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

  • Thread starter Thread starter 81+
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the alarming tolerance for drunk and stoned drivers in the U.S., highlighting the severe consequences of their actions, including fatalities and disabilities. Participants express frustration over repeat offenders who continue to drive despite multiple DUI arrests, contrasting the U.S. approach with stricter penalties in countries like Norway, where a single DUI results in permanent license loss. While some argue that penalties have increased, others suggest that they are still insufficient to deter repeat offenses, advocating for harsher consequences such as longer prison sentences. The conversation also touches on the differences in driving impairment caused by alcohol versus marijuana, with some asserting that marijuana users may not pose as significant a risk as drunk drivers. Overall, there is a consensus that more effective measures are needed to address the dangers posed by impaired drivers.
  • #31
quadraphonics said:
Call the sample size of 24 insufficient all you want: that work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and was adopted by the US Department of Transportation as a basis for policy-making.
You did not cite a peer-reviewed source. Please do so.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm

Or here's another study from Britain:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2063
Neither of these is peer-reviewed either. Provide the citations to the peer-reviewed article, not the potentially misinterpreted popular press story.

This Canadian study found that marijuana *improved* driving performance in some subjects:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/186/4161/317
Again, do NOT misrepresent the findings of studies. The emphasis should be on some, as the overall conclusion was:
What are the recommendations that emarge from this study? Driving under the influence of marijuana should be avoided as much as should driving under the influence of alcohol.

But equating stoned driving it to drunk driving, as was done in the OP, is absurd.
Absolutely not. The article I cited, your first link, and even that last article discussed from Science (from 1974) all say they result in similar levels of impairment. You seem to be reading for what you want to find and misrepresenting the findings rather than really reading what the studies are saying.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Come to New Mexico...Land of Enchantment, and drunks.
 
  • #33
Evo said:
Can you quote the abstract? The link has expired.

Hmm...it's still working for me. Anyway, here's the abstract:
J. G. Ramaekers *, H. W. J. Robbe, J. F. O'Hanlon 2000 Marijuana, alcohol and actual driving performance, Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental Volume 15 Issue 7, Pages 551 - 558

Abstract
The objective of the current study was to assess the separate and combined effects of marijuana and alcohol on actual driving performance. Eighteen subjects were treated with drugs and placebo according to a balanced, 6-way, crossover design. On separate evenings they were given weight calibrated 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) doses of 0, 100 and 200 g/kg with and without an alcohol dose sufficient for achieving blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) of 0·04 g/dl while performing a Road Tracking and Car Following Test in normal traffic. Main outcome measures were standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP), time driven out of lane (TOL), reaction time (RT) and standard deviation of headway (SDH). Both THC doses alone, and alcohol alone, significantly impaired the subjects performances in both driving tests. Performance deficits were minor after alcohol and moderate after both THC doses. Combining THC with alcohol dramatically impaired driving performance. Alcohol combined with THC 100 and 200 g/kg produced a rise in SDLP the equivalent of that associated with BAC=0·09 and 0·14 g/dl, respectively. Mean TOL rose exponentially with SDLP. Relative to placebo mean RT lengthened by 1·6 s under the combined influence of alcohol and THC 200 g/kg. Changes in SDH ranged between 0·9 and 3·8 m. Low doses of THC moderately impair driving performance when given alone but severely impair driving performance in combination with a low dose of alcohol. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

I'll see if I can get up a link to the site that works for everyone.

(It's also an interesting note that the alcohol doses that impaired driving in this study would be considered well below the legal limit in the US...and probably most other countries. It just goes to show that the impairment begins well before one is considered legally drunk.)

Edit: Does this link work better? http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/74000373/abstract?
 
  • #34
Earlier this year I left a bar a bit earlier thannormal because my friend was not feeling well. I felt fine and didn't think I was over the limit. I was pulled over for my registration tags (forgot to put the new ones on). I was not speeding, swerving, running lights, or any other dangerous thing. I gave them everything they wanted. When they saw how drunk my friend was they asked if I had been drinking. I said I had a couple of drinks over about three hours. They got me out of the car and had me do the field test, which I passed. They then had me do a breathalizer. I was over by .01%.

I spent the night in jail. My license is suspended for three years. I paid two grand in fines. I have to go through a DUI program that will cost me about $500 more. The program requires that I go to 'group sessions' once a week for two hours for a month and then twice a week for two hours for two months. During that time I also have to go to six AA meetings (for those of you that do not know it is tantamount to making someone go to a church therapy group). All of this I have to do on what ever schedule they have available whether it fits well with mine or not (I have gone to work on only a few hours of sleep almost every time I have attended one of these meetings and it would be near impossible to do these things were I to actually abide the not driving rule).

