Is There an Unfair Bias Against Drunk Drivers?

reply to post by LateApexer313


I don't know why you're comparing drunk driving to child sexual abuse, but setting up all these hypotheticals is really pretty pointless.

Letting drunk drivers off the hook because you think that child abuser get off lightly doesn't much sense to me.

reply to post by hsur2112


Hiyah Rush!

Yes well you know what I make my living at so you know I have seen both sides of the coin as well...

Thanks for weighing in here...we all do stupid things when we are young or...even not so young and sometimes we get caught...we've all known people who've gotten a DUI or even had a DUI ourselves, or gotten OFF on one for that matter....

I would imagine there's not one person on this site that can truthfully say they haven't driven under the influence once, whether it was drugs, alcohol, pain meds prescribed to them by a doctor, heck even Ambien or some other drug with a warning on it, or Benadryl for pete's sake.

People on their cell phones, people just nodding off at the wheel, due to fatigue, we've ALL been there....

Now with that said, I can't "accidently" molest a child...from falling asleep, from having 4 glasses of wine at dinner, that's only common sense.

Alcohol and drugs impair your judgment, we all know that...so we get a special plate when we do it, we take the money hit on the insurance, on the criminal record there forever, the reinstatement fees, the lawyer fees, the penalties of the special plate etc...

Where and when do other criminals "take the hit" ...lol and yes I often wonder when a senator here will get hit with a DUI...we've had a prominent judge so far and Bill Huggins the ex U of Cincinnati basketball coach get a DUI after this law, and guess what? Neither one had the plates, gee figure that one out lol.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Oh man, I give up lol...

I don't know why you're comparing drunk driving to child sexual abuse, but setting up all these hypotheticals is really pretty pointless.

Letting drunk drivers off the hook because you think that child abuser get off lightly doesn't much sense to me.

Show me one place in this thread Grady where I said let the drunk drivers off....

Just one.

Originally posted by LateApexer313
No I said once AGAIN, plate them fine them, screw up their medical insurance and their chances of getting a good job in most cases.... did you not read my thread and my opinion?

I am saying...as loud and as with as much conviction as I can muster...

Where are the special plates for ANY other crimes out there? Murderers? No special plates once they get out. Rapists? Nope, pedophiles? Not at all, we can't even keep track of where they live so why not plate their cars?

"Yes", I read your entire post. I believe Ohio is currently working on passing just such a law concerning sex offenders. They'll get a nice green plate to display to all their friends, coworkers, and neighbors.

"No", It isn't fair to penalize you in so many areas for the one offense, but it's obviously a very potent deterrent to future offenders.

No matter what the crime is, someone gets to be made the example of for all those who may choose to follow in their footsteps. It's unfair as Hell, but that's life.

reply to post by LLoyd45


Well LLoyd45 that's awesome news, and thanks for reading AND understanding the thrust and purpose of this thread

I had not heard of such legislation pending to give child molesters a green plate, but it's about time

If a traffic misdemeanor warrants a special plate then a long list of offenses certainly qualify.

Hey LateApexer, what type of "child molestation" is a misdemeanor? Let me guess that it was pretty common knowledge in school and work, maybe your parents mentioned it once or twice that drunk driving is against the law. Most states even run t.v. commercials broadcasting that they are constantly looking for drunk drivers and they will put each and every one they find in jail. If they didn't, if they "give somebody a break" i believe they should be fired for dereliction of duty. Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right. When you accepted those Ohio drivers license you agreed to abide by state and local laws regulating how and when and where you could operate and park a motor vehicle. Those laws were passed because responsible people got tired of irresponsible people who think the laws are not for them, got drunk and destroyed their lives. You complain that felons don't have to wear "identification" plates on their vehicles, elect politicians that will pass those laws. Now however, you have to obey the laws to protect us from you.

Well, I like every other person has strong feelings on driving while drunk....or under the influence of anything. I dont even think people should be allowed to be on their cell phone while driving.

But that is neither here nor there. lol

Me, as a Criminal Justice major, I strongly feel the ENTIRE judicial system (laws & punishments) needs a complete overhaul

As far as this topic. Well, my opinion is the offense of driving under the influence needs very heavy punishments. And I feel this way about a number of criminal offenses against others.

