DUI troubles in Las Vegas

[Jenksismyhero]

In many of these rural areas, there are like 4 total streets.

 

The bars could pay a driver to take people home when the bar closes or something.

 

The cops, who otherwise are sleeping probably, could also shoulder some of this burden.

 

There's zero incentive for a bar to front that cost. They have no liability whatsoever to a drunk driver unless the person is overserved. That sort of program would probably just open them up to more liability.

 

 

[iamshack]

There's zero incentive for a bar to front that cost. They have no liability whatsoever to a drunk driver unless the person is overserved. That sort of program would probably just open them up to more liability.

If all their patrons end up with DUIs, they will have some incentive

 

Honestly, I don't care about the current setup...I'm trying to come up with solutions that actually might work.

[Balta1701]

There's zero incentive for a bar to front that cost. They have no liability whatsoever to a drunk driver unless the person is overserved. That sort of program would probably just open them up to more liability.

Which is why this would be something entirely reasonable for a government entity to do if it is in a city of moderate size with limited, focused areas containing restaurants.

[iamshack]

Which is why this would be something entirely reasonable for a government entity to do if it is in a city of moderate size with limited, focused areas containing restaurants.

If you reallocated the costs that drunk driving supposedly causes on an annual basis, my guess is some programs could be put into place.

[Jenksismyhero]

Which is why this would be something entirely reasonable for a government entity to do if it is in a city of moderate size with limited, focused areas containing restaurants.

 

I want a private taxi. The government should provide me with that. Free of charge. Just raise the taxes on other people.

[Balta1701]

If you reallocated the costs that drunk driving supposedly causes on an annual basis, my guess is some programs could be put into place.

Now you've hit the other rub. You're taking that money away from truly important things, like prisons.

[RockRaines]

All I know is my brother got a DUI (BAC .18 blood test) in CO and it will not be fun on first offense. He's already lost $10k paying for random BS related to the case. Before he is allowed to have permit to drive to work, he has to be completely driving-free for at least 30 days. I am going to move in with him to drive him to work so he doesn't lose his job. Also has to have a breathalyzer in the car for 3 years (not free!) He isn't even out of the woods yet for jail time.

 

I can't even imagine how much a pain in the ass 3 would be. Might as well just quit and reevaluate your life. I know my brother keeps thinking about how many thousands each beer he drank that night cost him...I can't imagine someone who isn't dealing with a serious addiction could repeat offend.

 

My favorite thing that my brother has had to pay for is for the paramedic they dispatched when he was pulled over. Since he blew a high number on breathalyzer, they decided to take him to a hospital. Paramedic may not have even left the garage, but still $1200 bill for that.

I got arrested for drunken boating on a lake where I have been driving a boat legally since I was 12. I was anchored and roughly 50 feet from my dock. I blew a .2. It cost me almost 10k to get a slap on the wrist (rightly so) and I have to wait a few more years for the OWI (now) to get off my record. If the jail time/suspension doesnt scare people, its at least 10k per DUI out of your pocket not to mention the horrible alcohol classes and the horrific night in jail.

 

No one is advertising drink to excess and drive yourself. Laws have restricted advertising of alcohol. Bars have had restrictions on happy hour drinks. Why should there be any infrastructure for being drinking too much? Know when to say when. Have a designated driver. Don't order six drinks. And society has offered a ton of warnings and deterents. I believe you would have a better case if DUI was cheap. That would be society saying hey it's no big deal. Instead the penalties are plastered on bill boards and everyone knows.

Happy hour is actual illegal in Chicago, and this is one of the main reasons.

 

[StrangeSox]

Happy hour is actual illegal in Chicago, and this is one of the main reasons.

 

It's illegal in Illinois I'm pretty sure.

[iamshack]

It's illegal in Illinois I'm pretty sure.

And this explains my exodus to Vegas, where every hour is happy

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

What a worthless law. Someone define happy hour. A designated time where prices are reduced? I've been to HUNDREDS of bars with wristband deals, how is that not a happy hour?

[RockRaines]

It's illegal in Illinois I'm pretty sure.

. Its illegal in illinois to serve a drink at a different price at one time of the day than typical, but you can still have "half price wed"

 

Chicago's ordinance is a bit tougher but they both basically succeed at getting rid of happy hour and really any good drink specials. They use to do 2 for 1's all over the city until this was in place.

[RockRaines]

What a worthless law. Someone define happy hour. A designated time where prices are reduced? I've been to HUNDREDS of bars with wristband deals, how is that not a happy hour?

A specific time period where liquor prices vary. Thats pretty much the way they word it. Wristband parties kind of get around it somewhat but there are issues with that as well.

