I think it should be legal,,, at least for me of course.

5/21/2007 2:21:47 PM

Quote :

"DUI with no loss of life = revoke license for a year and community service, possible jail time if repeat offender DUI with life loss = revoke license permanently, manslaughter charges"

I'd agree, except you have to do something to address the alcohol side of the equation too. Maybe make them take an alcohol abuse class, or revoke their ability to buy alcohol for a year. Buying/drinking alcohol isn't a right, and if you are too much of a dumbass to be able to handle it, you shouldn't be allowed to drink.

5/21/2007 3:11:38 PM

but then you have the people who CAN drive drunk just fine getting busted at checkpoints for not really doing anything wrong and being punished for the people who CANNOT drive drunk...



I do distinguish between the 2.

5/21/2007 5:32:12 PM

Quote :

"But in urban settings almost nobody drives to bars. They use public transportation. Saying its a bigger problem in a truly urban setting is retarded."

What la-la land are you living in? And where is this amazing public transportation system being used by everyone go to the bars in North Carolina (in the urban areas)

5/21/2007 5:55:40 PM

Quote :

"but then you have the people who CAN drive drunk just fine getting busted at checkpoints for not really doing anything wrong and being punished for the people who CANNOT drive drunk..."

Those are the worst type of people, they're over confident of their ability.

Yes, there are people who can drive perfectly fine with .08% in their system. Who is more a risk though, someone who thinks they can drive fine with .08% and makes a habit out of it, or someone who isn't sure they can drive at .08 and won't risk it.

5/21/2007 6:16:08 PM

Quote :

"What la-la land are you living in? And where is this amazing public transportation system being used by everyone go to the bars in North Carolina (in the urban areas)"

i beleive pat is talking about NYC where he currently lives

5/21/2007 6:23:43 PM

^that is even more la-la land. The fact is, no matter how grand the public transportation system, people will still drive drunk and the problem is magnified when you have more people per square mile.

5/21/2007 7:31:51 PM

Quote :

"The percentage of alcohol-related fatalities in auto accidents has dropped markedly over the last 25 years, which coincides with increasingly tougher penalties and stricter enforcement on DUI / DWI laws."

it has also become a lot more popularized of a debate and carries a huge stigma. there are other factors here.



like i said, you have to make a judgement call at some point. i wait a long time after drinking my last beer before driving home, but there's been times when i very well could have driven at or around a .08. should i have my license revoked for being a reasonable drinker (i didnt get blackout drunk or anything), waiting hours on end while drinking water, and then driving home in a normal manner (even in these scenarios ive never been swerving, speeding, or anything else)?

5/21/2007 9:14:35 PM

Quote :

"people will still drive drunk and the problem is magnified when you have more people per square mile. "

i'm guessing you have never been to NYC.



^

ya i hear ya man. I know idiots how get black out drunk and drive. Even to the point where i've talked to them the next day and they did not even remember driving. Honestly I think it was fucked up and if I had known they were driving i would have taken there keys. Yet, I may take 3 beers at the bar barely be intoxicated at .08 and still get the same punishments as those fucktards who are lucky they didnt' kill themselves or anyone else. On that note, if i am a DD or know i have to drive i might have 2 beers then 1 additional for every hour i am somewhere. From what i have researched this should keep you below 0.08 but you never know when due to random variables it could be barely 0.08 at some checkpoint or shit.

5/21/2007 9:50:23 PM

Quote :

" i'm guessing you have never been to NYC."

I've been to new york plenty of times. The fact of the matter remains, one drunk driver in new york causes more problems than one drunk driver in Pilot Mt. North Carolina.

5/21/2007 10:07:01 PM

^^ heh i also weigh 130lbs, which probably makes .08 easily attainable.

5/21/2007 10:29:27 PM

Quote :

"Toyota4x4: This will be a lifelong debate until technology is developed that insures that the person driving is sober. (In car breatalyzers do not work, simply because another person can blow in it and the drunk person can drive off)."