For the "first time" offender. Well, are they really a first time "doing it" offender? Or a "first time getting caught" offender? Will a heavy fine and maybe a night in jail do the trick? For some, absolutely. For others, no way.

All it takes is just one time to drink too much, or take some medication, or drive while too tired...to hit someone and kill them. Usually its the result of death that wakes people up and gives them the heavy punishments.

But what about all those who do it continually and just never get caught? Maybe them seeing these plates everywhere...maybe them knowing that it will just take one time getting caught to receive these plates, will make them stop and think before they get behind the wheel of a car.

Or maybe not. *shrug*

I can actually see both sides of the fence; however, we have to figure out some solution to the problem. Maybe this will be a trial and error. Maybe we need to figure something else out. Maybe we just need to overhaul the system....but I dont think that will ever happen

reply to post by LateApexer313


I can see your point. Seeing as how dangerous and common drink-driving is, warning the public about possible drink-drivers makes a lot of sense. If someone's stupid enough to do it once, chances are they'll do it again. Personally, I think if you drive over the limit just once, regardless of whether you cause an accident or not, you should lose your license for a decent amount of time. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

reply to post by LateApexer313
Here's a link to an article about House Bill 217. I think it's a great idea too. I'll take a drunk over a pedophile any day of the week. Drunks can actually be rehabilitated.

Here's what it says.



[edit on 6/21/08 by LLoyd45]

I think .08 is ridiculous. It targets average people who may have just had 2-3 drinks with dinner or out with a friend. Buzzed driving is a fine line. If it's difficult to tell whether you are over the limit, then the limit is not correct.

I know plenty of responsible people who have probably driven over the .08 limit. DUI's change/ruin lives. Why is the limit set to target everyday people?

reply to post by LateApexer313

good for ohio definitely,i have been drinking on this saturday night,in no way would i even think about driving,i could call a friend or parents,and the list goes on and on.it should be punished more in my opinion

Thats too harsh a punishment for first time offenders.

Most people have driven after drinking alcohol. I dont
call it drunk driving, thats misleading. You can have a few drinks
without being drunk.

Someone cant go out to dinner and have some wine or
beer with their dinner anymore, without worrying about a dui.

Drunk driving is when youve had too many and you cant walk
a straight line. Now with those breathalizers, it doesnt matter if
you can walk a straight line after a few drinks, you will still get
a DUI. Ofcourse cops love this, more tickets and money for them.

Its just gone too far. It shouldnt matter what someones breathe smells
like, the persons coordination should only matter.

reply to post by josephine




i happen to agree with this as well,there is definitely a fine line.but none the less,if you drink you should not drive regardless.thats the way i see it any who


Mod Edit: Replaced entire quote of previous post and replaced it with Reply To
Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by GAOTU789]

reply to post by LateApexer313


Ahh i wish they'd do this in the UK, it's such a good idea. The arguement that it's a first offense and shouldnt' be done is obviously silly, it's the first offense that can kill someone! As for the comparison to sex offenders i'll say this, if you did the same to them then you'd have people out kiling them. Whilst i don't disagree that such people deserve death (or life in prison preferably) we can't encourage vigilante justice.

Discouraging people from the first offense is the best idea and saying that it could be anyone, even someone having a dinner with friends and having a couple of glassses of wine, is rediculous. The reasom it is rediculous is because if you drive anywhere knowing you're having dinner, then you should avoid alcohol anyway. Whenever i've gone out as the designated driver, i have just avoided all alcohol, water with dinner instead of wine. If you can't control yourself to do that, then you should seriously look to see if you havea problem with alcohol.

No excuse for drink driving, if someone spikes your drink then you have an arguement, if there is alcohol inside a desert (like cherry trifle) and you didn't know, then you could argue that case. Those are pretty much the only two times i can accept drink driving. I actually think the law should be changed in the UK so it says you are not allowed any alcohol in your system. Not just a minimum level i mean no alcohol at all.

Originally posted by josephine
Thats too harsh a punishment for first time offenders.

Most people have driven after drinking alcohol. I dont
call it drunk driving, thats misleading. You can have a few drinks
without being drunk.

