[AKA Arizona]

I recent days the subject has come up about DUI's. Hopefully this the proper venu for such a debate.I have a few general questions and would like the publics point of view.

1. At what point should a person be considered to impared to drive safely.
2. How many chances should a person be given before there PRIVLAGE to drive is revoked.
3. How should a persons imparement be judged.

I'll leave it at that and adress any other questions as they arise.

My answer to the three questions

1. When they can longer safely operate a vehicle
2. One chance after a year suspension to think about it.
3. Video taped Stanadrized Feild Sobrity Test (SFST's)

[Infidel_Kastro]

Originally Posted by AKA Arizona

I recent days the subject has come up about DUI's. Hopefully this the proper venu for such a debate.I have a few general questions and would like the publics point of view.

1. At what point should a person be considered to impared to drive safely.
2. How many chances should a person be given before there PRIVLAGE to drive is revoked.
3. How should a persons imparement be judged.

I'll leave it at that and adress any other questions as they arise.

My answer to the three questions

1. When they can longer safely operate a vehicle
2. One chance after a year suspension to think about it.
3. Video taped Stanadrized Feild Sobrity Test (SFST's)

My answer:
1. When they cannot stay within the lines of the road and cannot react as quickly if they had less to drink.
2. Two strikes within 8 years, if clean after 8 years, we start again.
3. Videotape

Now what I really want say:
1. When I end up on their hood.
2. Same as above.
3.By a combined score of BAL, Interview, and talent/swimsuit competition.

BTW, Dave, you have got to work on your spelling.....

[AKA Arizona]

IK hows work? you know spelling was never one my strong points all my stuff is on a computer and I have become to dependent, the spell check here is not working correctly.

[angelize56]

Originally Posted by Infidel_Kastro

BTW, Dave, you have got to work on your spelling.....

Edited version for Dave:

In recent days the subject has come up about DUI's. Hopefully this is the proper venue for such a debate.I have a few general questions and would like the public's point of view.

1. At what point should a person be considered too impaired to drive safely.
2. How many chances should a person be given before their PRIVILEGE to drive is revoked.
3. How should a person's impairment be judged.

I'll leave it at that and address any other questions as they arise.

My answer to the three questions

1. When they can no longer safely operate a vehicle
2. One chance after a year suspension to think about it.
3. Video taped Standarized Field Sobriety Test (SFST's)

[AKA Arizona]

Thanks Angel

[angelize56]

You're welcome Dave!

[Infidel_Kastro]

Originally Posted by AKA Arizona

IK hows work? you know spelling was never one my strong points all my stuff is on a computer and I have become to dependent, the spell check here is not working correctly.

Extremely busy. Tax season begins and the market has reopened for the first tmie this year. Oil is going up.......

[Guyzer]

Originally Posted by AKA Arizona

1. At what point should a person be considered to impared to drive safely.
2. How many chances should a person be given before there PRIVLAGE to drive is revoked.
3. How should a persons imparement be judged.

I'll leave it at that and adress any other questions as they arise.

My answer to the three questions

1. When they can longer safely operate a vehicle
2. One chance after a year suspension to think about it.
3. Video taped Stanadrized Feild Sobrity Test (SFST's)

1 - Impairment takes many forms. Drugs, booze, illness, cell phones, dealing with kids, listening to wife / husband chatter etc. To answer your question, imo anything that distracts or takes away the ability to react to all driving situations in a timely fashion is an impairment.
2 - Depends on the cause of the impairment. If it's booze or drugs I think one chance is to many and the privilege of a licence should be removed for at least a year. If it causes injury or death I vote to make it a lifetime ban. Second offense and it's a lifetime ban as well. If it's caused by something else I guess it would be subjective and based on what was done. To many if's to put a pat answer on it.
3- Once again to many variables with the exception of booze and drugs. Blood tests will indicate if any substance is in the blood stream.

I know a lot of people would vote for education when it comes to a impairment caused by booze or drugs but my opinion is that there isn't a person on the planet that isn't aware of the ill effects of DUI of those substances. Bottom line, there isn't any excuse that can justify getting behind the wheel of a two ton killing machine if a person isn't in the condition to properly operate it.

