Austin TX needs more DUI $$$$

[Dancebass]

Well it looks like the City isn't making enough money off of actual drunks, now they want to cash in on people that drive while NOT-Drunk!

 

Hmmm....looks like too many people are going out and having a good time. Hey, we can't have that can we? Maybe the city shouldn't hemorrhage money 24/7!

 

F*cking despicable.

 

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/austin-chief-pushes-for-new-drunk-driving-charge-958125.html?printArticle=y

[bruto]

Driving While Ability Impared. Honestly, you can be tired and fall under that catagory.

 

Yep, they're scratching for cash.

[Dancebass]

I was recently robbed at gunpoint outside of a club after a show. It was blatantly obvious that the criminals were targeting myself and other revelers for a reason.

 

It makes me sick to know that city governments see the same thing that thugs see when they look around for easy cash.

[Austincowbell]

I can't believe they passed a law that makes it illegal for me to take a girl out to dinner, have one glass of wine, and drive home. This city pisses me off sometimes.

[mineame]

.05 to .07? Wow!!! That is just ridiculous.

 

Seems to me the Austin Chief of Police should be out celebrating the reduced amount of DWI charges as a win for the community being more responsible. Not as a tool to reduce the legally impaired limit by lower the BAC amount for a lesser charge of drunk driving.

[Dancebass]

 

I can't believe they passed a law that makes it illegal for me to take a girl out to dinner, have one glass of wine, and drive home. This city pisses me off sometimes.

 

 

I don't think they passed it yet, did they?? I could have read it wrong.

[ido1957]

Controversial - it's true that .05 -.07 is probably impaired enough to be dangerous in many cases. But if that's their goal then push the alcohol limit down there and don't create a separate set of limits. That does look like a cash grab. Is the state responsible for the limit? Or is it national there?

The guy said he didn't want to lower the limits - why not?

One glass of wine won't make you hit .05....

I agree they should be applauding the reduction in DUI's.

Remember the days before DUI back in the 70's? People used to drive {censored}faced and the only danger was to themselves on those empty streets.

[Roosterhead S.]

This is sort of like the DUI checkpoints they were having around here a lot earlier this year. They weren't really even concerned about drunk drivers. Basically, it was a sneaky way for the police departments to check for licensed drivers so that they could raise money by impounding cars and forcing people to pay to get them back.

[Austincowbell]

 

I don't think they passed it yet, did they?? I could have read it wrong.

 

 

They haven't but it will pass. It's political suicide to go anti MADD here in Texas (or anywhere) and no one wants to have a campaign add saying "senator _____ voted AGAINST laws to keep drunk drivers off the road". This sucks.

 

I have a friend who got pinched for this in colorado and on the second offense its a MANDATORY 10 days in jail. No, I'm not kidding.

[Dancebass]

 

But if that's their goal then push the alcohol limit down there and don't create a separate set of limits.

 

 

The goal here is clear. The goal is to generate new revenue streams from areas that currently allude them.

[MusicalSchizo]

 

I have a friend who got pinched for this in colorado and on the second offense its a MANDATORY 10 days in jail. No, I'm not kidding.

 

 

Pinched for drunk driving or pinched for a .05 BAC?

 

If it's pinched for drunk driving, he should have learned his damn lesson the first time and not been an asshole. The law seems a little silly, though.

 

But no one should drive when they drink...ever. You simply shouldn't make that choice.

 

I realize we see it as a necessity sometimes because we occasionally get ourselves into situations where we need to get home and we've had two or three beers in a short period of time, but the reality is, you're probably not going to get pulled over unless you're driving like you're impaired or you speed.

 

Quibbling about whether "DUI-Lite" makes sense or not is kind of silly, since the reality in Austin is that if you get pulled over during the evening and they smell alcohol on you at all, no matter what you will most likely be detained. I think that's true pretty much everywhere, and the reason for that is this: if they let someone go, it's a massive liability if that person gets in an accident later in the evening.

 

Brian V.

[kmart]

 

I have a friend who got pinched for this in colorado and on the second offense its a MANDATORY 10 days in jail. No, I'm not kidding.

 

 

So someone should cry a river of tears in sympathy for a person who fools around and gets nailed for DUI the first time, and then is dumb enough to do it again?

 

Sorry, you lost me there.

