DUI, traffic deaths, and police indifference

[1969912 0]

As you read about the traffic carnage over the new years holiday, please stop to think about our "heroes" in law enforcement, and their role in protecting us. For every accident caused by some drunk asshole with a .2+ BAC who crossed the center line at 100+ MPH, reflect on what the local cops were likely doing at the time.

No, they were not out looking for dangerous drivers, they were looking for busts to add to their, and their department's records. While some incapacitated driver was in the process of killing someone, there were several area cops spending 2+ hours gathering evidence, performing tests, etc., in an effort to nail some low-risk driver with a .080 BAC (as little as two drinks). That time would be much better spent looking for truly risky drivers.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[dorbie 0]

WTF?

Your post is almost comical, what's up, did you get nailed for DUI after hoping they'd let it slide?

Just think of all the people who don't DWI because every bozo who does and is caught get's nailed to the wall. How many lives do you think that saves? It seems to me that DWI has become less and less acceptable as time has gone on through enforcement and public awareness campaigns and that has undoubtedly saved many lives.

[1969912 0]

No, I didn't. I just started thinking about the time cops waste on nailing people for being just over the limit after pulling them over for something like not signalling for a turn. If they really gave a shit about protecting the public, they would be out looking for drivers exhibiting clear evidence of impairment.

Lives saved? That was my whole point. Busting people who are driving home after having 3 or 4 or 5 beers doesn't save lives. Having the police out patrolling looking for truly fucked-up drivers would save lives.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Scoop 0]

Quote

As you read about the traffic carnage over the new years holiday, please stop to think about our "heroes" in law enforcement, and their role in protecting us. For every accident caused by some drunk asshole with a .2+ BAC who crossed the center line at 100+ MPH, reflect on what the local cops were likely doing at the time.

No, they were not out looking for dangerous drivers, they were looking for busts to add to their, and their department's records. While some incapacitated driver was in the process of killing someone, there were several area cops spending 2+ hours gathering evidence, performing tests, etc., in an effort to nail some low-risk driver with a .080 BAC (as little as two drinks). That time would be much better spent looking for truly risky drivers.

I can summarise my feelings here:

FUCK OFF YOU STUPID NARROW MINDED CUNT!

I wish people like you could have their numbers disconnected from the 999 or 911 system so when your girlfriend or wife is getting raped, your getting attacked or your house is burgled you get no assistance. Prick

[dbattman 0]

That's actually an interesting question for the officers on this board. Where do you start to see alcohol related accidents? .15, .12, .1, .08, lower?

Was going from .10 to .08, and now pushing for even lower pops by modern day prohibition groups, necessary or was it just something arbitrary like the FAA pushing pack cycles back to 90 days over reserve malfunctions.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Lives saved? That was my whole point. Busting people who are driving home after having 3 or 4 or 5 beers doesn't save lives. Having the police out patrolling looking for truly fucked-up drivers would save lives.

Again, WTF?

You think up to 5 beers driving home the police shouldn't be stopping you?! Newsflash buddy, you shouldn't be near a set of car keys, that is fucked up for driving, and if the police stop you they've done their job. You need a friggin reality check dude. If you don't think that's driving impaired you're in denial and probably need help.

I shudder to imagine what your definition of a fucked up driver is, maybe they should only test drivers that have wrapped their vehicle around a convenient lamp post.

This has got to be a troll right? Tell me you're trolling.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

That's actually an interesting question for the officers on this board. Where do you start to see alcohol related accidents? .15, .12, .1, .08, lower?

Was going from .10 to .08, and now pushing for even lower pops by modern day prohibition groups, necessary or was it just something arbitrary like the FAA pushing pack cycles back to 90 days over reserve malfunctions.

No, it's a question for legislators, the BAC limits are typically very clear.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

As you read about the traffic carnage over the new years holiday, please stop to think about our "heroes" in law enforcement, and their role in protecting us. For every accident caused by some drunk asshole with a .2+ BAC who crossed the center line at 100+ MPH, reflect on what the local cops were likely doing at the time.

