Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Justice for all? IF you have a speeding ticket, running a stop light/sign, failure to yield, or whatever, does it follow you the rest of your life?
ALL of these can and do result in death/injury and propery damage.
BUT, they do NOT follow you the rest of your life!
IF you get a DUI, no accident, no person injured, no property damage, no NOTHING. IT follows you the rest of your life. IT's a TICKET!
But it is NOT justice for all.
IT follows you and persecutes the innocent, NOT you, but your children!
HOW can any "TICKET" or "TICKET giver" determine that 10 years or 20 years later you are irresponsible? HOW can any court "PREDICT" that years down the line YOU can not function, that you, (because of a ticket) are not to be trusted? DOE'S a speeding ticket follow you for the rest of your life? EVEN if you injured a person/property?
WHERE is the JUSTICE for all?

what the hell are you talking about?

Where is the justice when some drunk @sshole runs a red light killing half of a family at Christmas? He had plenty of tickets and license suspensions (in the 100's) and he was still driving so apparently it didn't follow him much until he killed three people the weekend before Christmas. Now that is something that has followed the surviving family members for the rest of their lives. That is why there are tickets for running red lights, which you should be able to get the points back after some time has passed, and for driving drunk, which can sometimes be erased by attending AA meetings or driver's education courses in some areas. So for most people I don't believe it does follow them for life.

I have no sympathy for drunk drivers! They should never be allowed to get behind the wheel again! Ride the bus drunk trash!

To expand on your thinking Tex, then anyone drunk or sober that gets a ticket should ride the bus and be called trash. They still kill, maim and hurt the innocent.

Anyone in any state that has ever had a DUI, is registered for life on the violent offenders list. They can not teach their own children, at homeschool to drive. EVEN 15 years later without any other tickets, accidents or anything on their record. IF this is justice for all. THEN all that ever had any kind of moving violation should also be put on the same list. I'm NOT talking about anyone that injures a person or their property, but that just gets a ticket.

If you drink while you drive, you deserve to ride a bike for the rest of your life.

I personally think the seatbelt issue should be of personal choice, not a matter for liberal idiots to tax and screw...

Well I'm not in favour of DUI I think that penalties on it should be way higher, atleast here in Belgium, even including giving up your driving license for like 30 years. But it aint just DUI, Also SPEEDING should get a lot heavier Penalties like losing your license. The problem with both is that, atleast in belgium they together make up 90% of the causes of accidents with casualties and that you can't say nothing happened this time, so we won't give you a ticket. Because extesive studies have shown that people being ticketed for that kind of felony once, will probably commit it again, and the next time it can end up way worse.

you go girl.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/images/moresmilies/diva.gif

yo, Tex, what part of Dallas you live in? I used to live in richardson(along coit...), before I moved to central texas

Just south of LBJ, 2 mintues from the Galleria

cool, it's good to see Texas is represented in these forums

Yeah, there used to be many Texans on here, many have left

musta gotten rounded up by angry indians

well, at least we have a few

Pay no attention to that West Coast trash

buzzzzing. that one hurt.

This diva has a stinger!http://www.killermovies.com/forums/images/moresmilies/diva.gif

Draconian drink driving laws are a direct result of a huge problem that society demands is solved. I am glad they are so tough- at least it might make some people think twice, if their life could be affected for so long by it.

yeah!

That rhetoric is good for the papers, but the truth is, society doesn't demand parking meters

A drunk driver killed my cousin and best friend, I believe your post makes you sound like an idiot
Stop crying and become responsible!

I said drink driving, not parking violations...

people who drink and drive should have their licenses revoked forever and put in jail for several years. there is no excuse for it.

you implied laws as a whole.

although I agree with you on the drunk driving issue

"Draconian drink driving laws are a direct result of a huge problem that society demands is solved"

Clearly only referring to drink driving.

I guess so, my bad

Spoken like a gentleman; no problem.

hehe

"The System is everywhere. It is all around us. Even
now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your
window. Or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when
you go to work. When you go to Church. When you pay your taxes.
It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you
from the truth."

Red Tex, NE texas here.

My point in my post was NOT that it is okay to drink and drive, NEVER.
But, that when we allowed the hype, persecution and manipulation to occur over that, we opened a door.
That door is wide open now, it includes seat belt laws, (I use them by choice), then it was smokers, etc.. AND now the school (Law) are dictating what can be eaten and what can't.

THEY do this not to protect the public, we are overpolutated anyway, they do this for MONEY. TURN it into a "SIN" tax and get all they can.
NO, I'm not over weight and love my twinkies!

