DUI Laws that Encourage Driving Drunk

[DrFaroohk]

This is another law they got it all wrong.

Being in my car, even with the key on and engine running, does not count as driving.

No one ever crashed into a tree or another car because they were drunk and sitting in a car with the engine idling. Maybe they're cold. Maybe they want some radio. Or would you rather they drive home drunk? It's not about who should've planned ahead - which would you prefer? People aren't going to stop going to the bar and getting drunk, so would you rather have them sitting in their car or driving in their car afterwards? And when you present drunks with that choice - stay here and get a DUI, or go home and get a DUI - you're just encouraging them to do it.

The law was designed to protect people - and busting someone for siting in his car drunk is a violation of the spirit of the law.

[blas87]

What kinda bothers me is with all these new attempts at getting tougher on drunk driving, it's punishing people more harshly for first or second offenses, underage drinking, but it's just become a joke for the people who made things this bad, like people with three or more DUIs.

I read in the paper, people with their first DUI and someone cited for underage drinking get about the same punishment, except the DUI has a larger fine. Second DUI, they install a breath alhyzer in your vehicle. Not that I think two DUIs isn't a big deal, but what about people say in Wisconsin who are on their fourth, fifth, sixth, and beyond, offense? That's supposed to be a felony and they are supposed to be sent to prison.

But it helps to have a good lawyer. With enough money and a slimey enough criminal attorney, you can be free on bond on felony DUI charges and be caught violating your signature bond release terms.

Yeah. We take it so seriously, someone with five charges gets a SIGNATURE BOND. A piece of paper "promising" to behave.

I know of people who flat out say "I don't care that I'm on probation, I do what I want!"

[Greenday]

No one ever crashed into a tree or another car because they were drunk and sitting in a car with the engine idling.

Because slipping gears while moving around drunk or sleeping would be so tough.

[DrFaroohk]

Because slipping gears while moving around drunk or sleeping would be so tough.

Slipping gears = NOTHING to do with being drunk. Moving around in your sleep = NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING DRUNK.

It's also what we call a "rare occurrence". It could, COULD happen if a bizarre number of conditions were met. I could just as easily say "Maybe me drunk driving home means I crash into a car and kill someone who would otherwise have become the next hitler". It's not the same but it sounds almost like anecdotal evidence. "This ONE TIME your theory deviated from plan!"

And it still comes down to the basic question: Would you rather have someone passed out drunk in a car with the very very minor chance their car will come to life and murder someone, or would you rather they be screaming down the highway?

[FArchivist]

Speaking of preparation, why do so many people drive to a bar? Doesn't take too much of what's available in there to be breaking the law when driving back.

In the USA, at least, it is very difficult in most areas to walk to a bar or take public transit. For instance, in GA due to zoning regulations the average bar will be 10-15 miles from your house. Heck, I need to drive if I want to even reach just a corner gas station.

[Evandril]

Actually, I went off on a "tangent" about how such a kid did end up driving! And how I was injured because of it, and continue to suffer pain because of it.

These laws are about prevention, and the penalties are supposed to have teeth. As protege pointed out, losing a license is a painful penalty for a teenage, and actually more productive for society than jail or a fine (that they probably can't pay) would be.

So, you're saying losing your licence is more painful that losing a stripe, getting in serious trouble at work, and all the other fun that comes with the military hitting you for drinking underage? Because that's the 'threat' that you *proved* didn't work already...

I've been in for 19+ years, and it's always been known if you're caught drinking underage, doubly so offbase...you're toast. If anyone in that car was allowed to drive on-base for a year, I'd be disappointed in their commander...I know I'd not have expected to have as 'lenient' a punishment as just losing my licence if I'd been caught drinking underage!

[Panacea]

So, you're saying losing your licence is more painful that losing a stripe, getting in serious trouble at work, and all the other fun that comes with the military hitting you for drinking underage? Because that's the 'threat' that you *proved* didn't work already...

