Sierra Club leader departs amid discontent over group's direction

[corco]

And that's cool, but if you're a good drunk driver and a cop is following you across the county, you'll slow to the speed limit and use your blinker and do everything you can- if you're good at tracking your car and you're erring towards the shoulder and not the center stripe, he might have probable cause to pull you over and give you a warning about something made up just to be a dick, but he'd have no legal grounds to question your alcohol content level, because you'd be driving as well as a mediocre sober driver.

If you're a bad drunk driver and you're all over the place speedwise and lane position-wise, erring towards the center stripe, then by all means you should get pulled over and have your license revoked.

Essentially, if you get a ticket and you happen to be drunk, you're in deep shit, but you can't get a ticket because you're drunk.

[J N Winkler]

Realjd:  where Bulgaria is concerned, it is certainly BS that they execute for a second drunk driving offense.  Bulgaria is in the EU and as such has abolished the death penalty.

Regarding "good" drunk driving in general, it is possible to do a considerable amount of stuff reasonably competently while drunk.  One can type, handwrite, debug code, etc.--all of which I have done at some time or another while under the influence.  However, sudden rampings-up of task load expose the impairment.  A person who chooses to drive drunk is taking a chance not only on not inadvertently doing something that attracts police attention (changing lane position erratically, failing to use a turn signal, failing to wear a seatbelt, etc.), but also on not winding up in a situation where he or she has to react rapidly and precisely to multiple stimuli.

Sobriety checkpoints and other forms of dragnet-style DUI enforcement attract considerable opprobrium on here but even when they are used, a significant proportion of DUI citations are issued after the offender has already had a reportable accident as a result of drinking and driving.

I am actually not in favor of taking people's licenses away for life for (in effect) being too stupid to cover up the fact that they are driving drunk.  It is legally and morally absurd to make a thing illegal and then fashion failure to cover it up into an aggravating circumstance.  Moreover, the process of fixing DUI penalties is complicated by the need to keep transport accessible to people who have to work so they can support their families.  So, yes, I support foolproof ignition interlocks for an extended period of time for a first offense, but not taking away a driver's license permanently.

[corco]

I am actually not in favor of taking people's licenses away for life for (in effect) being too stupid to cover up the fact that they are driving drunk.  It is legally and morally absurd to make a thing illegal and then fashion failure to cover it up into an aggravating circumstance.

I guess I don't look at it like a cover-up. If you're too drunk to drive I don't think you can pretend you're not- you either are and bad driving behavior manifests itself or you are not and that behavior does not.

A person who chooses to drive drunk is taking a chance not only on not inadvertently doing something that attracts police attention (changing lane position erratically, failing to use a turn signal, failing to wear a seatbelt, etc.), but also on not winding up in a situation where he or she has to react rapidly and precisely to multiple stimuli.

This is definitely true, but I feel like it operates under the faulty assumption that all sober people are good at reacting to multiple stimuli and all drunk people are bad at reacting to multiple stimuli. Certainly it's true that the average sober person can react to stimuli better than the average drunk person, but I have to believe that there are some sober people who are worse at reacting to stimuli than some drunk people. Case in point: my Grandma is 83 and still drives. She recognizes that she can't drive well anymore and has well-aged reflexes, so she only drives on a select few backroads. My 83 year old Grandma would probably be really dangerous on the freeway, but at 30 MPH on a backroad she's got the reflexes to drive competently. I've ridden with her recently on roads she drives, and it's not scary, it's like riding with anybody driving 30 MPH down a two lane road.  Because she's (very, possibly overly) astute at knowing her limitations, she'll probably be driving for a long time, continuing to scale back until she's just not comfortable driving anymore.

Now, I'd bet a 30 or so year old, normally responsible driver with a lot of driving experience and good reflexes with a few drinks in him is probably at least as competent as my 83 year old Grandmother at driving a car. If that person is a "responsible" drunk, they'll be like my Grandmother, realize their limitations, and stick to the slow speed backroads where there are fewer stimuli to react to. A drunk driver in 50 MPH traffic is more likely to expose themselves and fuck up, getting a hefty punishment, than a drunk driver on a rural country road.

