Wrong way drivers...

Related to a topic below, AZ has had an increase in wrong way drivers on the freeway, many of them resulting in a fatality, including a couple patrol officers. Only a couple have involved old people with Alzheimer's; the rest were all drunk drivers. My opinion is that we need to increase all penalties for drunk drivers, all the way up to the death penalty. Might as well give a drunk a loaded gun to shoot someone as let him drive a car when drunk - I see no difference.

Dick I agree on the stiff penalties. Just make the guy drunk though. Around here the Drunk driving is a mainly a money making racket for the counties. I do not agree with the .08 level. The .10 was more like it. I do not drink and have had friends killed by drunk drivers. So I am not pro drinkers but .o8 is too low.

I say make it .01, the .08 is still to high. I have no use for any thing with alchol in it for to drink. And put the penalties up to where they would due some good. As I used to understand the drunk was always taken to jail for 3 days, that would make some start to think. Just going in to have to pay a small fine does not work.

You think it's bad for wrong way drivers in your area. Some days around here everybody is driving the wrong way except me.

Ive lost a wife and child, and a brother to a drunk driver, and I can assure you the penalties are not stiff enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The one who killed my wife and child walked, but I do have some comfort that 2 years ago he was shot in the head by his wife. My brother was killed when a guy pulling a trailer with 3 lawnmowers on it was drunk, ran off the road, flipped and threw the mowers off, one hitting the windshield of the car my brother was in. He met his Maker shortly afterwards in jail, they said he hug himself, but thats not justice.

Back in the day traffic was slow and not much of it if you had a handicap you probably wouldn't get in trouble as you would today. With higher speeds and more traffic the penalty should be stiffer . Recently seen a guy arrested for his 8 th time he needs jail time.
Let's not forget texting to. If my math is right going at 60 miles per hour that's a mile a minute in other words you can go the length of a 40 in 15 seconds or the distance of 4 telephone poles

I think I read where half the deaths on the highway are caused by drunk drivers. If you kill someone while drunk in Indiana mandatory jail time.. For all good the law does, doesn't stop a drunk. Now all to the list drugs and medical marijuana.

Far more people die from Rx pain killers than deaths on the nations highways. Compared to pain killers a tiny fraction of people die from guns. More than half the gun deaths are suicide too.

Wish more people would get madder about drunks, Rx overdoses than focus their anger towards guns in another direction.

However if you think about it, drunks, Rx junkies and mass murders are all mentally ill. Stop the madness.

I agree, JD. DUI is a racket for law enforcement and parts of the legal profession.

That said, I do support non-selective enforcement of reckless operation laws regardless, impaired or otherwise.

Dean

I agree regarding texting and related activities while driving.

Such reckless activities will likely not receive the same scrutiny as DUI until there is a MADT to create media hysteria.

Dean

In a little bit of defense here. I was coming home from a stockyard south of here a few months ago. The road goes to 4 lane divided highway where it goes over the expressway. Somebody came off the exit and turned south in to the northbound,right at me. She stopped quick and backed over to the side of the road. My wife started cursing her. I told her not to holler too loud,I did the same thing myself at the same exit 30 years or so ago.

My sister in law , husband and their baby were hit by a wrong way drunk driver on the freeway, in MY car no less. I had borrowed it to them when they came in from out of town. No one was hurt badly, but 8 vehicles were totaled in all. I will never forget what the highway patrolman told me at the scene, he said "always drive in the right lane on the freeways, these drunks wake up at the last minute and think they are just in the wrong lane of a two-lane road, and swerve to their right to get back over. "

We have had two recently in Southern Indiana, one on US Hwy killing the driver who was entering the hwy and went the wrong way, she was in her eighties and another one on I69
when one driver was going the wrong way hitting another car. No details on that one yet but both were about 40 yrs old.

Can't name them for sure, but there are countries, most third world I think, where drunk driving IS a capitol offense. And they don't beat around the bush.

Back when live television was just that. LIVE. They tried to demonstrate how even one drink of alcohol significantly affected reaction times by placing a driver in a simulator and presenting an emergency where the driver would have to perform a braking and avoidance maneuver. Reaction time was recorded. Then, they had the driver consume one drink and they came back and had him perform again. This time, his reaction time was much better and he handled the emergency much faster. They tried to back peddle and explain why that might have happened but we were all laughing so hard it didn't matter.

Leroy, I completely agree with you. My beautiful daughter (at age 20) was killed by an drunk driver animal down in Tenn and as far as I know, he is walking around to this day. The penalties are nowhere stiff enough.

It's too bad the person who makes the irresponsible mistake of driving drunk once in his life is thrown into the same category as the habitual drunk driver when an accident happens, but how do you sort that out? Maybe a good normally responsible person is having an extra bad day with stress at work or at home and drowns his sorrows at the bar and is so lost in his momentary depression he has a weak moment and gets in his car, killing someone on the way home. Should he be executed, leaving behind a wife and kids and grieving parents? The innocent person who is killed leaves behind a grieving family and possibly financial hardship for years. Maybe the young children will have emotional and social problem because of this.

