PDA

View Full Version : Don't Drink & Drive in AZ!



Boatcop
05-16-2007, 06:44 PM
Last week Governor Napolitano signed into law, a measure requiring persons convicted of Extreme DUI (above .15% BAC) to serve a full 30 days in jail. Judges could suspend 20 days under the present law.
Another bill awaiting her signature will require any person convicted of DUI to have an ignition interlock device installed on their car, or any car (including fleet vehicles) driven by them. The intelock will be required for a minimum of 1 year. BAC level doesn't apply. If convicted of Driving while Impaired by Alcohol, any vehicle you drive (in AZ) will have to have one installed and maintained (at your expense). There is also a $60-$75 monthly fee, and the driver will have to report to a testing station to have the information downloaded to the MVD.
The Ignition Interlock will not allow the vehicle to start if the BAC is registered above .03%. It also requires subsequent tests at about 10 minutes after the car has been started, and then again about every 30-45 minutes.
It also will require that anyone convicted of DUI with a BAC above .20% will serve a minimum of 45 days in jail.
Those jail terms will double if it's a second offense (any prior DUI within 84 months.
Those new laws do not apply to Boating OUIs. They will be addressed later (except the interlock device).
The laws will go into effect sometime in August or September.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0516dui0516.html

MRS FLYIN VEE
05-16-2007, 06:49 PM
:jawdrop:

talbert450r
05-16-2007, 06:50 PM
Glad to see Arizona is taking steps forward to help prevent DUI's. I think this new law will make more people think twice before getting behind the wheel while intoxicated.

MRS FLYIN VEE
05-16-2007, 06:50 PM
Glad to see Arizona is taking steps forward to help prevent DUI's. I think this new law will make more people think twice before getting behind the wheel while intoxicated.
it will help to save lives thats for shizzle..:)

RitcheyRch
05-16-2007, 06:57 PM
Wish we would do that here in CA.

Devil's Advocate
05-16-2007, 07:03 PM
:eek: Dang, rough stuff, but it's a good thing. We must be screwing up big time out here.:D

Quest4Fun
05-16-2007, 07:24 PM
Last week Governor Napolitano signed into law, a measure requiring persons convicted of Extreme DUI (above .15% BAC) to serve a full 30 days in jail. Judges could suspend 20 days under the present law.
Another bill awaiting her signature will require any person convicted of DUI to have an ignition interlock device installed on their car, or any car (including fleet vehicles) driven by them. The intelock will be required for a minimum of 1 year. BAC level doesn't apply. If convicted of Driving while Impaired by Alcohol, any vehicle you drive (in AZ) will have to have one installed and maintained (at your expense). There is also a $60-$75 monthly fee, and the driver will have to report to a testing station to have the information downloaded to the MVD.
The Ignition Interlock will not allow the vehicle to start if the BAC is registered above .03%. It also requires subsequent tests at about 10 minutes after the car has been started, and then again about every 30-45 minutes.
It also will require that anyone convicted of DUI with a BAC above .20% will serve a minimum of 45 days in jail.
Those jail terms will double if it's a second offense (any prior DUI within 84 months.
Those new laws do not apply to Boating OUIs. They will be addressed later (except the interlock device).
The laws will go into effect sometime in August or September.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0516dui0516.html
Hey Boatcop...Just curious of what your take on the Trish Groe deal is? She's taking quite a bashing here in Havasu...some people think she is getting special treatment. Anything you would like to add???

