BACK TO THE HOUSE”
A company with a fleet of flatbed trucks could make a killing by positioning their trucks outside bars and offering to take drunk motorists (and their cars) home.
A young lady ran into my neighbors car not to long ago, and she had been drinking.
Jeff Puthuff:
A company with a fleet of flatbed trucks could make a killing by positioning their trucks outside bars and offering to take drunk motorists (and their cars) home.
They do. It’s called AAA. Buy a membership and they’ll haul your drunk ass and fine ride home. If someone’s so concerned about their car that they don’t want to leave it at the bar, they should’ve planned ahead. Have someone else drive, call a cab, go to JMO’s Joint instead of Scroats & Hos Neighborhood Bar and leave it parked, etc. Simple solutions that even a drunk could use.
Amateurs, if you can’t hold your liquor, dont effing drive. Driving drunk takes practice and concentration, realizing you are impaired and compensating for it. If you’re gonna be a drunk , be a good one. My tongue is only partially in my cheek.
Early in my mispent youth, I experimented with various hallucinigens. Driving drunk aint nothin. Try DWT
While women are catching up with men in DUI arrests they are still a long way behind in DUI equality. That’s why I propose affirmative action legislation that will mandate gender equal DUI arrests in all 50 states.
OK maybe not.
Having seen Australia combat its rampant drunk driving problem quite successfully, I would recommend a similar approach. Rather than increase fines they concentrated on an advertising campaign that made drunk driving socially unacceptable. While this is not a short term approach, it did a good job of changing attitudes over years to the point where even your fellow drunks wouldn’t let you get in the car to drive home.
Far too many men and women get a pass when pulled over while driving under the influence. Women often get a pass because they’re women. Men get a pass because they’re buddies with someone on the police force. This happens a lot in rural areas where everyone knows everyone and the officer things he’s looking out for a nice guy who just had a few too many. When in fact he’s enabling the guy to continue on for a few more years in secrecy. Giving anyone a free pass when they’re under the influence is stupid and dangerous.
ihatetrees commented that “Drunk driving and its attendant fines, fees, punishments, counseling sessions, etc. is a BUSINESS.” I agree, and I would also add it’s a farcical system in which government employees inform government employees about the success of their program. And so 40 year old men who’ve been alcoholics since they were teenagers are magically cured with a substance abuse class and promised they’ll be given their license back in a few months.
A suspended license, fines and an ankle bracelet sound pretty severe, until its you or your wife who are nearly killed when a drunk runs into your car as its parked on the street. This happened to a friend of mine; Her car was totaled, the drunk’s pickup rolled over in the middle of the street, and he of course was unharmed. When the Sheriff’s deputy arrived he found the drunk pushing on the side of the pickup hoping to right it with his bare hands and continue on down the road.
Far too many men and women get a pass when pulled over while driving under the influence…
I guess it is where you live. “Back in the Day” as a teenager/early 20’s we did in fact get away with murder. Living in an “incorporated village” with its own police department enabled us to get away with flowing kegs and bongs equipped with “gatling” one hit bowls. A “be careful” and being followed to the next intersection was about it. Today, not at all.
I would have to say that repeat offenders are most likely people with drinking problems. Lets face it: If you are 45 and drinking any appreciable quantity of alcohol is always on your “must do” list, you have issues. But the problem does not limit itself to the drunk person only. Alcoholism, gambling problems, all legal, but for a small minority, deadly. The sadness in a home with a drunk spouse is crushing, and the same goes for those with homes broken by gambling. A friend of mine put it this way. Alcoholism is like a tornado; it leaves a wide path of destruction in its wake. Anybody out there who has lived with any of this hell in their lives knows exactly what that means. Does this mean that drinking should be outlawed? Absolutely not. But it does mean that what you see in the picture leading into these postings is just going to happen on occasion. Drunks can’t be reasoned with. Anybody who says otherwise is a fool.
Only solution is to DEPLOY CHECKSTOPS.
The short answer is that they don’t work. They catch virtually no one. In addition to being constitutionally questionable, they are a drain on resources and produce low bang for the buck.
