What you are describing happens at ALL ages.

The statistics don't lie .

The most accident prone group is 16-24 Males.

Something about showing off,generally being immature towards the driving laws & thinking they are invincible.

 

I am not sure that anything has actually worked for repear offenders except keeping them in jail. Most of them I know still drive, and still drink even after jail time and revocation. I am not sure what the solution is, but you can do your part to stay alive by being an alert driver and watching every intersection, and side street plus keeping yourself alert at all times to any vehicles that are erratic. This includes looking in the mirror too. Being stupid or complacent is very dangerous too and you can stop that right in your own car.

I think the police could do more by watching clubs when they close and nabbing the drunks as the unlock the car. I hate to say it but I live in a dry county and we don't have near the problem with drunk drivers as other places I have lived.

 

Sister-in-law learned the hard way about watching for drunks. She and her husband were coming home from Savannah (long 2-lane stretch, high accident area) about 10 PM when they came up on a Dodge truck weaving around. He was going slow enough that they passed him and continued on.
There was a construction area on a bridge ahead, with signs and flagmen. The 2 cars in front of her stopped. So did she. The Dodge who was now going about 65 did not. On impact it launched her Toyota into an explorer which got sent into a cherokee. Her husband got the worst injuries, in spite of seatbelt and airbag. (Had he not had them he'd still be embedded in the dash.) The guy in front got internals and punctured lung. The entire back end of her car and the child seats were demolished, if the kids were with her they'd be gone.
The obviously intoxicated Dodge driver was mainly unharmed and just happened to be buds with the cop on the scene. He got a ride home and a ticket for reckless driving in a construction zone. That's it.

I would be tempted to use Jarlaxle's logic here: Off with his head!
He nearly killed someone and got away with it. But if you're a member of the Bubba System I guess that's what happens. Still makes me mad to think about.

 

Bowers, this is one of the few instances where I would have considered a civil suit. Even better if they could get all the people involved in the pileup on the case. Infuriating when someone gets away with attempted murder (as I see drunk driving involved accidents). I was T-Boned by a drunk driver when I was 18. Luckily, I was in my truck and didn't get hurt . But my first truck went straight to the junkyard, a sad day. But anyway, thank whatever you hold Holy on a daily basis that the children were not with your sis-in-law. Cops that don't enforce the laws are sometimes worse than those that break them.

 

One night last winter I was following a woman who was swerving WILDLY all over the road. I had no cell phone, so I couldn't call the cops on her. I have done that in the past.

A mile or two later, she swerves off the road and takes out a telephone pole. I saw the whole thing happen, as I was 200 yards behind her. Had an older nissan car. Snapped the pole right off. She must have hit it doing 50. Never even hit the brakes.

I was the first one there. After walking over, I surveyed the damage. The right front wheel was ready to roll away. That entire corner of the car was destroyed. I asked her if she was alright. She said, and I kid you not, "I think I hit something." Then she tried to drive away. I didn't bother trying to stop her, because I knew she wouldn't get very far on three wheels.

I found out later she had no license, either. As I understand it, she got in a lot of trouble.

And good for her, I say. She should spend the next 10 years in jail.

 

2bowers. Let me change the scenario just for the sake of making a point. Say your sister-in-law had a couple of drinks and blew a .08 or whatever the legally intoxicated limit is. Also say the person in the front car gets killed. Now your sister-in-law can be charged with manslaughter. It doesn't have to be her fault, all she has to be is legally under the influence and involved. I just thought I would throw that in.

 

In Kansas, if you are driving drunk, they can impound the car. Whether it's yous or not and to get it back you have to pay all sorts of fee's and what not.

 

In theory- you make a first offense punishable with a $10,000 fine, 90 days in jail and forfeiture of the vehicle. That kind of penalty would easily fund additional enforcement. Every 8 or 10 convictions would pay for another police officer and vehicle for a year.

Now station that new officer and vehicle 100 yards from a large, busy bar and let him stop vehicles at the end of the block at a sobriety checkpoint. If working that checkpoint several nights a month doesn't yield 10-20 drunk driving convictions nightly I'd eat my hat. Those convictions in turn fund more enforcement at other area watering holes.

Second convictions produce $25,000 fines and 2-5 year jail terms with third convictions brining 20-30 year sentences: Take 'em off the streets.

Of course the ACLU would immediately file suit for "selective enforcement" because sobriety checkpoints were unfairly targeting patrons of drinking establishments... and sadly, they would probably win: "If you're going to set up checkpoints to check bar patrons you must also set up checkpoints to check those leaving Wednesday night church services and Monday night girl scout meetings." ARGH

Common sense says it's a highly solvable problem. Unfortunately there isn't much common sense left in today's society where murders walk free on loopholes and technicalities while juries award millions in damages because hot coffee turned out to be hot.

Where has justice gone?