 

 

I'm not for law enforcement/gov't going around established laws/regulations to boost revenues in any way, but I think a lot of complaining about these kind of laws is misinformed at best:

 

Regardless of your tolerance/metabolism/size/etc. and whatever you may THINK, .08 is a hell of a lot past the point where the reflexes and judgement is IMPAIRED for just about anybody.

[Dancebass]

 

But no one should drive when they drink...ever.

 

 

Live music ends that day.

[Austincowbell]

 

So someone should cry a river of tears in sympathy for a person who fools around and gets nailed for DUI the first time, and then is dumb enough to do it again? Sorry, you lost me there. I'm not for law enforcement/gov't going around established laws/regulations to boost revenues in any way, but I think a lot of complaining about these kind of laws is misinformed at best: Regardless of your tolerance/metabolism/size/etc. and whatever you may THINK, .08 is a hell of a lot past the point where the reflexes and judgement is IMPAIRED for just about anybody.

 

 

Ok... new reading comprehension lesson. If the topic at hand is "BAC of .05-.07 and I say "THIS" it's a safe assumption that "THIS" refers to the topic at hand.

 

He got pulled over, cop smells booze, he knew he was under and blew a .055 which was MAYBE 2 beers over a 2 hour span.

 

No one is justifying a DWI here. I am saying that making it illegal to drive after having ONE glass of wine is utterly stupid and "If you know the penalty don't commit the crime" is going along with the notion that action IS a crime. Which it shouldn't be. It's an unjust law and an obvious money grab and I say that both as a consumer of alcohol and as someone who ran experiment after experiment in state dependent learning and alcohol impairment while in college.

In my opinion, make the penalty for DWI incredibly stiff but make it for real DWIs. I've had plenty of friends who got pulled over, the cop smelled alcohol and they spent the night in jail even though the charges got dismissed $10,000 later. Field sobriety tests are nearly impossible for sober people much less someone who is nervous about the prospect of getting arrested. Some people are impaired at .08 but in all honesty, a lot aren't.

 

-rant over.

[6StringSling]

It's been that way for a while in Oregon - you can be WAY under, like .02 and still get a DUI for anything - a brake light out, headlight, didn't come to a complete stop, etc. If they ask if you've been drinking they'll also remind you that it's a federal offense to lie to a police officer.

[Scafeets]

Am I missing something here? The way I read the BAC tables, a 160-pounder can have three beers in an hour and metabolize his way to .05 or under.

Also: 4 margaritas in four hours is OK.

Here's a calculator.

I'm a 200-pounder and I can tell I'm at my limit with any combination I put in there that came up at .05 -- and would never consider driving at .07

For example: 4 margaritas in 2 hours (.07 BAC) would knock me on my ass, driving-wise.

[kmart]

 

Ok... new reading comprehension lesson. If the topic at hand is "BAC of .05-.07 and I say "THIS" it's a safe assumption that "THIS" refers to the topic at hand. He got pulled over, cop smells booze, he knew he was under and blew a .055 which was MAYBE 2 beers over a 2 hour span. No one is justifying a DWI here. I am saying that making it illegal to drive after having ONE glass of wine is utterly stupid.

 

 

Not trying to get in a pissing match about this, but deciding if you are truly capable of driving or not based on the number of drinks you've had is what's utterly stupid.

 

Even accomodating for what type of alcohol one consumed, that's at best still guess-work, and frankly, as long as I'M drivingor passenger in a car that's on the roads, I'd just as soon not take my chances on sharing the road with your ability to guess accurately.

[kmart]

 

Ok... new reading comprehension lesson. If the topic at hand is "BAC of .05-.07 and I say "THIS" it's a safe assumption that "THIS" refers to the topic at hand. He got pulled over, cop smells booze, he knew he was under and blew a .055 which was MAYBE 2 beers over a 2 hour span.

 

 

And back to this: it's NOT safe to assume it's obvious someone got busted for something that isn't illegal, so maybe be clearer in the future.

 

If what you are saying is your friend got busted for driving and blowing a .05-.07 on 2 seperate occasions, then I would say:

 

1) Busted for what? Either driving with a .05-.07 is illegal or it isn't. If he got pulled over and had to take a field sobriety test because the cop smelled alcohol, so what? That's how that works. If he got busted on some other charge, that's what happens when people get pulled over. What caused him to get pulled over in the first place each time?

If you're saying he got a DWI/DUI each time, then he and the local law clearly have trouble with basic math...unless the code in those parts allow for the law to use their own judgement.

