Is There an Unfair Bias Against Drunk Drivers?

reply to post by LateApexer313



I agree with you on your observations. First time abusers shouldn't be subject to the humiliation when their BAC is real close to the .08 limit, they may have stopped drinking and waited before they drove or only had one drink and are very small. If your first offense shows you with a BAC of .2 or extremely high then you may be a risk to others on the road and should have the plate. There are many drivers that have numerous reckless driving or speeding tickets and they should have some type of plate.
I like the idea of sex offenders having a special plate also. The only problem with that is that people who had their child or loved one raped may smash into them or assault them out of rage.

reply to post by bknapple32


Aside from your personal rant (that I could not care any less about), I'll get right down to the point.

You, sir or ma'am, through all of overly passionate posts, have not really said much at all. All I am saying is that driving should be a right. The government should never tell any citizen that something is a privilege. That's where freedom ends and tyranny begins.

Do I want drunk drivers on the road? No, sir, I don't. I'd love for you to quote me where I said that?

All I've maintained is that the legal limit is far too low. At the current limit, anyone can be arrested after having between the range of 1-3 drinks (depending on size). Small framed people would be about 1 drink, mid (my size would be 2), and large-framed would be around 3.

Anyone who has consumed alcohol knows that that number of drinks compared to that frame size would not even really be noticeable. At this point, it is possible to get a DUI while not even really feeling the effects of the alcohol - whatsoever.

So... call it what you want to call it. There are people being arrested every day who work hard, don't abuse alcohol, and drive safely. Do I think someone who is .13 needs to be on the road? No, I don't. At that point, the person is buzzed and on the way to drunk. He/she can probably operate the vehicle fine, but their reaction time is significantly slowed.

That's four beers for me. People equate DUI's with people falling over drunk. At 4 beers I'm .13 and closing in on double the legal limit. Four beers is not drunk, but I wouldn't drive on it.

I personally feel that the old .10 or .12 would be more proper levels.

reply to post by Oldnslo


Interesting break down of accidents by age.
Where is the data from?

added: because this can be misleading. The numbers of drivers in the group has to be considered. You see what i mean, right?

[edit on 26-6-2008 by djerwulfe]

this is a collective effort by the shadowmen and the greys (et) to get people to stay off the raods at night so there are more liekly to not be ceen aabducting people. i think. jus take my police department 333. times that by 2 and is 666. now what do you think

mike

There is one easy solution if they don't want to be embarrassed from driving with DUI plates,then don't drive!,having a drivers license is a privaledge not a right,take your pick be a drunk,or be a driver,no excuse for operating a vehicle while your impaired

reply to post by Sublime620


Firstly, i would not disown my friend as you seem to think, i would try and disaude my friend from drinking and driving, that to me is the base of friendship, not wanting them to get in trouble. I am looking out for their best interests. I don't want them going to prison, hurting someone else etc.

Secondly you show an enormous amount of ignorance in regards to drink. I have seem men of 15 stone in weight, get severely drunk after only one bottle of beer. that isn't a joke or an exaggeration, it's a simple fact. Whereas i have seen 9 stone people go through a bottle of vodka and barely blink. Some people can handle drink and others can't.

Oriental people for example are genetically more likely to be unable to handle alcohol, and before you accuse me of racism that is i'm afraid a genetic trait which is documented.

The simple fact is that the majority handle a vehicle with less coordination when under the influence of minor amounts of alcohol, i am sure others are ok with suck amounts but we have to accpet the majority as the rule when it comes to such things.

So again i state, if you cannot forgo that drink whilst out with friends when you know it's against the law, then you have everything coming to you, i only hope you don't kill someone with your bad driving.

Driving is a right, ia gree completely, but i don't want you driving whilst under the influence of alcohol.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984




You're facts are severely off. When I was 17, and weighed 120 sopping wet, I didn't even get a buzz off of one beer. Maybe half way through the second or at the beginning of the third.

High School girls liked to pretend that they are drunk after one... but you'd have to be a fool to actually believe it.

I'm sure many people here had (or have) seen a girl fake like she was drunk after only one or two. I'm not sure it's even possible for someone over 100lbs to get drunk off of one.

I really don't know where you get your alcohol facts from. Perhaps you should try one before you comment?

reply to post by Sublime620


Erm you just confirmed my facts, that everyone has a different tolerance to alcohol, maybe you missed my point.

Oh and again you comment on me not consuming alcohol when i admitted already i'm not a tea totaller. I think you're rather selective in what you see and generally just trying to cause controversy. It seems you have no understanding or caring of the issue, you just want attention. Otherwise why would you ignore the fact that i have stated i do drink when i feel like it, i have friends that drink, i don't mind anyone who chooses to drink, i only mind whne they get behind the wheel drunk. I also point to the fact different people have different tolerances and we have to go on the blood chemistry of the majority.