It just I've been around long enough to see the long road and where it leads. I don't like my children and theirs having to follow it.

DUI's, were one of the first really successful campaigns, it did what the
prohibitionists couldn't. It targeted a group of people and their lifestyle and criminalized it.
I know DRUNKS cause accidents and I'm not defending them, It's the laws and how they were arrived at. The manipulating of the stats, the manipulating of our congressmen, senators, president, etc. that I have the problem with.

There is not an easy answer with drunk drivers, as it has been pointed out, the suspensions, etc. are not working, in fact the stats suggest that the exact opposite is occuring. But, repeat speeders, cell phone users

I still think that taking away the license for life is the best idea

I don't. Most of the repeat offenders don't even have a licenses. They drive regardless of a licenses. The only thing that not having a licenses guaratees is that they won't have insurance to go with it....

People are going to drive, with or without a licenses. I've met people that have driven for 14 plus years without one, and no insurance. Not from even getting tickets, just because they didn't want to take the tests, etc...

I tend to think that an Ignition interlock might work with some of the hard headed ones. But they could still get around that by taking their wifes car, etc...

Actuall a car like Arnold had in the movie "The sixth day" would be great
for everyone, even a drunk could slurr out "home James" and make it safely....

Excellent, although I think I hold the prize for being the only communist Texan here



I don't think regressive taxation came from this kind of offense, it came from the bourgeoisie's unwillingness to accept progressive taxes, thus, there are these seatbelt laws, etc.

So what do we do now, instead of regressive punishment for drunk driving? Monetary punushment? what?

I think the best answer is to either remove the person's license for a while, mandate public service, AND add in some sort of public humiliation factor(i.e a mandatory sticker on your car, or something) for it...



Well, you live in Texas, the JESUSCRATS have taken over. We have to pray, and pledge, nowadays...



Of course, but an you call out a bureaucrat for not caring? We'd have no government if we did!



hurray!



follow what? Drunk driving laws? I'd rather see them following it, personally.



KILLING PEOPLE is not a lifestyle. Being a drunken fool IS NOT a lifestyle, it's a disgusting symptom of a decaying society.




I'm glad you've reached this point, really, you've realized the bureaucrat serves someone else, not you or me, bravo; HOWVER, don't go drunk driving and call it "civil disobedience, I don't buy it.



OK, here's how you fix it:

1. Public service, lots of it
2. Humiliation(have I been spelling that right? LOL)
3. revoke license

God, I'm such a bad speller...

"I'm glad you've reached this point, really, you've realized the bureaucrat serves someone else, not you or me, bravo; HOWVER, don't go drunk driving and call it "civil disobedience, I don't buy it."

I don't, in fact I'm so "law abiding" I make myself even sick! Perhaps its from all that pressure of NOT breaking any laws that has me so upset that there are so MANY! If a person is law abiding they have a very narrow row to hoe. It reminds me of a strait jacket that I might someday be in, if I continue in my present lifestyle......

you said it, not me.

true, i guess we should execute them or incarcerate them then.

i say take their cars if they get caught DUI on a revoked license
then auction off the car and give the money toward DUI accident victims' hospital bills and funeral costs

I think that California tried that, the drunks bought $100.00 clunkers, it cost more to tow them and store them then they got at the auctions. Besides, they were driving around without insurance, etc....
Incarcerating them, why not, we already have the prisons overcrowded with pot heads, addicts, a bunch of drunks wouldn't hurt it any.. But, I wonder if we ever really do come up with a real criminal, where will we put him?

If we throw the drunks in jail because they Might someday hurt somebody, then we need to consider the speeders and those they might hurt and Kill, and let's not forget the cell phone users that MIGHT hurt someone, let's just toss anyone that has ever had a moving violation into prision. After all the reason they received the ticket was because they were endangering themselves or someone else, with their driving.
Anyway that's what the cop will swear to, if a person should take them to court... So, Who really belongs in jail? Justice for all remember.

mmmm... my brother has 2 DUI's... he is a good kid with a drinking problem. he has tried to quit drinking many times only to fail many times. he has tried to quit drinking and even stoped driving (he got a 3rd one on a bike but fought it and won... yes a DUI on a bike). he would get so blindingly drunk and just get this overwhelming feeling to leave the place where he was at.... so he left. he would go and even give his keys up to someone there, which could be easily cajoled after everyone was drunk..... now my brother just sits around my parents house doing nothing all day because he can't drive to work and the bus system in tampa is very bad..... what he did was not right by any means.... but maybe if he was forced into a program the deals with his drinking problem this will just be a recurring problem. harsh fines and time in prison and taking away his license will not help him.... he cannot quit drinking on his own accord... the kid needs help and lucky for him he is young and has a family that will see to it he gets proper help... lets try rehabilitation over debilitation.

being drunk and driving is far more dangerous then any of the other acts you mentioned.