Boatcop
05-16-2007, 08:20 PM
Hey Boatcop...Just curious of what your take on the Trish Groe deal is? She's taking quite a bashing here in Havasu...some people think she is getting special treatment. Anything you would like to add???
The people in Havasu aren't following the facts and basing their "opinions" on their political affiliation. Republicans are standing by her and democrats want her head, and accusing everyone of the "Special Treatment". Most of what I've read about it, they're bashing the Havasu or Mohave County Courts, when they have nothiing to do with it.
Here's the real deal.
She was stopped the latter part of March. Less that 2 months ago. DUI cases routinely take a year or more to go to trial and final disposition. She failed the FSTs and blew a .148% of the PBT. Remember that preliminary breath test results are not admissible. She was taken to the Station where blood was taken and sent off for testing.
Her Driver's License record showed it was cancelled, but didn't give a reason why. After consulting the County Attorney, it was decided not to charge her until we could get a certified driving abstract and test results. This was due to not having sufficient probable cause for the Felony (DUI with Suspended, Revoked or Cancelled license), and if she was cited for the Misdmeanor, she could have gone in and plead guilty the next day and we would have lost the ability to charge the Felony due to double jeopardy.
And also that the Arizona Constitution exempts State Legislators from Misdemeanor arrest while the Legislature is in session. This goes back to Statehood where it was feared that Sheriff's or Police would arrest legislators to keep them from voting for or against bills that they may support or oppose.
That was the reason she wasn't booked into jail, but released to a third party. There wasn't enough to charge the felony (at that tme), and we couldn't arrest her for the misdemeanor.
The tests came back about a month later which showed her BAC was .148%. The drug screen came back a few weeks later which showed traces of a prescription diet drug and an anti-depressant.
It turns out her license was cancelled due to an unpaid traffic ticket in California.
Our County Attorney conflicted himself off the case, because he may have to consult with her on bills that effect La Paz County. There could be an appearance of favoritism or contempt, due to whatever she was eventually charged and convicted of. The Yuma County Attorney's office was given the case and recommended a plea to Misdmeanor DUI with the standard penalty, 24 hours in jail, fine, and alcohol screening, which she had already satisfied with her 30 day inpatient treatment.
Our CA then voiced his displeasure publicly, stating he would have done things differently, calling for more severe penalties. The Yuma CA, taken back by his comments, then decided that apparently there wasn't a conflict, since our CA was so vocal about it, and threw it back to La Paz County.
One of our County Supervisors also questioned the conflict, but that's more of a County politics deal. It's now being researched by the Arizona State Bar for their opinion. If a conflict is indeed present, we will hire an independent prosecutor since, at this point, there probably isn't a County Attorney in the State willing to touch it.
If it's decided that a conflict does not exist, our CA will go on with the prosecution. She may get by with a misdmeanor, which is common when the license suspension was NOT for an alcohol related offense, but she will probably be required to do more than the minimum sentence for the plea.
In actuality we're doing everything we can to ensure there is no appearance of favoritism in this case. But as usual the Havasu pinheads don't care about facts. All they care about is bashing any conservative they can for any reason they can.

Moneypitt
05-16-2007, 09:35 PM
Wish we would do that here in CA.
They already do. Cals interlock device laws have been around for at least a decade and failure to obtain and maintain the device is a jailable probation violation. A second offense while on probation quite often results in 60 days to 6 months in the gray bar hotel......Az is just catching up.........MP

RiverDave
05-16-2007, 10:02 PM
They want to put an interlock on the car on the 1st offense? Pretty rough right there..
RD

Mrs. 20
05-16-2007, 11:33 PM
How about don't drink and drive anywhere? That would be cool.;)

YeLLowBoaT
05-16-2007, 11:41 PM
Sounds like a good idea to me.

Quest4Fun
05-17-2007, 05:42 AM
Thank you Boatcop for your reply, it was very informative. It is hard to get all the facts when it comes out in bits and pieces in the newspaper (seems like important info is always left out). I appreciate your reply :)

Baja Big Dog
05-17-2007, 06:25 AM
WOW!!!!:eek:

Boozer
05-17-2007, 06:52 AM
They want to put an interlock on the car on the 1st offense? Pretty rough right there..
RD
Rough is good in this case. Make the punishment so harsh that noone will want to commit the crime in the first place.
Personally I think .08% BAC is to low of a number. The law should be something like .12% and if caught with anything above that 30 days jail time, $5,000 fine, 1 year interlock after a 1 year suspended license for the first offense.
2nd offense 90 days in jail, $10,000 fine, 6 months house arrest, 3 years interlock following a 3 year license suspension, and some sort of ridiculous amount of community service dealing with victims of drunk driving accidents.
If the penalties were made that harsh not to many people would even think about the idea of driving drunk.
$40 cab ride or 30 days minimum in the slammer? Pretty easy decision I think.

