4 ms·

You'd still need to be stopped, which would still take an officer observing erratic behaviour, and he'd still make you walk in a straight line and ask you quest

You'd still need to be stopped, which would still take an officer observing erratic behaviour, and he'd still make you walk in a straight line and ask you questions to check if you are slurring your speech. And then you'd still need to be tested to see if you are over the legal limit. So maybe you mean that the law shouldn't be based on BAC?

merpnderp 8y ago
Every time I've been stopped, the "erratic behavior" was it being late at night and me being out on the road. I was stone cold sober on every stop, and at night I always drive particularly careful as the cops are much more likely to pay attention to you in particular. At one "rolling a stop sign" stop, the cop basically admitted I hadn't rolled the sign, they just wanted to make sure I hadn't been drinking - "Yeah, I just wanted to make sure you hadn't been drinking, have a good night."
rascul 8y ago
With stronger reckless driving laws then we can get rid of DUI and cell phone laws. If you're driving recklessly and putting other people in danger, it shouldn't matter how you got there. Drinking, prescription drugs, lack of sleep, cell phone usage, eating, reading, and watching the coast as you drive by are all examples of things that can have equally bad results. Yet we focus almost completely on convicting people based on some arbitrary measurement and sobriety tests designed to make you fail. We should instead convict people based on endangering others.
- dpark 8y ago
  Agree but reckless driving is subjective and harder to define which is why we have specific laws that are so concrete. edit: subjective, not objective :\
  - rascul 8y ago
    I think you mean subjective, not objective? I do think reckless driving laws need to be modified, also. Here's an example, from Mississippi [1]: > Any person who drives any vehicle in such a manner as to indicate either a wilful or a wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. Reckless driving shall be considered a greater offense than careless driving. > Every person convicted of reckless driving shall be punished upon a first conviction by a fine of not less than Five Dollars ($ 5.00) nor more than One Hundred Dollars ($ 100.00), and on a second or subsequent conviction he may be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten (10) days or by a fine of not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($ 500.00), or by both. The way it's defined does seem a bit subjective. I'm sure this can be addressed, but at least in this example, it's not immediately clear to me how it can be improved. I would probably get some ideas by looking at other states. The penalties, however, could absolutely be increased. In comparison, the punishment for a first offense DUI [2]: > (a) First offense DUI. > (i) Upon conviction of any person for the first offense of violating subsection (1) of this section where chemical tests under Section 63-11-5 were given, or where chemical test results are not available, the person shall be fined not less than Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($ 250.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($ 1,000.00), or imprisoned for not more than forty-eight (48) hours in jail, or both; the court shall order the person to attend and complete an alcohol safety education program as provided in Section 63-11-32 within six (6) months of sentencing. The court may substitute attendance at a victim impact panel instead of forty-eight (48) hours in jail. > (ii) Suspension of commercial driving privileges is governed by Section 63-1-216. > (iii) A qualifying first offense may be nonadjudicated by the court under subsection (14) of this section. The holder of a commercial driver's license or a commercial learning permit at the time of the offense is ineligible for nonadjudication. > (iv) Eligibility for an interlock-restricted license is governed by Section 63-11-31 and suspension of regular driving privileges is governed by Section 63-11-23. The penalties are much more, though the end result of the illegal act itself are the same. The only difference is that you drank a couple beers instead of taking your prescription medications. I picked Mississippi simply because I live here currently, but it's similar with all the states I've looked at. [1] https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2013/title-63/chapter-3/article-25/section-63-3-1201 https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2013/title-63/chapt... [2] https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2017/title-63/chapter-11/section-63-11-30/ https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2017/title-63/chapt...
cascom 8y ago
Sorry - in my town the police pull over drivers late at night trying to get DUI arrests - the “reason” for the stop is almost always a minor lane violation - then a mandatory breathlizer if you pass no ticket is issued, and you’re on you way - if not you’re going to jail. Point is the pretext for the stop is nonsense...

merpnderp 8y ago

Every time I've been stopped, the "erratic behavior" was it being late at night and me being out on the road. I was stone cold sober on every stop, and at night I always drive particularly careful as the cops are much more likely to pay attention to you in particular. At one "rolling a stop sign" stop, the cop basically admitted I hadn't rolled the sign, they just wanted to make sure I hadn't been drinking - "Yeah, I just wanted to make sure you hadn't been drinking, have a good night."

rascul 8y ago

With stronger reckless driving laws then we can get rid of DUI and cell phone laws. If you're driving recklessly and putting other people in danger, it shouldn't matter how you got there. Drinking, prescription drugs, lack of sleep, cell phone usage, eating, reading, and watching the coast as you drive by are all examples of things that can have equally bad results. Yet we focus almost completely on convicting people based on some arbitrary measurement and sobriety tests designed to make you fail. We should instead convict people based on endangering others.

dpark 8y ago
Agree but reckless driving is subjective and harder to define which is why we have specific laws that are so concrete. edit: subjective, not objective :\
- rascul 8y ago
  I think you mean subjective, not objective? I do think reckless driving laws need to be modified, also. Here's an example, from Mississippi [1]: > Any person who drives any vehicle in such a manner as to indicate either a wilful or a wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. Reckless driving shall be considered a greater offense than careless driving. > Every person convicted of reckless driving shall be punished upon a first conviction by a fine of not less than Five Dollars ($ 5.00) nor more than One Hundred Dollars ($ 100.00), and on a second or subsequent conviction he may be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten (10) days or by a fine of not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($ 500.00), or by both. The way it's defined does seem a bit subjective. I'm sure this can be addressed, but at least in this example, it's not immediately clear to me how it can be improved. I would probably get some ideas by looking at other states. The penalties, however, could absolutely be increased. In comparison, the punishment for a first offense DUI [2]: > (a) First offense DUI. > (i) Upon conviction of any person for the first offense of violating subsection (1) of this section where chemical tests under Section 63-11-5 were given, or where chemical test results are not available, the person shall be fined not less than Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($ 250.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($ 1,000.00), or imprisoned for not more than forty-eight (48) hours in jail, or both; the court shall order the person to attend and complete an alcohol safety education program as provided in Section 63-11-32 within six (6) months of sentencing. The court may substitute attendance at a victim impact panel instead of forty-eight (48) hours in jail. > (ii) Suspension of commercial driving privileges is governed by Section 63-1-216. > (iii) A qualifying first offense may be nonadjudicated by the court under subsection (14) of this section. The holder of a commercial driver's license or a commercial learning permit at the time of the offense is ineligible for nonadjudication. > (iv) Eligibility for an interlock-restricted license is governed by Section 63-11-31 and suspension of regular driving privileges is governed by Section 63-11-23. The penalties are much more, though the end result of the illegal act itself are the same. The only difference is that you drank a couple beers instead of taking your prescription medications. I picked Mississippi simply because I live here currently, but it's similar with all the states I've looked at. [1] https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2013/title-63/chapter-3/article-25/section-63-3-1201 https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2013/title-63/chapt... [2] https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2017/title-63/chapter-11/section-63-11-30/ https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2017/title-63/chapt...

cascom 8y ago

Sorry - in my town the police pull over drivers late at night trying to get DUI arrests - the “reason” for the stop is almost always a minor lane violation - then a mandatory breathlizer if you pass no ticket is issued, and you’re on you way - if not you’re going to jail. Point is the pretext for the stop is nonsense...