I can’t agree with Drink driving at all. It’s so foolish and will inevitably lead to grief for someone else and yourself.
In Scotland we have close to zero tolerance, there’s a small threshold for mouthwash levels, even a half pint will put you over the limit and I think that’s how it should be.
I just wanted to say that I understand your frustration and need to vent. March will be five years since my DUI and February will be 4 years that I have been sober. I will graduate in May with my Bachelors Degree and finally be able to apply for positions that require driving a company vehicle. I will never escape the fact that I received a DUI when applying for those positions but I hope that I have done enough to be considered for them. The student in me can see some validity in your argument of enforcing everything based off of what could happen but then nobody would ever be allowed to drive or own a gun. We do take on a great amount of responsibility when we do these things. We (as a country) have completely forgotten that driving is the most dangerous thing that most people do any given day. I have seen the results of head on collisions on the Interstate from drunk drivers or somebody simply following their GPS and it’s a tangled mess of metal, busted fiberglass, and lives lost.
2nd offense. In Michigan, if you have a second offense within 5 years of the first offense, it is an automatic licence REVOCATION, not just a suspension. Many of the people I’ve listed that have gone soooo manu years without a license are only second offenders. Yes, 15 and 17 years witbout a license for a 2nd offense. And that isn’t the court doing it, that is the secretary of state doing that. I blew a .10 on my first and a .12 which lowered to a .11 at the jail. I passed all the preliminary tests in both cases. 20, 30 years ago, I would have gotten a ticket and told to find a ride home. Now, you can get up to 90 days in jail on your first offense. Plus we have a super drunk driving law that if its over a .17, it’s an automatic felony, regardless of offense. 3rd offense is also an automatic felony, usually with permanent licence revocation.
It is a second offense. But automatic licence revocation for 1 year? Tgen you have to go in front of a hearing officer for the secretary of state to determine if they will deny you for another year, or put you on a restricted with ignition interlock for a year. Keep in mind if I get denied, i connot re apply for another year from the date of the denial. THAT is excessive. Like I said, I agree with pretty mich everything else. And I may have been just venting and sounding like I should have gotten off scot free. No. I did my time for it. 1 week time served and almost a year probation. My issue is with the licensing. Somthing like that needs to be reserved more for either the super drunk driving law, 3rd offenses, or drunk driving and causing an accident. I think that a more fair punishment should be upon a second offense, 1 year restricted with ignition interlock, after the year, go before the hearing officer to determine if you should stay on interlock or graduate to just a restricted for a determined amount of time.
Like I said, I’m not disagreeing at all with punishments levied by the court. But the licensing punishments is an issue. Yes, it was a second offense which was dumb of me. And i did my time for it. But i do not agree with my licence being revoked. In michigan for a second offense within 5 years it’s an automatic licence revocation for 1 year. Then you have to go have a hearing to determine if you get a restricted with ignition interlock. If I get denied, i cannot re apply for another year from the date of the denial. I live basically in the sticks. Amd my old work was 20 miles away. My family lives about an hour away. So I was essentially left to fend for myself. I would bike 10ish miles to a place I could ride a bus, then spend usually about an hour getting to work. Then repeat the process back home. Rain or shine, and through the winter. I got wrote up twice because I had to call in over the winter because the snow was so bad I couldn’t get my bike through it. I eventually had to walk/hitch the ten miles a few times. At the very least, I should have been allowed to drive to and from work only.
I got a dwi in 2004 and was issued a conditional license that allowed me to drive to/from work and school.
All that is dependent on the state you’re in. Many states do not issue restricted licences, I’m assuming it was a first offense. Mine is a 2nd offense. In Michigan, a 2nd offense within 5 years comes with an automatic licence revocation for 1 years. After that year you have to go in front of the secretary of state to determine if you get a restricted with ignition interlock for a year or get denied. If you are denied, you cannot re apply for another year from the date of the denial.
MADD is advocating for ignition interlocks to be standard in all vehicles. But why won’t they do it? 1. Many a Cop, Lawyer, Judge, Senator, or Legislative Official can honestly say they have never drank and drove. 2. Cost of monitoring would be to much as it would have to be a government ran program. 3. Everyone would have to pay a service fee, so it would cause a huge tax hike. There are probably some others, but that is probably the big three.
Here is another great question. If people feel this strongly about it, why not make the manufacturing, sale, and consumption of alcohol illegal? Treat it just as you would an illegal drug? Makes sense to me. Accidents and deaths from DUI would become almost obsolete, health insurance would actually probably decrease slightly due to lower health issues caused by drinking. Alcoholism in future generations would dramatically decreased because if its like an illegal drug, less people would use it. The only negative sides are businesses that rely on the sale of alcohol would need to find new revenue, and we would have to compensate and redistribute the taxes across the board to other things.