For some reason, everyone seems to think that DRINKING and DRIVING are the ONLY dangerous things anyone does on the road.
It is NOW illegal to DOZE while driving in LA. YOU got it, more people are killed by DOZERS then boozers. NOW, IF DUI laws were NOT so strict, that anyone caught pulled off the road and asleep got hasseled by the law, wouldn't it solve two problems? THE past out drunk that isn't driving, and the tired driver that isn't Dozing. Both sleeping it off, out of harms way. IS the dozer less guilty, for driving when they are over tired? OR even the speeder, when they are late? OR the cellphone user arguing with their EX? HOW can anyone group of drivers be said to NOT do as much damage, hurt as many people and KILL?

DUI's get the public attention, is the only difference. THE news media is quick to mention "alcohol may have been involved" but never go back and say that is was or it wasn't. Just leave the impression that it was.
They add to the hysteria.

Happy Kine
Sorry, to hear about your brother, I also know of quite a few that went through the system and certainly didn't come out better.

There isn't an easy answer, but persecution has proven NOT to work. Your love and acceptance will, in the long run.

there is an easy answer, just dont drink and drive. It's easily avoidable, some of the other acts are not

Are you saying that Speeding is not avoidable? Talking on a cell phone?
Driving after staying up for too long?
Yes, they are all avoidable and they should ALL be treated the same way. They all have ONE common denominator THEY KILL, HURT and Maim. WHY should the book be thrown at one group, while the others walk with a slap on the wrist?
But, then everyone has had a ticket? Everyone would be in the same boat, EVERYONE would not tolerate being treated like THAT.
WE, are not talking about falling down drunks, weaving all over the road (wreckless driving), we are talking about anyone that consumes any small amount of alcohol, gets stopped for a tail light out, gets a DUI instead.
Does a Speeder get a speeding ticket for his tail light OUT? Surely the cop should be able to just look at him, smell him and know that he is a speeder and could someday kill, hurt or maim someone..... Same with the rest....The door is open, don't get drowsy driving home some night, a cop might pull you over for a light out, smell you, look at you and jail you.

I am sorry, but the stricter DUI laws are the better- people need to be UTTERLY discouraged from doing so. I do not care if it still has repercussions 20 years down the line when you are no longer likely to do it. Some crimes get jail sentences that last pas thte point when you are any more a criminal- punishment does not necessarily end when your intention to do more wrong does. People will have to accept that being caught DUI may mess up portions of their life way itno the future when they are older and wiser- with any luck that will make them think twice. As BF says, just don't do it. They do not have my sympathy- too many are killed by them simply for being thoughtless.

Meanwhile, considerable campaigns DO exist to stop people dozing off whilst driving. But criminally speaking, that osrt of thing is almost impossible to prove- likewise mobile use, without witnesses. Furthermore, most people who doze off whilst driving weren't under the impression that they were supermen, they just didn't think they were so tired. Anyone who has been drinking KNOWS they have been drinking.

Because sometimes they arent avoidable, sometimes you have to speed in order to get to your designation on time, sometimes talking on the cell phone is unavoidable is you are getting direction or its a personal emergency, driving after staying up late is usually avoidable, but there are obvious exceptions, maybe a loved one had an emergency and you had to go ver to their house, and not able to get home untill late.

The difference is Drunk Driving is ALWAYS avoidable, because you have to have planned the occurance. and you always have power to stop yourself from doing it.

I agree with you that the other acts should be avoided if at all possible, but, sometimes you just have to do them. The said cannot be said for drunk driving.

Sorry, but people do know when they are tired/sick, in fact they are more likely to kill/injure bus loads of children going to bible school, in broad daylight. As was the case here.
An interesting tidbit: I briefly studied Dianetics, back a few years ago, and one thing did stick. MOST (99%) of people doing anything, including driving are NOT in the present. They are in the past or future and are only drawn back to the present, as the need arises, and usually to slowly. SCARY to me.

you seemed to have missed my point completely. i didnt say they DIDNT KNOW they were tired, i said driving while being tired wasnt always avoidable. drunk driving is always avoidable.

You don;t want to start using statstics- if you do that, yuo will see that drink driving is a drastically larger problem than any other cause you state which is one of the reasons it attracts so much more attention.

