f***ing drunk driver

[G&T]

I remember seeing a comparison in the Indiana Daily Student when I was there about how different things affect your reaction time while driving on average. IIRC, texting and alcohol both slowed reaction time by about 20%-25%, whereas weed slowed it by roughly 35%.

 

I guess my question was, if we're saying the field sobriety tests aren't great indicators for alcohol, why are we saying they're great indicators for other substances? Or is it just that we lack something comparable to BAC for those other drugs, and therefore have to rely on field sobriety tests?

 

Or perhaps I am overstating the uselessness of field sobriety tests? Never actually taken one, but my guess is that I'd be pretty terrible at them sober. I do remember hearing something in Crim Pro about the test where your eyes follow the pen, though. Apparently when you're drunk your eyes can't follow something in a continuous motion, they just skip across.

 

The eye test is highly predictive of bac above .08. Walk and turn is even 80% predictive if I'm not mistaken. They aren't as bad as people think. In any event, they are only used for probable cause to arrest and are taken as a whole with witness observations of actual driving, and other indicators of alcohol like odor, speech, lack of concentration etc.

 

Usually for other drugs the driver is confused, disoriented, eyes are dilated, lack motor skills but no odor of alcohol. They field sobriety tests will confirm officer observations, generally. Then they can get a blood test which now requires a warrant.

 

The effectiveness of the tests is dependent on which side of the law you practice. Science actually supports their use and are still the best we have. But I'm a prosecutor.

 

[lasttriptotulsa]

The eye test is highly predictive of bac above .08. Walk and turn is even 80% predictive if I'm not mistaken. They aren't as bad as people think. In any event, they are only used for probable cause to arrest and are taken as a whole with witness observations of actual driving, and other indicators of alcohol like odor, speech, lack of concentration etc.

 

Usually for other drugs the driver is confused, disoriented, eyes are dilated, lack motor skills but no odor of alcohol. They field sobriety tests will confirm officer observations, generally. Then they can get a blood test which now requires a warrant.

 

The effectiveness of the tests is dependent on which side of the law you practice. Science actually supports their use and are still the best we have. But I'm a prosecutor.

 

If you've had anything to drink, you will fail the eye test. I don't think it should be a part of the sobriety test. No matter what your tolerance is, if you are at a certain BAC you will fail. When I received my OWI, I passed everything easily except for the eye test.

[G&T]

If you've had anything to drink, you will fail the eye test. I don't think it should be a part of the sobriety test. No matter what your tolerance is, if you are at a certain BAC you will fail. When I received my OWI, I passed everything easily except for the eye test.

 

Nystagmus does not occur until bac reaches about .1. And I'm going to guess you didn't "pass" the other tests. You just thought you did.

[lasttriptotulsa]

Nystagmus does not occur until bac reaches about .1. And I'm going to guess you didn't "pass" the other tests. You just thought you did.

 

Or I did because the cop told me I did. But hey, you're right, because you know you were there and all.

[Milkman delivers]

Or I did because the cop told me I did. But hey, you're right, because you know you were there and all.

 

He's right about when nystagmus sets in.

[greg775]

The post about the guy having 2 beers in 3 hours and getting a DUI still is scary. Years ago I decided I just would never have a beer if I had to drive. It's just not worth the risk to myself and others. It's scary also that the one poster on here said half his friends have had DUIs. Man.

 

Sorry, Tex. Have they raised enough money to have a funeral? How does something like that work? The body remains somewhere until you tell them if you can pay or not?

[ChiSox_Sonix]

So this is kind of related, but I read yesterday that the NTSB is recommending lowering the threshold for DUI from .08 to .05. That's a pretty significant recommendation.

[Jake]

There are some folks that are very unsupportive of the .05 BAC recommendation, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving

[cabiness42]

So this is kind of related, but I read yesterday that the NTSB is recommending lowering the threshold for DUI from .08 to .05. That's a pretty significant recommendation.

 

Lowering the legal limit is a very low impact move compared to strengthening/enforcing the penalties for offenses.

[southsider2k5]

Lowering the legal limit is a very low impact move compared to strengthening/enforcing the penalties for offenses.

 

You are talking about one beer for an average female, and two for an average male.

 

Honestly I believe that we have turned this from a safety issue to a revenue issue in the law enforcement sector.

[witesoxfan]

Frankly, I don't think any fine is going to deter people from drinking and driving. What might do so is either a longer period of time without a license, or losing your license permanently. Personally, I think there should be a difference between, say, a .08 and a .18. I'm sure there are people on here who do drive at a .08 and you might not even realize it. But if you are so bad that you are blowing a .18, you have been drinking for quite a while (that's like minimum of a 12 pack and likely closer to 14-16 beers/drinks), you know you're drunk and what you're doing is wrong.

 

I think if you blow twice over the legal limit, you should lose your license forever. If you blow between .08 (or whatever the limit is in your state) and .16, you should be fined heavily and lose your license for a full year for the first offense, with severity increasing thereafter.

 

 

[iamshack]

Frankly, I don't think any fine is going to deter people from drinking and driving. What might do so is either a longer period of time without a license, or losing your license permanently. Personally, I think there should be a difference between, say, a .08 and a .18. I'm sure there are people on here who do drive at a .08 and you might not even realize it. But if you are so bad that you are blowing a .18, you have been drinking for quite a while (that's like minimum of a 12 pack and likely closer to 14-16 beers/drinks), you know you're drunk and what you're doing is wrong.

 

I think if you blow twice over the legal limit, you should lose your license forever. If you blow between .08 (or whatever the limit is in your state) and .16, you should be fined heavily and lose your license for a full year for the first offense, with severity increasing thereafter.