Why can't you accept that fact? It's documented and scientific.

I'm sure many people here had (or have) seen a girl fake like she was drunk after only one or two. I'm not sure it's even possible for someone over 100lbs to get drunk off of one.

Well you believe whatever you wish to satisfy your conscience, i will however stick with the science and my own experience. The simple fact is i've seen men of 15 stne get so drunk off of one beer you wouldn't believe. In fact i once lost a bet over such an issue, my friend bet me his friend was hardly able to walk after one shot of vodka. I lost that bet i can tell you, 10 quid down the drain, never again

[edit on 26-6-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

I sure would hope that there is an unfair bias against drunk drivers. I don't want drunk drivers on the road. They make driving conditions unsafe by their sloppy driving when they are under the influence.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Well if you are so sure then let's take a poll. I'm sure the many of this board can answer this question for us. So:

Who here on this board has gotten drunk off of one drink (serving size drink). That's one beer, one regular size glass of wine, or one shot of liquor.

By drunk we do not mean buzzed. In fact, here is the exact description provided generously for us:

"Severely drunk"

Anyone here gotten severely drunk off of one drink?

*Edit:

If so, please post your weight at the current time if you feel comfortable doing so. Thanks.



[edit on 26-6-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620


So are you denying that people have different tolerances to alcohol? Are you denying for example that the majority of oriental people carry a gene that prevents them from metabolising alcohol like a european would?

We have to go on the majority, and the majority will lose reacotin time after only a small amount of alcohol. Just because you think you havn't lost any, just because you think you're a better driver after having a drink, doesn't mean you are. Most people after small amoutns of alcohol, when put under a reactions test will do worse, that's just science.


Scientific studies showing impaired reaction time under low doses of alcohol

reply to post by nektar


Hiyah Nektar, thanks for understanding my thread as intended

Your idea that the sex offenders having special plates might cause the parents to smash into them, is a valid one....however, think about the first time DUI offender with special plates...what if someone who's husband, mother, child or grandchild were killed by a drunk driver and the site of the plate causes them to smash into the poor sap who had a few beers after his softball game and is stuck with this plate identifying him?

I haven't heard of many instances where a child molester or rapist is actually assaulted, let alone killed by the victim's family, and a lot of the stories we ALL have heard about DUI drivers killing people due to that one fatal error of deciding to drive that night, killing someone, there are amazing stories of forgiveness bestowed upon them by the victim's family.

I never hear of that same forgiveness given to a rapist or child molester.

One crime, DUI, first offense, is a simple error in judgment, while impaired that can ruin the lives of the victim's family, if there is even a victim involved, most times the police are waiting to pull them over knowing they just came out of an establishment that serves alcohol. There are 43,000 people killed a year as I stated earlier, yet millions of first offense DUI traffic misdemeanors that result in not even one other traffic offense but the DUI.

The other crime, child molestation, is a premeditated crime, where the predator seeks out the victims, and purposely goes out and knowingly and with malice aforethought, commits the crime, thereby ruining the victim's life, along with the victim's families' life, EVERY single time. To the tune of 117 as I stated earlier, PER predator, especially if they never get caught.

How many DUI first offenders, get away with 117 deaths BEFORE they are caught?

How many child molesters get away with molesting and ruining the lives of 100 families before they are caught and charged?

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I think your own stats show fairly well my point:

The first four of those tests are 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, and 1 drink for me. Again, one drink is a beer, a glass of wine, or a shot. Again, that may be different for others. You continuously bring up Asians. Since you claim they metabolize alcohol at a different rate, their BAC would still represent how drunk they are.

I know, for a fact, after one drink I can perform any of those task just as well as if I didn't have it. Perhaps better if it was a stressful day (as alcohol calms the nerves). I may get tired 20 minutes after that drink, but I could always go get a cup of coffee.

What about you? Have you ever driven while tired? It's just as bad as driving while blitzed, I hope you know. Have you talked on your cell phone? Fiddled with your radio?

Your statistics do not show the whole picture. I doesn't show how long between drinks, it does not show the person, how much they had to eat, or any other relevant data. It's just not reality.

Reality would be have 10 guys walk into a bar and have only on person consume two drinks. Then see if you could pick it out by their driving.

I bet you couldn't.

