<p>I don’t see the analogy.</p>
<p>My H doesn’t drink so I always have a designated driver. 
We also use public transportation whenever we can, it is so much less stressful not to have to deal with traffic, parking, worrying about car theft…
We need better public transportation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Drunk bicycling is dangerous for the same reasons drunk driving is (although more of the danger is borne by oneself versus others).</p></li>
<li><p>One can get arrested for DUI on a bicycle.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>That does not mean that all of them drink and drive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Never done so.</p>
<p>
I hope you’re not suggesting to leave it up to the driver to decide if they’re ‘in good condition to drive’ rather than use objective info like a BAC and other tests. I think probably a significant percentage, probably close to 100%, of drunk drivers ‘think’ they’re in good condition to drive or else they wouldn’t have gotten behind the wheel and started driving - obviously.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here. </p>
<p>watching a family member almost die pretty much takes all the fun out of the idea of drinking and driving.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your “a cop may have other ideas” and anecdotes of what’s apparently going on in your neighborhood with cops padding stats implies the officers are, essentially, fabricating evidence in order to arrest people. What’s so different in a cop lying about my abilities to drive as miraculously finding a kilo in my trunk?</p>
<p>Also, I suppose I should answer the question. If I do drink, I try to wait at least an hour and a half per drink before I even start thinking about driving. I try to stop drinking at least an hour before driving. For that reason I hardly ever drink when I go out to restaurants (or if I know I’m not going to stay somewhere for a few hours).</p>
<p>When I say the “cop may have other ideas”, I am not necessarily suggesting he is going to fabricate evidence or make something up. Two different cops might arrive at very different conclusions because there is a certain amount of subjectivity in determining whether you have passed a sobriety test. You had a drink or two with your meal and think you able to drive unimpaired, but the police officer might think differently. </p>
<p>Here is the rub: even if the officer is wrong, under the law as it is presently construed, you are going to be found guilty. The burden of proof rests with the accused, the opposite of the bedrock principle that underlies American jurisprudence. </p>
<p>Also, breathalyzers are handheld machines that are not always accurate, which is why lawyers typically advise anyone in this situation to refuse the test and insist on a blood test instead. In some jurisdictions, a driver has the right to be administered a blood test.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have you driven a vehicle or bicycle after having enough alcohol recently enough to (a) have a non-zero BAC if the test is accurate, (b) have a 0.08% BAC if the test is accurate? If so, how often?</p>
<p>ucb, when I go out to eat I will sometimes have a beer with my dinner. Once in awhile, I may order two but probably won’t finish the second. Is my BAC > 0? Yes, I would imagine so. Is it less than 0.08%? Yes, I would think it would be much less. I will drive if I think I am sober. Could someone disagree with my assessment of my faculties? Maybe but I hope not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t – ever. My spouse hasn’t, my parents haven’t, my children haven’t, and my siblings, my spouse’s siblings, and all their children haven’t. The reason I know this for certain? None of us has ever drunk alcohol at all.</p>
<p>However, let’s put this in terms that relate to me, a nondrinker. I have been on both prescription and nonprescription medicine with a warning on the label (in fine print) that one of the side effects is drowsiness and that one shouldn’t drive after taking the medicine. I NEVER drive after taking such medicine. Sometimes I don’t feel sleepy at all, but I don’t “judge for myself” whether I can drive, decide that the medicine hasn’t kicked in yet, or “just” drive a few miles. I don’t drive, period. Yes, that can be inconvenient. Someone else may have to drive me during that time, but too bad. If I can read the fine print on a label and follow those instructions, how much more can a person heed the pervasive, constantly-before-the-public warning about drinking and driving.</p>
<p>Or, put it this way, I like to drink water. You’ll find me with a water bottle by my side everywhere I go. I will choose to drink water at just about any occasion, whatever else is offered. If, however, for some strange reason drinking water might possibly impair my ability to drive, I would have a choice to make – drink something else or not drive. That’s pretty darn simple, and I would have no excuse to make any other decision.</p>
