Damn, you cant even touch a drink anymore without being over some limit in PA.

"the state House on Monday approved a bill reducing the standard to 0.08 percent from a blood-alcohol ratio of 0.10 percent."

"Compared to existing law, the bill the House approved Monday eases some penalties for first-time offenders by leavening jail time with treatment. But hard-core drunken drivers face sanctions of at least a year in jail, thousands of dollars in fines and the mandated use of car ignition systems that require drivers to pass a breath test."

"For example, a first-time offender with a blood-alcohol ratio of 0.08 percent to 0.99 percent would be charged with an ungraded misdemeanor, face a maximum of six months' probation, pay a $300 fine, and be required to attend an alcohol highway-safety school. They would also be required to undergo treatment as a part of their sentence."

"But a fourth-time offender with a blood-alcohol level of 0.10 to 0.159 percent would be charged with a first-degree misdemeanor, receive a one-year mandatory jail sentence, pay $1,500 to $10,000 in fines, have their license revoked for 18 months, and be required to use an ignition-interlock system for one year. They would also be required to undergo treatment as a condition of their sentence."

- From The Morning Call, Sept 30, 2003.

 

Same thing just happened here to.

 

Downgrading to 0.08 = good.

Decreasing penalties for first time offenders = bad.

Personally, I think the rate should be dropped to nearly 0.00 (maybe 0.01 or 0.02 to make up for error) and a zero tolerance policy should be mandated. Penalties should be severe. Driving is a privilege, not an inherant right.

 

Whatever it takes so that people start getting the @*@*!@ message and stop drinking and driving... There just isn't any excuse, and it seems like every time someone gets killed by a drunk driver it's never the dumb-assed drunk.

 

I believe Wisconsin today just moved to 0.08 also...

 

I completely agree with that. I also concur that the allowable ranges should be tighten more, and 0 tolerance to the use of drugs too.

 

Welcome to DE...Home of the DUI roadblocks...

BAC is still .10...but they are giving "no jail" breaks to first/second offenders...:thumbsdn:

 

drinking and driving laws are so relaxed in this country wtf? germany legal drinking age is 16 but you get thrown in jail for years if you get caught so no one does it.

costa rica has VERY severe penalties, and as a result no deaths due to drinking and driving.

 

yeah, heard about that.
i think most states might go .08 soon in lieu of not receiving federal highway funding otherwise.

no more hitting mailboxes for me

 

I don't think .08 will make an impact on who does/doe not drink & drive.

The ones that are doing all the damage(accidents, fatalities, etc) are more than likely way over .08...more like .20...

I think the roadblocks will have more effect than the new legislature.

 

That can't be done cause things like cough syrup and mouthwash have alcohol in them. If you just used one of those products, you could be hauled off to jail for all the wrong reasons.

 

Driving under the influence is just that -- it should not matter what you are 'influenced' by, even if you are lame enough to claim cough syrup.

Or, in other words, being drunk on cough syrup should be penalized no differently then being drunk on Jack Daniels.


Again, ZERO tolerance. Severe Penalities.

 

.08 is the law here in Cali and has been for some time

 

Check out the penalties those convicted of DUI face in other countries. Best one is last.

England- one year in jail, $250 fine and one year license suspension.

France- Three year suspension, one year in jail and $1,000 fine.

Australia- Driver's name sent to local papers and printed under the headline "He's drunk and in Jail."

Malaysia- Driver jailed, if married spouse is jailed too.

Turkey- Drunk driver taken 20 miles from town and forced to walk back, under police escort.

Norway- Driver sentenced to three weeks in jail with hard labor and one year loss of license. License revoked for life if second offense occurs within five years.

Finland/Sweden- Automatic jail sentence of one year at hard labor.

Costa Rica- License plate removed from drivers car. Loss of license.

Russia- License revoked for life.

Poland- Driver jailed, fined, and forced to attend political lectures.

Bulgaria- Second conviction results in execution.

El Salvador- First offense, execution by firing squad.

 

I got real lucky, I live in PA and about 3 weeks ago I blew a .095 and got off real easy considering it just dropped. And looking at the penalities above if I lived in another country lol

If PA didn't lower their limit they lose goverment funding.

 

Congrads your post is complete BS

 

More of harsh punishment has never detered the offenders and will not decrease the number of DUI related accidents.
"more punishment" is a very concervative approach that is doomed to be a failure.
I can drink 1-2 drinks and drive my car safer than a lot of sobber morons, or senior citizens from the 7th cloud.

 

It's simple -- in addition to any criminal penalities you receive for a DUI -- remove the legal ability to drive, forever. No first time offense leeway. Do not pass go...

Convicted DUI should at the very least equal removal from the driving pool.


...just because you are competent when you have alcohol on board doesn't defeat the fact that drunk driving is a serious public health issue. Drunk drivers do cost other people their lives, cost us all moneys in property damage, court fees, etc. This is a major problem that can be controlled more effectively.

 

I wonder how many people who've killed others in DUI accidents felt the same way you do? Everyone always thinks they're "okay to drive". That's the problem.