No, that's not what I said. What I said was that particular law didn't apply at the time of my accident. For most teens losing a license is a better penalty than a fine that will probably be paid by the parents anyway. Suspending a license for a year keeps the penalty in your face. A fine is paid, over an done with.

[Andara Bledin]

What I said was that particular law didn't apply at the time of my accident.

But it's irrelevant. They already were under threat of worse than just losing their licenses and the still thought that going out and driving was a sound choice to make.

More laws don't stop it. What we need is proper education, proper enforcement, and for the punishments to actually matter and make a difference. Losing your license is inconvenient, but for people who are already breaking the law, driving without a license isn't any sort of challenge or deterrent.

^-.-^

[Evandril]

No, that's not what I said. What I said was that particular law didn't apply at the time of my accident. For most teens losing a license is a better penalty than a fine that will probably be paid by the parents anyway. Suspending a license for a year keeps the penalty in your face. A fine is paid, over an done with.

You misunderstood me...I'm saying that if a harsher law did not stop them, a less severe one will *NOT* serve as a deterrant!

It's like saying if you do x, we're going to fine you $100! *they do x*. Fine! If you do it again, we're going to change the fine to $10! NOW you won't risk it!

[senor boogie woogie]

My understanding is that if the keys are not in the ignition, then no DUI, if there were not any other circumstances like an accident. When I was in college, I heard a story about someone who was arrested for DUI after he wisely parked his car to "sleep it off" as it were.

The drinking age should be 18 or scrapped altogether. I find it stupid that someone can be considered a legal adult at 18, with all the legal responsibilities of being an adult, except to be able to buy alcohol, or go into a bar. That's moronic and f'ed up. I had an acquaintance in my college (my next door neighbor) who was popped at TWENTY years of age for buying a bottle of wine. He had to go to an ADULT court on the charge, had to hire a lawyer and all that. The USA is the only country with 21. Canada is 18-19. Australia is 18. UK, (I believe) is 18. Germany is (or was) something like 16-18 (I and my high school gang befriended a German exchange student who loathed that he could not drink or easily buy a beer in the USA) Are American kids more drunk than German, English or Canadian kids?

I am an American in China where there is no drinking age whatsoever. A child may legally buy booze. Once I and my friend actually sent his elementary age stepson to the store to buy several bottles of beer. One summer, I and my wife's 6 year old nephew went into a bar/restaurant that knew me to use their phone, and while we waited, myself and the young lad sat at the bar, and I allowed him to have a taste of my drink (with him wanting more!) In China, it wasn't a big deal. Now, if the kid was drunk, there would be, that would be an abuse issue. But in the USA, what I did would have gotten me arrested and slapped with felony charges with the revoking of the restuarants liquor license.

Guess what, I have never seen once seen a minor drink in China. It's mostly due to parents, and the demands of school. I just have never seen it. I have seen and gotten drunk with a lot of adult Chinese people. Once, I and the same friend with the kid went to Shanghai (he moved there) and he liked to go to this one hole in the wall place. One time we were there when a bunch of American teeny boppers showed up. Freaking 15 year old 10th grader kids. They were served. No problem because no laws were broken. Those kids took the opportunity and they cannot do back home (and no, 15-16 year old kids shouldn't drink.). I found the scene interesting, but my friend wanted to bolt so we left.

[blas87]

I think we've beaten the subject of 18 vs 21 like the dead horse it is many, many times.

It would mean a lot of lost money in revenue for underage drinking citations. But, it could also save money because they could drop those bullshit underage drinking "classes" that offenders have to take, that none of them take seriously.

I would like to see harsher punishment for people who have more than one or two DUIs under their belt, and instead of just slapping more and more fines on people who OAR, fucking throw them in jail for longer. Let them out with thousands of dollars on a signature bond, what do you think they are gonna do? KEEP DRIVING AND KEEP GOING TO THE BAR! I have heard it more than once from more than one person, they don't care. No one is going to tell them what to do. Perhaps if they spent more time in a cell, they'd realize that they aren't the ones making the rules anymore.

