tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post7169923643196949523..comments2024-03-15T05:45:01.402-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Balko: Abolish DWI laws to focus on impaired drivingGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-87878138130564947352010-10-14T18:21:16.887-05:002010-10-14T18:21:16.887-05:00I think one definition of Impaired Driving should ...I think one definition of Impaired Driving should mean be driving while not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body?<br /><br />Oh, wait we have that one, it's called DWI.<br /> <br />I want to meet these officers who are hunting people who are 0.08 on the street (borderline). They must be really good at getting them to jail and through the intoxilyzer fast enough so they are still 0.08 at the time of the test. <br /><br />I hate to spoil the notion that every drunk on the road is swerving across 15 lanes of traffic, but most make more subtle violations in front of officers. That's the beauty of driving while intoxicated, you can still drive fairly well. It's the implied deficiency by the use of the word "fairly well" that accounts for the 1 out of 20 red-lights/stop-signs ran.<br /><br />------------------------------<br /><br />I love this one: "...police/prosecutors greatly prefer pursuing substance related crimes because they then have concrete evidence in court and it's not a question of he said/she said."<br /><br />Come say that in a police station or the DA's office if you want to get laughed at. <br /><br />DWI cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute in Dallas, even with an incriminating breath sample. Save your conspiracy theories for another county.<br /><br />--------------------------------<br /><br />Access to blood warrants 24/7 is the next step and it's coming. Sorry for the inconvenience, but take a damn cab.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-86622305790560933462010-10-13T10:49:39.858-05:002010-10-13T10:49:39.858-05:00While agreeing with both Balko and PayingAttention...While agreeing with both Balko and PayingAttentionInDallas, I am not sure how the Drivers are in Dallas, but in Houston, often times signalling an intention to change lanes will almost assuredly thwart any such lane change. More often than not, the driver behind you in the lane into which you are trying to move into will speed up and prevent you from changing into that lane. It's almost like you have to "trick" them, or "sneak" into the lane before they can prevent it. However, cops use this failure to signal lane change as "actual" or "throw-down" probable cause for pulling over a driver, especially between 10 PM and 3 AM (not to mention "license plate light" violations) just to "check them out". DWI is BIG $$$ BUSINESS. I believe, but could be misinformed, that federal funds for DWI enforcement depend on the number of ARRESTS made, not CONVICTIONS. <br />It seems that there is a completely different Constitution applying to those charged with DWI, than other alleged criminal activities. Our lawmakers need to step back and look at the big picture with some COMMON SENSE (we'll have none of that in OUR state, or local, government. It seems that the attempt to criminalize or regulate more and more things is creating a society, especially our younger generation, that have come to believe that going to jail is a rite of passage, not an embarrassment to your family!Dennis W. Craggsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-53661798983539459372010-10-13T10:48:17.268-05:002010-10-13T10:48:17.268-05:00While agreeing with both Balko and PayingAttention...While agreeing with both Balko and PayingAttentionInDallas, I am not sure how the Drivers are in Dallas, but in Houston, often times signalling an intention to change lanes will almost assuredly thwart any such lane change. More often than not, the driver behind you in the lane into which you are trying to move into will speed up and prevent you from changing into that lane. It's almost like you have to "trick" them, or "sneak" into the lane before they can prevent it. However, cops use this failure to signal lane change as "actual" or "throw-down" probable cause for pulling over a driver, especially between 10 PM and 3 AM (not to mention "license plate light" violations) just to "check them out". DWI is BIG $$$ BUSINESS. I believe, but could be misinformed, that federal funds for DWI enforcement depend on the number of ARRESTS made, not CONVICTIONS. <br />It seems that there is a completely different Constitution applying to those charged with DWI, than other alleged criminal activities. Our lawmakers need to step back and look at the big picture with some COMMON SENSE (we'll have none of that in OUR state, or local, government. It seems that the attempt to criminalize or regulate more and more things is creating a society, especially our younger generation, that have come to believe that going to jail is a rite of passage, not an embarrassment to your family!Dennis W. Craggsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-20073616971928485372010-10-12T22:09:50.582-05:002010-10-12T22:09:50.582-05:00I believe Balko has some good points. Reckless dri...I believe Balko has some good points. Reckless driving laws need to be focused at all reckless drivers regardless of whether it is a cellphone, watching videos while driving or drinking. However, this requires both police and prosecutor cooperation. From my experience many county attorneys simply do not want to mess with cellphones. Remember they also use the cellphone while drivng, as most all of us do.