RiverDave
05-17-2007, 08:09 AM
Boozer, have you ever driven above a .08? How about a .12.... just guess if you have as I'm sure you didn't have a breathylizer. (be honest now)
Upping the penalties to some retarded level so that nobody committs a crime is certainly one way of dealing with things.. We have a major problem with theft in this country as well. What if we made it so that if you steal anything you get your hands cut off?
Punishment to fit the crime?
So now you have one guy that steals a car... and one 8th grader that steals a pack of gum?
There's a large difference in my mind from someone that gets a DUI, to someone that was involved with an accident but happened to be DUI (not necesarrily their fault), to someone that's wasted and kills a school bus full of nuns is what I'm saying.
RD

Ziggy
05-17-2007, 08:31 AM
How about don't drink and drive anywhere? That would be cool.;)
The solution always seems so simple, doesn't it? Why others don't seem to get it is beyond me.:confused:

SummitKarl
05-17-2007, 08:41 AM
got no problem with that....;) at my age hangovers REALLY!! hurt..:rolleyes:
now if we can just get a ignition interlock required for the Snowbirds:D
with automated warnings like....
"PULL LEFT" = your in the emergency lane
"SPEED UP" = this is a 35MPH zone not a 15MPH zone
"BLINKER" = your blinker has been on for 5 blocks
"PEDAL" = please remove left foot from riding the brake
and the big one
"PHEBUS" = please use rear view mirror....because you need to "PULL LEFT", "SPEED UP", turn your "BLINKER" off, and quit riding the Brake "PEDAL":D :D :D

Moneypitt
05-17-2007, 06:18 PM
Rough is good in this case. Make the punishment so harsh that noone will want to commit the crime in the first place.
Personally I think .08% BAC is to low of a number. The law should be something like .12% and if caught with anything above that 30 days jail time, $5,000 fine, 1 year interlock after a 1 year suspended license for the first offense.
2nd offense 90 days in jail, $10,000 fine, 6 months house arrest, 3 years interlock following a 3 year license suspension, and some sort of ridiculous amount of community service dealing with victims of drunk driving accidents.
If the penalties were made that harsh not to many people would even think about the idea of driving drunk.
$40 cab ride or 30 days minimum in the slammer? Pretty easy decision I think.
Hey Boozer, how about the first offense fine tied to last years tax filings. Say 10% of your gross from last year, 2nd offense 20%, and so on. It isn't fair to fine some working stiff the same amount as a pro athelete making millions......And I agree .08 is too low for the severity of the penalty when there is no accident or any other traffic infraction involved. Too often the cops are stopping everyone that drives away from a bar without any other probable cause......MP

GHT
05-17-2007, 06:39 PM
Holy Sh1t!! That is strict!!!!

XtrmWakeborder
05-17-2007, 06:51 PM
That interlock thing seems pretty tight. I'd want one, just blow into it and if i'm too intoxicated I have to wait. I see no problem with that. Too bad i'm the DD/Babysitter next weekend. Oh well.

Boatcop
05-17-2007, 08:09 PM
That interlock thing seems pretty tight. I'd want one, just blow into it and if i'm too intoxicated I have to wait. I see no problem with that. Too bad i'm the DD/Babysitter next weekend. Oh well.
The problem is that the interlock has a memory. If you blow over .03% and try to start the car, it shows an intent to drive in violation of your driver's license restriction, and MVD will suspend your driving privilege.
The interlock info must be downloaded once a month for the entire time it's installed.
And I agree .08 is too low for the severity of the penalty when there is no accident or any other traffic infraction involved.
A drunk driver is a potential murderer who has yet to meet their victim. A person with a .08% BAC is substantially impaired. Why wait until they kill someone to get them off the road?

MRS FLYIN VEE
05-17-2007, 08:16 PM
They want to put an interlock on the car on the 1st offense? Pretty rough right there..
RD
I don't think so.. I think it is a good idea only because a first offense can kill a family.. :)

XtrmWakeborder
05-17-2007, 08:55 PM
The problem is that the interlock has a memory. If you blow over .03% and try to start the car, it shows an intent to drive in violation of your driver's license restriction, and MVD will suspend your driving privilege.
The interlock info must be downloaded once a month for the entire time it's installed.
A drunk driver is a potential murderer who has yet to meet their victim. A person with a .08% BAC is substantially impaired. Why wait until they kill someone to get them off the road?
OK I want an imaginary one with no memory that won't let me start the car if i'm over the legal limit. Not send me to jail......