Where we really fail is that our desire for television-friendly, law-and-order “solutions” that make us feel good about ourselves gets in the way of effectiveness. This drive to reduce BAC limits doesn’t work, because it doesn’t target the real offenders.
DUI fatalities caused by those who have BAC’s above .16 comprise 60% of all drunk-driving fatal accidents. A small minority of the drinking population — you have to be pretty wasted to be at or above .16 — is responsible for the majority of the carnage.
Yet our system makes no greater effort to catch or deter the most dangerous among us than it does the guy who occasionally has one too many, and who was far less likely to have done any harm. By putting everyone on a level playing field, we squander our resources stopping those who were far less likely to cause accidents, while letting slide the hardcore drinkers who ultimately hurt and kill other people.
The focus should be placed upon the raging drunks, with less effort devoted to the minor offenders. The numbers are plateauing because the serious offenders are not deterred. The heavy drinkers are smart enough to know that their odds of being caught, as things currently stand, are too low to get in their way. The more effort that is devoted to policing less important things, the higher the likelihood that the gravest offenders will keep offending until they’ve done someone in.
Crap. Another perfectly good Tempaz gets totaled.
Pch101 wrote: “The focus should be placed upon the raging drunks, with less effort devoted to the minor offenders.”
I disagree. I think the emphasis should be zero tollerance for driving under the influence. Many years ago when I lived in Las Vegas a young woman who was dieting and hadn’t eaten anything all day went to a bachellorette party and had but one mixed drink. On the way home she dozed off at the wheel veered off the road and hit an eight year old boy and a man who was trying to pull the boy out of the way. She hit them and then crushed them against a concrete fence that was behind them.
This woman was in every way a nice, likeable person with a bright future. But she was an irresponsible driver and murdered two people because of it.
The story of this particular ‘minor offender’ ended in vehicular manslaughter, as often does repeat DUI offenders.
I think the emphasis should be zero tolerance for driving under the influence.
Zero tolerance policies are feelgood measures that don’t work. They might appeal to our instincts, but the instincts are wrong. There aren’t enough cops and courts to make them work, and we’d need to have a police state that nobody wants before it could be anything possibly close to effective.
More people die with zero tolerance rules than without them, because they cause resources to be poorly deployed. These policies aren’t benign mistakes. Like prohibition, they do more harm than good, and those who advocate them need to take responsibility for the harm that they are doing by imposing them.
This desire to feel as if we’re “doing something” explains much of why are governments do many things that don’t work. When people rely heavily on anecdotes and their own gut feelings instead of the facts, politicians respond by feeding us what we want to hear, no matter how useless or expensive it might be.
It’s simply a fact that the blind drunks are far more likely to cause accidents than are the tipsy drivers. Nobody can dispute that. To not focus on the low hanging fruit is foolish.
We allocate far too many resources to the tipsy driver, which means there are fewer resources available to do what actually counts. The idea should be to create more efficient processes for dealing with the lesser offenders.
For example, instead of arresting them and giving them jury trials that suck huge quantities of resources, instead impound their cars, give them tickets, and send them home, before fining them and forcing them to attend classes (which are primarily designed to consume their time, in order to create a deterrent effect at low cost.)
In such a scenario, the police, court and jail time could be devoted to increasing the odds of catching the serious offenders and giving them more meaningful punishments that keep them from driving. It may not give warm-and-fuzzies to the MADD crowd, but it would actually accomplish something.
Here here! Motion to build Scroats & Hos Neighborhood Bar next to BDB’s home!
Uh, dude? There’s a small neighborhood bar literally one block over from me. It doesn’t bother me in the least. In fact when I bought this house it was a selling point, that I can go out to dinner or have some drinks with a five second walk. Try again.
I was talking about neighborhood type pubs, anyway, not a strip club or BW3s. Parking? It isn’t an issue, since the clinetele of the pub is–get this–within walking distance. So no need for mega-parking lots, because the vast majority of people who go to the pub walk there. Those that don’t park on-street, and it hasn’t really caused any big problems. People in the neighborhood love it.