These are not decisions most people consider when they are inebriated.

 

The clear answer to me is to put breathalyzers on the ignitions of cars. Do something to help prevent the action regardless of the decision-making ability of a drunk person. It's obviously not a fool-proof method, but the fines and punishments don't generally deter drunk people.

[Jake]

FWIW, aggravated DUI exists at least in some places. My brother got lucky in being downgraded from aggravated DUI (I think the threshold was .15)

[witesoxfan]

These are not decisions most people consider when they are inebriated.

 

The clear answer to me is to put breathalyzers on the ignitions of cars. Do something to help prevent the action regardless of the decision-making ability of a drunk person. It's obviously not a fool-proof method, but the fines and punishments don't generally deter drunk people.

 

ND just increased their punishments. It's like $1,000 fine, lost license for 6 months, plus 48 hours in jail, as well as classes that are required that must be paid by the person. From that, you are looking at approximately $1,500-$2,000. Then considering that your insurance rates are going to atleast double, and you are adding another $1,200-$1,800 per year.

[iamshack]

ND just increased their punishments. It's like $1,000 fine, lost license for 6 months, plus 48 hours in jail, as well as classes that are required that must be paid by the person. From that, you are looking at approximately $1,500-$2,000. Then considering that your insurance rates are going to atleast double, and you are adding another $1,200-$1,800 per year.

Yeah, and this does nothing but make life very difficult AFTER a DUI...I agree that offenders should face some repercussions, but I don't think they should be similar to those who are guilty of violent crimes. Not in this culture...

 

 

[ChiSox_Sonix]

FWIW, aggravated DUI exists at least in some places. My brother got lucky in being downgraded from aggravated DUI (I think the threshold was .15)

 

Aggravated DUI exists in NY for over .18 I believe

[Milkman delivers]

You are talking about one beer for an average female, and two for an average male.

 

Honestly I believe that we have turned this from a safety issue to a revenue issue in the law enforcement sector.

 

No, it's a safety issue. It should be as low as they could possibly make it. Zero tolerance, even.

[Milkman delivers]

ND just increased their punishments. It's like $1,000 fine, lost license for 6 months, plus 48 hours in jail, as well as classes that are required that must be paid by the person. From that, you are looking at approximately $1,500-$2,000. Then considering that your insurance rates are going to atleast double, and you are adding another $1,200-$1,800 per year.

 

The fines should be enormous. The person who was caught drunk driving could just as easily have killed someone if not caught. The LACK of outrage in regards to DUI in this country is appalling.

[iamshack]

No, it's a safety issue. It should be as low as they could possibly make it. Zero tolerance, even.

Well of course it is a safety issue. But then we need to re-examine the culture of alcohol in this country. We've got a driving culture combined with an alcohol culture and now we're going to expect no one to drive impaired. I understand that turning a blind eye to it isn't the answer, but neither is expecting these things to magically reconcile themselves because you are going to fine people and suspend their driver's licenses.

 

What we need to do is to figure out a way for these things all to co-exist...and the best way to do that is to put controls in place which take the decision-making out of the hands of those that are intoxicated as much as possible.

[iamshack]

The fines should be enormous. The person who was caught drunk driving could just as easily have killed someone if not caught. The LACK of outrage in regards to DUI in this country is appalling.

I'm sorry Milk, but I think this attitude is just burying your head in the sand of the bigger picture. If you're going to do that, then you need to also stop expecting bars and restaurants to support the local economies of the suburbs. Or you need to drastically increase the volume of cabs at night in the suburbs. Or offer driving services. Or something. But to just say "fine the drunk driver and suspend his license forever...pretty soon you'd have half the working population without the ability to drive to work.

[witesoxfan]

The fines should be enormous. The person who was caught drunk driving could just as easily have killed someone if not caught. The LACK of outrage in regards to DUI in this country is appalling.

 

I've seriously been standing in one spot, smoking a cigarette, and fallen on my face before. I don't know how anybody could ever get that drunk and drive.

 

 

[iamshack]

I've seriously been standing in one spot, smoking a cigarette, and fallen on my face before. I don't know how anybody could ever get that drunk and drive.

Wite, there are a tremendous number of alcoholics in this country...a staggering amount...once you drink that much, you become accustomed to functioning that way. Many of these people are probably still probably better drivers than my girlfriend...now I'm not saying that we should allow this sort of thing, but I'm just pointing out, there are a lot of people out there that get that drunk and drive.

[southsider2k5]

No, it's a safety issue. It should be as low as they could possibly make it. Zero tolerance, even.

 

Zero tolerance would actually make more sense to me than going from .08 to .05.

[cabiness42]

I'm sorry Milk, but I think this attitude is just burying your head in the sand of the bigger picture. If you're going to do that, then you need to also stop expecting bars and restaurants to support the local economies of the suburbs. Or you need to drastically increase the volume of cabs at night in the suburbs. Or offer driving services. Or something. But to just say "fine the drunk driver and suspend his license forever...pretty soon you'd have half the working population without the ability to drive to work.

 

Bars and restaurants can sell plenty of alcohol without enabling drunk drivers. Part of the problem is that most peoples' first experience with alcohol is binge drinking in high school/college and a lot of people, even those who aren't alcoholics, never learn how to have a night out and not drink or even have just 1-2 drinks.

 

[Texsox]

Sorry, Tex. Have they raised enough money to have a funeral? How does something like that work? The body remains somewhere until you tell them if you can pay or not?

 

Yes they did. There were a few fundraisers and a couple annonymous donors came through. I was on my way to the funeral when I heard a good friend had passed away, so I just went home and hid.

 

And yes, the funeral home will hold the body. Sadly, our community has experience with this.