Edited May 23, 2012 by RockRaines

[StrangeSox]

What a worthless law. Someone define happy hour. A designated time where prices are reduced? I've been to HUNDREDS of bars with wristband deals, how is that not a happy hour?

 

Illinois law requires the same prices from when you open to when you close.

[Jenksismyhero]

Illinois law requires the same prices from when you open to when you close.

 

Easily avoidable with the wristband deal since it's not a per drink payment system. Again, dumb law.

[StrangeSox]

Easily avoidable with the wristband deal since it's not a per drink payment system. Again, dumb law.

 

I have no idea why it was implemented and if its effective at achieving those goals. I was just telling you what the law is.

[RockRaines]

Easily avoidable with the wristband deal since it's not a per drink payment system. Again, dumb law.

Yes, but bars can lose money on those deals and if they are found out to be doing that "party" with the general public for specific time frames they can be fined. Any "happy hour" type specials or parties can get you in deep s***. Losing your liquor license in Chicago is the kiss of death.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes, but bars can lose money on those deals and if they are found out to be doing that "party" with the general public for specific time frames they can be fined. Any "happy hour" type specials or parties can get you in deep s***. Losing your liquor license in Chicago is the kiss of death.

 

I have clients who are bar owners. Trust me, they NEVER lose money on those deals.

[RockRaines]

I have clients who are bar owners. Trust me, they NEVER lose money on those deals.

I dont trust you because i've done the books for parties like that. They dont often lose money but they can. We usually would serve the booze we got for free for those parties and limited the beer to gross old keg bud light. Still the fine ruins all of that if someone from the board deems it against the ordinance.

 

Thats a major reason that only a few places (mostly lincoln ave) does it and the others dont. The funny thing is that you can just add in free food in your "happy hour" offering and there is no big deal of that bringing in people to drink. I still wish we could have a true happy hour like when I was in boulder a few weeks ago and basically everything was a dollar the entire night, f***ing great.

[Jenksismyhero]

I dont trust you because i've done the books for parties like that. They dont often lose money but they can. We usually would serve the booze we got for free for those parties and limited the beer to gross old keg bud light. Still the fine ruins all of that if someone from the board deems it against the ordinance.

 

Thats a major reason that only a few places (mostly lincoln ave) does it and the others dont. The funny thing is that you can just add in free food in your "happy hour" offering and there is no big deal of that bringing in people to drink. I still wish we could have a true happy hour like when I was in boulder a few weeks ago and basically everything was a dollar the entire night, f***ing great.

 

There must be something else going on (little traffic) or the wristband was at the wrong price. Basically only guys drink to the limit on those deals (and even then it's usually weak pours on already over-priced drinks). Out of 100 people, i'd bet no more than 25 would actually "beat" the deal, while the other 75 paid for 5-6 drinks and ended up drinking only 2-3. Add to that food costs from people coming in and the amount of people that stay after the deal and keep drinking.

 

I shouldn't say it's 100% fool proof, but if done right and you get a decent stream of people it's an easy night for making money.

 

Edit: and yes, a fine would obviously kill a lot of the revenue. But there are so many of those wrist deals I find it hard to believe that it's illegal. It's a pretty heavily regulated industry here in the city as you pointed out. People are waiting and bribing for a while to get a liquor license. Our guys overpay to buy a place just to get the liquor license and then they close the bar. That's how valuable they are.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Jake]

I can't come to a conclusion as far as the "badness" of DUI.

 

Where does it rank among other things we consider crimes -- theft, assault, rape/sexual assault, murder? I don't know. While on one hand there may be less malicious intent, there is a serious lack of security thinking about people operating a car in such a manner that may result in seemingly random, unmotivated deaths.

 

We enjoy a certain amount of security because we feel generally certain that we have to give someone motivation to murder us or steal from us (having nice things available) or rape us (even if it is just being a woman that motivates). The generally systematic choice of victims in these crimes is in that way comforting. There are things about me and my life that make me not fear certain crimes...but every time we get on the road, there is reason to fear a drunk driver.

 

So you have random victims yet very much non-random offenders. People are doing something that they know may result in random death when they do it. This is the part that makes me understand why they should be dealt with harshly. The lack of malicious intent (I would classify this as careless) makes me more okay with less jail time. Instead they get parts of their lifestyle taken away -- money, ability to drive, and by extension oftentimes employment. I think oftentimes folks are required to have their drinking habits/psychological state scrutinized, but I'm not sure of this.

 

[G&T]

Those are not rehab programs, they are basically a video tape and forms to fill out...

 

Second, I disagree...unless you are willing to pay $50-100 in many instances, in which case people wouldn't choose to go out in the first place and our local businesses would go belly-up even more. And to your cops point, I flat-out disagree. The focus of municipal police forces has changed from getting impaired driver's home safely to using DUI offenders as an atm card.