[Gibble]

There are too many variables when discussing this. Alcohol affects people in different ways.

Sometimes, accidents just happen, if the person was sober, or drunk, the driver couldn't have avoided it. But after a blood test, alcohol is blamed, and the person labeled a drunk driver.

But how drunk? Were they really impaired? Nobody knows, but they are quick to judge.

There are levels, were there is no doubt, the person should be driving, but the legal limit, at least where I live, is so low, that while nearly everyone can have a single drink and still be completely capable of driving that single drink can and will cause some people to blow a DUI.

It reminds me of the ads around here about speeding, and how "speed kills". They quickly point out that speed is a factor in nearly all "collision decisions". They don't say speeding, just speed...well, DUH! Accidents only happen if there is a vehicle in motion. Your vehicle might be stopped, but the one that hit you wasn't, so their "speed" was a factor.

Basically, I'm not saying drinking and driving is right, far from it, I'm basically saying the "measure" of impairment is flawed.

A person with the flu is more imparied than the person who had one drink and chose to drive. But if they get into an accident together...guess who's going to get charged with impaired driving.

[linskyjack]

I have to agree with Gribbel (shock!). I am not familiar enough with law enforcement practices to be sure, but it seems to me that there has to be a better way of testing INDIVIDUALS for drunk driving. I would love for someone like you (AKA) to tell us more about how the decision is made to arrest someone for driving while impaired. Is it based souly on a alcohol content in the bloodstream? Are there other variables and how do they mesh together?

[LANMaster]

I'd say the .08 level is about right, although some people are wasted at that level and should not be on the road.

.05 is probably more reasonable.

My state is pushing for .02, which I think is a bit over the top. You can get that level simply by taking an OTC cough medicine. Should it also be illegal for anyone to drive who has a cold? I know I have been impaired while sick, and it wasn't when I had had any medicine either.

I think drunk driving is a very serious crime. I think the national average is around 60,000 alcohol related vehicular deaths annually, and that is far too many.

I have never had a DWI/DUI before, but I will admit that there were a few times when I certainly could have had one. I just thank God, not only that I made it home safe, and also didn't get pulled over, but more importantly, I thank God that I wasn't responsible for killing someone on the road.

Repeat offenders need to be locked up. The damage affects everyone. Not only the drunk driver, but also others on the road and the families of all of those involved.

If you feel like you are the least bit innebriated, please make a concious effort to stay away from the wheel of a multi-ton dangerous weapon.
The life you save might be someone you love.

Cheers.

[TooBad]

I "blew" a .06 after having one Cloroseptic lozenge. Taken to the station where blood test revealed 0 alcohol in my blood. Wasted 3 hours for that! Must be reasonable about this and it is a very emotional subject, right Angel! I think that everyone should be tested for the level of alcohol that causes impairment. The problem is that costs too much to be acceptable, but it is the only "fair" system. As Gibble pointed out, everyone has a different reaction to the same level of alcohol in their system. Sorry Angel, but I hate "zero tolerance" policies anywhere and everywhere.

[LANMaster]

I agree with you, TB.
I understand Angel's point, because we have all seen time and time again where some <CWLMST> has multiple DUIs until he finally ends up killing an innocent sober family who's only crime was taking the kids out for ice cream after dinner.

However, there IS the other side of the coin where sometimes good guys get collared when they really shouldn't.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

However, there IS the other side of the coin where sometimes good guys get collared when they really shouldn't.

And is it not true that we'd rather see 10 criminals walking free than wrongly convict an innocent?

[Guyzer]

Originally Posted by TooBad

I hate "zero tolerance" policies anywhere and everywhere.

I hear you point but fail to understand why especially after your cough drop incident that you would be against zero tolerance in the case of driving, or was that just a general statement? By not having alcohol in your system that day your bacon was saved.
If everyone would practice self imposed zero tolerance when it comes to driving and booze many lives would be saved. I practice it not just for my sake but for everyone else that may be on the road. We all know how easy it is to have a second, third or more drinks when one is having a good time.