Stiff sentences, many DUI roadblocks. That'll stop them.

 

O yeah, what if you get pulled over during random DUI check (without breaking any law), and your alcohol is right on the cusp of being illegal. Should you loose your license for the rest of your life? Are you fuking kidding me? Maybe you want to give them an electric chair as well?
Its all subjective, some sobber people are more dangerous then people who had 1-2 drinks... some people are just stupid, or talk about senior citizens who have no fuking clue what is happening with them are still behind the wheel and get off easy.
no no, I will oppose all this rediculous harsh punishment for doing nothing wrong.

 

So long as you're under the legal limit, then what's the problem? If you're OVER or CLOSE to the legal limit, then don't fucking drive. It's not rocket science.

The problem is, many people don't take this particular law serious (and to be honest, it sounds like you don't either). You mention the people who might "lose their license" for the rest of their lives for what may seem like a minor offense, but what about the people who lose their lives because some asswipe is too macho and stupid to realize he can't control his vehicle (not necessarily putting you in that category, but as I said earlier, everyone who's ever driven drunk and killed someone thought themselves fit enough to drive).

If you drink and drive, you are not the victim.

 

What if someone sobber(but stupid) runs the red light into a person who had 2 drinks (making him VERY slightly over legal limit) but has not broken any law and it was determined that presense or absense of alchol could not have avoided the incident.

Is it also drunk's fault and he must loose his license for the rest of his life? How is this fare? Why stupid people or old people get off so easy, why are they still allowed to drive?

There are some sobber drivers who are stupid, and do very dangerous sh*t which is more dangerous than having few drinks. Yet, they get off easy. I guess its better to be stupid, cause if you are born stupid its not your fault, but if you drink you are guilty. I am sorry, I am not buying this primitive logic.

And I am also against random soberty check points, its a direct violation of your privacy, and secondly, it goes against US constitution ( as I rember we have "presumption of innocence" ), but those stupid road checks not only waste your personal time, cause traffics, waste of gas(bad for environment), but also falsely presuming my guilt without any reason or cause.


Yes, I have liberal views.... what you gonna do about that?

 

I am not advocating that drunk driving is good, it is bad.
.... But I also don't want to hear all this stupid sh*t: "No matter what they must be severly punished, given electric chair and etc". You really need to look on a case by case basis, can't generalize things like that.

 

What a hot topic. At no point do I condone drinking and driving and am all for limits, etc. However, some broad statements fail to include tolerance and noted abilities.

The law states that someone is impaired at a specified level and is all encompassing. It does not account for that person's tolerance level or competency level. There is no question that an individual’s ability to drive deteriorates as the BAC increases. But does that mean that an individual with extremely high tolerance and is an exceptional driver is not competent at 0.08 BAC??

My point is not to support drinking and driving but to point out that this is a focal group and the laws are often being directed inappropriately. Many elderly drivers could not pass a field sobriety test and have a BAC of 0.00. According to the field test they should not be driving, yet are allowed. Whereas the subject individual mentioned in the previous paragraph might pass with flying colors but be charged. So what does that say about the laws or the administration of them; are they too focused on numbers and less on the actual issue??

How many people are driving tired, this is proven to be just as dangerous as someone over 0.10 but yet is not illegal.

The repeat and well over the limits offenders is what gets me. I have no tolerance for this and the laws should be applied strictly and swiftly. All too often the justice system fails to do its job with these people. Next thing you know this repeat offender kills a family after entering the interstate the wrong way and has a BAC of over 0.20.

 

You (russianDude) are arguing that driving with alcohol on board is OK as long as you are following the rules.

I guess my viewpoint is different. I suggest ZERO tolerance and it means just that. Alcohol + driving should be illegal in all circumstances, stopping at the red light or following the speed limit is immaterial. It should never be OK to drive with alcohol on board. As said above, I think this issue is too big of a problem to accept at any level.

We'll agree to differ on this matter.


I'm still not sure what I think of drunk road blocks/traps. Although I agree with the concept of keeping the drunks off the road, I'm not all for illegal search and seizure. I'll leave it to the attorneys & judges to argue this one though. Since I don't drink & drive, no harm, no foul.

...and the so-called stupid but sober driver has nothing to do with this scenario. We're talking about DUI or alcohol and driving, not who deserves to lose their license. I agree there are plenty of people out there who should not be driving, drunk or sober.

 

Yes. Everyone is due their due process and proper route through the legal system. I just think the penalties should be a bit more extreme...once again going to the concept that driving is a privilege and not a right.

 

Believe it or not, I actually agree that the .08 alcohol level (or any other pre-defined level) wouldn't be valid for everyone. I'm 220 pounds, and I know that when I have a headache that I have to take at least 3 aspirin or it won't help (I also know that because I'm not a drinker, it doesn't take me much to get a buzz either).

But here's the thing. If we left it up to individuals to determine that they're okay to drive based on "what they can handle", then I guarantee you that most people who are impaired will tell you that they're "okay to drive", when many of them clearly aren't. If you try to legislate the variance in tolerance levels, you get into all kinds of interpretations about body chemistry, resistance to alcohol, all of which will vary dramatically from individual to individual.