No, they were not out looking for dangerous drivers, they were looking for busts to add to their, and their department's records. While some incapacitated driver was in the process of killing someone, there were several area cops spending 2+ hours gathering evidence, performing tests, etc., in an effort to nail some low-risk driver with a .080 BAC (as little as two drinks). That time would be much better spent looking for truly risky drivers.

I can summarise my feelings here:

FUCK OFF YOU STUPID NARROW MINDED CUNT!

I wish people like you could have their numbers disconnected from the 999 or 911 system so when your girlfriend or wife is getting raped, your getting attacked or your house is burgled you get no assistance. Prick

999 and 911 don't do much good if all the cops are busy with mickey mouse shit.

BTW, you seem to think and write like one who has reached a high level of intellectual and educational development; what is your profession, if I may ask?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Scoop 0]

I have now become a Police Community Support Officer but was a Section Officer in the Special Constabulary responsible for 8 officers for 3 years and qualified as a tutor training new officers.

You don't need to have a high standard of education to be a police officer but you do need some level of common sense. You probably need not apply.

By your standard we need not catch car thieves, burglars, people commiting criminal damage etc as they aren't actually hurting anyone. We should let them go too.

Even lower levels of intoxication impair driving, to say different is burying your head in the sand. Whats the point of setting a limit if you don't enforce it?

After consuming alcohol your blood alcohol levels will increase, so even though you might not appear intoxicated immedietly within a few minutes you quite easily could be so as a police officer it would be negligent and dangerous to let a driver who doesn't appear impaired but fails the test to continue their journey.

[downwardspiral 0]

Don't worry Scoop. There are lots of people out there that respect and admire what you and all other law enforcement agents/officers do for a living. Don't get so worked up over two bit petty criminals that display such attitudes.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[1969912 0]

Dorbie,

I'm not advocating driving after having ANY quantity of drugs that may cause impairment. Read my posts.

To put it simply, when a cop is busy for a couple hours processing the arrest of a .080 BAC driver with little or no impairment, how many weaving, clearly impaired drivers are out cruising through the area where that cop normally patrols? Get it yet?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[willard 0]

Quote

As you read about the traffic carnage over the new years holiday, please stop to think about our "heroes" in law enforcement, and their role in protecting us. For every accident caused by some drunk asshole with a .2+ BAC who crossed the center line at 100+ MPH, reflect on what the local cops were likely doing at the time.

No, they were not out looking for dangerous drivers, they were looking for busts to add to their, and their department's records. While some incapacitated driver was in the process of killing someone, there were several area cops spending 2+ hours gathering evidence, performing tests, etc., in an effort to nail some low-risk driver with a .080 BAC (as little as two drinks). That time would be much better spent looking for truly risky drivers.

I can't believe what I just read.
How do you expect the police to know who is and isn't driving at a diminished capacity? Wait until they kill someone? It is almost always the little things, i.e crossing the centerline, forgetting a turn signal, driving without headlights at night in a well-lit area, etc. that bring notice to a suspect. Just because someone isn't at .08 doesn't mean they are fit to drive. Different people react differently to alcohol.
Another point...while these officers are checking a suspect for intoxication they are almost always near passing traffic, thereby putting themselves at risk of being hit by yet another vehicle.
People around here bitch about cops parking where they can watch people leave the bars. I say GREAT! Catch 'em before they kill someone! I have no problem with people drinking, or even getting totally wasted. Hell, I get shit-faced myself from time to time. But along with the right to drink comes the responsibility to society to NOT place others at risk. It is the duty of the police to do what they can to stop the irresponsible ones before they hurt someone else.
I'm sorry to see that you feel the police are wasting their time but maybe if you, like I, had lost someone very close to you to one of these "low risk drivers" then maybe you would see things differently.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Dorbie,

I'm not advocating driving after having ANY quantity of drugs that may cause impairment. Read my posts.

But you are saying there should be no enforcement at that level and far above it effectively signalling the same thing to offenders. There's a spectrum of consumption, abuse and risk associated with this. The limit has been set by legislators based on one goal, reducing the danger on the road.