IF a man goes over to his buddies to watch football, they drag out the snacks and beer, he has a few.
His wife calls, their son fell out of a tree and is at the hospital with her.
He runs out, gets into his truck and is driving the limit, gets pulled over for no brake light. Is taken to jail for being DUI.
What happens?
His wife leave him for being a drunk?
His son hate him for not being there?
His boss watch every move he makes, to make sure he's NOT drinking on the job?
His wife gets tired of taking him to court, work and AA meetings and leave him?
He loose his job?
Does he get better from this.
AND it does fall into your definition of why another person might HAVE to break the law....

By driving DUI he was risking killing others- no justification for anything he was doing. As punishment he deserves what he gets.

no, cuz again, they didnt have to drink that beer. When you drink beer you are always taking the chance of something comming up and having to run home...so its all the more reason not to drink if you ask me.

I do know the stats very well, in fact I even know how they were arrived at. Did you know that Alcohol related is the ONLY one that is estimated? That, that estimate is based upon they type of vehicle driven, the time of night and the persons occupation?
IF everything else about the wreck is so carefully documented, then why do they have to guess about whether alcohol was present or not?

But then a speeder should allow enough time to reach their destination, without speeding. Speeders by the way DO according to the STATS kill more people.

Well, if the only way you can front your argument is to say all these statistics arrived at by experts are wrong then I have no respect for your argument. Even David J. Hanson (phD) who has raised issues of how alcohol death statistics can be inflated (saying that where alcohol is present it is always said to be the cause regardless of circumstance) happily says that, of single vehicle incidents:

"...68% of sober drivers and 94% of intoxicated drivers (0.10 BAC or higher) were responsible for their crashes... the pattern is the same: responsibility for accidents increases with intoxication"

That doesn't leave much room for other causes as far as draconian laws are concerned.

sometimes its not that easy, plus, you have to remember that everyone in actuallity is a "speeder". generally the flow of traffic is going 5 or so miles over the limit, so if there was an accident they will consider it a speeder when in actuality he was just going as fast as everyone else.

"of single vehicle incidents:"
This could account for the high percentage of "DUI sucides" in single car wrecks, most from my investigation of the stats had prior DUI's, and were simply tired of being persecuted.
by the way, since you seem to like stats, as do I, are you aware that you are 3 times more likely to be fatally shot, then be involved in a fatal dui wreck. That suicide it 3 times more then dui ESTIMATED wrecks....

Right, so you are saying that these drviers did not crash whilst drunk, but in fact committed suicide to avoid persecution? That is patently ridiculous and you are only destroying your own case with such silly remarks.

It may also surprise you to know that murder is ALSO considered a serious crime- for more serious than DUI with far greater consequences. Furthermore, your US-centric statistics do not impress me at all- drunk driving is a universal problem, here in the UK you are several hundred times less likely to be shot than killed by a drunk driver.

"Right, so you are saying that these drviers did not crash whilst drunk, but in fact committed suicide to avoid persecution? "

No, I'm saying that they DID (MOST) have prior DUI's, they went through the system in the USA. THEY did not stop, and it appears that they cared less, if they hit a tree or went home.

MY stats are based upon NHTSA at the FARS site.
THE USA, is full of guns and people get shot all the time, everyday, day after day. To the tune of 3 times more the DUI fatal wrecks...

I've never been to the UK and would not even consider debating the issues over there. I know what goes on here and that is what I apply myself to.

I don't see what your talk about guns has to do with anything. Sp what if you are more likely to get shot? What difference does that ake to an argument about sentencing for DUIs? It is not as if they is any hypocricy here- the murderers are getting more severe sentences that have a far greater effect on their lives even if they reform. I just do not see what you are getting at. My example from the UK was just to demonstrate how irrelevant your citing of murder rates are.

Again, your comments about the DUIs who died make no logical sense- they died whilst drinking, you can continually make opinion on how the system killed them if you want but any reasonable person will conclude that drinking killed them, and that they had prior DUIs was evidence of that drink driving was a risk they continually ran.

To help clarify my point.
1. IF two men were driving an identical vehicle, down the same road, on an icy road, both hit the same tree, under the exact identical conditions.
The one not drinking would be said to die of "Icy road conditions".
THe one drinking would be said to "be drunk and lost control and killed himself".
Does drinking suppose to make a person a better driver?

The stats are gathered in such a way to be totally misleading.
Example: Why do they use percentages? Instead of actual numbers?
Alaska, 50% alcohol related! There were TWO fatal accidents in that year, one was drinking, one wasn't!
When they (NHTSA) gather the stats, they collect all of the vehicles, (even ATV's, Go Carts, snowmobiles, streetsweepers, off road construction equip. etc.) which adds up to 58,113 vehicles involved in fatal crashes in 2002. The Fatalities from these crashes are 42,815.