I can relate MAAD in Denver is useless not saying that it doesn’t help those families that have been affected by drunk driving but to me its crazy u have to pay 50 bucks to sit in a class for 2 hours and listen to a sad sob story no phone no resting ur head they walk around to make sure ur listening then tell u that ur pretty much a looser for drinking like wtf I’m an alcoholic had I not been born with the gene things would be different not only am I required to retest for my license I have to test in an interlock equipped car guess what you can’t get a car without a license. I’m blessed to work 5 minutes from work but ive got review court every other week and seeing my probation officer the opposite week I’m on a breathalyzer I have to blow in 5 times a day if I miss one blow I have to take a ua its just ridiculous how ur treated in the system and none of their tactics helped me the first time so what makes them feel this time will be different when its all said and done I had to come to the decision myself not to drink sorry I needed to rant as well but I feel ya jim
I use to drive for a living and you mention 20 years ago there was 1/3–1/2 the traffic there is now. It is busier and they should be proactive. But at the same time if you are not allowed to have a license it should be a judge that you go before not some panel. Can you hire legal counsel?
I did. You live in Europe yes?
I live in western Kansas.
Ok, so it may even be different there. In Michigan, it is set up so that the legal part is handled by the court. Anything to do with your license is handled by the Secretary of State. The court has zero say in what happens. So, my first offense, I blew .10. The court had me do mandatory counseling and community service. I had a pretty lenient judge that took into account I had nothing on my record. Not even a ticket up to that point. The Secretary of State put me on a restricted for 90 days and $500 drivers responsibility fee. Ok. Fair. Now, if you get pulled over and charged with a DUI within 5 years of your first, which happened to me, the Secretary of State automatically REVOKS your license. Not suspends. They take your licenses away. Period. After a year, you have to do all this stuff like get a alcohol assessment that is no more than 3 months old, a 10 panel drug screen no more than 30 days old, 5 letters of reference no more than 3 months old, proof of counseling/treatment, and proof of AA attendance if any. Put this all in an application, and send it in. You go before a hearing officer for the Secretary of State when you get your date and go through a series of questions, they question any witnesses you may have brought. My hearing took about an hour. Now, I’ve been sober for about a year and a half (since my arrest for the second offense April 24 of 2016), I attend AA 3× a week, every week. Very rare i miss a meeting. I also attend NA twice a month and have been clean for almost 4 years. For all that, my chance of being denied is almost 80% based on the fact this is my first time applying. About 80% of people get denied the first time. If I get denied, I have to wait another year from the date of the denial to try again. No way around it. Nothing a lawyer can do. That is the way it is. If I get approved, I will have an ignition interlock and a restricted licence for 1 year. After that year, the Secretary of State will determine based upon how I did for that year, if I graduate to only a restricted. And that can be for 30 days or up to another year. If I in any way violate my restricted licence, done. They will permanently revoke ALL driving privileges.
But I didn’t say completely obsolete. I said almost. Think of alcohol as an illegal drug for a moment. The amount of people using it illegally would be faaaar less than those that legally use it now.
So it would most likley greatly reduce the problems caused by it currently
It sounds like a hell of a process. But I’m thinking if you have all your crap lined up as you describe I cannot imagine that they will deny you. I would bet most of the 80% you refer to aren’t doing everything that you have. I wish you luck.
If a member of your family was killed by a drunk driver do u think your opinon of MADD might be different?
A close friend of mine I called a brother was killed by a drunk driver going the wrong way on the highway two years ago. And he got what he deserved. However, I do not believe that everyones circumstances surrounding their cases should be treated as equal. Thats why we have varying degrees of punishments. Like self defense vs. murder. Just because I kill a man does not make me a murderer based on the circumstances of the case/situation. Same as drinking and driving. Why should be cast in the same circumstance as a person who blows a .20, was driving recklessly almost causing an accident, and incoherent when the only reason I was pulled over was for a cracked tail light, passed all my preliminary tests, and coherent and co-operative?
I’m trying to somewhat see your point. But then you try to use logic that is beyond me. What if it is … stories are just that. The law isn’t meant to have gray areas. It’s black and white. Now if we talk about punishment fitting the crime I’m with you to a degree. But you just made the reference about someone being reckless. Once again I bring up the point it must have been the worlds shittiest timing that the exact time you were going to receive your medal for driver of the year you had a beer right between church and driving to home.??? See where I am going you must of been less than stellar at driving that night and the what if card can be turned around on you