Quote

To put it simply, when a cop is busy for a couple hours processing the arrest of a .080 BAC driver with little or no impairment, how many weaving, clearly impaired drivers are out cruising through the area where that cop normally patrols?

One less, and for 6 months to a couple of years depending.

Quote

Get it yet?

Thankfully no. Maybe you should write your MP or senator/congressman and campaign for an increase in the limit if you feel this way, wherever the limit is set it will be enforced by the police.

I assure you your view that someone is fit to drive after up to five beers is in the minority outside the confines of your local boozer.

[DZJ 0]

Quote

Lives saved? That was my whole point. Busting people who are driving home after having 3 or 4 or 5 beers doesn't save lives. Having the police out patrolling looking for truly fucked-up drivers would save lives.

You must drink some incredibly weak beers.

[Richards 0]

Quote

I just started thinking about the time cops waste on nailing people for being just over the limit

How much over the limit? And then when we have found the acceptable limit above the limit why not make that the new limit? Of course we should not bust someone for being just a bit over that limit so we should define an acceptable limit above that limit and make that our next new limit......etc. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Quote

Busting people who are driving home after having 3 or 4 or 5 beers doesn't save lives.

Yes it does. I have an incredibly high tolerance for alcohol yet I would never drive after 5 beers. Personally I set my own limit at one. Even if you are not booze-fucked your reaction times are diminished even if only slightly. I would expect a driver to hold himself to a higher standard of care than that, since his actions have consequences for others.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[skycop 0]

True observation. The .08 drivers usually are not the high tolerance types, they are impaired but normally think they are not. That's what makes them almost as dangerous as someone with a high tolerance and high BAC.
I drank and was measured by an intoxilizer during a class, at .08 I was pretty buzzed, and I drink probably more than I should, so I have some tolerance.
Once I gave a breath test to a guy who smelled of alcohol very bad, but he was walking and talking somewhat normally. You could tell he had been drinking but he did'nt appear smashed. He blew a .35, I was stunned, I gave him another test just to make sure, and sure enough .35. I asked him what he drank and he stated a 5th of Jack Daniels earlier in the day, he also stated he was a severe alcoholic.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[masterrig 1]

Quote

As you read about the traffic carnage over the new years holiday, please stop to think about our "heroes" in law enforcement, and their role in protecting us. For every accident caused by some drunk asshole with a .2+ BAC who crossed the center line at 100+ MPH, reflect on what the local cops were likely doing at the time.

No, they were not out looking for dangerous drivers, they were looking for busts to add to their, and their department's records. While some incapacitated driver was in the process of killing someone, there were several area cops spending 2+ hours gathering evidence, performing tests, etc., in an effort to nail some low-risk driver with a .080 BAC (as little as two drinks). That time would be much better spent looking for truly risky drivers.

____________________________________

Unfortunately, cops can't be everywhere at once. While they are stopping the driver who blows a .08 sadly, the guy who would blow a .20, slips through. Not always, though. Most departments are under-manned. Here in Texas, every available Deputy, constable, police officer and DPS Officer is put to work just to try to catch anyone driving drunk. Quit bein' so hard on the cops... they are trying. There's just a whole bunch more citizens than cops. The odds aren't in the cops favor to begin with.

Happy New Year to you and everyone on dz.com. If, you drink... don't drive! Let's keep it safe!


Chuck

[Airman1270 0]

Good point, but as you already have noticed you will be misunderstood and accused of "cop bashing" and/or of advocating dangerous behavior.

I contend that we would all be more free and no less safe if we repealed every law passed in the last 30 years.

The blood/alcohol standard that was in place in 1980 was perfectly reasonable. It allowed people to "party" within certain limits without risking arrest and without posing a threat to public safety. Back when groups like MADD began making noise their only purpose was to persuade people to obey existing laws. They were not demanding that the BAC standards be changed, nor were they demanding roadblocks, "open container" laws, etc.

I do not accept the premise that alcohol is to blame for every unfortunate event that occurs in its presence. Show me a guy who is a dangerous driver after two beers and I'll show you a dangerous driver, period.

As far as the police are concerned, their profession has been hijacked by liberal politicians who pass these stupid laws which either make it illegal to do things we were previously free to do, or which further criminalize behavior that is already illegal. This puts the cops in the position of hassling you for doing things which used to be okay. And they wonder why there seems to be declining respect for law enforcement.

This is not necessarily their fault, but it would be nice if they'd have the guts to speak out publicly when these laws are being proposed. How refreshing it would be to see some letters in local newspapers from police personnel who stand up and say "No, this is not why I became a cop!"

Sure, they help people and they chase bad guys. We appreciate them for this service. But it is difficult to have any respect for the police when they are willing to arrest a guy for sleeping in his car in the Wal-Mart parking lot, or think they have the right to stop you and demand to see your ID simply because you're walking along the roadside late at night.

(Full disclosure - I've never yet been personally hassled except for minor instances which did not result in being ticketed or arrested, and, yes, I do have a cop in the family. He agrees with me about this sort of thing.)

Cheers,
Jon
DAMM
Drunks Against Mad Mothers

[Gravitymaster 0]

I wonder how many lives have been saved because of fear of being busted for just a few beers?

The police may not always get the drunkest driver on the road on any given night, but then again, when fishing, I don't always catch the biggest fish.

Given enough times driving drunk, a person will be caught eventually. Too bad they let them back on the road without more severe consequences after repeated offenses. As far as I care, you get a 3rd DUI, you never drive again.

-

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

No, they were not out looking for dangerous drivers, they were looking for busts to add to their, and their department's records. While some incapacitated driver was in the process of killing someone, there were several area cops spending 2+ hours gathering evidence, performing tests, etc., in an effort to nail some low-risk driver with a .080 BAC (as little as two drinks). That time would be much better spent looking for truly risky drivers.

How many of those officers spend 10 minutes and find that person a ride home? More then you would expect or imagine.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Richards 0]

Quote

I do not accept the premise that alcohol is to blame for every unfortunate event that occurs in its presence. Show me a guy who is a dangerous driver after two beers and I'll show you a dangerous driver, period.

The capacity is somewhat diminished, when you consume alcohol. Again we are dealing with marginal changes and at speeds marginal differences in timing and reflex can be the difference between getting home without incident or tragedy. Remember when you are on the road you also have an obligation to factor in the other drivers carelessness. Even if you are driving carefully after 4 beers, if some other idiot does something unexpected your ability to react is not the same as when you have had nothing even if 4 beers does not leave you feeling buzzed.

Quote

but it would be nice if they'd have the guts to speak out publicly when these laws are being proposed. How refreshing it would be to see some letters in local newspapers from police personnel who stand up and say "No, this is not why I became a cop!"

In fairness I imagine most people on this forum have not stood up and publicly denounced the decisions of thier employers.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

I wonder how many lives have been saved because of fear of being busted for just a few beers?

Exactly. One of the best arguments for roadside checks.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

• Quote

[dbattman 0]

Quote

Quote

I do not accept the premise that alcohol is to blame for every unfortunate event that occurs in its presence. Show me a guy who is a dangerous driver after two beers and I'll show you a dangerous driver, period.

The capacity is somewhat diminished, when you consume alcohol. Again we are dealing with marginal changes and at speeds marginal differences in timing and reflex can be the difference between getting home without incident or tragedy. Remember when you are on the road you also have an obligation to factor in the other drivers carelessness. Even if you are driving carefully after 4 beers, if some other idiot does something unexpected your ability to react is not the same as when you have had nothing even if 4 beers does not leave you feeling buzzed.

Quote

Quote

Quote

I wonder how many lives have been saved because of fear of being busted for just a few beers?

Exactly. One of the best arguments for roadside checks.

If we're going to be concerned to that level than I think we should have 'mental acuity checkpoints' and 'field alertness tests' to be checking for drivers that didn't get enough sleep the night before.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[Richards 0]

Quote

If we're going to be concerned to that level than I think we should have 'mental acuity checkpoints' and 'field alertness tests' to be checking for drivers that didn't get enough sleep the night before.

[dbattman 0]

You can be charged for doing ANYTHING and causing an accident, or doing nothing at all.