Drunk Driver Steals Own Car From Police

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by craigdawg, Oct 8, 2004.

  1. craigdawg macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Location:
    Sactown
    #1
  2. wdlove macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #2
    Another stupidity award. At least he didn't hurt anyone and now he doesn't have a car. Cars need to have a breath test prior to startup. It just seems that public education isn't working. :(
     
  3. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #3
    One of my wife's friend's van for work (antique furniture) has a breathalyzer on it. So every time this guy has to go drop off and pick up furniture, he has to blow into the tube to get the van started, and then after 5 minutes blow again, 10 minutes after that blow again, and then (something like) 20 minutes after that the van cuts out on him and he has to start all over again. He pulls up at a light, next to a cop, the alarm goes off and he has to breath into this contraption. Hello, Ocifer! Sounds ridiculous, eh? What's even MORE ridiculous, is that it's in the van because of his boss. His BOSS has been busted for DUI so many times, this breathalyzer was court mandated. But no one bothered to care what car it went on, so his boss had it installed on the work van, which is ONLY used for work, and is never driven by his boss.

    Sounds to me like the system (in NC) doesn't work at all.
     
  4. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #4
    My friend had it in her car after she got pulled over. Interesting that it could go in any car, seems like it would be a big flaw in the system.

    jon
     
  5. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #5
    How bright are the cops to let the guy get back into his car and drive off, the cops should be the ones punished along with the drunk.
     
  6. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #6
    I don't know all the sortid details, but I'm guessing they told him that it had to go in a car in his name, the work van, while all the rest of the cars were in his wife's name.
     
  7. apple2991 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    #7
    For some reason I imagine that Tony Danza has one of these. I don't know why.
     
  8. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #8
    I wonder if Ted Kennedy's limo has a couple installed?
     
  9. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #9
    We can safely say that Billy Joel has a few installed. :rolleyes:
     
  10. strider42 macrumors 65816

    strider42

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    #10
    A couple of people have sued over these devices. They had respitory diseases that prevented them from blowing hard enough to use the breathalyzer. one guy passed out from blowing so hard into them (he had emphezema I believe). Kind of hard to know how to feel about that. The breathalyzers were madated because they broke the law, and driving is not a right, but in today's world you do kind of need it, so how much should the government be able to punish people who have already been to jail or paid fines.

    But its things like that whcih would absolutely preclude breathalyzers from actually needing to be required on vehicles, among plenty of other legitimate concerns.
     
  11. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #11
    Those breathalyzer devices need a lot of work before they can be considered successful. Besides the problems above, like the guy that passed out, people always find a way around them: Having their kids do the test, or like my partner's boss did, buy a junker pickup truck and have it installed there, so you don't have one in your real car.

    So far, the best method I've seen in dealing with drunk drivers: Egypt, which has no repeat offenders. Because they're executed for the first offense. I don't believe in capital punishment, but why not take a similarly inflexible stance: First offense, you lose your license for 5 years. If you're caught driving in that time, 5 years in federal prison. something tells me it wouldn't take long to see a drastic reduction in DD (and a big increase in personal breathalyzer sales!)

    paul
     
  12. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #12
    I always liked the thought of harsh, inflexible punishment for these types of offenses.
     
  13. wdlove macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #13
    I would hope that they would work to improve the device. There is no excuse for that boss being able to get away with not putting it on his personal car. It should also be able to only recognize the owner. Have you redo the test that many times also doesn't make sense.

    I don't think that the first time punishment should apply to everyone. Know a person that depends on their car for their job, it's their office. They just made a stupid mistake. Got caught DUI. Went through the required education course. That person learned their lesson and only drinks at home and when they won't be driving.
     
  14. virividox macrumors 601

    virividox

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Location:
    Manila - Nottingham - Philadelphia - Santa Barbar
    #14
    they should just confiscate the licence for a year after first offence
     
  15. neilrobinson macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Location:
    Perth, WA, Australia
    #15
    yep, another darwin award coming up for this guy!

    kinda off the topic but the darwin awards dont seem as popular (i guess by this time the gene pool must be getting a little short)
     
  16. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #16
    Ummm... then why so many repeat offenders? Clearly the laws aren't working, i personally know several people on 2nd offense or 3rd, they didn't learn their lesson. Even with the thousands of dollars that a first offense will wind up costing a person, it's apparently not a deterrent.

    People are way too casual about it. Most people drive drunk because they don't think the odds are good they'll be caught. We can't increase the odds, but we can certainly make the chance a lot scarier... Suddenly it might be worth the extra $15 to take a cab home from the bar, if the next 5 years of driving are at stake.

    And in most places I know, mass transit is effective enough to allow the person mobility. If people in Des Moines, IA can take a bus to work, i'm sure it can't be that difficult in larger areas.

    Also a reminder to everyone... If you see someone that's clearly driving impaired (maybe they're drunk, maybe they're coked up, maybe they're just trying to put on pantyhose and mascara), you can phone their license plate, location, and direction to the cops, who do take these things seriously. It's not tattling if people's lives are at stake.

    If an entire family you know was wiped off the face of the earth, because some moron decided that "oh, hell, it's only a few blocks, and it's late, I won't even see anyone else"... then tell me an education course is enough. Drunk drivers know the risk they're taking, and I wouldn't mind seeing them all charged with attempted murder.

