Legal Drinking-Driving Limit LOWERED to 0.05.

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by F4guy
 


I don't disagree with what law says. Just explain to me why, here in Oklahoma, at a Disposition hearing (which happens before trial) why a Defendant cannot approach the Judge themself without council? It makes no sense but is standard practice.

I know this from experience. As a Defendant, in Oklahoma, after you are arrested you are required to go to an Arraignment Hearing. This is where you plead guilty or in most cases not guilty. If you plead not guilty they always set you up with a Disposition Hearing.

In Oklahoma County, Disposition Hearings for misdemeanor charges, like DUI, are ALWAYS held on a Thursday at 8 am. The courtroom is PACKED FULL of Defendants who are REQUIRED to be there. These are the hearings where NOBODY can approach the bench UNLESS you are a licensed attorney.

At theses hearings defendants try to negotiate a plea with the District Attorney who is responsible for prosecuting their case or set a trial date BUT they cannot do so directly. It has to be done through council. IF they do not have their own lawyer they are to use the Public Defender, which they have to apply for. It's absolutely rediculous but is the standard practice here in Oklahoma County. They even have lawyers, who are not PD's which you can hire for $50 to approach the bench for you to delay your Disposition Hearing until another day. If you sit there until 5pm and haven't had any paperwork turned into the Judge a warrant MUST be issued for your arrest for failure to appear.That my friend is how it works in Oklahoma County.
edit on 15-5-2013 by KewlDaddyFatty because: spelling




posted on May, 15 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Well, I know it won't make me the popular guy for any Pub crawls or bar toasts in the near future....but I say GOOD for this and it needs to be .01th lower.

While a Commerical Driver, I lived under a .04 limit for BAL. Just a fact of life. That low? It means basically the trace of alcohol is enough to lose everything for, if caught driving. It should be. That is a GOOD thing.

What lowering it DOES do...is remove all the "Barroom Experts" from having a case of buzzed vs. drunk for being able to drive. At .04 or .05, for that matter, you don't even FEEL buzzed to hit that number every time. Simply consuming it can be enough to roll total loss in your personal life.

If one drinks...DO NOT DRIVE. If one has to drive...DO NOT DRINK. How hard is that for some to live with and follow? It's EASY to see and agree with, when it's for people driving an 18 wheeler, because the damage we can do with those enormous vehicles is catastrophic and leads news for days when it happens.

The kid, mowed down like grass, by some ignorant fool who had one drink over lunch too many? Doesn't know or care that it wasn't an 18 wheeler. The kid only knows it was better to have been alive ....and some drunk did it. .05 or 2.0. Alcohol is alcohol...and ANY amount is too much to drive on.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


So then if you arrive at a restaurant alone, they should only be legally allowed to serve you until you reach 0.05. Otherwise they're being negligible and putting someone on the road that is dangerous (at 0.05).

500 lives per year is their excuse. Finding more people to lock up and fine is the goal.

Edit; Actually I take it back. Restaurants and bars should lose out on the business all together and shouldn't be allowed to serve anyone alcohol that isn't there with a designated driver. If 'buzzed' driving is the same as drunk driving, why are we allowing bars (drug dealers essentially) to give the drug alcohol to someone that only has the means to drive himself home? If "buzzed" driving (having a drink or two after work) is so dangerous, why is it legal for businesses to make money off of it? The answer is because they want people out on the road with a few in them. They never want drunk driving to go away. They just want to constrict the laws and throw a larger net out.
edit on 15-5-2013 by jessejamesxx because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

At least in the US the reality is that a police officer can DUI you even if you are below the limit - all they need say is that they considered you impaired based upon your driving or behavior.

I am not a supporter of anyone who drives drunk - at all. But it is obvious to me that these laws having nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with revenue. The small city I live in, a minor suburb of Atlanta... brand new jail, brand new City Hall, brand new courthouse, brand new "Government Center", brand new "Government and Administration" building, and a fleet of brand new Dodge Chargers for the police force. Everything here, city owned, is brand new, high end, customized to the nth degree, and they flaunt it aggressively.

Thanks people who had a glass of wine with dinner and ended up shelling out about 15k in restitution...


Sounds like it must have taken awhile for the sheeple in your town to realize they were going to get robbed on the way home after their glass of wine and their meal.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

And it is pushing for laws requiring all first-time offenders to have ignition locking devices that prevent cars from starting until breath samples are analyzed.

This is something that really jumped out at me. Do you know how expensive it is to have one of these in your car? Installation is a few hundred dollars, and it's a $60/mo charge for the 'rental'. I have a feeling the people behind this have major ties to the companies that make the breathalyzers. Much like the TSA and the scanners.

This is all for first time offenders. 0.05, which for me would be a drink and a half. I really hope supporters of this idea take a second look at their motives before agreeing wholeheartedly.

People that have had 2 drinks won't smell like alcohol, and probably won't seem drunk, so how are cops going to cash in on this? More mandatory breathalyzer checkpoints! Woo@!!



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
We did it in BC a few years back too, fatalities have dropped and counter attack road checks are about the same as they were before.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by KewlDaddyFatty
 
I guess that's because everyone in Oklahoma County is too much a coward to push the issue. It sounds like the right to appear pro se is not being taken away so much as it is being abandoned by those to whom it belongs. No one has the fortitude to report the judge for misconduct.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 



I have to look at what is happening these days as an attack by the government on fun. All forms of fun.


