3 ms·

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'

by rascul 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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...
  - dpark 9y ago
    Yes, I meant subjective. :\ I don't believe it's possible to define reckless driving objectively. Does crossing across a double-yellow line constitute reckless driving? What if you're doing it to avoid a deer? Or a pothole? Or at very low speed? What if you do it at the speed limit and there's no obstruction and there is heavy traffic, but a child in your car is choking and you're look back at them to make sure they're okay? There are too many things that could be considered reckless and even more things that could be extenuating. The penalty for reckless driving could certainly be higher, though, since it's defined as willful or wanton disregard. The DUI law you cited already covers prescription drugs, by the way. "Is under the influence of any other substance that has impaired the person's ability to operate a motor vehicle;"
    - rascul 9y ago
      Your point about the subjectiveness is well noted, I hadn't much considered it before. You are correct in that the DUI law covers prescription drugs. I hadn't noticed that until you pointed it out. It's rare though, from what I see, for a DUI case to be about anything other than BAC. I have no actual statistics on that. I guess in my earlier comment the prescription drug part can be replaced by using a cell phone.
      - dpark 9y ago
        > It's rare though, from what I see, for a DUI case to be about anything other than BAC. I have no actual statistics on that. That's because BAC is easy to measure. If you want to prosecute for BAC, you just need trusted test results. If you want to prosecute for impaired driving in general, you need to prove actual impairment, which is tough. This is why MADD campaigned for the .08 limit nationwide. It's easy to enforce.

by rascul 9y ago

dpark 9y 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 9y 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...
- dpark 9y ago
  Yes, I meant subjective. :\ I don't believe it's possible to define reckless driving objectively. Does crossing across a double-yellow line constitute reckless driving? What if you're doing it to avoid a deer? Or a pothole? Or at very low speed? What if you do it at the speed limit and there's no obstruction and there is heavy traffic, but a child in your car is choking and you're look back at them to make sure they're okay? There are too many things that could be considered reckless and even more things that could be extenuating. The penalty for reckless driving could certainly be higher, though, since it's defined as willful or wanton disregard. The DUI law you cited already covers prescription drugs, by the way. "Is under the influence of any other substance that has impaired the person's ability to operate a motor vehicle;"
  - rascul 9y ago
    Your point about the subjectiveness is well noted, I hadn't much considered it before. You are correct in that the DUI law covers prescription drugs. I hadn't noticed that until you pointed it out. It's rare though, from what I see, for a DUI case to be about anything other than BAC. I have no actual statistics on that. I guess in my earlier comment the prescription drug part can be replaced by using a cell phone.
    - dpark 9y ago
      > It's rare though, from what I see, for a DUI case to be about anything other than BAC. I have no actual statistics on that. That's because BAC is easy to measure. If you want to prosecute for BAC, you just need trusted test results. If you want to prosecute for impaired driving in general, you need to prove actual impairment, which is tough. This is why MADD campaigned for the .08 limit nationwide. It's easy to enforce.