3 ms·
Yes, I meant subjective. :\ I don't believe it's possible to define reckless driving objectively. Does crossing across a double-yellow line constitute reckle
by 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 agoYour 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.