Moneypitt
05-17-2007, 09:22 PM
A drunk driver is a potential murderer who has yet to meet their victim. A person with a .08% BAC is substantially impaired. Why wait until they kill someone to get them off the road?
Yes Alan, I knew you would say something along those lines, and you're right. However, there are more people killed by sober drivers than by drunk drivers. How long will it be before it is illegal to have a cell phone in the drivers compartment......Its coming.....But honestly, what can we do with the idiots that kill sober? And there are some people who's driving skills are not impaired at .08.....And as you well know, impairement is not an issue of the law at .08, the charge is ,08 or more, not any proveable/disproveable degree of impairment......Now don't get me wrong, if one innocent person is hurt or killed by a drunk driver, it is one too many.........How about an interlock device for sober people that measures driving skill and ability???? ....How can we stop them before they kill sober?..........MP

SummitKarl
05-17-2007, 09:26 PM
Yes Alan, I knew you would say something along those lines, and you're right. However, there are more people killed by sober drivers than by drunk drivers. How long will it be before it is illegal to have a cell phone in the drivers compartment......Its coming.....But honestly, what can we do with the idiots that kill sober? And there are some people who's driving skills are not impaired at .08.....And as you well know, impairement is not an issue of the law at .08, the charge is ,08 or more, not any proveable/disproveable degree of impairment......Now don't get me wrong, if one innocent person is hurt or killed by a drunk driver, it is one too many.........How about an interlock device for sober people that measures driving skill and ability???? ....How can we stop them before they kill sober?..........MP
see post 18:D :D :D

RiverDave
05-18-2007, 09:33 AM
A drunk driver is a potential murderer who has yet to meet their victim. A person with a .08% BAC is substantially impaired. Why wait until they kill someone to get them off the road?
And any man is a potential rapist? Why wait till they rape someone before we castrate them?
The sky might potentially fall, but we can't base decisions on potentials, and we sure shouldn't be making laws on potentials.
The argument isn't whether or not drunk drivers are dangerous.. The question is what's drunk? That's where most if not all disagree on this issue.
Extremists say even one drop is too much, Drinkers say.. .08 are you kidding me? Your going to try and ruin my life over a glass of wine with dinner?
BoatCop says, well the average male can drink 2 beers an hour and still be under the limit.
RD says, that'd be true if ANY of the cops actually followed the guidelines with regards to a breathylizer, but they don't. And why if my reaction time wasted is still better then your average 70 year old man should I not be allowed to drive and he should? etc.. etc..
It's a never ending debate that will go on and on..
I believe the laws surrounding DUI/OUI lack common sense, and need to be changed to in fact prosecute those that are truly impaired, and stop prosecuting those that never presented a danger in the 1st place.
RD

Ziggy
05-18-2007, 09:48 AM
And any man is a potential rapist? Why wait till they rape someone before we castrate them?
The sky might potentially fall, but we can't base decisions on potentials, and we sure shouldn't be making laws on potentials.
The argument isn't whether or not drunk drivers are dangerous.. The question is what's drunk? That's where most if not all disagree on this issue.
Extremists say even one drop is too much, Drinkers say.. .08 are you kidding me? Your going to try and ruin my life over a glass of wine with dinner?
BoatCop says, well the average male can drink 2 beers an hour and still be under the limit.
RD says, that'd be true if ANY of the cops actually followed the guidelines with regards to a breathylizer, but they don't. And why if my reaction time wasted is still better then your average 70 year old man should I not be allowed to drive and he should? etc.. etc..
It's a never ending debate that will go on and on..
I believe the laws surrounding DUI/OUI lack common sense, and need to be changed to in fact prosecute those that are truly impaired, and stop prosecuting those that never presented a danger in the 1st place.
RD
Until its too late.
.
.
You're right, not everyone reacts to achohol in the same way but its the drinkers responsibility to make a sane choice when leaving an establishment, after a few drinks sanity starts to disipate so others have to make that choice for him/her.
Such a gray area that will probably never get answered with common sense but in a manner where the long arm of the law is forced to make judgement calls based on personal experience or whichever mood they woke up with that day.
So lets say you're out with a friend who drove and he's had a few but says he feels fine, in actuality he's a .12. Your gut tells you the same. He drives home feeling fine and ends up maming a small kid crossing the street........what will you be saying to yourself? Yup, me too. I wished I'd told him no..........
Who's our morale judge? What do the parents of this child think of the driver? Or the friends of his that let him drive home? etc. etc. etc.
Should every bar be required to have an exit exam before allowed to leave its establishment?
.
I'm glad I don't drink much at all, I'd hate having to make that choice on a regular basis.