You have to continue blowing into them at set intervals as you drive.

Quote :

"alwest: i would be in favor of stricter laws if the dui laws required proving impairment as well, not just using a number to define what drunk is."

I agree. However, we'll have to accept that this will probably invite more drunk drivers onto the road. Right now, there are plenty of people who think they're fine to drive but choose not to because they're afraid of the BAC bullshit. If we rely more on the field tests, a lot of those people will be back on the road thinking they're "fine" when it's not clear they are.

5/21/2007 10:41:44 PM

Quote :

"Toyota4x4: This will be a lifelong debate until technology is developed that insures that the person driving is sober. (In car breatalyzers do not work, simply because another person can blow in it and the drunk person can drive off)."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-05-31-smart-steering-wheel_x.htm

These should be phased in to all cars sold in the US. After a few years when most cars were equipped with them DWI penalties could be really strengthened. I am sure some people would circumvent the system by wearing gloves but those are the kind of people that belong in jail for it.

I know many people who have no problem driving drunk, many of them have had multiple arrests for it. The fact is some of these people have drinking problems and when they drink they do things they do not remember. Teaching a guy not to drive drunk only goes so far if he still blacks out and does it anyway. If all cars shut down when the driver was drunk then everyone (not just the drunks) would benefit from safer roadways.

All types of people are arrested for DWI judges, law enforcement, government officials, teachers, principals, etc. These are all folks that we generally consider otherwise responsible. A car that reminded folks when they are drunk would not be a bad thing.

If politicians are truly concerned with saving lives as they say they are, these testers will become standard equipment in US cars. They will save lives.

5/22/2007 12:05:36 AM

yeah i really wonder what the thought process is in someone who drives black out drunk. I really do not understand this concept. I am scared even driving after 3 beers at the bar when my BAC is probably only around 0.06

5/22/2007 12:11:14 AM

I don't know. I don't do it. I guess I am so terrified of the consequences that even when I am plastered off my ass I know better.

The kids I know that do it over and over again don't seem to be scared of shit and alcohol/other drugs just fuels that.

5/22/2007 12:14:07 AM

You know...the stearing wheel thing might not be that bad. If it runs a continuous test. Although, what would happen if you took your hands off the wheel for a moment, would the car shut off?

5/22/2007 7:36:26 AM

^^^^No, system will not work. Let's stop assuming people are criminals.

Besides, it is perfectly legal to drive drunk on your own private property.

5/22/2007 9:03:00 AM

so you could also have a system that would give you an automatic ticket for going over the speed limit...

5/22/2007 12:52:43 PM

^^Dream of mine is to own enough property that I can get drunk and drive around smoking cigs and listening to music.

5/22/2007 12:57:30 PM

Quote :

"o you could also have a system that would give you an automatic ticket for going over the speed limit..."

you wear a seatbelt right? thats technically more invasive than what I am proposing and most likely you do it.

5/22/2007 1:39:15 PM

Last I checked, there isn't a shut off in my car if I'm not wearing a seatbelt and there isn't an automatic fine for me not wearing my seatbelt either.

5/22/2007 6:43:21 PM

would it really be that bad to have it, if it in no way caused you harm other than not being able to drive? theres a difference between safety measures and "assuming someone is a criminal." do you hate it when microsoft hide system folders?

5/22/2007 6:46:18 PM

So they put something in every car because they assume that everyone is a criminal.



I guess that's why they put a seat belt in a car, because they assume that everyone is going to get into a car wreck in which the seat belt saves your life.

5/22/2007 8:59:31 PM

If ya'll get a chance go to one of these publid safety days and put on those goggles that messes with your vision and shows what it looks like to be drunk. They usually have you try to walk a line and stuff. I practice the test all the time and even I couldn't walk the line.

