Is DWI the worst crime in the world?

In my 18 years of Law Enforcement (Three of those as a State Trooper) I have had a "few" interacations with DUI's...these are a few "Highlights":

1. Had to go to not one, but two houses to tell parents that their children they had just sent off to the prom hours ago would not be coming home because someone got blasted and got behind the wheel of a car. Then had the privilige of escorting those same parents to identify their children.

2. Had to physically restrain a hysterical mother after she was told her 6 month old did not survive the drunk that plowed into her minivan.

3. Sprinted up a major interstate to a waiting Life Flight Helicopter holding a dying two year old because someone "had a couple of beers" after work.

4. Watched helplessly as a young soon to be mother was frantically worked on by EMS because someone "just had a drink" at a Christmas Eve Party...she nor the baby survived.

5. Listened as a father stoically recounted watching his 18 year old sneak out of the house and take off in his car to his buddies party. The last time he would see his son alive again...

Now.....ask me how I feel about drunk drivers......

God bless you, DisneyFed; I could not even begin to imagine being in your shoes in ANY of those instances. :hug:

My brother in law plowed into a minivan carrying a mom and her two kids; they lived, thank goodness. BIL was in jail for a little bit, less than a year; the kids were both in the hospital for a while, the boy longer than the girl, and from what I have been told (by BIL's now ex-wife, my sister) they are still recovering. So... in my eyes, the victims were punished FAR more than the perp, and it disgusts me. :sad2:

Anyone who is so FLAT OUT STUPID, IDIOTIC, SELFISH as to drink and then drive should be punished to the most severe extent that they can. There is NO excuse; NONE. Even ONE beer is too much; you're thirsty? Have a freekin' WATER, SODA, JUICE, MILK for crying out loud!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: Intentional stupidity I have no tolerance for.
 
Would these events be any different if the driver causing the accident had been distracted using a cell phone (or texting)? Also what you are not supplying is the BAC of the drivers. Were they at 0.08, 0.12, 0.2?

I can guarantee you that if it were your family member who was killed by a "distracted" driver, you wouldn't care how distracted the driver was.

I also don't think the BAC matters. If you drink alcohol, no matter in what quantity, DO NOT get behind the wheel.
 
Thank you. And I cannot fathom comparing DWI/DUI to talking on a cell phone. I suppose you do look at it differently when you know someone it has affected.
This is especially true because a cell phone call doesn't have to require the use of your hands, and it may only last 1 minute . . . you can have a passenger answer your phone . . . you can simply ignore your phone if you're in heavy traffic . . . whereas a drunk is drunk for the entire car ride. I'm not saying cell phone usage behind the wheel is acceptable, but it's just not in the same ballpark as being behind the wheel after drinking.
3 screaming rambunctious kids are going to distract me more then cell phones, 2 glasses of wine and smoking combined. Lets ban kids from cars.
Radical thought: If your kids are rambuctious and out of control, pull over and settle them down. Be a parent. Dole out some punishment. Lay down some rules for the car.
In my 18 years of Law Enforcement (Three of those as a State Trooper) I have had a "few" interacations with DUI's...these are a few "Highlights":

1. Had to go to not one, but two houses to tell parents that their children they had just sent off to the prom hours ago would not be coming home because someone got blasted and got behind the wheel of a car. Then had the privilige of escorting those same parents to identify their children.

2. Had to physically restrain a hysterical mother after she was told her 6 month old did not survive the drunk that plowed into her minivan.

3. Sprinted up a major interstate to a waiting Life Flight Helicopter holding a dying two year old because someone "had a couple of beers" after work.

4. Watched helplessly as a young soon to be mother was frantically worked on by EMS because someone "just had a drink" at a Christmas Eve Party...she nor the baby survived.

5. Listened as a father stoically recounted watching his 18 year old sneak out of the house and take off in his car to his buddies party. The last time he would see his son alive again...