This is a big problem, btw. When people–especially if they live in the suburbs–hear “mixed use zoning” they get images of shady 7-11s, strip clubs, and drive-thrus in their heads because the only commercial development they’re familiar with is the big box mega-parking lot sprawling kind.
Pch101, +1. It is the repeat offenders that are causing most of this problem, and the MADD drive to lower the limit at which people can be fined only dilutes the resources needed to deal with the repeat offenders.
I liked Jeremy Clarkson’s rant about drunk driving. He essentially said people will need to drink and drive because:
1. You can’t take a cab, cause in most places you’ll wait all night
2. You can’t take a bus, cause at 2am you’ll get killed… or there will be no bus.
Therefore you HAVE to drive. In that case, you should have to put a green light on the top of your car and not be allowed to go over 10 miles per hour. Break either of those rules and you get your license taken and beaten senseless.
You get home, everyone sees you are wasted and stays away. Hilarious.
bmilner, poor planning is the drinking driver’s problem. As I mentioned, there are several ways to get yourself and your car home, and in those instances where the dreiver didn’t give a damn about solving the inevitable DUI conundrum, it’s time for some law enforcement.
BDB, your situation sounds great, but honestly, that’s not how it normally works out. Once mixed zoning is allowed, all sorts of interesting businesses can pop up, which is why there’s normally so much opposition. Once the change is made, it’s not really possible to pick your pub over a sleazier joint, and since bars can change clientele so easily, there’s nothing to say that that BDB’s Pub won’t devolve to Toasty’s Snatch Shack overnight. If the neighborhood supports the change, fine by me, but reality is rarely in favor of it. BTW, I think it is a good idea to live close to your favorite bar if drinking is that important to you, and that is a good, minor solution to DUI; glad it works for you. Don’t expect that argument to sway many zoning commissions, though.
—————————–
Pch101, your theory falls down in practice. Joe Driver shows signs of driving impairment and gets legally stopped by Officer Bubba. Joe tests at BAC 0.15 (under your 0.16 limit and nearly twice the current 0.08 limit allowed in most areas). What’s likely to have more of an impact on Joe’s future behavior: Send him home with a ticket and a class schedule, or arrest him for DUI, put him in jail for at least the night, suspend his license, and fine him heavily? If Joe re-offends, all the more reason to ramp up the penalties quicker.
The 0.08-0.10 BAC wasn’t chosen arbitrarily; studies show it to be a good indicator of impairment significant enough to put others at risk. Allowing lesser penalties for anyone in the 0.08-0.15 range is just wrong. If your 60% stat is correct (not saying it isn’t), then 40% of fatality accidents are caused by drivers with a BAC of 0.01-0.15, and I’m willing to bet the majority of those fall in the 0.08-0.15 range. Those drivers need to be aggressively addressed, too.
—————————–
carguy, Australia’s campaign to make DUI a serious stigma is what I was talking about, and I think we’re in the midst of that societal change in the U.S. It’s really up to each of us to push drunks away from their cars, and once we turn the corner, as you say Australians have, the roads will be much safer.
BDB, your situation sounds great, but honestly, that’s not how it normally works out. Once mixed zoning is allowed, all sorts of interesting businesses can pop up,
It all depends on how the zoning is done. There are ways to stop that kind of stuff, especially if you can get your city/county to update its zoning laws. A lot of cities and especially counties have zoning regulations that were put in place in the ’50s and haven’t been updated since, and promotes the worst kind of single-use, spread-out, segregated sprawl. So strip clubs go under the same zoning as a neighborhood pub, because the codes are designed to have commercial uses far, far away or across a high-traffic highway from residential areas. These codes never worked very well, but they’re doubly bad in the era of $4 gas.
That’s the short version anyway, I’m a planner by profession and could give you a longer version but this is a car site! ;)
The 0.08-0.10 BAC wasn’t chosen arbitrarily; studies show it to be a good indicator of impairment significant enough to put others at risk.
Actually, it was. The original .10 was a compromise — some in the research community had argued for .08, others for .12. .08 was simply a political decision made after MADD gained such lobbying clout that the doing-something-for-the-sake-of-it mentality began to dominate the policy.