Madd Goes Too Far

# In March 2004, MADD expanded its attack on responsible adults by calling for a "mandatory provision in every separation agreement and divorce decree that prohibits either parent from drinking and driving ... with minor children in the vehicle." Violating this provision, it argues, should result in penalties including license suspension, jail, or even the "termination of parental rights."
# MADD founder Candy Lightner broke ties with the group in the 1980s. In 2002, she told the Washington Times: "[MADD] has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned ... I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving."
# MADD regularly ignores its principles to keep its coffers full. In 2000, two California ballot initiatives (Propositions 30 and 31) sought to permit an automobile accident victim to sue the at-fault driver's insurance company if legitimate claims weren't paid promptly. Considering that victims of drunk drivers stood to gain an important legal tool, most Californians expected MADD to lead the charge in favor of these new measures. However, MADD aligned itself with a group of out-of-state insurance companies, which collectively ran a $1 million-per-week advertising campaign against the propositions ... The organization's motive? Money, plain and simple. MADD's 1999-2000 annual report acknowledges Allstate Insurance Company donated an amount in the "$250,000 and above" category. Nationwide Mutual Insurance gave over $100,000 that year.

'Tyrannically low' legal drinking limit up for Beacon Hill hearing

State Rep. James Fagan, D-Taunton, has proposed legislation to lower the blood alcohol limit from .08 to .02, which could put drivers who have even one beer or glass of wine during dinner over the limit.

This is the way things are headed. First it was .1, then .08, and people are pushing for it to drop even lower. Responsible people are now in the crosshairs.

Field Sobriety Test

In order to "fail" the OLS test, you need to display two of the following clues:

-Sways visibly while balancing
-Hops
-Puts foot down
-Uses arms to aid balance

That's a hard test to pass sober!

Try it. Put one leg up in the air in front of you as high as you reasonably can. Tilt your head back and look up. Count to thirty.

Don't sway, don't hop, don't put your foot down, and don't use your arms to balance. Any of these and you must be impaired!

And I also can't pass the eye exam sober (where you follow the pen tip).

DUI Laws: Facts and Fiction

You should maybe read up on some of this. For instance this part:

Lie: Drunk driving causes 41 percent of traffic deaths in this country. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) quote this figure liberally to exaggerate the problem, and compliant popular media play along. Repeat a lie loud and often enough, and it becomes accepted as truth.
Truth: NHTSA and MADD blithely equate "alcohol related" fatalities -- which involve someone, anyone, often not a driver, who is either proven or ASSUMED to have some level of BAC -- to "drunk driving" deaths. Who was driving, who was at fault, and BAC levels matter not here. If a sober driver hits a drinking pedestrian or bicyclist; if two sober drivers collide and anyone in either vehicle has had a drink, these organizations consider it "alcohol related."

Originally posted by Sublime620
I think your own stats show fairly well my point:

The first four of those tests are 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, and 1 drink for me. Again, one drink is a beer, a glass of wine, or a shot. Again, that may be different for others. You continuously bring up Asians. Since you claim they metabolize alcohol at a different rate, their BAC would still represent how drunk they are.

Actually it wouldn't, the alcohol circulates in their system over and over, a friend in Japan told me how often men would take only one cup of rice wine and be extrememly drunk 10 minutes later. So my point is that everyone has a different tolerance and we have to apply the careful law to everyone.

Originally posted by Sublime620
I know, for a fact, after one drink I can perform any of those task just as well as if I didn't have it. Perhaps better if it was a stressful day (as alcohol calms the nerves). I may get tired 20 minutes after that drink, but I could always go get a cup of coffee.

Really, a fact huh? Have you undergone scientific tests? Because just believing your better or just as good is a common side effect of alcohol.

Originally posted by Sublime620
What about you? Have you ever driven while tired? It's just as bad as driving while blitzed, I hope you know. Have you talked on your cell phone? Fiddled with your radio?

I'm fully aware of the dangers of driving whilst tired, that's why i don't drive currently as i have become rather ill and feel tired most of the time. I have never used my mobile phone whilst driving and my car has the radio controls on the steering wheel so i don't have to fiddle with my radio. Actually it's one of the biggest reasons i bought the car

Originally posted by Sublime620
Your statistics do not show the whole picture. I doesn't show how long between drinks, it does not show the person, how much they had to eat, or any other relevant data. It's just not reality.

The test shows that alcohol lowers your ability to do many driving tasks, it's a scientific test backed up by hundreds of other studies on the effects of alcohol. Your willful denial of science shows me you just don't want to believe it, want to continue driving after a few beers and don't care to much what happens. I truly hope you are never involved in an accident after having a few drinks, for your own sake and others.

Originally posted by Sublime620
Reality would be have 10 guys walk into a bar and have only on person consume two drinks. Then see if you could pick it out by their driving.

I bet you couldn't.

Reality is tests, i've been trying to root out another experiment i saw a while back. They had people consume different levels of alcohol and then press a button whena light appeared, they also took their borderline reactions test without any alcohol. It was found that all of them suffered in reaction time.

As a side note it was found womens reactions got worse faster than a mans even though the women were more able to hold a good conversation. Been trying to find the study, will continue looking and report it when i find it.