In June they increased the penalties. First offense is a mandatory thirty days in jail (second is a year). That is to say had I gotten my DUI (by .01%) after June I would have spent thirty days in jail with gangbangers and skinheads. Neonazis that make you be a part of their group or beat the **** out of you since you are obviously a ****** lover if you don't like them.

I went to pick up my roomie from work the other day and was stopped at a check point where I got a ticket for driving on a suspended license. First offense is technically a mandatory jail scentence of at least 10 days (in with those aformentioned gangbangers and neonazis) and the only thing that may save me from it is the overcrowded California prison system. I may only be in for a couple days or not at all depending.

The woman who ran the group meetings I have gone to hardly agrees with the severity of the sentences. Most of the people I have meet only got popped on a minor offense like mine and are more pissed off than anything. One girl is probably going to jail for two weeks because she drove on a suspended license to get asthma medication for her three year old. Most of the people I have met that had severe offenses have lost their jobs or the businesses they owned and were fairly well screwed by the time they got out of jail. Note that if you do not comply with the mandatory DUI program for any reason including not having the money or means to do it you may go back to jail.

So believe me, the sentences are fairly severe. At the same time not many of the people who receive them are going to be very repentant after having their lives nearly, or completely, ruined by one stupid mistake.
 
  • #35
cristo said:
Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol impairs judgement and thus endangers others. Driving whilst under the influence of marijuana impairs judgement and thus endangers others. Whether one impairs you more than the other is moot.

No it isn't. That's why we have a non-zero BAC for drunk driving laws.
 
  • #36
TheStatutoryApe said:
So believe me, the sentences are fairly severe.
As well they should be. I have absolutely no time for people who drink and then drive: even if it's "just a couple."
 
  • #37
cristo said:
As well they should be. I have absolutely no time for people who drink and then drive: even if it's "just a couple."

And even if their ability to drive is not impaired?
 
  • #38
Moonbear said:
Edit: Does this link work better? http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/74000373/abstract?
Yes, thank you!
 
  • #39
quadraphonics said:
No it isn't. That's why we have a non-zero BAC for drunk driving laws.

No, that actually has more to do with the limitations of the accuracy and sensitivity of the testing equipment or blood tests.
 
  • #40
Moonbear said:
No, that actually has more to do with the limitations of the accuracy and sensitivity of the testing equipment or blood tests.

Limit here is .08%. Differences in sentences are based on as little as a .01% difference.
 
  • #41
TheStatutoryApe said:
And even if their ability to drive is not impaired?

Define "impaired". Just because someone isn't swerving around the road, or hitting stop signs doesn't mean their judgement isn't impaired. When driving a car, the slightest split second in reaction time can be the difference between life and death (for other people on the road: I'm not talking about the driver). Show me proof that the slightest amount of alcohol has absolutely no affect on the reaction times of 100% of drivers, and then I'm willing to believe it.

Sorry, but if you want to drink, get a cab, or have one of your friends drive you or pick you up. Otherwise, drink soft drinks.
 
  • #42
TheStatutoryApe said:
Earlier this year I left a bar a bit earlier thannormal because my friend was not feeling well. I felt fine and didn't think I was over the limit. I was pulled over for my registration tags (forgot to put the new ones on). I was not speeding, swerving, running lights, or any other dangerous thing. I gave them everything they wanted. When they saw how drunk my friend was they asked if I had been drinking. I said I had a couple of drinks over about three hours. They got me out of the car and had me do the field test, which I passed. They then had me do a breathalizer. I was over by .01%.

I spent the night in jail. My license is suspended for three years. I paid two grand in fines. I have to go through a DUI program that will cost me about $500 more.
Wow, sorry to hear that SA. I knew that DUI was getting more severe, but I had no idea how severe some states were.

My best friend got a DUI 10 years ago for a blood alcohol level of .08. She was about 3 miles from the state line where the legal limit was 1.0, another 3 miles and she would have been well under the legal limit. She hardly ever drinks, she had been to a wedding. After I saw what she had to go through, I will not risk even one drink if I am driving. Back then the suspension was only 1 year for a first offence.
 
  • #43
No one yet talked about insurance?

I think the best solution is to keep on increasing the insurance.
 
  • #44
Evo said:
Yes it did, 33% of the drivers were on marijuana only.