The current policies are not effective, and we don’t have the resources to support draconian enforcement. The law-and-order types don’t have data on their side. It’s all about emotion and spin at this point, not about achieving effective results.
Pch101 : The focus should be placed upon the raging drunks, with less effort devoted to the minor offenders.
I agree. To me, there’s a huge difference between driving at .09 and .24, and the consequences should increase as the BAC does. That doesn’t mean reducing the current penalties for .09; that means severe penalties for the highly intoxicated, especially repeat offenders and those who have caused harm.
panzerfaust : I disagree. I think the emphasis should be zero tollerance for driving under the influence. Many years ago when I lived in Las Vegas a young woman who was dieting and hadn’t eaten anything all day went to a bachellorette party and had but one mixed drink . . .
The story of one extremely irresponsible woman does nothing to convince me otherwise. Tired people – especially those who have recently been abusing their bodies by depriving themselves of nourishment – are capable of falling asleep while driving even without alcohol.
Pch101, you’re winning my argument for me:
The original .10 was a compromise — some in the research community had argued for .08, others for .12. .08 was simply a political decision made after MADD gained such lobbying clout that the doing-something-for-the-sake-of-it mentality began to dominate the policy.
As I said (and you posted), there is a scientific argument for the legal limit to be 0.08. Odd that you labeled choosing 0.08 as “simply a political decision” in your next sentence, and that your proposed BAC 0.16 limit is far outside the 0.08-0.12 range you cited as having support in the research community.
Also, you never addressed my earlier argument against a BAC 0.16 limit, and your 60-40 split in DUI involved fatality accidents.
——————————
BDB:
Very interesting. We have those old ordinances around here, and it is a problem worth addressing. I’ll start paying more attention to those boring zoning commission meetings. ;)
Can you recommend any websites that promote the zoning updates you support?
toasty:
Joe tests at BAC 0.15 (under your 0.16 limit and nearly twice the current 0.08 limit allowed in most areas). What’s likely to have more of an impact on Joe’s future behavior: Send him home with a ticket and a class schedule, or arrest him for DUI, put him in jail for at least the night, suspend his license, and fine him heavily?
Whoa!!! It’s a (borderline dishonest) stretch to say that Pch101 was advocating such minor penalties for someone with a BAC of 0.15.
0.15 was the cutoff for the percentile of drivers who cause 60 percent of fatalities. In a completely different post, Pch101 mentioned ‘tipsy’ drivers with regard to ‘sending people home with a ticket’.
The problem with 0.08 limit and most enforcement is that it focuses on the occasional drinker. More lives could be saved by focusing on the chronic drinker. And yet MADD and other 0.08 advocates are deafeningly silent when it comes to harsh sentencing and laws aimed at repeat offenders.
It’s a (borderline dishonest) stretch to say that Pch101 was advocating such minor penalties for someone with a BAC of 0.15.
It’s beyond borderline. I never said that at all.
I’ve seen no good reason that we should be wasting police time and resources jailing <.12 first-time offenders, when a tow truck, cab ride, and weekends stuck at education camp would accomplish the same thing for a lot less time and money.
I find that the draconian types never have an answer for how to deal with the lack of resources. They act as if we have some unlimited budget, a police force of millions and enough jail space to actually do everything they want.
We don’t. We lack the cash, the forces and the warehouse room for such plans to work. As a result, law enforcement becomes a matter of dumb luck, and the greatest offenders are not deterred at all because they know that they are unlikely to be caught.
Just remember that a cop who spends hours processing a .08 driver is a cop who isn’t available for other things. If you think that it’s OK for that situation to exist, then you may as well take responsibility for the real world deaths and harm that come from that policy. It isn’t a harmless choice — people die because of such bad policies.
Pch101, my apologies if I misconstrued your posts. No dishonesty involved; it sure looked like that was what you were saying to me.
Drunk drivers kill people; on that, I think we agree. We differ on enforcement tactics. I believe a BAC of 0.08 shows enough reckless disregard for others to warrant what I think you consider to be excessive enforcement measures (correct me if I’m wrong). IMO, if you don’t have your act together enough to not DUI at 0.08, you don’t deserve any slack. As I’ve repeatedly said, there are plenty of ways to not commit DUI, and the 0.08 drunk driver deserves what they currently get. If they don’t want to incur “draconian” measures, they shouldn’t be drinking and driving; it’s not complicated.