5/22/2007 9:05:05 PM

hahaha

5/22/2007 9:12:45 PM

5/22/2007 10:07:18 PM

know your limits or suffer the consequences. If you get caught, learn from your mistake and don't make up excuses.

5/24/2007 8:03:28 PM

is it just me, or are bbehe's recommendations in the first post pretty much how the current laws are already set up?

ps: i didnt read through the thread

5/24/2007 8:16:27 PM

maybe the manslaughter part, but they don' take your license right away for a DUI.

5/24/2007 8:31:42 PM

yes they do

5/24/2007 8:40:46 PM

yeah its taken away immediately

5/26/2007 9:58:56 AM

my bad, i thought the first one was a freebie.

5/26/2007 10:39:29 AM

No they physically take your License on the spot, you don't even have an ID to go buy beer or go to the bank with.

5/26/2007 10:46:44 AM

unless you punch the cop in the face and drive off

5/26/2007 10:53:33 AM

the laws are pretty good as they are now.
1st offense, loss of license for a year, community service.
next offense (if its within a few years) and you get sent to jail for a while.
cause damage to others, or property, and the punishments increase.

makes sense to me

5/30/2007 3:17:54 PM

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1466958/

another victory for alcohol.

[Edited on June 4, 2007 at 12:16 PM. Reason : .]

6/4/2007 12:16:08 PM

^from the article:

Quote :

"There is no word yet on his blood-alcohol content."

uh...weird

6/4/2007 12:17:22 PM

not really, a lot of time they won't immediately release exactly what his BAC was. They didn't with the girl that hit the stop light camera

6/4/2007 12:19:17 PM

oh guess i read that wrong

i thought they meant they weren't saying if he was drunk or not




monday slowness

6/4/2007 12:21:17 PM

latest news is that they're "investigating his immigration status"

6/4/2007 2:50:55 PM

they'll just deport him so he can cross back over and do it again

6/4/2007 3:07:11 PM

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=5367350

6/7/2007 3:56:25 AM

http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/03/autos/bc.nissan.technology.reut/index.htm?postversion=2007080309

8/3/2007 4:44:18 PM

good luck in america

8/3/2007 4:46:08 PM

I don't really see the point in that. They wouldn't really be able to make it mandatory for new cars to have the alcohol detection feature, and if you were the type who was worried about getting drunk and driving, you just wouldn't buy the car. I guess they could make people with DUI convictions drive them, but they already have devices that do the same thing, so it seems like a waste of money to me.

8/3/2007 4:54:58 PM

Quote :

"They wouldn't really be able to make it mandatory for new cars to have the alcohol detection feature,"

What exactly do you base that on? They make all kinds of things mandatory for cars.

8/3/2007 4:59:46 PM

Quote :

"The driver of the Tahoe was taken to WakeMed"

If he went to the hospital then more then likely they drew blood from him to get tested for alcohol. Usually takes a few months to get the results back from the SBI. You can still charge DWI based on other things even if you dont know what his BAC is.

8/3/2007 8:22:12 PM

Quote :

"I think anyone who's had a DUI should have their plates changed to flourescent pink for 2 years.... the embarrasment alone would do wonders"

Brilliant Idea.

I approve

8/3/2007 8:28:02 PM

They had a "license check point" on Dan Allen last night. Guess the NCSU police had nothing better to do.

Deputy Dog how does a DWI differ under NC law then a DUI. Are the penalties are lot less harsh??

8/3/2007 8:29:26 PM

Wait, so just because someone is drunk and driving they should be arrested and incarcerated/fined? That's stupid. If there is no harm to another person or to property it should be perfectly legal to drink and then operate a vehicle.

The fact that alcohol is involved should in no way mitigate, either positively or negatively, the responsibilities of the person operating a vehicle. I feel exactly the same way about driving while high, while on a cell phone, or while getting a hummer.

If you can do it without causing harm then it should not be illegal.

8/3/2007 9:01:22 PM