Now.....ask me how I feel about drunk drivers......
You don't have to know many people who've been involved in these horrors to believe that NO ALCOHOL is acceptable while driving. A couple of distant family members were injured by a 15-year old drunk in a stolen car. They were sitting at a stoplight, and the drunk girl hit them. The wife was hospitalized but recovered fairly quickly; the husband was placed in a nursing home for months while he recovered the ability to walk, and he was forced to retire early. The girl was placed on probation, never paid a penny towards their medical bills (or their lost car), and had her record sealed because she was a juvenile. Their lives have been changed forever. This was a couple years ago, and she has repeated the crime since then. At least she's older now and her record follows her.

The drunk driving laws are too lenient. Perhaps if people thought they could actually lose their cars, their jobs, etc. they'd make more responsible choices.
How hard is it to simply NOT drink if you are going to be driving? Are there NO other beverages you could have? Two drinks with dinner could mean the death of someone (including yourself) were you to get behind the wheel. If I had two drinks, I would be unable to keep my eys open (I'm a lightweight), thusly I don't drink at all. And all alcohol tasteslike sock-sweat to me.

I don't think the BAC %'s are too low.
I don't think it's too low either. No drink is worth the possibility of taking (or altering forever) someone's life.
 
This is especially true because a cell phone call doesn't have to require the use of your hands
Yes, very true. The laws all focus on hand-held cell phones, and for a reason. The comparable distraction to being DUI is using a hand-held cellphone, absolutely.

Radical thought: If your kids are rambuctious and out of control, pull over and settle them down. Be a parent. Dole out some punishment. Lay down some rules for the car.
Abso-friggen-lutely. :thumbsup2

... no cigarette, no lipstick application, no misbehaving child, ... iow, no distraction, ...
is worth the possibility of taking (or altering forever) someone's life.
 

Yes, very true. The laws all focus on hand-held cell phones, and for a reason. The comparable distraction to being DUI is using a hand-held cellphone, absolutely.

I believe that the research also shows that HANDS-FREE cell phone is dangerous.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/30/health/he-cells30

Is it a safer call?
No way. Cellphone use, even hands-free, is brain-overloading distraction.
June 30, 2008|Melissa Healy, Times Staff Writer
YOU KNOW the shot: Seen from above, the hero (or villain) is hurtling down the freeway, top down, one hand on the wheel and the other clutching a cellphone to his ear. It's Hollywood's image of how deals are made, dates are broken and gossip is shared, at 65 miles per hour.

On Tuesday, that shot will be history. California motorists -- as well as those in Washington state, where a similar law was recently passed -- will be prohibited from talking on hand-held cellular phones while driving. Most, however, will likely continue their wireless business using headsets, speakers or other hands-free devices.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says the new law will reduce accidents. "Getting people's hands off their phones and onto their steering wheels will save lives and make California's roads safer," he said earlier this month.

That, however, is not what the research finds. Scientists say that when mixing cellphones and driving, the number of hands available for the tasks is not the limiting factor.

Instead, it's a driver's attention and processing capacity. These are often stretched beyond safe limits when someone juggles the complex tasks of negotiating traffic and conversing with another remotely.

Worse than being drunk

"There are limits to how much we can multi-task, and that combination of cellphone and driving exceeds the limits," says David Strayer, a University of Utah psychologist who has found that by many measures, drivers yakking on cellphones are more dangerous behind the wheel than those who are drunk, whether the conversation is carried on by handset or headset.

In a 2005 study, published in the journal Human Factors, Strayer put 41 adult drivers through four sessions in a simulator, re-creating realistic driving conditions along a 24-mile stretch of freeway.

Over three days, the subjects took the wheel in various ways: sober and off-the-phone; legally under the influence of orange-juice-and-vodka cocktails; while talking with a research assistant by hand-held cellphone; and chatting over a hands-free cellphone device. The result: Compared with drivers exceeding the legal blood alcohol limit, users of cellphones -- hand-held or hands-free -- reacted 18% more slowly to braking by the car in front and were more likely to get in a rear-end collision.

What's more, the talkers seemed to compensate for their slowed response time by falling farther behind the car in front -- a pattern likely to slow traffic and exacerbate congestion.
 
Might not be the WORST crime in the world, but you put the population at risk when you drive drunk. As far as people resigning from jobs, I'm not sure. If a person has a problem, I could see keeping job contingent upon rehab and testing. If it's reckless partying again and again, I'd toss him.
 