I do agree that a stiffer penalty is in order for repeat offenders (most states already do this), or those over a higher BAC, but I disagree with lowering the penalties of those drunks in the 0.08-0.12 BAC range. There’s no need to educate me on this topic. Label me a “draconian type” if you want, but I know of what I speak.
I’ve repeatedly said that prevention at the personal level is the best solution to this problem. The best way to keep DUIs from occurring is to keep them off the road in the first place. That is how our society can deal with a lack of resources, not by letting <.12 first-time offenders get a ticket and education camp.
I don’t think you and I are likely to carry this discussion any further here. We completely disagree on some points, and let’s leave it at that.
Can you recommend any websites that promote the zoning updates you support?
You should actually read this book, its very good:
http://www.amazon.com/Suburban-Nation-Sprawl-Decline-American/dp/0865476063/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250982195&sr=8-1
It addresses the issue in some detail and is a fairly quick read.
BDB, thanks! At $13, it’s possibly worth adding to my next Amazon order. I’ll check the library first.
In my area, there doesn’t appear to be any city planning beyond building out infrastructure to feed the sprawl, leading to several dead zones in older areas, and feeble CPTED programs with little effect. There are a few recent bright spots, but their longterm success is very much in doubt. Maybe I’m judging my city’s efforts unfairly, but looking at the end results is more important to me than the city’s intentions.
I’m reluctant to see more bars introduced because there are already quite a few to choose from here, and beyond creating tax revenue, many of them have a negative effect on their surroundings. I agree that recreating true neighborhoods is a good thing, and it’s one of the possible outcomes of higher transportaion costs. A decline in DUIs may be another positive effect. If progressive zoning efforts had the effects you suggest, I’d think about supporting them.
As I’ve repeatedly said, there are plenty of ways to not commit DUI, and the 0.08 drunk driver deserves what they currently get. If they don’t want to incur “draconian” measures, they shouldn’t be drinking and driving; it’s not complicated.
These methods you support don’t result in DUI reduction. That throws a rather large complication into your “it’s not complicated” view of the situation.
It’s fun to throw the book at people, I know. It feels good when society gets to wave a stick and make a statement by proving how hard assed it can be.
But when the approach that you advocate becomes policy, as it has, then we’re stuck with the consequences. The book throwers always avoid taking responsibility for those consequences (ironic, given their emphasis on everybody else’s responsibility), the result of which are more deaths and injuries.
The fact is that these policies don’t deter the chronic heavy drinker who poses the greatest risk. Increasing the amount of time committed to dealing with light offenders results in less time spent targeting the chronic drinkers, which is illogical given how the risk is distributed.
A policy that doesn’t actively triage the problem and treat it accordingly is not a policy, but a PR exercise meant to soothe lobbyists. The blood is on their hands, yet they refuse to acknowledge it. It’s very hard to improve upon policy if those who have blown it won’t even admit it.
“As I’ve repeatedly said, there are plenty of ways to not commit DUI, and the 0.08 drunk driver deserves what they currently get. If they don’t want to incur “draconian” measures, they shouldn’t be drinking and driving; it’s not complicated.
These methods you support don’t result in DUI reduction. That throws a rather large complication into your “it’s not complicated” view of the situation.”
What’s complicated about taking a cab, having a designated driver, offering to drive a drunk friend, etc.? Those are simple solutions to preventing DUI (that’s what “there are plenty of ways to not commit DUI” means, since it eluded you). Not terribly complicated. The rest of your post is a rehash of your earlier ones, which illustrates why I said you and I continuing the debate is pointless.
Get off your “blood on your hands” tripe. Any blood is on the hands of the drunks commiting the crimes, to include those “light offenders” whose driving “results in less time spent targeting the chronic drinkers”. That’s not “throwing the book” at anyone, it’s holding people accountable for their actions. I have my suspicions about your motivations on this topic, as I’m sure you do about mine. We disagree, we’ve had our say, and people can make up their own minds.