Well that's wrong for a start, i've known people have one bottle of beer and be absolutely plowed. That's why i think we shoudln't allow any alcohol in the system whilst driving.

Originally posted by josephine
Someone cant go out to dinner and have some wine or
beer with their dinner anymore, without worrying about a dui.

So you need alcohol to enjoy the dinner? Look i dont' mind drinking, i'm not a tea totaller here, but when i drive i avoid all alcohol becuase it's the safe thing. I could never come to terms with myself if i ran someone over because i had some alcohol in my system. Even small amoutns will alter your judgement.

Originally posted by josephine
Drunk driving is when youve had too many and you cant walk
a straight line. Now with those breathalizers, it doesnt matter if
you can walk a straight line after a few drinks, you will still get
a DUI. Ofcourse cops love this, more tickets and money for them.

You are showing ignorance of the human body, a couple of beers even for someone who can tolerate high levels of alcohol, will alter their judgement. You know i can walk in a straight line after a shocking amount of alcohol, i can also say the alphabet backwards and do the whole, finger to nose test. I can do all that whilst drunk, yet my reactions are about as fast as a man on crutches climbing everest.

Everyone reacts differently to alcohol and so because of that all countries should adopt a no tolerance approach. If you think it's your right to have a few bees and then drive, then i thin it just shows you don't care about running someone over.

Originally posted by josephine
Its just gone too far. It shouldnt matter what someones breathe smells
like, the persons coordination should only matter.

Read above. The fact is that the majority will ahve their reactions greatly reduced by alcohol even if they have good coordination. The chances are that anyone being pulled over wil lbe part of that majority. All tests i've seen on alcohol and reaction times have shown every person taking part has reduced reactions after only small amounts of alcohol.

Originally posted by Sublime620
I think .08 is ridiculous. It targets average people who may have just had 2-3 drinks with dinner or out with a friend. Buzzed driving is a fine line. If it's difficult to tell whether you are over the limit, then the limit is not correct.

I know plenty of responsible people who have probably driven over the .08 limit. DUI's change/ruin lives. Why is the limit set to target everyday people?

Then it's simple, dont' drink and drive! If you cannot avoid alcohol at a dinner because you feel you need it to enjoy yourself, then you havea serious problem, i'm afraid that's a fact.

If those people you consider responsible have driven whist over the limit, then their sense of responsibility doesn't extend to their cars. People seem to forget things there because they are surrounded by an object they consider safe. They think they're ok, but they dont think of the others outside the car.

The limit is set at a pretty much internationally recognised rate where reaction times are reduced markedly. In each country it's often slightly different but the research is clear. It's not set at the everday person, it's just set at the point where reactions are reduced for a human being.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

I think the punishment of yellow plates is unfair to compared to other traffic crimes which account for more crashes than drunk driving. Why aren't those causes awarded with special plates as well?

1. Distracted Drivers: 25-50 percent.
2. Driver Fatigue: 100,000 a year.
3. Drunk Driving: 35-45 percent of all vehicle fatalities.

This study was done by the World Health Organization about the leading causes of vehicle accidents. Why don't we see these plates for people even though they are the 2 most common causes (above drunk driving even)?

Driving with a cell phone quadruples your chances of crashing. Sounds about as bad as drunk driving... why don't they have warnings for other people driving that these people are more dangerous to you than others?

I also see where you're coming from that people do worse and don't have to publicly show people that they could be dangerous. As you said, the guy that molests your 3 daughters doesn't have to have special plates on his car but drunk drivers do... why is that?

If they started doing this to people with 2+ offenses then I'd be more okay with it. There shouldn't be that huge sign for people with just one mark compared to those multiple offenders that haven been caught 10 times. I'm sure this law would most likely increase the amount of times that person gets profiled... if the driver isn't driving 100% perfect and a cop sees that yellow plate he would pull him over, though someone driving the same way without the plate wouldn't be pulled over.

It seems like it would just encourage police to pull over people that don't need to be. This already happens here where I live (Lubbock, TX) in a college town (we've been called a 'professional party school' by one magazine), police will sometimes pull you over if you're driving late at night and have a "Texas Tech University" sticker on your car... because they suspect that you're drunk. They think that since our school mostly parties they think that we MUST be drunk since we're driving at 2 a.m., which is what police would think when they see that yellow plate.