 

Third, many people drink at home because of the size of this country and the lack of mass transportation in most areas. People are spread out all over the place, unlike much of Europe, for instance. I agree people should use better judgement when going out.

 

Fourth, .08 is pretty easy to hit...there wouldn't be so many people with DUIs if it wasn't. The percentage of adults in this country who now have a DUI on their record is rising at a staggering rate. I believe I saw some 30% of US drivers have a DUI conviction...

 

Third

 

As to your second point, yes, cabs are expensive. I paid $40-60 to get wasted and be driven home. But it was an open bar...so that's just good business. The fact that cops are looking to give out DUIs does not mean there are more cops on the road in rural areas. I lived in upstate NY for 6 years and never saw a DUI checkpoint. The further out you got, the less likely you would ever see police. They don't have the money or resources to put into it.

 

As for the 4th point...what? A rising rate of DUIs is not evidence that hitting .08 is easy. It's evidence of rising irresponsibility.

 

[StrangeSox]

Or rising enforcement.

[RockRaines]

I can't come to a conclusion as far as the "badness" of DUI.

 

Where does it rank among other things we consider crimes -- theft, assault, rape/sexual assault, murder? I don't know. While on one hand there may be less malicious intent, there is a serious lack of security thinking about people operating a car in such a manner that may result in seemingly random, unmotivated deaths.

 

We enjoy a certain amount of security because we feel generally certain that we have to give someone motivation to murder us or steal from us (having nice things available) or rape us (even if it is just being a woman that motivates). The generally systematic choice of victims in these crimes is in that way comforting. There are things about me and my life that make me not fear certain crimes...but every time we get on the road, there is reason to fear a drunk driver.

 

So you have random victims yet very much non-random offenders. People are doing something that they know may result in random death when they do it. This is the part that makes me understand why they should be dealt with harshly. The lack of malicious intent (I would classify this as careless) makes me more okay with less jail time. Instead they get parts of their lifestyle taken away -- money, ability to drive, and by extension oftentimes employment. I think oftentimes folks are required to have their drinking habits/psychological state scrutinized, but I'm not sure of this.

A DUI can almost be like firing a gun blindly on the street at times, it can kill many innocent people.

[G&T]

Or rising enforcement.

 

both, likely.

[greg775]

4-5, but my wifey drives me home

 

 

I got arrested for drunken boating on a lake where I have been driving a boat legally since I was 12. I was anchored and roughly 50 feet from my dock. I blew a .2. It cost me almost 10k to get a slap on the wrist (rightly so) and I have to wait a few more years for the OWI (now) to get off my record. If the jail time/suspension doesnt scare people, its at least 10k per DUI out of your pocket not to mention the horrible alcohol classes and the horrific night in jail.

 

 

Happy hour is actual illegal in Chicago, and this is one of the main reasons.

 

 

I can't come to a conclusion as far as the "badness" of DUI.

 

Where does it rank among other things we consider crimes -- theft, assault, rape/sexual assault, murder? I don't know. While on one hand there may be less malicious intent, there is a serious lack of security thinking about people operating a car in such a manner that may result in seemingly random, unmotivated deaths.

 

We enjoy a certain amount of security because we feel generally certain that we have to give someone motivation to murder us or steal from us (having nice things available) or rape us (even if it is just being a woman that motivates). The generally systematic choice of victims in these crimes is in that way comforting. There are things about me and my life that make me not fear certain crimes...but every time we get on the road, there is reason to fear a drunk driver.

 

So you have random victims yet very much non-random offenders. People are doing something that they know may result in random death when they do it. This is the part that makes me understand why they should be dealt with harshly. The lack of malicious intent (I would classify this as careless) makes me more okay with less jail time. Instead they get parts of their lifestyle taken away -- money, ability to drive, and by extension oftentimes employment. I think oftentimes folks are required to have their drinking habits/psychological state scrutinized, but I'm not sure of this.

 

1.) I was thinking 4-5 beers a normal 9 inning game for a person who likes beer is about right. So my question to those who are so appalled by DUI ... have you ever had 4 beers at a Sox game and driven home?? You likely would get a DUI. You are not necessarily a horrific person, are you??

2.) Drunking boating and you were anchored?? You must have been FURIOUS at the cop.

3.) Very nice post, but again, what about 4-5 beers? Likely you can drive fine. So is the perpetrator a person who should be thrown in jail 2 years??

I tell you, the campaigns worked on me. I just don't drink and drive. I won't have ANY beers at a friend's party or a game or anything if I'm driving. And I like a cold beer. If it's cold and not named "Bud" I love beer.

Edited May 23, 2012 by greg775