Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Punishment for driving while impaired

  1. #1
    Senior Member razz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    7,602

    Punishment for driving while impaired

    I know that this has been dealt with a number of times but there is no justification for any impairment and driving.
    This article https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/princ...mons-1.6061134 is a reminder that drugs, including alcohol, kill if they impair but they kill more than one person, they have long-term effects on the families and communities where the loss is experienced.

    "A life sentence for our family
    She pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years in prison. Offenders convicted of impaired driving causing death are eligible for parole after serving one-third of the sentence, so even if you kill someone, you could be released in 1.5 years or less. The sentence for our family is life.

    "Impaired driving causing death" sounds so sterile. If someone were drunk and took a baseball bat to beat a complete stranger to death, we all would be horrified.

    Stratford, P.E.I., woman charged in cyclist's death
    Stratford woman pleads guilty to impaired driving causing death
    P.E.I. driver sentenced to 5 years in prison for fatal crash that killed cyclist
    However, drink and choose a 4,000-pound weapon (a car), instead of a bat, hit someone from behind so hard that he suffers fatal blunt-force injuries to his head, neck, chest and abdomen, plead guilty and you'll be out in no time. Picture using the bat instead of the car to do that to a person.

    People may even sympathize with the driver because it was just a coincidence or bad luck that they killed a complete stranger before getting to their destination that day.

    After all, they weren't going far…

    I had to identify Jacob's body at the morgue late on the night he died and still see the damage done to him and his wide-open eyes when I try to sleep. He was still wearing his new bike helmet.

    Jacob had opted to be an organ donor a few years ago, but we could not donate his organs because he had to be sent to Nova Scotia for an autopsy to support the charges. All his training and fitness, and very healthy organs, as per the autopsy report, were wasted. "
    As Cicero said, “Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the others.”

  2. #2
    Senior Member Tradd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    The Suburban Midwest
    Posts
    5,224
    Drunk drivers often get rather light sentences here, too.

    One of the concerns police have about marijuana being made legal is that there isn’t a quick test to test impairment, unlike with the breathalyzer for alcohol.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Price County, WI
    Posts
    1,524
    The CBC First Person article is a strong appeal to refrain from drinking and driving, and to report intoxicated drivers to law enforcement.

    MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) has campaigned in the USA for:
    Ignition Interlock laws at the state level. 34 states and DC have passed these. MADD says that interlocks produce a 67% decrease in repeat DUI offenses. <I question whether offenders serving longer time in prison would be as effective in reducing repeat DUI offenses.>
    Sobriety checkpoints realize a 17% decrease in drunk driving. <Advertising that "if you drive drunk, you will be pulled over" increases the impact.>
    Designated drivers (and taxis/UBER) "take personal responsibility for keeping our shared roadways safe by planning to get home safely, if your night includes alcohol."

    MADD's most recent rating of the states gave AZ 5/5 on their enacted legislation on drunk driving.
    MADD awarded 4.5 to CO, DE, IL, KS, MD, NV, OK and WV.
    MADD awarded 1 to MI.
    MADD awarded 0.5 to MT.

    http://www.madd.org

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    5,452
    Quote Originally Posted by dado potato View Post
    The CBC First Person article is a strong appeal to refrain from drinking and driving, and to report intoxicated drivers to law enforcement.

    MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) has campaigned in the USA for:
    Ignition Interlock laws at the state level. 34 states and DC have passed these. MADD says that interlocks produce a 67% decrease in repeat DUI offenses. <I question whether offenders serving longer time in prison would be as effective in reducing repeat DUI offenses.>
    Sobriety checkpoints realize a 17% decrease in drunk driving. <Advertising that "if you drive drunk, you will be pulled over" increases the impact.>
    Designated drivers (and taxis/UBER) "take personal responsibility for keeping our shared roadways safe by planning to get home safely, if your night includes alcohol."

    MADD's most recent rating of the states gave AZ 5/5 on their enacted legislation on drunk driving.
    MADD awarded 4.5 to CO, DE, IL, KS, MD, NV, OK and WV.
    MADD awarded 1 to MI.
    MADD awarded 0.5 to MT.

    http://www.madd.org
    I think all cars should have ignition interlocks installed as standard equipment. Why not make it part of every car, as a safety feature, like every car has headlights?

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Price County, WI
    Posts
    1,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Tybee View Post
    I think all cars should have ignition interlocks installed as standard equipment. Why not make it part of every car, as a safety feature, like every car has headlights?
    I understand that the interlock devices not only require the driver to blow before starting up the engine, but also to blow repeatedly at random intervals to prevent the ignition from shutting off. The need to blow while the vehicle is in motion is prompted by loud beep, then the driver has something like 10 seconds to grab the tube and blow into it. If my understanding is correct, the interlock device can be unpleasant for a driver and irritating to passengers.

    I am not a lawyer, but I believe that in the states that have the ignition interlock laws, the first time DUI offender can make a guilty plea and agree to have the ignition interlock installed and monitored (at his expense) for a specific period of time. Then if the court is satisfied that the offender complied with the agreement, the offense would be classified as a misdemeanor, for which the offender is fined. As I understand the practice, this sort of agreement would not be considered if a child had been a passenger in the vehicle at the the time of the DUI incident, or if there had been loss of life.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,627
    Personally, I think one of the reasons the punishments are so lenient is because soooo many people have driven while intoxicated but have been lucky enough NOT to have hurt or killed anyone. It is that little voice in their head that says "But for the grace of God, that could be me facing charges."

    The interlock device sounds interesting. Maybe if the breath is only needed at the beginning of each trip to turn the car on?



    Edited because I have no clue what happened with the spacing! LOL.
    To give pleasure to a single heart by a single act is better than a thousand heads bowing in prayer." Mahatma Gandhi
    Be nice whenever possible. It's always possible. HH Dalai Lama
    In a world where you can be anything - be kind. Unknown

  7. #7
    Senior Member Teacher Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    11,333
    No excuse for driving impaired and I find it sickening.

  8. #8
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    19,220
    You mean, install even MORE unnecessary expensive sure-to-go-wrong technology that tech bros will thwart in 5 minutes?

    I vote no to gubmnt mandated interlocks thingies.

    if you wish to have that on your own car, go for it.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,627
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    You mean, install even MORE unnecessary expensive sure-to-go-wrong technology that tech bros will thwart in 5 minutes?

    I vote no to gubmnt mandated interlocks thingies.

    if you wish to have that on your own car, go for it.
    Okay, I see what you are saying, so maybe a required addition for anyone who receives a DUI AND make it information associated/available on the car registration, so that if tech bros thwart it, there is still something saying that the device *should* be on the vehicle and working.

    I can even see having removal after a certain period of "good behavior" (or whatever). But, in the end - in my opinion - if someone drinks and chooses to drive, they should suffer the consequences.
    To give pleasure to a single heart by a single act is better than a thousand heads bowing in prayer." Mahatma Gandhi
    Be nice whenever possible. It's always possible. HH Dalai Lama
    In a world where you can be anything - be kind. Unknown

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    8,730
    They generally are required after a certain number of DUIs, but all the time have to blow in it, seems impractical, a struggle for those less able to blow enough maybe, those with COPD, older people etc..
    If you want something to get done, ask a busy person. If you want them to have a nervous breakdown that is.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •