How can state's reduce DUII's?

[gdowkpc]

Latest stats by the Oregon Department of Transportation:

ODOT released disturbing report
Nearly half of all deadly accidents in Oregon involve a drunk driver.

The Oregon Department of Transportation has a new study which will not only surprise drivers, but should probably scare them.

The stats are staggering; nearly half of all deadly accidents in Oregon involve a drunk driver. It's worse in Multnomah County, where the numbers are closer to 60 percent.

KC Humphrey, with ODOT said its not just the drunk drivers that are affected. "Kids are being hurt by drunk drivers and these kids can't do much about it."

Maybe even more staggering is that ODOT asked which was more potent, a 12 ounce beer, a glass of wine or a shot of liquor, a fairly standard question on your drivers test. Everyone answered incorrectly because they're all just as potent.

83 percent of adults surveyed got that question wrong.


Origianal story

What is the solution to this? We are trying education and enforcement. I wish I knew what the average BAC was of the drivers of these fatal wrecks.

I don't think that answer is lowering the BAC, it's got to be tougher penalties. I have written my state reps and asked them to take DUII more seriously in Oregon.

Currently the only way to make a DUII a felony here is to be convicted 3 times on 10 years. If you kill or seriously injure someone, obviously, you can be charged with felony manslaughter or assault charges.

Arizona has the 'super duii' where if you are double the legal limit it is a felony. Is this the answer? Has Arizona seen a decrease? What about the possibility of making the DUII a felony if you are found to be at fault in a vehicle collision and you are over .08?

What works? What are some other ideas?

[mcsap]

WE have an enhanced penalty for drivers who are currently under suspension for a previous DUI.

Old law. was 90 days and $1,000.00

New Law. 1st off. 90/$1,000

2nd offense with a BAC of .02% or more( our DUI is .10%) 6 months and $2,500.

3rd offense with a BAC of .02% or more. 2 yrs and $5,000.

This is not for a DUI ( although it could be for a new charge) , just for driving under DUI suspension with a BACof .02% or more. .02% is about one drink.

We don't seize cars but I understand some states do. I like that idea for a repeat offender, such as a three time loser.

[SpeedySlowGuy]

Originally posted by gdowkpc
[B]What is the solution to this? We are trying education and enforcement. I wish I knew what the average BAC was of the drivers of these fatal wrecks.

I do too. I remember reading that study a while back where over 80% of fatal wrecks were 0.15 and above--as in REALLY impaired individuals.

The way I see it is this: either make it so that ANY amount of alcohol is illegal, or stop enforcing the law in the capricious manner in which it's enforced today, and you'll get better results.

Don't put signs on the roadway that say "0.08 in our state" and then write people for 0.02. Make the do what it says...

The problem is this: some people see that as a restriction of personal freedoms, and it's tough to do publicly. Frankly, I can see both sides; any amount of alcohol is an impairment, but so are cell phones, spouses, work, radios, and the weather. I just think you should be able to drink a small amount and still drive, as a matter of practicality.

Is there really any evidence that 0.04 or less really contributes significantly to driving fatalities?

[gdowkpc]

Here is an excerpt from Oregon law:

813.010 Driving under the influence of intoxicants C Fel - A Misd

(1) A person commits the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants if the
person drives a vehicle while the person:

(a) Has .08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the blood of the person as shown by
chemical analysis of the breath or blood of the person made under ORS 813.100,
813.140 or 813.150;

(b) Is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a controlled substance or an inhalant; or

(c) Is under the influence of any combination of intoxicating liquor, an inhalant and a controlled substance.

(2) A person may not be convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants on the basis of being under the influence of a controlled substance or an inhalant unless the fact that the person was under the influence of a controlled substance or an inhalant is pleaded in the accusatory instrument and is either proved at trial or is admitted by the person through a guilty plea.

(4) Except as provided in subsection (5) of this section, the offense described in this section, driving while under the influence of intoxicants, is a Class A misdemeanor and is applicable upon any premises open to the public.

(5) Driving while under the influence of intoxicants is a Class C felony if the defendant has been convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicants in violation of this section or its statutory counterpart in another jurisdiction at least three times in the 10 years prior to the date of the current offense and the current offense was committed in a motor vehicle. For purposes of this subsection, a prior conviction for boating while under the
influence of intoxicants in violation of ORS 830.325 or its statutory counterpart in another jurisdiction, or for prohibited operation of an aircraft in violation of ORS 837.080(1)(a) or
its statutory counterpart in another jurisdiction, shall be considered a prior conviction of driving while under the influence of intoxicants.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section (b) indicates you can be convicted of DUII if you are under the influence of alcohol. No BAC amount is attached to it. The difference between section (a) and section (b) is that in section (a), impairment does not have to be proven. Section (b) requires the prosecution to prove impairment.

DUII is the 3rd on the list for most people arrested in 2000 according to national statistics (the source is posted elsewhere on this site). Officers are making arrests and sending people to jail for it, but deaths continue to occur at unacceptable rates.

[Samuel]

Just like everything else - stiffer/harsher penalties and punishments...

[SpeedySlowGuy]

Originally posted by Samuel
Just like everything else - stiffer/harsher penalties and punishments...

Yeah, cause that always works :rolleyes: .

The states with the highest per capita capital punishment rates also have some of the highest murder rates. You can make the obvious point that they have to execute more people, but it ignores the simple fact--the stiffest punishment imaginable is not having the desired effect of reducing the related crime.

I think the point of the original question is that that's been tried, and it's not getting the job done, and there must be a more creative way to get the job done.

My idea is simple. Decide on a BAC that's not acceptable, and if it's 0.02, fine, then say so. Retroactively equip all cars with a device that won't let you start it unless you're below that.

Thoughts?

[txinvestigator1]

Originally posted by SpeedySlowGuy
or stop enforcing the law in the capricious manner in which it's enforced today, and you'll get better results.

Its not the enforcement that casues such a high rate, it is a multitude of things, from typically lax sentancing to society's acceptance of over-consumption.

In Texas, for example, a first offense DWI is a misdemeanor, and not a serious one. Juries seldom give jail time, and the system is set up to make it difficult to prove a case, and easy for a jury to have a reasonable doubt.

Most people are also completely ignorant of the effects of alcohol on the body. I investigated a fire death where the victim had a BAC at TOD of .13%. He also had two different types of drowsiness causing cold medication in his system. The Arson Investigator determined that the smoke detector must have failed because the guy never woke up. When I attempted to discuss the BAC, he shut me down with "hell, two glasses of wine can get you to .13%, thats not enough to make you sleep through a smoke alarm". :rolleyes:

[EricTheBald]

In NYC they take your car.

[gdowkpc]

Portland has 2 impound ordinances.

1 - Suspended (violation level) and unisured drivers. Average cost to get car out ~$130.00

2 - Criminally suspended drivers, DUII, Speed Racing, Prostitution, Drug Trafficking. Average cost to bail car ~$450.00

The 2nd ordinance is less than a year old.

If you look at the law and ordinances here, Oregon is lacking on the penalty side of DUII.

I just arrested a DUII driver the other day who was afraid he was going to be placed in jail for many days. HE had just moved here from Arizona where he has been convicted of DUII twice in the last 11 years. His last was felony DUII because he was over double the limit.

All he could talk about what how he was going to be in jail for several days, when in fact DUII driver's here are released from jail the moment they are sober and issued a court date 30 days out.

Compared to Arizona, DUII driver's have it easy here if caught. However, this particular driver re-offended even believing that he would be incarcerated at least overnight. Is he typical of other drivers, or is he an exception?

[gdowkpc]

Some stats that back-up the need to do something about drunk driving, courtesy of MADD:

In 2001, 17,400 people were killed in crashes involving alcohol, representing 41 percent of the 42,116 people killed in all traffic crashes.

Arizona is the only state that I know of with the super DUII legislation and I was curious to see how it compares against Oregon in 2002:

ARIZONA - 1,117 total traffic deaths with 477 attributed to DUII = 43%

OREGON - 436 total traffic deaths with 179 attibuted to DUII = 41%.

The states with the lowest %'s were Utah (22) Maine (24), and New York (31).