That capability is going to vary greatly from person to person, and I think punishment should operate accordingly.

So, yes, I support foolproof ignition interlocks for an extended period of time for a first offense, but not taking away a driver's license permanently.

That's fair.

[J N Winkler]

I am actually not in favor of taking people's licenses away for life for (in effect) being too stupid to cover up the fact that they are driving drunk.  It is legally and morally absurd to make a thing illegal and then fashion failure to cover it up into an aggravating circumstance.

I guess I don't look at it like a cover-up. If you're too drunk to drive I don't think you can pretend you're not- you either are and bad driving behavior manifests itself or you are not and that behavior does not.

The thing is, driving while over the designated limit (now 0.08 more or less universally) is now per se illegal, no matter what the driver's ability is while that drunk.  I agree that this will vary from person to person and that there are probably people with unusually high tolerances for alcohol who are able to handle typical driving task loads effectively while slightly over 0.08 BAC, but who would be blown away if they accidentally ran into a sobriety checkpoint.  (The standard advice to law enforcement is to give sobriety checkpoints a considerable amount of advance publicity to enhance the deterrence effect and to spike counterclaims of entrapment, but even so it is pretty easy to run into sobriety checkpoints without having had any specific advance notice of them.)

There is also an element of redundancy in stepping hard on people who are not aware enough of their abilities (or intoxication level) to avoid driving in excess of their abilities while per se drunk.  Generally these people will accumulate other moving violations, if they are not actually involved in accidents, and they will not be off the hook on those counts if they are ultimately arrested for DUI.

The problem of having per se DUI laws is a special case of the general problem of having strict-liability traffic laws (such as absolute speed limits, absolute prohibitions on passing red signals, etc.) whose relevance to safety is often indirect and varies with the context, but which are promulgated because they are cheap to enforce.  Does the reduction in enforcement cost balance out the added costs associated with pursuing cases which could otherwise be benignly ignored?

Impairment tests for DUI are very old, while per se laws are comparatively recent.  A stylized explanation for this is that impairment tests have been found to let too many incompetent drunks stay on the roads while per se laws make them easier to remove before they run across accident triggers.  Of course you could counter that by suggesting that DUI policy formation has been captured by interest groups (e.g., MADD) and that the per se laws and tendentious studies claiming benefits for them are one outgrowth of this, but personally I know of too little evidence in support of this argument to find it compelling.  There are other facts which point in the opposite direction.  For example, DUI law enforcement is under-resourced in general.  Many patrol officers ignore all but the most flagrant DUIs because it can take up to four hours (half a shift) in some jurisdictions to process DUI arrests, there are so few prosecutors with DUI expertise that most DUI cases are disposed of through negotiation (generally either plea-bargaining or diversion), and DUI specialists in DA offices are promoted out once they gain experience and expertise.

My 83 year old Grandma would probably be really dangerous on the freeway, but at 30 MPH on a backroad she's got the reflexes to drive competently. I've ridden with her recently on roads she drives, and it's not scary, it's like riding with anybody driving 30 MPH down a two lane road.  Because she's (very, possibly overly) astute at knowing her limitations, she'll probably be driving for a long time, continuing to scale back until she's just not comfortable driving anymore.

My own grandmother went through a similar process before she died, and that is one reason I hold to the view that any driver who is aware of the limitations in his or her abilities and accommodates them has to be regarded as a safe driver.  But being elderly and being a "responsible drunk" are different since one of the symptoms of intoxication is a tendency to overestimate one's own abilities while under the influence.  My own experience is that the extent of this overestimation varies from one drinking session to another, so I think there is still a considerable amount of luck involved (not just skill) in driving home safely while moderately drunk.

