Why do some countries have stricter penalties for drunk drivers than the US?

[Cyrus]

IMO it doesn't look civil to drink during daytime (or planning to do any task after drinking).

That's the silliest comment I have ever heard in my life. People have a drink with their meals all the time, in many cultures around the world.

nopes and I am not planning to drink at all in near/far future.

Explains why you have no concept of alcohol consumption.

To me, human life costs far more than million dollars. So, it is best to avoid those circumstances before hand. It is better to spend some thousands to save lives (which are worth far more).

What a worthless statement. Ok, human life costs more than a million bucks...and so what? Maybe you missed the point that you're NOT saving any lives if a person has had one or two beers. You're just screwing them over and runing their lives with exorbitant fees.

 

[JasonRox]

IMO it doesn't look civil to drink during daytime (or planning to do any task after drinking).


nopes and I am not planning to drink at all in near/far future.




To me, human life costs far more than million dollars. So, it is best to avoid those circumstances before hand. It is better to spend some thousands to save lives (which are worth far more).

You're better off giving tickets who are bad drivers than waste time chasing a couple who went out for diner and the person driving might of had one drink. That's just stupid. Sorry, not my taste.

 

[tribdog]

The girl I'm sleeping with is an alcoholic. She wakes up and mixes a rum and coke. She drinks all day long and never appears to be impaired. I'm sure her bac is over the limit most of the day.

 

[Cyrus]

The girl I'm sleeping with is an alcoholic. She wakes up and mixes a rum and coke. She drinks all day long and never appears to be impaired. I'm sure her bac is over the limit most of the day.

How are her faculties when she's in this state?

 

[tribdog]

How are her faculties when she's in this state?

she's great in bed. almost never falls off. other than that who knows

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Here... you decide.

Logan B K; Distefano S, "Ethanol content of various foods and soft drinks and their potential for interference with a breath-alcohol test", Journal of Analytical Toxicology 22 (1998).

Abstract:

How long after you left the bar before you took the breathalyzer test?

Did you ask to check the calibration of the meter? Did you take just one test or more than one? How many? Have you subsequently taken blood tests to establish you breath to blood partition ratio? Have you talked to a lawyer about any of this? My own opinion is that a 0.03% margin on a blood alcohol test by a single breathalyzer measurement is almost meaningless, but the law may be such that this margin is already accounted for in the legal limit.

Here's a paper on the systematic error bar on breath tests:

Gullberg Rod G; Logan Barry K "Results of a proposed breath alcohol proficiency test program" Journal of forensic sciences 51 (2006)

Abstract:

And if you measured 0.01% over in a measurement of 0.09%, that's 11.1% over the legal limit. A second measurement or a different instrument may just as easily have read 0.08%.

Not sure about the time frame for the drink since it's been a while but they stopped me only a block away and tested me about twenty minutes after that.
They took about six readings. The first was I think .16% and another that they showed me was .1%. After three or four readings they had someone bring another box that is apparently better than the one they used and eventually gave me a .09%. I'm assuming that they took at least two consecutive readings that were the same in the end.
I considered fighting it based on the trouble they had getting a reading and argue that they had little to no reason to breathalize me in the first place. When I did a bit of research though I found that it's quite difficult to fight. Unless I could prove that both breathalizers were not working properly at all or find some major fault in the officers handling of me (or they didn't show up to court) I would at best get what's called a 'wet and reckless' which carries nearly the same sentence as a DUI and would have had to pay two or three grand to a lawyer on top of the fines. Since I only barely had money to pay my fines I didn't think it was worth the try.

 

[quadraphonics]

Not sure about the time frame for the drink since it's been a while but they stopped me only a block away and tested me about twenty minutes after that.
They took about six readings. The first was I think .16% and another that they showed me was .1%. After three or four readings they had someone bring another box that is apparently better than the one they used and eventually gave me a .09%. I'm assuming that they took at least two consecutive readings that were the same in the end.
I considered fighting it based on the trouble they had getting a reading and argue that they had little to no reason to breathalize me in the first place. When I did a bit of research though I found that it's quite difficult to fight. Unless I could prove that both breathalizers were not working properly at all or find some major fault in the officers handling of me (or they didn't show up to court) I would at best get what's called a 'wet and reckless' which carries nearly the same sentence as a DUI and would have had to pay two or three grand to a lawyer on top of the fines. Since I only barely had money to pay my fines I didn't think it was worth the try.