<p>The dangers of drinking and driving are taught, emphasized, re-emphasized, abundantly clear, glaringly obvious, etc. etc. No one has any excuse for drinking and driving. No one. If after knowing what the law is, being instructed as to the dangers of driving drunk, hearing about people killed and maimed by drunk drivers, etc., someone still puts others’ lives in danger by drinking and driving, that person needs to at least serve some time. Anyone that uncaring about anyone else’s life needs a hefty dose of Scared Straight.</p>
<p>If impaired drivers killed only themselves and never injured or took anyone else out, then yeah, maybe we could just chalk it all up to Darwinism and “a good kid making a bad choice”. As long as they are a threat to others on the road or in their car, though, it’s another story.</p>
<p>Here’s why I think we need the financial penalty, and not the prison penalty, for first offenses. We want a penalty that will deter the offender–but that won’t deter juries (and prosecutors) from imposing the penalty. Juries may be hesitant to lock up somebody with no criminal record–but I don’t think they’ll be hesitant to impose a big fine. And a few cases of somebody having to pay fines of $50,000 would get people’s attention.</p>
<p>^The problem with that idea is that for some people $50,000 is more than a year’s salary. It would bankrupt the family. For a lucky few it’s the money that would otherwise have been donated to the fine art museum’s annual fund drive. I think the combination of fines, education, CS and possible jail time hits everyone regardless of income or job status.</p>
<p>Here are several alternative ways of treating the drunk driving problem that have been shown to be cost effective and to reduce recidivism. They are: vehicle impoundment, Ignition interlock system, electronically monitored house arrest and intensive probation supervision with treatment. </p>
<p>[Repeat</a> DUI Offenders : Impaired Driving - Arizona Department of Public Safety](<a href=“http://www.azdps.gov/information/Impaired_Driving/Repeat_Offenders/]Repeat”>http://www.azdps.gov/information/Impaired_Driving/Repeat_Offenders/)</p>
<p>Conviction rates are not that low and seem to turn on the existence of breath and blood evidence. It does not seem to be the severity of the penalty that determines the outcome of the trial.
<a href=“http://www.tdcaa.com/journal/new-dwi-prosecution[/url]”>http://www.tdcaa.com/journal/new-dwi-prosecution</a></p>
<p>
This is why I think the fine should be proportional to the criminal’s income (or possibly assets). If $50,000 is no biggie to him, then let him pay $200,000.</p>
<p>It’s being done in some European countries: <a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Speeding-fines-being-linked-to-income-in-Europe-3275939.php[/url]”>http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Speeding-fines-being-linked-to-income-in-Europe-3275939.php</a> It would be interesting to know how well it works as a deterrent.</p>
<p>“Here is the rub: even if the officer is wrong, under the law as it is presently construed, you are going to be found guilty. The burden of proof rests with the accused, the opposite of the bedrock principle that underlies American jurisprudence.”</p>
<p>I have no clue where you live, but in my state, that’s not how it works AT ALL. 90% plus of cases don’t result in a trial, let alone a finding. 90% of cases don’t even result in a plea. The prosecutor provides the arrested with the option of alcohol education (which the one arrested has to pay for), and there is no plea or finding unless the one arrested is rearrested in a certain time frame for DUI, in which case the second arrest is counted as a second offense.</p>
<p>So, really, where do you live?</p>
<p>I live in Ca. I think you are stuck in a time warp. Go find a first time DUI offender in the last few years and ask him/her what the process was like and how much did it cost. It is a far cry from the slap on the wrist you are describing.</p>
<p>From a Massachusetts legal website:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The above (1 year probation, loss of license for 45 days and alcohol education program) were exactly what my husband’s co-worker received as a first time offender last year. Almost no one knew he’d been arrested. He was not granted a hardship license, so the biggest hassle for him was the inability to drive for a month and a half.</p>
<p>From what I have seen online, a first time DUI in California (if there are no aggravating factors) cannot give rise to jail time. Goldenpooch–what California penal code provision allows for jail time for a first offense without aggravating factors?</p>