    But then, I think the blood-alcohol level should stay at .10 instead of going down to .08 as it is so many places, because a person could easily register a .08 after one or two drinks, when they're nowhere near impaired. I also think open-container laws could be relaxed (maybe, anyway) if DD laws themselves were increased.

    paul
     
  17. TimDaddy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2002
    Location:
    Versailles, KY (and that's pronounced Vurr-sales)
    #17
    Dude, you think that's bad. I recently read an article about some new custody rules that MADD is pushing for. Basically, if they get there way, if you drink so much as a wine cooler, then go pick up your kids, you lose custody and visitation rights! Trust me, I HATE drunk drivers. But, come one, I get one drink at a restaurant and lose my kids? Whether I am proven to be impaired or not? The good thing is, it would be hard for ex-wifey to prove that you had a drink before you came by.
    And I understand MADD's purpose here. I have a friend whose ex-husband often picks up the kid's while slightly drunk. She's worried sick about them, but there is little she can do. She was once threatened by a judge if she continued to "try and interfere with this young man's visitation rights"! I understand that it is things like this that MADD is trying to prevent, but punishing people who have done no wrong is not the way to go.
     
  18. nerd macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    #18
    I think the drunk driving laws in the U.S. have become ridiculously strict. I'm all for people taking responsibility for their actions and harsh penalties being imposed on drunk drivers who cause accidents, but the idea that I could be sentenced to jail time and forced to pay thousands of dollars in fines, etc. because I had two glasses of wine or beer with dinner, for example, and chose to drive home (without causing any harm) is insane.

    The undisclosed location where I live had < 10 DUI arrests in 1974. Last year there were several thousand. Why do you think that is? An alcoholic crime wave? No. I think those in power discovered that it's very profitable to criminalize the population and then fine them for their transgressions.

    I've never gotten a DUI. I've had a friend killed by a drunk driver. I still think these laws are draconian. Until a drunk driver actually has an accident, they haven't done anything "wrong". It's like charging people carrying loaded handguns with murder before they've shot anyone. (Ok, that may be a stretch.)

    So here's my modest proposal:

    Drunk Hour

    Every evening from, say, midnight to 1 AM drunks are allowed to drive with impunity. They're still responsible for any accidents they cause, of course. Sober people would be advised to stay off the roads or use extreme caution when travelling during Drunk Hour.

    What do you think?
     
  19. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #19
    Nerd...um...not a good idea.

    Personally, I feel that the law should be more directed towards field-sobriety tests than breathalyzers. If you are able to pass the tests, you should be allowed to leave, regardless of you blood-alcohol content. It seems a lot fairer. Just my opinion.

    On a related note, here is a tip I learned (but haven't had to use) about getting out of a DUI:

    If you get pulled over and are worried that you will not pass the breathalyzer, refuse to take it and go down to the station. Do not admit you have been drinking, even if it is obvious. On the way and at the station keep asking questions about anything you can think of possibly related to the situation. If the police answer anything incorrectly, you can get off on a technicality. Brought to you by my brothers friend - a lawyer in Wisconsin who leads the state in getting people off from DUI convictions. FWIW

    BTW...I walk or take a cab to the bars.
     
  20. AmigoMac macrumors 68020

    AmigoMac

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Location:
    l'Allemagne
    #20
    It's also a matter of education... Education and control should go together,
    and of course big punishments (No license for 1 year could be the lowest) ...

    I know a guy who wanted to drive home at 1 AM a saturday, the police was controlling something near the pub and he, by mistake, took the police car, you know, that moment where everything should happen, next day after he woke up, he went to the garage and "surprise", his car was not there but a green one... he had a good time explaining everything before the court...

    He left drinking alcohol after that... but we still have fun!
     
  21. sebisworld macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    #21
    You can also start drinking right in front of the cop. So they can't really prove that you were DUI. Of course, you then have to take a cab home. Or (hint, hint) you can also not drink at all if you have to drive.
     
  22. TimDaddy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2002
    Location:
    Versailles, KY (and that's pronounced Vurr-sales)
    #22
    You can have one sober guy stagger out to his car, falling down once or twice on the way. Then, when he drives off, he will immediately be pulled over. When the cop asks if he's been drinking, he can reply with "No, but all my buddies that are back there getting away have been!"
     
  23. bankshot macrumors 65816

    bankshot

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Location:
    Southern California
    #23
    I agree 100% with your points. On the one hand, punishment for driving while clearly impaired should be severe. People who knowingly drive drunk are risking lives as if they went to a crowded public place and started randomly firing a gun. I think there should be mandatory jail time like you say and loss of license for multiple years. Right now the punishment is way too lenient for someone who could easily kill innocent people in their path.

    On the other hand, the punishment for trace amounts of alcohol where there's clearly no impairment is getting a little too strict. I recently learned that in California, while the legal limit is 0.1, the Highway Patrol can prosecute you for endangerment for having any trace amount below that. Apparently the 0.1 limit is just for DMV rules regarding points on your license, etc. Also, if you are involved in an accident and you're found to have any amount of alcohol in your blood - even below the limit, you will be considered at fault regardless of what really happened. So imagine you had a glass of wine at dinner with 1/10th the legal limit after a few hours. You're driving home and suddenly some racers crash and cause a huge 25-car pileup and one person dies. You will be charged as responsible for the whole thing, including the death. That's a bunch of crap! :eek:

    On the one hand, too strict but on the other, not nearly strict enough. The sad thing is, the laws probably won't change in most places because people are too casual about it and legislators will be afraid of pissing off their drunk driving constituents. Ugh. :(
     

Share This Page