Just my views there.




To the poster above me, do you realize many, many people have wine while eating?

I worked in a nice restaurant for a while and I can't count the number of times people drank wine while eating and then drove. I don't see anything wrong with that and I don't think that it's a bad thing. There's people that need bar-b-q sauce to enjoy some food and there's people who need wine to enjoy some food... they both enhance the food and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I want you to understand this about reactions. I can drive after drinking and my reactions are better than if I was driving while tired and on a cell phone. I've done both and my reactions were much higher while I was driving after drinking. So tell me, why is it more punishable to be drunk than texting/talking on your cell phone, or just driving while tired?

I personally think that cell phones and/or tiredness while driving is worse than drunk driving. Why do I think this? Experience... both personally and as a witness. I've seen and been around many drunk drivers but amazingly not witnessed a wreck... though I have seen numerous accidents where the other person was using a cell phone. When you're driving after drinking... you're actually more aware of your surroundings because the last thing you want is to be caught, so you're more careful (I know, it's funny [dumb] since you're scared of what your doing, but you do it anyways). When you're on the phone you don't have as much worry because being in an accident using a cell phone won't ruin your life like a DWI/DUI and also you're paying more attention to what's going on with the conversation or what letters you're hitting on the phone... you're distracted and sometimes not watching whats going on on the road. So, in my eyes... I see drunk driving as not the best thing to do... but not as accident prone as cell phone use or being tired.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by ericds]

Leave it on, let them be seen by all. Every one has an option, if you are driving you have the option to either drink alcohol or not too. If you do not drink alchol then well done; But if you do, then you get another option; To drive under the influence of alchol, or not too. if you do not drive, well done. If you do... Well we know about all the dangers that this causes and any one who says they dont have serious mental problems. They took the option to get behind the wheel of a potential weapon and drive it being under the influence. They made the desion which could of hurt another of even ended anothers life. They need to be labeled for they crime so that it deters others form doing this.

Fox

Originally posted by ericds
To the poster above me, do you realize many, many people have wine while eating?

I worked in a nice restaurant for a while and I can't count the number of times people drank wine while eating and then drove. I don't see anything wrong with that and I don't think that it's a bad thing. There's people that need bar-b-q sauce to enjoy some food and there's people who need wine to enjoy some food... they both enhance the food and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The difference is bbq suace doesn't slow your reactions, poor analogy, if they can't eat without rinking then yes i believe they have an issue with alcohol. I again will state i'm not a tea totaller, i don't think alcohol is bad, i think drinking with alcohol in your system is bad. Wine does enhance some foods i agree, however a responsible person, looking out for the interests of others would avoid alcohol if they're going to drive afterwards. Are you telling me it's such a terrible thing to have to avoid drink so you can drive home safely?

Originally posted by ericds
I want you to understand this about reactions. I can drive after drinking and my reactions are better than if I was driving while tired and on a cell phone. I've done both and my reactions were much higher while I was driving after drinking. So tell me, why is it more punishable to be drunk than texting/talking on your cell phone, or just driving while tired?

Erm you might perceive your reactions to be better, doesn't mean they are. It's been found in studies that many people think they're doing better whilst drink driving but they're actually doing worse. I won't take your word for it i'm afraid, go witht he science. If you did a scientific reactions test and came out ahead then i'd agree. However you'd still be in the minority and so the law stands.

As for texting and things like that, well in the UK that's also against the law an carries heavy penalties, and so for me that issue is mute as we have punishments for it.

I really love the holier than thou let them suffer types. You were never young and dumb?
You have never attended a wedding reception and imbibed? Rubbish.
Think about it.
First time. Fine, classes, within certain limits. .16, no first time easements.
After that, a second offense let them put a blooming neon sign on the roof.

reply to post by LateApexer313


hey - i have read ALL your replies and have unfortunatly concluded that your thread is missnamed - thats why you have so much missunderstanding and confusion

i beleive that what your thread should really be called is :

why is thier such leniency and unnacountability granted to none DUI criminals

as your apporach is that as everyone accepts that DUI drivers are scum and should be tagged , fined , denied insurance etc etc

that sets a preccedent for tagging other criminals that have committed far worse crimes

am i right ?