I don't see that in the information. It says 33% tested positive for marijuana, and 12% tested positive for marijuana and cocaine. The word "only" is not used. We are not told if those are two separate groups, or whether any of the drivers in question tested positive for alcohol or other drugs. And, again, there is a potentially enormous difference between testing positive for marijuana and being "on" marijuana. From your own at the end of the quoted post:

"Interpretation of Urine Test Results: Detection of total THC metabolites in urine, primarily THC-COOH-glucuronide, only indicates prior THC exposure. Detection time is well past the window of intoxication and impairment. Published excretion data from controlled clinical studies may provide a reference for evaluating urine cannabinoid concentrations; however, these data are generally reflective of occasional marijuana use rather than heavy, chronic marijuana exposure. "

Also from the same link:

"Effects on Driving: The drug manufacturer suggests that patients receiving treatment with Marinol® should be specifically warned not to drive until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and perform such tasks safely."

Note that no alcohol manufacturer could get away with labelling a bottle of whiskey with "users should not drive until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and perform such tasks safely."

For those of you that missed it, I have never said that marijuana doesn't impair driving ability, only that said impairment is not comparable to being drunk, and should not be treated as such. Studies showing that marijuana causes comparable impairment to blood alcohol levels that are well within legal limits for driving do not go far in refuting this.
 
  • #45
There's people here (predominantly Native American) that have upwards of 50 DUIs and don't give a damn, they just keep doing it...
 
  • #46
Moonbear said:
No, that actually has more to do with the limitations of the accuracy and sensitivity of the testing equipment or blood tests.

If you say so. Regardless, criminal codes throughout the world show a clear trend of increasing penalty with increasing impairment, reflected the increased risk associated with increased impairment. Do you really want to support the assertion that all impairments are morally equal, regardless of severity?

Here's a PowerPoint summary of a large EU study on the effects of different drugs and alcohol, both alone and in combination:

http://www.immortal.or.at/public_downloads/Drug_drinkdriving_Brussels.ppt#282,11,Odds ratios and prevalence data of alcohol-only

Note that they find marijuana to show only a slight danger, less than low doses of alcohol, and drastically less than doses of alcohol which would put you over the legal limit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
cristo said:
Define "impaired". Just because someone isn't swerving around the road, or hitting stop signs doesn't mean their judgement isn't impaired. When driving a car, the slightest split second in reaction time can be the difference between life and death (for other people on the road: I'm not talking about the driver). Show me proof that the slightest amount of alcohol has absolutely no affect on the reaction times of 100% of drivers, and then I'm willing to believe it.

Sorry, but if you want to drink, get a cab, or have one of your friends drive you or pick you up. Otherwise, drink soft drinks.
In my case I was driving fine and passed a field sobriety test but was over the limit. Is BAC a measure of impairment?
I've rarely driven when drinking. I usually wait and shoot some pool for a while to sober up first. While not drinking much to begin with.
I'm not mad or looking for a fight here. I respect your opinion. I'm just giving you the opinion of someone who's going through this for no other reason than .01% difference in a measurement. So maybe I'm just going to be an egg broke to make an omlette. I can (and have to) live with that. I'm just wondering how many people have an even harder time of it in a similar situation. Fortunately I have no kids or anything and my employers are rather sympathetic and forgiving.

Evo said:
Wow, sorry to hear that SA. I knew that DUI was getting more severe, but I had no idea how severe some states were.

My best friend got a DUI 10 years ago for a blood alcohol level of .08. She was about 3 miles from the state line where the legal limit was 1.0, another 3 miles and she would have been well under the legal limit. She hardly ever drinks, she had been to a wedding. After I saw what she had to go through, I will not risk even one drink if I am driving. Back then the suspension was only 1 year for a first offence.

It's no fun. But I'll live. Hopefully if I go to jail it won't be as bad as I have heard. I'm not sure how I would fair having to deal with neonazis. I'd probably want to punch their teeth in.


I just remembered by the way, back to the OP and severity of DUI sentences.
L.A. is cracking down on repeat offenders. They have a special taskforce now that actually go so far as to follow offenders around to see if they are abiding by their sentences. I heard a few cases noted where they picked people up getting into their car after being in the courthouse with a BAC of .2% or higher. Scary people.
 
  • #48
Talking about impairment, is it true that fighter pilots in the US army get amphetamines ?
 
  • #49
TheStatutoryApe said:
In my case I was driving fine and passed a field sobriety test but was over the limit. Is BAC a measure of impairment?

No, but the law has a "presumptive rebuttal" clause (at least I think that's what it's called) that let's them presume that you were in fact impaired if your BAC was above a certain threshold, regardless of whether they can demonstrate any actual impairment. Every few years you hear a story on the news about an alcoholic that is easily able to pass a sobriety test, due to the tolerance he's acquired over the years, but then turns out to have some outrageous BAC that would kill a normal person.
 