Highest were Rhode Island (55), South Carolina (52), and South Dakota (51).

Here's a look at the laws by state to see if tough laws have anything to do with the statistics. I understand Utah may have lower stats due to its Mormon population which generally refrains from alcohol consumption (we tried prohibition already, that's why I don't mention it as the solution).

Utah has the high .15 law (super DUII), but so does Rhode Island. Both the highest and lowest state both use it. Both also have .08 Per Se, make it a felony based on number of prior convictions, have laws against 'happy hours', employ ignition interlock, mandatory alcohol assessment/treatment and education, mandatory jail time for second offense, open container laws, increased penalties for refusing a breath test, and zero tolerance for under 21.

The following laws Utah has but Rhode Island does not: an administrative license revocation, require hospitals to report BAC (though probably stripped by HIPAA), mandatory BAC testing of all drivers who survive or are kiiled in a crash, stronger repeat offender law (TEA-21 compliant), sobriety check points, and vehicle impound.

Rhode Island has the following laws but Utah does not: Keg registration and vehicle confiscation.

Interestingly, Rhode Island and Utah both allow offenders to plea-bargain down from an alcohol offense.

I see no clear pattern in laws here that work. But just in case Utah is affected by its Mormon population and Rhode Island by it ssmall population, the next post will be between New York and South Carolina. Both have larger populations.

[SpeedySlowGuy]

Originally posted by gdowkpc
Is he typical of other drivers, or is he an exception?

I was arrested at 330am in WVA. Didn't get out of jail until the bondsman got off his fat *** and posted $1700 of my money. That was at 630pm the next, well actually later that day. Call it 15 hours in jail total. However, they made it clear that had I been arrested anytime after 7pm that night, it would have been an all nighter.

Arrested once in NC, around 230am. Spent a total of 1 hour in jail, even at that late hour. Magistrate is 24 hours there.

Oh, did I mention that WV sucks, and I won't be spending any more of my hard earned money there?;)

[gdowkpc]

Laws both NY and SC have
.08 per se, make felony based on number of priors, employ ignition interlock, mandatory alcohol assessment/treatment and education, mandatory BAC testing of all drivers who survive, open container laws, sobriety check points, and vehicle confiscation.

Laws only in NY
Anti-plea bargaining, prohibit 'happy hours', mandatory BAC testing of all drivers who are killed, increased penalty for breath test refusal and vehicle impound.

Laws only in SC
Lower BAC for repeat offenders and mandatory jail on second offense.

Laws lacking in both
.15 high BAC, administrative license revocation and require hospitals to report BAC.

Again, no clear winner prevails. What are these states that are successful doing? There is something more than face value here. Are they enforcing better? Are their sentences longer or education better?

[SpeedySlowGuy]

Originally posted by gdowkpc
Are their sentences longer or education better?

Can you compare the overall highway safety of those states in general? Perhaps states that have higher DUI related fatalities also have higher traffic fatalities in general? Thus, NY and SC might not be doing anything better, but just have better roads and road safety efforts/education in general.

Just a guess. My guess is it doesn't have as much to do with the law as it does the drivers themselves, or perhaps the roads they drive on.

[gdowkpc]

That's what I mean, something other than the presence of the laws here is at work. Something deeper than I am able to analyze looking at stats alone.

But look, 41% of all accidents in this coutry are DUII related. We have a 1 in 3 chance of being involved in a collision with a DUII driver.

When my dad wouldn't let me drive on Ney Year's Eve, he wasn't far off when he said, "It's not your driving I'm worried about, it's the other guy." Side note, I arrested three people on Mother's Day for DUII. That stat isn't listed on MADD!

Since DUII collisions are 100% preventable, what can we do to prevent them?

[SpeedySlowGuy]

Originally posted by gdowkpc

Since DUII collisions are 100% preventable, what can we do to prevent them?

It is true that it's the other guy you have to worry about; you can control your own actions, speed, driving style, drinking, etc, but not someone elses. In that regard, there's a certain sense where DUI crashes will never be 100% eliminated.

To some extent, it's simply a risk you assume when you drive--some other idiot may kill ya.