WYRD
05-18-2007, 09:53 AM
Hey Boozer, how about the first offense fine tied to last years tax filings. Say 10% of your gross from last year, 2nd offense 20%, and so on. It isn't fair to fine some working stiff the same amount as a pro athelete making millions......And I agree .08 is too low for the severity of the penalty when there is no accident or any other traffic infraction involved. Too often the cops are stopping everyone that drives away from a bar without any other probable cause......MP
obviously a Democrat:rolleyes: punish a rich guy more just cause he has money?:)

Boatcop
05-18-2007, 10:17 AM
I will ask these questions one last time.
Does an employer allow one to drink while at work, as long as they're not impaired? How about letting them drink, as long as they only get to .08%?
Would you get on an airplane if the pilot had been drinking? As long as they were only .08%? How about a bus or a taxi?
Would you work around dangerous machinery, say lathes and milling machines, after drinking to a .08% BAC? Or allow employees to do so?
Would you allow your children's babysitter to drink, as long as they were at or below .08%?
And why limit it to .08%. If that's too low for some people, lets raise those numbers above to .10% or .12%.
How about this. Let's compare apples to apples. Let's say you take yourself and your family on a tour boat that goes from the London Bridge to Laughlin, through the Gorge. The exact same circumstances that nearly everyone on here does or has done.
Would you accept it if the driver of that tour boat, who drives that stretch every day, is drinking the whole trip? As long as they don't go above .08%? Or .10%? How about .12%?
Driving a car or a boat requires constant driver input in varried conditions with numerous distractions, and outside influences that the driver has no control of. We drive cars that cost $20-$50,000 (or more), and boats that may be worth $200,000 and up. And we can't even begin to put a price on our friends or families. (Except Brown, who'd go for about $2.98.)
Why even think about putting a substance in your body that has been proven to decrease reaction time, impair judgment, affect hand-eye coordination, distort vision, along with a host of other negative consequences?
Forget about the criminal aspects of driving after drinking. Just concentrate on the stupidity of it.

Jbb
05-18-2007, 10:28 AM
RD SUX....LOL....:D
http://www.hotboatpics.com/pics/data/500/181rd_21.jpg