<br /><br />With that said I do not believe the 0.08 limit should be changed or done away with. Everyone handles alcohol differently depending on tolerence, body size and trained compensation for the impairment. <br /><br />The 0.08 gives police a place to draw the line keeping enforcement objective instead of subjective. <br />I have seen drivers who couldn't exit their vehicles without tripping on their own feet who had a BAC of 0.08 to 0.10 and I have also seen drivers who could walk a tight rope but nystagmus present in their eyes gave away their intoxication wih BACs in the range of 0.15 to 0.20. <br /><br />Both are equally dangerous to all of us who drive on Texas roads.<br /><br />P.S. - Roadblocks are not permitted in Texas, the vast majority of DWIs the polce catch nowdays are called in by ordinary citizens using cellphones. Ironic huh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-61454852163672588702010-10-12T15:25:45.731-05:002010-10-12T15:25:45.731-05:00I completely agree, and the only reason no one has...I completely agree, and the only reason no one has brought it up sooner is because it's so politically incorrect that no one will touch it. In Dallas, our police are underfunded and they're devoting a lot of time to catching DUI's who might POSSIBLY drive bad sometime and ignoring the many and varied horribly dangerous drivers out there, many of whom are their very own moms, who are driving blind while using the cellphone. I don't believe cellphones should be necessarily banned either. I believe, as does the author that we have "wreckless driving" laws in place and laws about using blinkers, etc., and we need to dissolve the DUI unit and stop people who are driving bad NOW, thus making far better use of our tax dollars. I asked once why they didn't and you know what the answer is? Because police/prosecutors greatly prefer pursuing substance related crimes because they then have concrete evidence in court and it's not a question of he said/she said. That's not a good reason to ignore idiots driving badly. And like that article said, they're always blaming whoever has any alcohol for the accident when the truth is it's estimated 95% of overall accidents are from other causes, and it stands to reason a large percentage of the ones blamed on drivers who've had a drink or two are simply bad drivers to begin with. We need to stop clogging jails with these people who so far have no hurt anyone, stop people who are driving badly for whatever reason, and stop targeting drinkers, which reflects a longstanding moral agenda more than anything. If it's unconstitutional to stop people randomly and ask them for their citizen papers, then it can't be constitutional to set traps and stop people randomly to test for alchohol or other substances.PayingAttentionInDallasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-66257487707706968092010-10-12T15:12:36.432-05:002010-10-12T15:12:36.432-05:00Devil's advocate (since I largely agree with B...Devil's advocate (since I largely agree with Balko's sentiment here); is he ignoring the possible downsides of making enforcement go back to being mostly subjective rather than objective (even if the objective enforcement is ineffective)? IE, profiling; etc.?M1EKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03650370583235985527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-45454137461415769392010-10-12T09:10:20.180-05:002010-10-12T09:10:20.180-05:00This is a very thought provoking and sane idea.
I...This is a very thought provoking and sane idea.<br /><br />I support it, even if I personally might face a lot of DWA violations. (Driving While ADHD).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-54471601405015655182010-10-12T08:52:00.986-05:002010-10-12T08:52:00.986-05:00They are: According to this analysis, that's w...They are: According to this analysis, that's why our DWI rates are still declining. But the matter won't be helped by dissipating enforcement resources on less impaired drivers, as Acevedo wants to do.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-8640741907683668732010-10-12T08:19:25.436-05:002010-10-12T08:19:25.436-05:00I thought roadblocks were illegal in Texas?I thought roadblocks were illegal in Texas?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-45659963192325276322010-10-12T07:56:40.027-05:002010-10-12T07:56:40.027-05:00Love it. It'll never happen, sadly.Love it. It'll never happen, sadly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com