[agentsteel53]

A stylized explanation for this is that impairment tests have been found to let too many incompetent drunks stay on the roads while per se laws make them easier to remove before they run across accident triggers. 

what is wrong with the field sobriety tests?  I had thought that, if administered by a competent and watchful officer, they were quite reliable in gauging the subject's ability to handle complex tasks which are a good correlation to driving skills.

I've never gotten an explicit field test - there have been times when I likely was as high as .03 or .04, but the officer quickly determined that I was able to answer questions in complete sentences, present a driver's license upon request, etc etc...

surprisingly enough, I have been in a single sobriety checkpoint in my life (El Centro, CA, Dec '10) despite all my hundreds of thousands of miles of driving.

[J N Winkler]

The problem with field sobriety tests is the right of refusal, which DUI evasion websites advise drivers always to exercise.  Under implied consent laws you generally don't have a right to refuse a breath test without penalty--though, depending on your BAC and the administrative and criminal sanctions applied to test refusal and DUI conviction respectively, it may be in your interest to refuse the breath test and take the hit on that rather than to supply evidence for a later DUI conviction.  A standard piece of advice is to ask for a lawyer when you are asked to take a breath test.  This forces the police to discontinue all testing.  I don't think they can count a request for an attorney as refusal.

[agentsteel53]

The problem with field sobriety tests is the right of refusal, which DUI evasion websites advise drivers always to exercise.  Under implied consent laws you generally don't have a right to refuse a breath test without penalty--though, depending on your BAC and the administrative and criminal sanctions applied to test refusal and DUI conviction respectively, it may be in your interest to refuse the breath test and take the hit on that rather than to supply evidence for a later DUI conviction.  A standard piece of advice is to ask for a lawyer when you are asked to take a breath test.  This forces the police to discontinue all testing.  I don't think they can count a request for an attorney as refusal.

can you ask for a lawyer when asked to take a field sobriety test (like "count backwards from 17" or the like)?

[J N Winkler]

When you are talking with a police officer, you can ask for a lawyer at any time, for any reason or none at all, and the fact that you have "lawyered up" cannot be used against you in court.

[realjd]

can you ask for a lawyer when asked to take a field sobriety test (like "count backwards from 17" or the like)?

My understanding is that (at least here in Florida), the implied consent law only covers chemical testing (blood/breath/urine) and not the field sobriety test. It serves no purpose other than to gather evidence to be used against you. If you pass, they'll still follow up with the breathalyzer anyway. And at least here, if you fail the field sobriety test, they can still get you with a DUI even if you blow less than .08 (as opposed to a DWI which is BAC > .08 and the evidence is the breathalyzer results).

[jwolfer]

can you ask for a lawyer when asked to take a field sobriety test (like "count backwards from 17" or the like)?

My understanding is that (at least here in Florida), the implied consent law only covers chemical testing (blood/breath/urine) and not the field sobriety test. It serves no purpose other than to gather evidence to be used against you. If you pass, they'll still follow up with the breathalyzer anyway. And at least here, if you fail the field sobriety test, they can still get you with a DUI even if you blow less than .08 (as opposed to a DWI which is BAC > .08 and the evidence is the breathalyzer results).

This is where a lawyer works for their money. The DUI laws are passed with good intention or some legislator wanting to "do something"  But they end up being used as cash cows for cities and counties

[relaxok]

yep, MADD has gone completely off their rocker.  look at European drinking and driving laws, for example, which are a lot more sane.  you can buy anything up to and including hard alcohol at gas stations and freeway service areas!  just ... don't drive drunk.  you are trusted to be able to make that decision yourself. 

Excuse us, we're still recovering from prohibition.

[agentsteel53]

When you are talking with a police officer, you can ask for a lawyer at any time, for any reason or none at all, and the fact that you have "lawyered up" cannot be used against you in court.

but what about refusing the field sobriety test until my lawyer shows up?  could that refusal be used against me?