I constantly read in the paper stories about the third time drunken driver being arrested without a license or insurance. Obviously taking away his license and throwing him in jail for a few days hasn't protected us much. The habitual drunk usui've neally isn't a vicious mean hearted criminal brainwashed by some radical group. The drunk is not cocking that gun (car) and purposely pointing it at a crowd and pulling the trigger. A person who points the gun at the crowd has control of that gun. A drunk who drives his car into a crowd does not have control of that car because he does not have control of his brain. I don't know how we can get justice by punishing after the fact. How does John M get justice for the heartbreaking grief he is going through? It doesn't seem like severe punishment is slowing the instances of drunken driving.

I don't know if this is a fair comparison or not, but how do Marilyn and I get fair justice against the irresponsible surgeon who took our daughter and orphaned three little girls? I've never shared with you the heartbreak and problems those girls have been through and I never will but it's very troubling. If our daughter would have been killed by a drunk driver the consequences would have been the same so I can say there is some correlation between the two. We found out the medical profession can't weed out every irresponsible doctor and I would like to believe the medical profession has more control over it's brethren than we have over those among us who drink. Better quit. I hope I don't get this good post poofed.

Once again, I think we need to look at the more successful developed countries, just like with health care, I think they have a better solution to drunk drivers. I think in Europe and Scandinavia drunk driving is a much more serious offence than in the states.

I wouldn't disagree with anyones posts,but there is NO ANSWER because Drinking is a SOCIALLY accepted thing.JUDGES do it,lawyers,police congressmen do it,so who is going to stop it(NO BODY)??Even the "MAAD"people get arrested for it.I have known of a lot of drinkers-drunks over the years that have ATTORNEY (and some of whom,that is their sole practice) on retainer just for this need.Never have a DUI conviction on their record,even while being stopped 4-5 times a year.Gets plead down to some minor offence each time.NO I don't drink,never have and don't condone drunken driving.

i am not for drunk driving but how many of you have had a drink or two while eating at a restaurant and than got behind the wheel and drove home. You may not feel drunk but according to the law if you blow over .08 you are guilty. And yes with 2 drinks you will be higher than the limit. I have no solution just throwing a different view out because the majority of people have done this

(quoted from post at 18:38:20 01/27/16) i am not for drunk driving but how many of you have had a drink or two while eating at a restaurant and than got behind the wheel and drove home. You may not feel drunk but according to the law if you blow over .08 you are guilty. And yes with 2 drinks you will be higher than the limit. I have no solution just throwing a different view out because the majority of people have done this

Click to expand...

I have a solution that I follow... when I have to drive I don't drink, period. If I do drink, the wife drives (Pepsi is her drug of choice in social situations).

I'll weigh in on this just a bit.

Regardless of the post below stating that a drink improved reactions, I am of the opinion that a single drink impairs performance. I haven't had a drink in 30 years now, but when I was younger it was always mandatory among my group of friends to have a designated driver drinking/holding soda/water.

My $0.02,

Kirk

Better do more research on your numbers. One or two "drinks" as served at a bar or restaurant will not result in the numbers you're putting out unless you're ordering doubles. Or drinking beer out of a pitcher. Depends on body mass, etc. Normally, a properly mixed drink will raise the blood alcohol level of a 200 pound individual about .02 percent. In that case, it would take about 4 drinks to reach .08 but that would depend on the length of time spent consuming them. Each drink would be dissipated by the body in about three hours.

More successful developed countries? Europe, Scandanavia? Surely you jest, the majority of European countries are teetering on self extinction due to being overrun by nnalert, with bankrupt governments, national identities all but gone for good, steadily eroding native populations, repressive tax rates and shattered economies, better hope you don't get what you wish for.

(quoted from post at 09:51:17 01/27/16) Once again, I think we need to look at the more successful developed countries, just like with health care, I think they have a better solution to drunk drivers. I think in Europe and Scandinavia drunk driving is a much more serious offence than in the states.

Click to expand...

European countries seem to have a much lower threshold for the alchohol limit ~0.03 compared to US 0.08. And some have zero tolerance for new drivers -- which is a very good idea not getting them started driving around buzzed like here.

I'd rather meet a drunk on the road than someone texting or gabbing on their phone. At least the drunk has his eyes on the road and is trying to drive. TDF

I'd agree

The .08 standard is remarkably high.

Just google blood alcohol calculator

I weigh 215

So I can suck down four beers on an empty stomach in ten minutes, then legally hop into my car and go.

Or I could drink 6 beers in two hours and still be legal.

I'm a beer drinker. I know exactly what it feels like to suck down four beers in ten minutes on an empty stomach, or even six in two hours.

And I can tell you for sure - I shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car, or anything else for that matter.

If you're over .08 and get caught, you can't complain that you didn't know.

When I think it used to be .1 ! I'd have to suck down a full six pack in 10 minutes to approach that! Crazy.