I believe that the research also shows that HANDS-FREE cell phone is dangerous.
However, many people believe not as much, and that's really the issue. The idea of banning everything that is even marginally distracting is a non-starter. So it comes down to what threshold of risk is acceptable.

The article contends that hands-free and hand-held is the same, yet they neglected to provide the research data that would be necessary to replicate their findings, and I bet that there are studies showing that there is a difference, that hands-free is safer.

Chalk that disparity up to reasonable people disagreeing. At least we can focus on what most people agree about, that hand-held cellphone use in cars is bad.
 
I can guarantee you that if it were your family member who was killed by a "distracted" driver, you wouldn't care how distracted the driver was.

I also don't think the BAC matters. If you drink alcohol, no matter in what quantity, DO NOT get behind the wheel.

I am a firm believer in this, even if I just had a few wine cooler (like I did 4th of July) I didn't and wouldn't drive.

My brother was joking that his friend was a better driver when he was drunk than when he was sober (got me so annoyed!) I yelled at him for even getting into the car with him. He said, "We were 21, young and stupid, didn't you ever do anything stupid when you were young?" and then he said "Wait your had a baby when you were 20! Maybe she saved your life so you'd never do that!" Got me so POed! I would never do that regardless, if I ever killed anyone or injured anyone if I was behind the wheel drunk I wouldn't be able to live with myself.
 
I find your nonchalant attitude towards drinking and driving rather concerning. Yup, it's bad, it's a crime which could have very bad consequences, it's worth losing your job over.
 
Right, because really drunk driving is no big deal...
After all who cares if some messed of freak of nature decides driving his car while trashed is more important then not driving me off the road and leaving my face scarred for life? No big deal right?

And the fact that I died in the helicopter en route and had to be resuscitated after they cut me out of the car with the jaws of life - what a lark!

But nah the waving a gun around people analogy is way over the top because everybody knows that no one gets seriously injured or killed by drunk negligent drivers right?

I think that example is a bit over the top.

Until recently DUI started at a 0.1. Now many (most?, all?) States are 0.08. In the grand scheme of things why is a 0.08 less safe than a 0.07? Or why was a few years ago 0.09 OK?

I personally think the enforcement of DUI has moved from a true public safety issue to become a money making scheme. It is also one of those "third rail" political issues that no one dares risk voting against tougher DUI laws.
 
For what it's worth - while I don't think it's quite as severe as drunk driving (you at least still have control of your reflexes if not your attention span.) I am all for cracking down on those who talk on their cells while driving (barring emergencies, such as being followed... and then you had better be calling the police.)

I figure if you need to make a phone call that bad it wont hurt you to A.) allow a passenger to make the call (if there is one) or B.) pull over make your quick call and then get back on the road.

Well then by statistics, cell phone use while driving should be outlawed today and enforced with the same vigor as DUI. We need to set up check points looking for cell phone use.
 
I wouldn't go so far as attempted murder - that requires more malice.
More like - negligent homicide.

Um, attempted murder is pretty bad in my book:confused3 I liken DWI to attempting to kill yourself or others.

I am wondering if this thread is a joke? Am I missing something here? So many of you seem to think driving while drunk is no big deal.

That is pathetic.
 
On the other hand, driving your kids from point A to point B is not something you can avoid. Driving Drunk on the other hand, is something that is not only possible to avoid but fairly easy to do so.

Not the same thing.

I agree with this. Back when I did drive 2 glasses of wine would put me over the legal limit. I can guarantee you that driving with my 3 kids in the car was far more dangerous then 2 glasses of wine. I think the limits are absurd. That being said I don't have a license now (medical issues, I have never gotten a DUI) and we plan ahead when we are drinking and have my son pick us up the 2 times a month we go out drinking. We also have to watch out for another friend of ours and get him to drive sober to one friends house and then catch a ride with us or he will drive drunk and we want no part of that. There is a huge difference to me about having a couple of glasses of wine and doing multiple shots at a bar. I think the limits are off as they stand now.
 