RiverDave
05-18-2007, 10:40 AM
I will ask these questions one last time.
And I will answer them one more time...
Does an employer allow one to drink while at work, as long as they're not impaired? How about letting them drink, as long as they only get to .08%?
The worlds largest business deals are often conducted on the golf course with drinks. Over Dinner with wine. For us blue collar and low level white collar guys then no.. Absolutely not, but I believe that has to do primarily with morallity reasons then the inabillity to complete a task at a level of .08. Can I still make a sales call at .08? Sure I could.. Would the customer be less the impressed by the smell of booze? Probably not going to get the sale.
Would you get on an airplane if the pilot had been drinking? As long as they were only .08%? How about a bus or a taxi?
By the logic of the law.. We would rather have the pilot have zero experience (hours) and be sober, then say an airline pilot with 1000's of hours and 2 beers? I'll take my chances with the experienced airline pilot if those are the only 2 options. Same situation in a boat.. Parker on night with zero hours? Or a person that's been doing it there whole life? Given the two choices next weekend at roadrunner with no other options, I'll get in the boat with the experienced guy everytime, and if he's got half a brain to begin with, it IS safer.
Would you work around dangerous machinery, say lathes and milling machines, after drinking to a .08% BAC? Or allow employees to do so?
If I'm working professionally hell no I wouldn't drink. If I'm working on a side job (I.E. boat parts for myself or friends?) then it's not uncommon for a corona to be sitting on the work bench while I'm working on my billet parts for boats etc..
Would you allow your children's babysitter to drink, as long as they were at or below .08%?
Ya know this one got me for a second.. But lets think about it for a minute. Lets say I was going to go for a boat ride, would I have a problem leaving my kids with the neighbor kids? No.. Are the neighborkids parents innebriated at anytime past 10:00 am, probably. So I guess what I'm saying is if I hired a baby sitter then I wouldn't want them drinking.. Would I flip out if they had a glass of wine with dinner? Or a beer while watching the game? probably not, but I wouldn't be overly exicted about it either. If I left my kids with the neighbors for a few hours, well then I don't suppose I'd really care either way.
And why limit it to .08%. If that's too low for some people, lets raise those numbers above to .10% or .12%.
That's exactly what I've been saying.. ;)
How about this. Let's compare apples to apples. Let's say you take yourself and your family on a tour boat that goes from the London Bridge to Laughlin, through the Gorge. The exact same circumstances that nearly everyone on here does or has done.
Getting paid to do a job again. Now lets load up a partycat with 18 people, and your choices are say.... A girl that's dead sober that has never driven a boat before, and or me or anyone else on here at a .08. Which boat do you want to be in? Now turn the radio up so you can't talk to the girl.. ;)
Would you accept it if the driver of that tour boat, who drives that stretch every day, is drinking the whole trip? As long as they don't go above .08%? Or .10%? How about .12%?
Moral implications say no.. If he was off the clock driving the same boat, I really wouldn't care?
Driving a car or a boat requires constant driver input in varried conditions with numerous distractions, and outside influences that the driver has no control of. We drive cars that cost $20-$50,000 (or more), and boats that may be worth $200,000 and up. And we can't even begin to put a price on our friends or families. (Except Brown, who'd go for about $2.98.)
I think your giving Brown too much credit.. With the exchange rate being what it is, he's worth a buck fiddy at best. ;)
Why even think about putting a substance in your body that has been proven to decrease reaction time, impair judgment, affect hand-eye coordination, distort vision, along with a host of other negative consequences?
Why do people drink at all? Why not bring back prohibition? There's not one good reason to drink if you really break it down.
Forget about the criminal aspects of driving after drinking. Just concentrate on the stupidity of it.
Again, drinking in itself is stupid. There isn't logic to it, but next weekend the town of Parker will survive another year largely in part due to alcohol sales. I know that you will raise an eyebrow and say... Parker's not here becuase of alcohol? But lets face it, if you took alcohol out of parker and made it a dry county.. Who'd live there? Who'd want to vacation there? Most the locals are drunks, most the weekenders are benge drinkers.
RD

RiverDave
05-18-2007, 10:48 AM
I always get labelled as the guy that supports drunk driving.. Let me be clear on this (again) for those that would label me that.
If your slurring, stumbling... or realistically (emphasizing that "real" part) visually impaired, then fock it I say string em up by their nuts.. They should get what they deserve.
But to tell me that the average joe with 3 beers in them is some menace to society in a boat, but someone else with zero hours, zero experience, zero training etc.. Is good to go just becuase they are sober? And I say their definately is something wrong with that program.
Have you ever been in a boat with somebody that doesn't know what they are doing? Have you ever been in a performance boat with somebody that clearly has no clue?
I would much rather idle home from the bar with roughly 80% of this board driving drunk or not.. Then do 100mph in a boat with someone learning the ropes. One is illegal, the other isn't? One is arguably safer then the other?
I'm saying we need to do something about that, not string up the people that are being responsible, but rather educate or eventually string up the people that are being irresponsible. The grey area is what is "responsible" and what isn't?
Everyone has done something irresponsible in a boat. Fortunately for me I knocked most that stuff out of the way when I was young, dumb, and by myself.. I don't believe I've ever done something completely irresponsible in a boat (from a safety perspective) becuase of alcohol. Point in fact historically (when I used to drink and drive all the time) If I was drinking, we were idling home from the bars that night. Only to see a bunch of drunk, and non drunk people go by doing 60 when they can't see 10' in front of them.
I ask again, would idling impaired be more safe then hauling ass at night? You bet your ass it's exponentially more safe, yet the safe guy in this case goes to jail. The other guy gets a "slow it down" and a pat on the back for somehow being responsible by not drinking. That I think is a crime in itself.
Damn near every person killed on the strip at night, has been killed by speed, or the result there of (unconscious drowning, running over a boat they didn't see, etc..). How about instead of picking on the drinkers we all just slow it down a bit?
RD