You think it's "fun" to drive drunk? The regulation does nothing to regulate drinking, just driving afterwards.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Tuesday's recommendations were timed to coincide with the deadliest alcohol-related crash in U.S. history. On May 14, 1988, a drunk driver drove his pickup the wrong way on Interstate 71 near Carrollton, Kentucky. The truck hit a school bus, killing 24 children and three adults. More than 30 others were hurt.

Never let a tragedy go to waste, no matter how old or irrelevant. I swear, they're pulling all the stops in the article.


Wikipedia - His blood alcohol concentration (BAC) the night of the crash was .24 percent—substantially more than the 1988 Kentucky legal limit of .10

Lowering the limit wouldn't have done anything to deter this crash.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   
As someone who has had to watch one of their best friends break down in hysterical crying after being told that her little brother had been murdered (because that is what it is you choose to drink and drive IMO) by some idiot who was drunk and showing off to his mates in his fancy new car, I am vehemently against drink driving. I work in bar at weekends and if I see any of our customers get into a vehicle after drinking in the pub I WILL call the police with their reg number.

If you know you are going to be driving, is it REALLY that important to have a drink?! Can you SERIOUSLY not go without?!

Everywhere should have a zero tolerance. No you can't stop all the idiots who choose to flout this law but there WILL be less people risking 'just the one'. So the police will LOSE revenue which should make the police bashers happy, no?

Sorry for being ranty but this is a subject I feel very strong about.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
The only people that care about this are people that drink and drive

Grow up people



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   
I can't think of a more cowardly, immature or selfish thing to do then drive drunk, impaired or while txting.
Whatever the penalties are for those actions are not strong enough.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   
What's needed is some intensive education to get the point across to people that they have to think about what they're doing and what they're potentially risking in terms of life & limb as well as the financial consequences. The guidelines presented here in Oz are that 3 'standard drinks' in 1 hour will get an average healthy male to 0.05 and 1 such drink per hour thereafter will keep him there. For females it's only 2 standard drinks in the first hour.

A 'standard' drink is Eg. 10oz glass of beer (4%-5% alcohol) or a single nip of spirits (40% alcohol)
Just 2 cans of normal beer and you're potentially over the limit. Many drinks like wine and cocktails are hard to estimate so extreme caution is advisable with those (call a friend or catch a cab).

People here howled 'invasion of privacy' etc when random testing was introduced but the message is simple IE just don't drink if you're going to drive and if you do, you'll be caught and penalised (and rightly so).



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Why not zero tolerance? (rhetorical) because they need money. Making the limit .05 is nothing more giving the impression that you can drink alcohol and drive.

I know people that drink and drive all the time. My step dad hasn't had a liscenes in 20 years and he drives drunk every day. He drinks his beer while driving and throws the cans out the _ He's had 3 DUI's in the past. I gave up on the situation nothing anyone says to him will make a difference he's going to do it no matter what. He's not a bad guy he has a drinking problem. I just hope the cops catch him before he hurts someone. I've tried to report him to the cops but they won't do anything. They won't set up a trap or anything.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
i have known people to roll out of a bar after hours of drinking and pass the breath test in the uk and heard of guys who have been stopped going home from their work never having a drink getting done for drink driving because of what they have been using at their work .

methalated spirits was a common one for painters to fail the test on as will some mouth washes and some people actually produce alchohol in their livers .

i had one pint { 568 ml } of beer and failed the test 13 years ago a three year ban and a thousand dollar fine £650 but i would still take the keys of somebody who had been drinking and have on more than a few occasions



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
If they really cared, like someone posted, it would be lowered to 0.0000. Unfortunately, it's all about BIZNESS. Everyone is making money from it. People are the irresponsible ones. DRINK AT HOME! Pay someone to drive you to the club and back.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by wantsome
Why not zero tolerance? (rhetorical) because they need money. Making the limit .05 is nothing more giving the impression that you can drink alcohol and drive.

I know people that drink and drive all the time. My step dad hasn't had a liscenes in 20 years and he drives drunk every day. He drinks his beer while driving and throws the cans out the _ He's had 3 DUI's in the past. I gave up on the situation nothing anyone says to him will make a difference he's going to do it no matter what. He's not a bad guy he has a drinking problem. I just hope the cops catch him before he hurts someone. I've tried to report him to the cops but they won't do anything. They won't set up a trap or anything.


Sorry..I disagree...3 DUIs and he continues to drink and drive..He is a bad guy and hopefully he gets stopped before he kills some innocent person\family on the road.

I have no tolerance, acceptance, feelings , respect or anything else for someone with 1 DUI let alone 3.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


I have to look at what is happening these days as an attack by the government on fun. All forms of fun.

You think it's "fun" to drive drunk? The regulation does nothing to regulate drinking, just driving afterwards.


One would think that a moderator would have the sense to not quote out of context. What I said was;

"Like the restaurants stopped the zero tolerance smoking bans?

Although I do not agree with drinking and driving, I have to look at what is happening these days as an attack by the government on fun. All forms of fun. Think about it, if something isn't outright banned or relegated to some small corner of personal space, it's licensed all to hell and back."

Please note the highlighted text. I thought the motto here was deny ignorance?

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   
I think Recently, law enforcement is cracking down on motor vehicle drivers who are suspected of driving under the influence of Alcohol or Drugs and also who do not pass their roadside test routinely. If this continues there will not be any killings at all..


Mod Note: Removed a link to a dui lawyer.
edit on 7/24/2013 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Just a ploy to get more revenue and incarcerate more folks so the privatized prisons will get more profits. All for money, safety is maybe the 2nd concern. Maybe.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join