 

I agree almost completely with your theoretical enforcement, Five. Only problem I have with it is the jail time. The prison system is way too over-crowded as it is. Taking their vehicle and that much money from them on each conviction, especially with the amount increasing, will do better than any jail will do, in my opinion. They won't have the money to afford a new car, let alone be able to drive one drunk. Theoretically, by the second offense, they would be taken off the roads for a very long time. I'd rather have them sitting in their house thinking of what htey have done to themselves instead of them taking up space in prisons that would be better utilized by murderers, rapists, child molestors,, etc. Besides the fact,, then now I am paying for their stupidity. As well as every other tax payer. I don't need them put away, I need them taught a lesson. One they have no choice but to learn. I would go so far as to say that most people have driven when they shouldn't have at least once. Are they bad people? No. Are they a threat to society on a daily basis? No. Were they stupid and lost their sense of accountability? Yes. Not something punishable by taking their life away. Repeat offenders, i.e. anyone convicted for a third time or more should be used as a work corp, in my opinion. Setting up a work release camp is far less "taxing" (no pun intended) on the taxpayers. They pay to live there, same basic expenses as home. Their salaries wouldn't cover the administration or security force for the complex, but that would be cheaper for us than a regular prison. Work in the community at any job they can get, and live under lock and key for a determined amount of time. The sobriety checkpoint issue with the ACLU is one of their downfalls, I'd say. You don't go to a clothing store to buy a new radiator. There are ways to work around that though. Always a way around any problem

 

drunk driving doesnt pay.......why is there brail on the numbers at a drive up atm.

 

This is true and a good point. My issue was that the guy who caused it was obviously drinking, yet did not even get a breathalyzer test. The cop stated he "didn't seem drunk" to him. I thought sobriety tests were practically mandatory after an accident nowadays.

Point is that there can be all kinds of laws passed but if no one enforces them they do no good. And I am sure if Shay had hit the Dodge guy instead of the other way around, she would have got the test, the tickets, etc. because Dodge was tight with the cop.

The key is enforcement, regardless of which punishment you support. NO exceptions, I don't care if you're the President's daughter, you do the crime you do the time. Tougher DUI laws, yes. Tougher penalties, no problem. Actually getting them enforced, well that will be harder. My 2 cents.

 

grapegravey, I think you have some good ides there. I think they should re-institute prison labor gangs, but many of the people that get DUIs don't have a pot to pee in let alone any money to pay the fine. So they could work it off. The rich and the poor alike. And everyone should get equal representation in court. Each court district would have a pool of public defenders that you would get your lawyer from and that cost would also be worked out. No more walking because you could afford Bill Kunsler to rip apart the assistant D.A.
I am not one to want big brother in my life any more than he already is but any solution to this problem may have an affect on the freedom of all citizens. Like tightening up the availability of alcohol and taxing it more with the money specifically earmarked to address the problem would be a start, but it is just more laws requiring more enforcement.

 

Yeah, in theory, it's a great idea, willow, but it would never get put into effect. One major reason, In My Opinion, is the amount of drunk driving done by rich folks as well as the downtrodden. I was thinking afterwards about that issue and would have made the change that the only way to work off the fine was through labor camps. Keeping in mind that the severity of a third + offense is what constitutes this action. I'm nice enough to give someone a second chance, but not a third or more. I've been hearing over and over through the years about the amount of people killed in automobile crashes, most of them under-the-influence involved. And it's never the drunk that dies, he's too loose, just bounces around. Always the innocent couple with their children in the backseat doing the speed limit on the way home from the movies or grandma's. I'm not sure there is a solution to this problem beyond people receiving "common sense shots". The whole point being I hate to see our prison overflowing and "real" criminals being released early for lack of space. Stupidity does not warrant incarceration in my book. Premeditation does. Maybe Dono could put it into law when we all get him elected


Oh yeah, and I definitely agree about the lawyer thing. I would venture to say that over 90% of the DUI cases are pretty much cut and dry. Either you were legally drunk or not, period. There is nothing to dispute except the penalties. Which should be non-corruptible. No matter how much money you have and who your lawyer plays golf with.

 

My best friend from high school was one of the best DUI attorneys in westrn S. Dak. He walked guys with .25 blood alcohol because the cops did something stupid, like forgetting to read the miranda. It used to amaze me at the things he could get a guy off for, and how really stupid the cops could be sometimes.
And grape you are right about the rich folks. We even have our own politicians getting pulled over for drunk driving, and a lot more than you know about because these things are handled "diplomatically" and kept quite. I even lived in a state where our Governor was found sleeping one off in his car, more than once. And with the keys in the ignition that is guilty. Of course he wasn't ever arrested and few people knew about it, although around the capitol it was no big secret. So I guess we really can't expect much legislation with any real teeth.

 

Drunk drivers need to be dropped 4 feet with nooses over their heads. Problem solved.