Before letting this get ugly, I’ll let it go. No more DUI posts from this bloody handed, book throwing, lobbyist soothing, responsibility dodging, draconian type. Enjoy the last word. I’m done.
What’s complicated about taking a cab, having a designated driver, offering to drive a drunk friend, etc.?
What’s “complicated” about it is that simply asking people to have designated drivers, etc. is only going to accomplish so much.
In any case, we’re already doing this. The three-martini lunch is a bygone relic, we have replaced dive bars with Starbucks, and US society has generally done quite a bit to stigmatize drinking and driving. Everybody at this point knows that DUI isn’t acceptable, and it isn’t quite what it once was to get into the car while bombed.
That low-hanging part of the tree has already been thoroughly plucked. You’re focusing on a remedy that has already been used and delivered most, if not all, of what it can, at least in the United States. The hardcore alcoholics who get intoxicated at levels that are highly likely to cause fatal accidents are not deterred by such stigma, because they are well beyond that.
Get off your “blood on your hands” tripe.
It isn’t tripe, it’s a fact. Bad policies kill more people, because resources are misdirected when the policies are feelgood measures that are engineered to fail.
It’s time that those who impose bad policy face the consequences of their actions. When they go through these indignant charades that appeal to populists but actually do harm to society, then they should be forced to confront their errors. Hiding behind moral platitudes is inadequate when the outcomes are as bad as they are.
One of every eight people who try alcohol become alcoholics. Another one out of eight are not considered alcoholic, but have a “problem” with alcohol – they drink more than they should. So nearly one out of four adults is probably driving, at some point in time, when they should not be.
In addition, we now drivers using meth and other drugs, in addition to alcohol. So there are some very dangerous drivers on our roads.
If we had a magic wand, and could eliminate alcohol and drugs,we would have a solution. Unfortunately, there appears to be no good solution.
Primer gray the repeat offender’s car. a rattlecan would do.
what do you do with an addict. tough problem. Now so many people are on prescription drugs which act synergistically with alcohol. The drunk may be alot drunker than what the breathaliser shows.
the current system is not working, that’s for sure.
In north dakota the boss just about has to drive his crew to work. many employees have lost their driving rights and/or cannot even get up in the morning to work. If you know one end of the hammer from the other you can make $20/hr. (I know that doesn’t sound like much to some of you).
With all of that said, I think my sister used to drive better after a beer or two. She was that high-strung.
toasty
Right on! If more people would do that, or stay at home and drink, there would be less wrecks. One can only hope…
We need to encourage more bar owners to employ people to pay attention to patrons and assist them in getting cabs. That is if we are truly interesting in trying to cope with this problem.
Primer gray the repeat offender’s car. a rattlecan would do.
Or you could confiscate it. Drunk driving is still possible with interlocks, licenses suspensions and fines, but very hard without a car.
I’ve seen this work, in a way, with speeders. On most Ontario roads, driving 50km/h over the speed limit is an automatic seizure of the vehicle.** On one hand, you get someone off the road who is driving recklessly (and 50km/h over is usually well past the “social speed limit” most people drive) and you prevent them from ever driving like that again.
The second benefit is that the threat of it keeps other drivers who might speed a minute to think about whether or not it’s a good idea, whereas the threat of a fine, points or such might not.
I’d also like to point out that a good portion of the problems with alcohol abuse and driving are rural rather than suburban or urban, mostly because it’s very hard to offer public transit, quality local pubs in a walkable entertainment district and/or drunk taxis when you’re at a bush party in the middle of a cornfield.
I don’t think I ever drove drunk in Toronto or Montreal, nor do I know many people who did. I knew, and know, many now that I live outside a major city. That said, I do think rezoning so that we’re not dealing with strip clubs and recycled beer outlets in industrial malls is a good thing.
You should actually read this book, its very good:
That is a good book regardless of which side of the political spectrum you reside on. Sprawl is a serious problem, and I don’t think people really appreciate where it comes from and why it happens.
** unless you have a good reason, eg you’re trying to get a heart attack patient to the hospital, in which case the police will normally help you with that and not seize your car.