Boatcop
05-18-2007, 10:50 AM
Again, drinking in itself is stupid. There isn't logic to it, but next weekend the town of Parker will survive another year largely in part due to alcohol sales.
Yes. Parker will survive.
And it's my job to try and make sure that the people who live and visit here do too.

RiverDave
05-18-2007, 11:00 AM
Yes. Parker will survive.
And it's my job to try and make sure that the people who live and visit here do too.
We will agree to disagree as always.. ;) :D
I think honestly though a STRICT and I mean STRICT speed limit at night would save more lifes, then a .08 restriction on drinking.. if the restriction went back to .10, and there was a no planing rule at night, how many people in all the cases you know of in the last 10 years would be alive right now?
House boat Terry? Those people in the party cat a few years back? The three guys that hit the rocks across from the keys? etc.. etc..
That's my argument here. Being safe, and being drunk are two different things, by today's standard though they seem to have been grouped together. Drunk = unsafe. I don't believe that always to be the case.
RD

Ziggy
05-18-2007, 11:10 AM
Idle home in the car and you'll either be stopped before you reach home or be rear ended by someone who is driving the speed limit. Little different than a boat idling along.
.
All points valid Dave, but because not everyone is the same(as in how they react to alchohol) the laws have been created to draw a line in the sand that is gray to common sense.

Fast Freddy
05-19-2007, 11:43 AM
Last week Governor Napolitano signed into law, a measure requiring persons convicted of Extreme DUI (above .15% BAC) to serve a full 30 days in jail. Judges could suspend 20 days under the present law.
Another bill awaiting her signature will require any person convicted of DUI to have an ignition interlock device installed on their car, or any car (including fleet vehicles) driven by them. The intelock will be required for a minimum of 1 year. BAC level doesn't apply. If convicted of Driving while Impaired by Alcohol, any vehicle you drive (in AZ) will have to have one installed and maintained (at your expense). There is also a $60-$75 monthly fee, and the driver will have to report to a testing station to have the information downloaded to the MVD.
The Ignition Interlock will not allow the vehicle to start if the BAC is registered above .03%. It also requires subsequent tests at about 10 minutes after the car has been started, and then again about every 30-45 minutes.
It also will require that anyone convicted of DUI with a BAC above .20% will serve a minimum of 45 days in jail.
Those jail terms will double if it's a second offense (any prior DUI within 84 months.
Those new laws do not apply to Boating OUIs. They will be addressed later (except the interlock device).
The laws will go into effect sometime in August or September.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0516dui0516.html
boatcop - what happens to a person like me who owns 4 cars, 4 trux and 4 motorcycles. do they have to put ignition interlocks on all 12 of these vehicles? or can they just put a ignition interlock on 1 of them and drive that 1 vehicle only during the probation period?

PHOTOGLOU
05-19-2007, 01:39 PM
Boozer, have you ever driven above a .08? How about a .12.... just guess if you have as I'm sure you didn't have a breathylizer. (be honest now)
Upping the penalties to some retarded level so that nobody committs a crime is certainly one way of dealing with things.. We have a major problem with theft in this country as well. What if we made it so that if you steal anything you get your hands cut off?
Punishment to fit the crime?
So now you have one guy that steals a car... and one 8th grader that steals a pack of gum?
There's a large difference in my mind from someone that gets a DUI, to someone that was involved with an accident but happened to be DUI (not necesarrily their fault), to someone that's wasted and kills a school bus full of nuns is what I'm saying.
RD
And at what point do you say "Do you realize you could have killed a school bus full of nuns"?