The truth is, it's impossbile to write a law which takes into consideration an individual's ability to tolerate alcohol; because so many factors come into play (genetics, body-weight, how much alcohol they've been exposed to in general). So rather than try and make a law such that it is dependent on individual resistances, the obvious solution is to set an across-the-board limit. That across-the-board limit has to be low enough to insure that the 115 pound woman who has 3 drinks and is impaired will be covered by the law, as well as the 295 pound defensive tackle driving in his Corvette with his nephew on a New Jersey Road (Jerome Brown).

I go back to my original point. Drunk people swear up and down that they're okay to drive, even when they aren't. And Americans (as opposed to Canadians, which is the most direct cultural comparison) don't take drunk driving seriously enough. The only way to make them START taking it seriously is to make the penalty painful enough that they are deterred, the idea being that when they do that self-analysis and "think" they're okay to drive, that someone near them (or perhaps their own reasoning) kicks in and says: "Wait a minute, I may think I'm okay to drive and I may feel fine, but that strict-assed law would probably have me impaired, and I don't want to risk that. "

I don't believe in random rights of search, but a cop doesn't need to search your car to see if you're drunk...

 

New York went to 0.08 a few months ago.


my girlfriend got pulled over with 0.07 the night it went into effect... heh. she had only one beer more than half an hour before.

 

That's my point. The law is too focused on numbers, and is very straight forward. I think the law should account for some "common sense" and case by case examination. These number games don't always make sense. I even heard if there is an accident and its clear as black and white for cops and everybody that it's not your fault, they automaticly make you guilty AND you get DUI. Perhaps DUI charge is OK, but why automaticly make this person guilty in the accident if its very clear it's not his fault? I understand when its not clear, but when its clear as black and white and there are witnesses?

And the second issue of being "fair". Like you said, if somebody is tired and as dangerous as someone over 0.10, why is he getting less punishment? There are some big gaps in the current law.

 

.

 

No no no, you missed my point, I was not saying that it should be left up to an individual. It should be looked by authorities (who are supposedly sobber and impartial LOL ) and make a decision on case by case basis. But yes, as a general guidelines 0.08 cutoff sounds fine. But they should not be playing this number games, and I also want equal punishment for stupid (but sobber) drivers.

 

Cop needs a reason to stop you and test you for DUI.
It should be illegal for cops to do random soberty checks, or road blocks. As I said before, random soberty checks have the following problems:
1. Presumption of guilt (vs. constitutional presumption of inoncence)
2. Traffic
3. Waste of gas => environment & polution
4. Interfering with personal time and freedom to move.

 

How did the Taliban get in on this thread. How many of the hard a$$es here even drink. I wish people who want zero tolerance would come up with solutions rather than point fingers. How about starting a volunteer service to drive people home. Unlike Europe our public transportation is in the stone age. Or if we had pubs on the local corner people could walk but everything is set up for driving over here.

 

Taliban?

It's not about not drinking alcohol (do what you want, no one really cares). It's about drinking and driving, and guess what, it's not that hard to drink and avoid getting behind a steering wheel. I do it quite often.

Ever hear of a taxi-cab? I've yet to be in a city or even rural location that was without a taxi service.

Starting a volunteer service? Well, some locales have them, or have free taxi rides. But the bigger question askes why do I have to provide for your shortcomings? If you shouldn't be behind a wheel, it's your problem. You got yourself into this predicament, you figure a way out (and I figured that way out for you -- see last paragraph).



This thread really has digressed and gone on tangents. I thought we were discussing blood alcohol levels and legislation -- now we're to so-called stupid but sober drivers, old folks, and drunks who are afraid of those who don't drink and the Taliban.

 

buy and read.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...sbn=1568068379

 

That book is wrong, in russia you can give a bribe to the cop and they will let you go

 

.08 is bullcrap. i'm all for cracking down on drunk drivers but .08 as Soopa pointed out can happen with 1-2 beers. If you can't drive after 1-2 beers you shouldn't be driving to begin with...unless you're mini-me or something.

 

Yeah, if you look at the statistics, in the majority of DUI related accidents people were drunk, VERY drunk ( not just 1-2 beers).

 

Based on my own expirence, when I have one drink I calm down a little. I begin to drive all relaxed and alert at the same time, I am not rushing like crazzy.
Sometimes when I am sobber I tend to be careless..... always in the rush....
Go figure which way is safer....

 

I think some of us are missing the point.

A cop doesn't have probable cause to pull you over...(.8 or .38) unless you happen to commit a reasonably SERIOUS offense(atleast in DE).

In DE, that means even if you run a red light & you are .12, etc...they can't ticket you for DUI. I just took an advanced defensive driving class Monday night & the head of these new DUI roadblocks(state cop) taught it. He stated it would have to be an accident, etc to add-on the DUI charge.

So, whether they lower the BAC or not, you still have to drive like a moron to get pulled over. Now, if you drive into a roadblock...that's a whole diff ballgame.