[FArchivist]

The drinking age should be 18 or scrapped altogether. I find it stupid that someone can be considered a legal adult at 18, with all the legal responsibilities of being an adult, except to be able to buy alcohol, or go into a bar. That's moronic and f'ed up.

Blame Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It was their lobbying and donations to federal legislators that made it this way.

Wait, you say. Drinking age is set by the state! And this is correct; state government sets the drinking age for each state. But MADD lobbying made it federal law that any state that had a drinking age lower than 21 would not receive federal funding for the maintenance of highways and roads. Faced with the loss of the infrastructure money, the states kowtowed.

They can always go to 18...if they want to lose that funding.

[senor boogie woogie]

Yeah, I hate Mothers Against Drunk Driving. A nanny state organization. The states changed their laws from 18 to 21 when I became old enough to drink, be able to go to bars, etc. This is nothing but a neo-Prohibitionist group, with a few members who had children killed in auto accidents (with my sympathy). But drinking ages don't work and they cause more trouble than they solve.

OK, I will grant that 21 year old drinking age might have dropped DUI's down a bit, but not that much. If they raised to the age to 25, or 35 or 45, the rates would drop even more. Hell, no one should be allowed to drink until they are married, have at least one child and have a career.

With a drinking age, comes the notion of the "forbidden fruit". Kids can and will access alcohol. Instead of having parents, older peers and their culture ease the younger person into choices like drinking alcohol, they are banned from it entirely, with parents breaking the law if they allow their kid to have a beer or a glass of wine.

Hell, get your kid drunk. Maybe at the age of 17 or whatever. Maybe an occasion like Christmas, New Years Eve oir whenever. Then the next day let the kid feel what a hangover is like.

I would tell my late teen, under 21 child, two things.

1.) Call me instead of getting in a car if you are out partying. I wont get mad.

2.) If a cop stops you, be polite but refuse to answer their questions and call me.

If there was no drinking age, very few under-18 kids would go to bars (at least once the novelty wears off.) Most kids after a time will view boozing as an occasionally fun activity, but one that can cause trouble. There would actually be less binge drinking among youth if they could just have it. Give parents the choice to either teach their children about alcohol according to their standards and be liable for what their underage kid does.

[senor boogie woogie]

Another thing I really dislike are hours one can buy alcohol.

My home state of Tennessee:

Beer can be sold 7 days a week, between the hours of 7AM-3AM except on Sunday when one cannot buy beer until Noon.

No liquor or wine can be legally sold on Sunday. Bars and restaurants can sell "liquor by the drink". Liquor by the drink has only been the law since the 1970's in my region.

Liquor and wine must be sold in a liquor store, which must close at 11 PM (dunno when they opened, never a breakfast drinker), and closed (by law) on Sunday. Supermarkets are not allowed to sell liquor or wine, with the liquor store being physically another building.

(This is moronic) Liquor stores are not allowed to sell anything but liquor and wine. No cork screws, drinks, mixers, candy, cigarettes, nothing but liquor and wine.

Nevada has the best law. 24-7. Buy it in a supermarket. Liquor stores can sell accessaries. Louisiana is also like this, especially near New Orleans.

Like I said, I am an American living in China and there is no alcohol laws here. I can buy alcohol 24/7. Bars and clubs can stay open all night and they police themselves, with minimal government interference. No Last Call.

[blas87]

I respect your compassion for wanting to help your children in the future, but please understand that standing up for your kids vs law enforcement over underage drinking could very well lead to you having to pay for your child's criminal defense attorney on their 5th DUI and god knows what hundreth OAR.

Note, I realize not everyone is that dumb or irresponsible, but I found it's better to let your kids face their own music, unless they are actually being harrassed/jerked around by police while still under your care. Kids can learn to disrespect police and the law in general a great deal if their parents are easy to brush it off as well.