  • #50
quadraphonics said:
No, but the law has a "presumptive rebuttal" clause (at least I think that's what it's called) that let's them presume that you were in fact impaired if your BAC was above a certain threshold, regardless of whether they can demonstrate any actual impairment. Every few years you hear a story on the news about an alcoholic that is easily able to pass a sobriety test, due to the tolerance he's acquired over the years, but then turns out to have some outrageous BAC that would kill a normal person.

Yes, I've heard of such things. The Sheriffs told me that they decided to breathalize me anyway because had I later that night gotten into an accident and shown over the limit they would have been held responsible.
 
  • #51
TheStatutoryApe said:
Yes, I've heard of such things. The Sheriffs told me that they decided to breathalize me anyway because had I later that night gotten into an accident and shown over the limit they would have been held responsible.

and you believed them? they breathalized you because they wanted to arrest you for DUI. Around here we are starting to get a lot of DUI checkpoints, every single car gets pulled over and if they have any suspicion that you may have had something to drink they direct you a mobile trailer with a breathalyzer. I'm against drunk driving, but the scary thing is how easy it can be to technically be guilty. Go out to dinner, have a couple of drinks and while you aren't drunk and would probably drive home just fine, if you are unlucky you could end up with a DUI. Every one of us has probably driven when they had a BAC of .08, which is the limit here.
 
  • #52
MeJennifer said:
Talking about impairment, is it true that fighter pilots in the US army get amphetamines ?

I don't think so anymore, but during WWII it was widely used.
 
  • #53
What's really stupid to me is the fact that unless you get pulled over, you have no clue how many drinks it takes for you to become over the limit. This is information everyone should know. Is it one beer, two beers?

If I have two beers, how long do I have to wait?

Being arrested for having a beer or two with their meal is flat out moronic. The cops should find something better to do with their time. Like cleaning up the ghettos. The only reason they care about DWI/DUI is because they can fine your *** to now tomorrow.

I bet if there was no fine, only jail time, the cops wouldn't care because they would have full prisons and no money to pay for anything.
 
  • #54
Cyrus said:
What's really stupid to me is the fact that unless you get pulled over, you have no clue how many drinks it takes for you to become over the limit. This is information everyone should know. Is it one beer, two beers?

Where I grew up, the cops would occasionally send an on-duty officer to the local bars with a breathalyzer, so that people could use it to get an idea of how much effect a given amount of drinking would have on their BAC. I think the idea is that a lot of drunk driving occurs in situations where people develop a habit of drinking and then driving (while still under the limit), but over time their comfort level and alcohol intake starts to creep up. So you want to give them some feedback *before* they actually get up to the point of driving drunk.

Probably in larger, less fortunate cities they do not have the spare resources to do this, though.
 
  • #55
Cyrus said:
What's really stupid to me is the fact that unless you get pulled over, you have no clue how many drinks it takes for you to become over the limit. This is information everyone should know. Is it one beer, two beers?

Ha, Cyrus, you're looking at it through engineer's eyes. To control a variable, you have to be able to measure it...how can you be under a target that you can't measure?
 
  • #56
lisab said:
Ha, Cyrus, you're looking at it through engineer's eyes. To control a variable, you have to be able to measure it...how can you be under a target that you can't measure?

What do you mean? I thought the thing will measure a lower bounded threshold. Meaning, it can measure to say 0.005% BAC, but 0.02% is illegal.
 
  • #57
blood alcohol is almost completely dependent on body weight I think. Impairment is much more subjective though.
 
  • #58
tribdog said:
blood alcohol is almost completely dependent on body weight

That's correct. The lower the body weight, the less alcohol you need to consume to have a high BAC reading.
 
  • #59
Cyrus said:
What do you mean? I thought the thing will measure a lower bounded threshold. Meaning, it can measure to say 0.005% BAC, but 0.02% is illegal.


The drinker controls the number of drinks they imbibe; the breathalyzer measures alcohol in the blood. There is no way an average person can know exactly how the number of drinks affects BAC.
 
  • #60
lisab said:
The drinker controls the number of drinks they imbibe; the breathalyzer measures alcohol in the blood. There is no way an average person can know exactly how the number of drinks affects BAC.

I thought there was a pretty straight forward equation to figure out your bac pretty accurately.
 

Similar threads

News Why do our governments suck so bad?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
From an evolutionary perspective, why do women have bosoms?
  • · Replies 119 ·
4
Replies
119
Views
23K
Why do we want to achieve freedom?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
9K
News Why do we use the words 'us' and 'them', when neither group exists
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K