 

and...

 

2) Maybe your friend should have smartened up after the first one and not taken his chances the second time.

[Austincowbell]

 

Not trying to get in a pissing match about this, but deciding if you are truly capable of driving or not based on the number of drinks you've had is what's utterly stupid. Even accomodating for what type of alcohol one consumed, that's at best still guess-work , and frankly, as long as I'M drivingor passenger in a car that's on the roads, I'd just as soon not take my chances on sharing the road with your ability to guess accurately.

 

 

1. That calculator is from Oklahoma where state laws limit the amount of alcohol in their beer and other products. I'm not knowledgeable about the limits on wine etc. I plugged 3 beers into that one and got .05 but I got all the way to .09 on other ones and I averaged at about .07 which basically tells me that online BAC calculators are bull{censored}.

2. I won't drive drunk. I also won't get into a car with someone who is drunk or buzzed but the notion that a couple can't go out and have one glass of wine each without risking jail just seems draconian.

[kmart]

 

the notion that a couple can't go out and have one glass of wine each without risking jail just seems draconian.

 

 

And extremely over-dramatic, to boot.

:poke:

 

Agree that one will be designated driver.

Walk.

Take a cab.

Take public transportation.

Carpool with someone who doesn't drink.

Etc.

 

None are necessarily perfect solutions, and it's not a perfect world/situation, yet...there are still options available.

 

 

I just think equating some sort of crackdown or stricter rules on legal BAC levels, etc. to "They're taking away my rights!" is more than a little over the top, even though I completely agree that the reason behind it looks to be about generating revenue as opposed to providing a higher likelihood of safety.

 

 

Draconian would be "You can't drive. Period." The fact that the law allows for driving an automobile after you've consumed ANY alcohol is actually quite liberal.

[Hegmatronicon]

 

Some people are impaired at .08 but in all honesty, a lot aren't.

 

 

Disagree with every fibre of my being. .08 is HUGELY high.

 

The limit out here is .05 for a driver with a regular car licence. That is 2 standard drinks in the first hour, and one every hour after that (for males). More for most ppl but thats the line they run with in Ads etc to be safe.

 

I'm not sure what the new law is that you are talking about here (not being from the States at all) - but why will it make having a single glass of wine whilst having dinner and then driving home a bit later illegal? 1 glass of wine will barely register .02 on most ppl if tested an hour later. Women included.

 

I should say that my ex girlfriend was one of the types of ppl mentioned in that article (ppl that should not drive after even one drink). One glass of wine and you could tell that she'd had a drink, 2 glasses and it was more noticeable, 3 and i'd call her very tipsy, 4 and it was all over. Whereas i have been breathalysed before after having 4 or 5 bourbon and cokes in the space of a few hours and been well under the .05 limit out here. It's different for everyone.

 

I'd encourage everyone to grab one of those personal breathalyser devices. They arent 100% accurate, and they arent legally binding (ie if it says you are under the BAC limit and the police test you and find out over - you're screwed) but they do give you a better idea of where you are than just guessing based on the number of drinks you have had.

[ned911]

Remember this is the city that if you refuse the breathalizer the cops will just take your blood.

[Hegmatronicon]

 

Remember this is the city that if you refuse the breathalizer the cops will just take your blood.

 

 

Uhh so?

[twostone]

Thanks for the heads up on the stiffer DUI laws I'll be sure to never go there.

[Roadappledrumme]

This new law would be ridiculous. One more example of gov't gone overboard to grab money because they can't reign in their spending. I got stopped last Sat. on the way home from a gig at 2:30a.m. for "speeding". Cop just wanted to get a look in the car and a sniff of my breath. If I was speeding it was only marginally. At least the cop was honest and let me go without a ticket once he saw I was as sober as a church mouse. I have no problem with cops getting drunks off the roads... hell it makes me safer when I'm coming home after gigs. I just hate the fact they've been given the power to make "iffy" traffic stops in the name of safety. If I was weaving all over, really speeding or showing other signs of inebriation while driving, then have at it! States and municipalities just keep eroding the rights of citizens to keep money flowing into the coffers. A cop buddy of mine says some cops don't care about keeping people safe, they just want the four hours court time given to them at time and a half for a D.W.I. arrest! I've been saying that for a long time- cops' other duties besides safety include generating :blah:income for their employers, the municipality that hired them. This new law would just make it easier.