(quoted from post at 12:27:47 01/27/16) More successful developed countries? Europe, Scandanavia? Surely you jest, the majority of European countries are teetering on self extinction due to being overrun by nnalert, with bankrupt governments, national identities all but gone for good, steadily eroding native populations, repressive tax rates and shattered economies, better hope you don't get what you wish for.

Click to expand...

A bit off topic, but the Scandanavia isn't bankrupt.

I have seen that a couple of times. You Laugh your butt off at all of the know it alls. Amen.

You can argue that the USA is not bankrupt either and you would be technically, legally correct in a clintonesque, parsed meaning way, however, in reality, all major western governments are bankrupt, fiat money printers. Try what the government does in your private dealings and see what happens. ''Europe'' is not a country either but it encompasses many failed states, the point was/is, the USA does not need to emulate any of them, we need to clean our own house up and return to constitutional government, by and for ''we the people''.

I don't drink alcohol in any form. It is none of my business if an individual drinks like a fish however it is my business when that individual gets on a public roadway. At this point the person becomes a lethel weapon who has the potential of destroying lives. My wife's cousins three children were coming home from a 4H event and were hit head on by a drunk who had passed out at the wheel. Two were killed instantly and the other was in a truma unit for weeks and will never get over it. These kids were good kids active in 4H, FFA and church. The boy helped me take up hay and was a real worker.
The drunk wasn't seriously injured. There are two children left but the family is destroyed.

It would be very easy to get on going the wrong way the way these highways are designed. When they are so wide you think you are in next county when you get to the lane you are supposed to be in. If you are sober you would very quickly realize you were going the wrong way and try to do something about it. The impaired does not even realize he is going the wrong way when cars are constantly swerving around him and keeps going, not trying to get off side of road and get turned around to be going the correct direction.

While I'm generally in favor of capital punishment I'm totally against revenge killing.

In most states that allow and actually carry out the death penalty manslaughter and negligent homicide are not included.

Now I don't drink and drive nor do I condone it. And I'm not making excuses for them. But that drunk person didn't intend to kill anyone. They intended to go home and sleep it off. And they, because of the booze are convinced that they are OK to drive. I do believe that longer jail times are needed but with prison overcrowding that isn't going to happen. A judge is more apt to stick a guy selling a little pot in jail for a few years than he is a drunk driver in spite of the number of states that have felony DUI laws.

Only 2 countries in the world have the death penalty for DUI, El Salvador and Bulgaria (2nd offence).

The reason that most of Europe has a much lower rate of DUI is 2 fold. One is that with the general drinking culture in most European countries it just isn't considered acceptable and kids are taught that both at school and at home. The 2nd part is because of the size of the countries there they have working mass transit so the perceived need to drink and drive isn't there.

The US military had a huge problem with drinking and driving for years. It was indeed part of the culture. Then, because of MADD and the news media in 86 or 87 they came up with a new policy. Any officer or NCO involved in ANY alcohol or drug related incident would be processed for a discharge. When DUI's could destroy a career the number of DUI's drastically decreased. By 1990 most commanders processed anyone who got a DUI regardless of rank for discharge and in fact a unit's DUI rate could reflect adversely on a commanders career.

I really don't have an answer for the problem. Laws making the bar tender take keys and the bar liable haven't worked. My wife's own aunt lost her bar because of that. Not only did she take a guys keys, she continued to serve him. Then at closing time, in a small town with no motels gave them back. He didn't make it 5 miles before he killed himself in a DUI wreck. The state of MN gave her a stiff fine and took her liquor license. No criminal charges. Till the day she died she believed she had done nothing wrong. Most areas don't have enough cops to adequately patrol either. About 10 years ago the MN state police released it's report on the number of DUI arrests for the year. It was higher than normal. In an interview the state police commander said something to the effect that they had not had more patrols out. That they had just caught more. Then he stated that he thought that the police, because of lack of man power, were only catching about 40% or so.

Rick

I have a few comments of my own to add to this discussion.......

First, let me say that the whole thing about "punishment after the fact" and about how jail time or punishment does not deter, let me say this: While the drunk is in jail, he or she will not be out driving around drunk and potentially killing yet another. I'm all for longer sentences and harsher punishments,

Second, let me say that impairment begins with the first drink. I proved this to myself years ago. I was taking music lessons. Me teacher suggested that I record some of my practice to help to analyze my mistakes and weak spots. While recording, I did my own little experiment. I had a single drink at about the midpoint of the recording. While my brain was telling me that I was sounding better and more confident, the recording told quite a different story. The bottom line: IMPAIRMENT BEGINS WITH THE FIRST DRINK. PERIOD!!!

Lastly, for the most part, I do not agree with capital punishment. It should be reserved for only the most heinous crimes. For as long as alcoholic beverages are easily accessible, there will be abusers. What is needed is a means of keeping drunks off the roads. Sobriety testers in vehicles of offenders would be a good start. At least that would help to keep them from driving under the influence. Long jail sentences for repeat offenders may not prevent drunks from driving, but it would keep them off the roads longer thereby making the highways safer for all.