Originally posted by LateApexer313

A DUI first time offense is a driving misdemeanor. Yet these people are on display for all to see, as they drive to work and run their errands.

Jeese is that all??

What are you complaining about? Here in the UK a first DUI offence is met with a MINIMUM 12 month ban... And that would be slightly over the limit with no accident or other circumstances - for the majority of people that will ruin there lives, or at least seriously retard their plans.

Some times people have even been charged because they have been searched while out on the town - and for whatever reason they still had a set of vehicle keys on them - the vehicle could be miles away at home, but they have been deemed to be drunk in charge of the vehicle - I think one case was that a mate had returned a spare set of keys to the owner as they met up in a pub..

Red letters on your number plate?? Some people would kill for that if it means they could keep on driving after one small error of judgement

here, where i live, a first time dui'er will get 10 days(sometimes suspended to probation) and more voilations will get you up to 18 months once you get about 4 or 5. But if you hit someone and get sued they can take all you got. And if you hit someone drunk and kill them you'll get 5 years for manslaughter unless the da or judge wants to press for murder charges. but the license plate thing is probably just so the police can monitor and pull people over more easily. And i say boo to that

Originally posted by Now_Then
Jeese is that all??

What are you complaining about? Here in the UK a first DUI offence is met with a MINIMUM 12 month ban... And that would be slightly over the limit with no accident or other circumstances - for the majority of people that will ruin there lives, or at least seriously retard their plans.

A good point, a family member of mine got banned for 15 months and made to pay a two thousand pound fine. He didn't hit anyone, he was just driving drunk, and you know what, he deserves every single day of that sentence.

reply to post by Now_Then


Nope that's not all...you obviously didn't read the thread...but that's ok it's a long one...they get the plates, they get 3 days in jail or 4 nights in an outpatient treatment center which, OF COURSE is run by the city of Cincinnati, on their dime if they choose that over jail....Usually they will be allowed to drive to and from work unless they are over .16...

If they choose the outpatient treatment instead of jail...they will be interviewed by a battery of social workers trying to label them as "alcohol dependent" at the very least, because these people that work in the city program have the authority to recommend in-patient treatment, or out-patient treatment...and the out-patient treatment is given in 3 modules...the first being 3 days a week, for 4 hours a day, no matter if you have a 9 to 5 job they simply don't care....so of course since this generates revenue for the city, most people get labeled "alcohol dependent."

And this is the FIRST offense still we're talking, the PLATES are the least of their worries....

They get court fines which are usually $550 if they didn't hit anything or hurt anyone etc...most people get a lawyer, which is about $500 - 1500 for a first DUI, then you have a $500 reinstatement fee to pay after your probation is up and you get your license back....

Then there's an SR 22 bond you have to get, it's an automobile liability bond that covers high risk insurance, on TOP of your own insurance most likely going way up, or dropping you.....You have to have the SR 22 bond for I think it's 2 or 3 years....and that's anywhere from $500 to $1500 for 2 years...

Not to mention having to report to a probation officer, or not, it's all at their discretion, some people can just call in, others have to go, and you're subject to a urine test at all times, if they call you while you're at work and tell you to come down to give urine you only have a certain amount of time to get there and do it....

After you're convicted, you run the risk of not being able to get a job if you're a student, based SOLELY on the medical insurance at the company you are interviewing with. They now ask you if you've ever had a DUI offense at most companies on the job application and not just felonies now....it's not so much for them it's because with the soaring costs of medical insurance now, we all know they are trying to screen out smokers and drinkers...and this is one way they screen out the "drinkers."

Now this is for a FIRST TIME misdemeanor driving violation....show me the hoops that the child molesters jump through...it's absolutely ridiculous.

oh my god. this is like the little kid complaining that school gives out too many detentions screwing up his after school plans.

If you dont want the jail time/fines/embarrassment. THEN


DONT


DRINK


AND

DRIVE...


Millions of Americans can figure out how not to drink and drive, why cant the select few on this thread figure that out? Rather than crying about how its so unfair , just dont do it, and ya got nothing to worry about !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by bknapple32


I could care less what fines and penalties are associated with DUI's...as I KEEP saying and no one listens!! Hang em if you want, I don't give a darn! I am just telling everyone what they are...and not one of you except a select few....even gets my whole point on this thread...

If I could harness the outrage that you all feel against some guy or gal who goes out and drives after a few drinks at an office party...and funnel it into the child molester issue, then we'd have a real DENT in the true crime going on nowadays! SHEESH people...you need to wake up and smell the coffee or the beer, just don't drive afterwards or you will be the pariah driving around with plates and 10K less in funds and probably not even able to get a job or car or medical insurance!

Perhaps a child rapist will employ you, since they simply serve 30 days for gross sexual imposition first charge...and they will still have their cars, no plates, and medical and a job...