Search legislation

Most Recent Comments

1) They are going to drive anyway  by Anonymous Citizen on February 21, 2005 
Extending the time of suspension really doesn't make that much different. It will just be a longer period of time that they illegally drive on a suspended license. Suspension of a driver's license doesn't answer the problem of drunken driving. The offender still has a drinking problem. They still need to get to work (and for the most part, except in certain cities) lack affordable mass transportation. I strongly believe that drunk drivers need harsh penalties. They are a real danger to others on the road. But they need their behavior corrected. Required counseling, AA, and such. How about instead, issuing a drunk driver a new driver's license that is bright orange. When carded at the bar or liquor store, the retailer can assess their state and alert authorities if necessary.
Reply

2) Drunk Driving Penalties  by Anonymous Citizen on February 21, 2005 
Unfortunately, the "crime" of OUIL/DUIL has it's own PAC. The political climate that the gonzo busy-bodies that make up this PAC have created, in conjunction with the state's insatiatible need for greater revenue, has resulted in common sense going out the window.

The arbitrary threshold for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor has been one-tenth of one percent blood/alcohol content (BAC) for at least forty years.

Recently, under pressure from the Clinton Administration, the threshold for "drunk" driving has been reduced to eight-hundredths of one percent BAC. Michigan went even farther overboard and legislated the presumption for "impaired" driving in Michigan at a BAC of only two-hundredths of one percent. Let's say that again: TWO-HUNDREDTHS OF ONE PERCENT!

Nonsense.

Even though the thresholds have been significantly reduced, the penalties have remained the same or have even been increased. And while there are those out there who will always yell, "Yeay team!" whenever the threshold is reduced or the penalties increased, the fact is that people are facing license suspensions, criminal (civil infraction) convictions, fines and mandatory re-education because they happened to be pulled over for a "whatever" violation and a young cop with a take-no-prisoners attitude smelled a little wine on the driver's breath.

The reality is that the carnage on the roads is not being caused by guys with a .02 BAC. Not a .05 BAC. Even up around .1, an experienced drinker on familiar roads is very well able to drive home from his local pub. The accidents -- particularly the more serious accidents and fatal collisions -- are caused by drivers with a .15, .16 or higher BAC. I think you will generally find that they're actually up around .2 BAC.

If the law really wants a practical solution, it has to start out with a practical assessment of the problem. Identify a real and purposeful threshold for "drunk driving" and then hammer violators. Particularly repeat offenders.

As long as the law continues to define the "crime" in such a way that virutally anyone who operates a motor vehicle after drinking even a small amount of an alcoholic beverage is breaking the law, it will simply create criminals and foster a general disrespect for the law itself.

In this kind of environment, fines, penalties and suspensions will continue to be ineffectual.



Reply

3) Horsefeathers!!!  by Anonymous Citizen on February 21, 2005 
I say go for it. One of my greatest fears is that some boozer is going to weave across the yellow line an snuff out one of my kids or wife. One can lead a great life, doing their share, toeing the line, only to have some boozer take them out. I say take away their license for 5 years for the first offense and 20 for the second. Perhaps that will convince the weak, inconsiderate, selfish alcohol addicts to stay off the roads. They have no right to drag me or my family into their problem. Throw away the key.
Reply

View Full Conversation