But, when coming up with the percentages, they don't base it on the 58,113 that all the information was gathered from. But from the 42,815, which make the percentages go from actual 20 percent to 35 to 40%.

Which doesn't MAKE more drunks or less, but it does influence people and their perspective. IT gets laws on the books, that should not be there, the road blocks, the manipulation of the federal government to break the individual states down, and make them answerable to it. (Highway funds withheld, if they refuse to adopt a lower BAC, etc.)
AS I stated earlier, IT opens doors, that should not have been open.
They were opened on a falsehood, TWISTED stats.
I resent being lied to, manipulated and deceived by them, my government.

then vote the idiots out if you don't like the laws

but somehow I think MADD and RADD will be willing to fight you if you wanted to start a political battle about the drunk driving laws in the US

and if you really wanted to lower accident rates you would make the driving age higher and not worry about drunk driving laws. at least in South Carolina teens accounted for more accidents, whether sober or not, just by virtue of their age and the fact that they don't pay attention to what's happening on the road. and South Carolina has one of the highest auto accident rates in the country. they don't call it "Highways or Dieways" for nothing. and i am not saying i would advocate no teens ever driving, but I do think more education should be required before they are alllowed to drive. and DUI laws also cover marijuana or drug use in many states which also impairs your driving, which is also a choice freely made by the person drinking or drugging.

I know the younger persons that are just learning to "drive" and "drink" both about the same time, have the highest accident rates, and it is quite alarming. They are learning two deadly things and combining them in a young adverturesome body and mind, that seems invincible.
With my daughter (18) now, I started her driving in a one ton Ford pick up on the dirt road of far South West Texas, (90 miles to a town that even had a orange light) Big Bend area. She drove there with me with her most of the time. She would take me to the store, take me everywhere, I kinda enjoyed the break myself, and she was more alert, mom was with her.
When we moved to NW Texas, TOWN. She was once again in a old Ford Victoria, Heavy and slow, she learned to navigate the streets, stops, and lights, still hauling mom around.
I still ride with her a lot, she still has questions about WHO has the right of way in this situation, etc... They just can't learn it all, in a few weeks.
Riding with them helps keep them from forming bad habits.

i had a really good driver's ed class that lasted all semester. it gave my parents a break on insurance for taking a longer driver's ed course instead of one that only lasts a day or two. being graded on your driving skills can be a useful educational tool. my teacher nailed me for not checking my rearview enough cuz i didn't move my head to look, only my eyes so he didn't think i was being alert enough.

My daughter did get in a wreck with a drunk driver about 2 months ago. It totalled her old big heavy car, thank god no one was hurt. He crossed over into her lane to make a left turn into his driveway. Even though the speed limit is 55 mph, she had slowed to about 15 mph when they collided. IT WASN'T because he was drinking, it was because his parents had taught him how to turn into the driveway, and that IS HOW they taught him to do it.... He was a young man, with a physical disability, his arms are real short, he has to lean up against the steering wheel to reach it. He was in an old jeep.
It was just a bad combination of events. Anyway, since my daughter has experienced one wreck, she is now aware that it can happen and does pay more attention. Although her new car is a light weight, sporty thing, I feel that she will be alright.

Did the kid who hit your daughter get arrested?

Yes, he got the full DUI treatment. Which guarantees he will have even more problems, instead of less.

People who drive drunk SHOULD be punished. But with today's lowered BAC laws, social drinkers who are NOT drunk but only had one or two drinks are being criminalized.

That's not right. Check out R.I.D.L., Responsibility In DUI Laws, Inc. for information on an organization that is fighting back against these laws.

ppl who drink and drive deserve what they get. its a really dumbass thing to do.

I disagree. People who get DRUNK and drive deserve what they get. It IS a really dumbass thing to do. But the statistics show that people with BAC levels of .08/.09 are NOT the ones out there killing people.

If you look at stats posted by NHTSA or MADD they also say "drivers with BAC's of .08 and higher caused X number of deaths" or something to that affect. But X will be the same number even if they say drivers with BAC's of .10 and higher.

Fact is, a person can get to .08 with two beers or two glasses of wine. Are you saying that a responsible person who enjoys dinner with friends and has two glasses of wine shouldn't drive? That's silly. Of course they should because they won't be impaired and won't drive dangerously.

People like that aren't the same as people who get wasted and drive like maniacs and they shouldn't be treated in the same way.