So should we wait until the DD kills someone, or has at least been given ample opportunity (forming a pattern) to do so, before we act?
Frankly I would rather come down hard the first time even without a body in hopes of keeping there from ever being one...

Maybe if the laws had been stricter when I was 18 - I wouldn't have a scar that runs the length of my face.

If it has become a pattern then the circumstances change and punishment should also. This is of course assuming you didn't kill anyone since at that time it would change from DUI to some other crime depending on jurisdiction. Once someone is dead the circumstances also change.
 
How about if you drink at all you don't drive.
It's not hard - count out a few extra bucks for a cab home before you ever start - or assign a Designated Driver. (You do have friends right? And if not why not just stay home and drink if you feel like drinking...) I know it probably blows having to the Designee if you like to drink - but take turns, that way you only have to do it once in a while.

I don't think anyone ever REALLY gets it until it happens to them or to someone close to them...


Not in my book. It is so easy to blow a .08 - at a neighborhood party a cop was there and it was truly unbelievable how little alcohol it takes to be over the limit.

I blew a .09 and did not feel drunk. If I needed to I would have gotten behind the wheel and not thought anything about it. That was scary to me.

So I have a little leeway with drunk drivers in that I do NOT think it is the worst crime ever.

Drivers who are two and three times the legal limit - throw the book at them and anyone around them who should have known not to let him drive.
 
Right, because really drunk driving is no big deal...
After all who cares if some messed of freak of nature decides driving his car while trashed is more important then not driving me off the road and leaving my face scarred for life? No big deal right?

And the fact that I died in the helicopter en route and had to be resuscitated after they cut me out of the car with the jaws of life - what a lark!

But nah the waving a gun around people analogy is way over the top because everybody knows that no one gets seriously injured or killed by drunk negligent drivers right?

But see you are on a slippery slope. If you reflexes are slowed at a BAC of 0.08 then they also must be slowed (to a lesser degree) at 0.07. So why then is a BAC of 0.07 acceptable? And why was a BAC 0.09 acceptable a few years ago and now it earns public shaming? Why do we tolerate ANY BAC while driving?

And you (the general you not the specific you) are unable or unwilling to distinguish between someone driving at 0.08 and someone at 0.20.
 
Fey... :hug:

If it helps any, there are some of us out there who feel the same way you do, without having had to go through the horrible trauma that you did. I'm so sorry this happened to you, but I am also so very glad that you survived, and are able to tell (and show!) others why it's so very bad to drink and drive. Although the fact that people have to be told/shown in the first place is really sad, to me. :sad2:
 
How about if you drink at all you don't drive.
It's not hard - count out a few extra bucks for a cab home before you ever start - or assign a Designated Driver.

I don't think anyone ever REALLY gets it until it happens to them or to someone close to them...

That is what we do. My DH has his CDL and the alcohol level he is allowed is less than level allowed for other classes of license. He will seldom even have a glass of wine if he has to workk the next mornng. Neither one of us will drive if we have had a few cocktails.

I have pretty strong feelings about drunk driving. My 2nd cousin's wife was killed by a drunk driver. She and my cousin had six children. a few months later my cousin suffered a fatal heart attack and left those kids without parents. Thank God they were welcome in his brother's home. He had 4 kids so they raised 10 children. My father firmly believed that his cousin died from a broken heart. :sad1: Driving drunk is a crime and should be treated as such.
 
You know your insistence on protecting people like the one that hurt me makes me wonder if you aren't desperately trying to justify your own bad behavior.

ETA - also if you're going to try to "Call me" on something like this maybe you should pay attention to EVERYTHING I say - I stated in another post that I don't think you should drive if you've had even ONE drink. It's way too easy in this day and age to find another way home after drinking, there is NO excuse for driving drunk.

But see you are on a slippery slope. If you reflexes are slowed at a BAC of 0.08 then they also must be slowed (to a lesser degree) at 0.07. So why then is a BAC of 0.07 acceptable? And why was a BAC 0.09 acceptable a few years ago and now it earns public shaming? Why do we tolerate ANY BAC while driving?

And you (the general you not the specific you) are unable or unwilling to distinguish between someone driving at 0.08 and someone at 0.20.
 















Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top