At least in certain states, you can refuse to take a breathalyzer, and they can't force you to take one. They can, however, take you down to the station and give you a blood test. So, if you're worried about accuracy, and figure you're probably going to the station *anyway*, it's the way to go. It also buys you a little bit of time for your BAC to drop, assuming you don't still have fresh alcohol in your stomach.

 

[tribdog]

you can refuse the breathalyzer in EVERY state. just don't blow.

 

[rootX]

That's the silliest comment I have ever heard in my life. People have a drink with their meals all the time, in many cultures around the world.

I wanted to get statistics on:
>costs
- co-relation between crime and people who drink
- accidents caused by drunk drivers and % of total accidents etc.

> benefits
- industries

and then concluding that how good is drinking of the over all society or how its benefits go against the costs

Unfortunately, I don't think I would be able to get those statistics. So, I just decided go with weak personally biased statement :shy:.

P.S. I just hate alcohol for personal reasons.

 

[Cyrus]

I wanted to get statistics on:
>costs
- co-relation between crime and people who drink

Why? What does crime and drinking have to do with drinking and driving? This is a pointless statistic in terms of this conversation.

accidents caused by drunk drivers and % of total accidents etc.

While that would be interesting, I'm not sure what it proves. First, what is the definition of drunk driving? Having two beers? If so, that's not a good measure of drunk, at least not to me. Unless there is some form of a test where it says your motor functions are reduced to the point where you are a danger, then yes you're driving drunk.

and then concluding that how good is drinking of the over all society or how its benefits go against the costs

Again, I really don't see the point of all this. This thread isn't about putting moral values of drinking, which you are clearly trying to do.

P.S. I just hate alcohol for personal reasons.

You can hate alcohol all you want, but you can't let that bleed over into rational arguments for/against it. If you don't want to drink that's your choice, but I think you have a very irrational fear/misunderstanding about alcohol in general.

Hating a 'thing' - alcohol, makes about as much sense as me hating a tree, or a car, or a fork...

 

[BryanP]

Stoned and drunk driving are NOT the same thing.

I'm not going to lie. I've used a considerable amount of pot in the past and these "dangers" presented are just ridiculously overstated.

I am not encouraging use of it, but I've known no one who was a stoner and had considerable trouble driving.

Drunk driving is just a total loss of concentration and coordination, which is not necessarily alike to smoking marijuana.

I don't drink anymore either.

Clean :)

 

[bassplayer142]

I think it would be unfair to take away someones license for 2 years on a first offense. We could be talking about a guy who has 4-5 drinks and barely blows over. Now his life is screwed because he had a good time with some friends?

 

[BobG]

I think it would be unfair to take away someones license for 2 years on a first offense. We could be talking about a guy who has 4-5 drinks and barely blows over. Now his life is screwed because he had a good time with some friends?

Losing their license or limiting them to a restricted license (to and from work) isn't screwing a person's entire life over. Having a criminal misdemeanor offense on their record is a pretty stiff penalty, though. It's stiff enough that getting it dismissed from your record is a pretty strong motivation to complete any of the more rehabilitative "punishments" such as alcohol education classes.

I agree a young person's entire life shoudn't be screwed over because of one mistake. Still, younger drinkers create a bigger drunk driving risk and something has to be done to keep the risk under control. Allowing a near freebie as a lesson just isn't a very viable option.

Aside from raising the drinking age (raising from 18 to 21 drastically reduced drunk driving fatalities), the best way to further reduce drunk driving is:

1) Raise taxes on beer (most popular beverage of younger drinkers). Higher prices reduce consumption.
2) Raise taxes on gas. The soaring gas prices this year have had a silver lining. Traffic fatalities have dropped to their lowest level since 1961. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j_INIiz1kcLpWqGsaqZ_BFXERVeQD92PGCTG0

A person older than 25 with a first drunk driving offense might have made just one mistake, but there's a pretty good chance the older drunk driver has alcohol problems more severe than just ignorance of the effects of alcohol. There's a good chance they'll do it again. It probably wouldn't be fair to make the punishments more severe than for a younger drinker, but the main reason for not making their penalties more severe is that there's less of them and they present less of an overall risk.