Ultracrazy
05-19-2007, 05:42 PM
For someone who I really thought had a shit load of common sense (RD)......once again I'm amazed at how little people think sometimes.
It's all good until someone kills someone........right RD?
Spoken like someone who had never had to scoop a child off the street by someone who only had two beers. Give yourself a little reality check RD and check your self into a rehab center.
SB

Boatcop
05-19-2007, 07:46 PM
boatcop - what happens to a person like me who owns 4 cars, 4 trux and 4 motorcycles. do they have to put ignition interlocks on all 12 of these vehicles? or can they just put a ignition interlock on 1 of them and drive that 1 vehicle only during the probation period?
It has to be installed in ANY motor vehicle that you drive. Not necessarily all of them. Just the one you're behind the wheel of. I don't know if they have them for motorcycles (I'll check that out), but if not, then you can't drive the motorcycle for the entire year.
If you drive a vehicle for your work, even if it's owned by a business, you must have one installed.
Now there aren't going to be random checks on people who are supposed to have them, nor would there be any way to know if you ARE driving a non-interlock equipped vehicle. But if you are stopped for ANY reason and there isn't one in the car, it's just like driving on a suspended License, but with harsher penalties.
And if someone is found DUI in a non-equipped vehicle, or has found a way to get around an installed device while driving DUI, STAND BY! Felony charge with a mandatory 4 -8 months in Prison. Not County Jail. Not Joe's tent city. But the Penitentiary. Big House. State Pen. Roomin' with Bubba.
And the intent is not to punish people for drunk driving. It's to act as a deterrent, and TRY to prevent the person from driving drunk again. For every one time a person is caught drunk driving, there are dozens of times that they drove drunk and WEREN'T caught.

YeLLowBoaT
05-19-2007, 08:11 PM
you know if the owner of a biz has to install one on the company car/truck... I see firings over a DUI going WAY up.

Fast Freddy
05-20-2007, 10:15 AM
its a good thing the ignition interlock is only for 1 vehicle. can you imagine what life would be like for a guy like jay leno who owns 80 cars and 40 motorcycles

RiverDave
05-20-2007, 04:07 PM
And at what point do you say "Do you realize you could have killed a school bus full of nuns"?
I dunno? It's not my job to come up with the correct laws on how to prosecute those that are a danger, and those that are not.
It is my job as a citizen however to point out when there is a problem with the system. I view this as a problem.
At what point do you realize that putting an interlock on every car in america might be an infrigement on civil rights? What do you think about that idea? No car in america will start unless you blow a .00? The idea sounds totally outlandish, I mean that's a complete and total infringement on civil rights.. Right? Well there's people out there that FIRMLY believe that's the way it should be.. and we are in fact heading towards that.
Rewind the clock 20 years.. If you grew up in AZ the idea of having to be 21 to drink in Arizona was outlandish.
Rewind a little more, the idea of having 2 - 3 beers and getting arrested for a DUI was outlandish.
Around that same time period, the very thought of it costing in the neighborhood of 10K was beyond outlandish.
The idea that if a person makes a mistake it will NEVER go away and will screw your insurance rates for the rest of your life is outlandish!! (Well not anymore in CA.) That's right DUI, does NOT go off your record anymore stays on permanently.
Hell lets rewind back to just when I was under 21.. The idea that a cop would give a kid a DUI if he had 2, 3, 4 beers was outlandish. If anything they'd tell you to park the car and give you a ride home.
Kinda sounds like gas prices. Anyone remember when 2.00 was outlandish? then 2.50? Then 3.00? WTF is now 4.00??
Except on this subject if you question it at all, your a criminal, or shock value honest to god propoganda materials surface that make it sound that if you were to argue for anything but stricter laws, your a child murderer etc.. Or your nuts for supporting drunk driving. Read what I wrote again peoples.. I don't support drunk driving, on the flipside I'd like to re-evaluate what constitutes "impaired" and the punishments there in. I'd like to know how much changing the laws thus far has actually done to solve the problems? I don't understand how taking the law from .10, to .08 really benefitted anyone? I don't understand how taking it from .08 to .05 is going to help anyone? You can bet though it will be .05 pretty soon! I just think we should examine, what it was, what has been changed, and what actually happened besides costing everyone a shit load of money? Is making these laws stricter going to save someones life? If someones wasted, then rest assured, they weren't .05, .08, .10... They were higher. Why are we continually accellerating things on the side that really isn't doing much? I got an idea, how about if you blow over a .16 or .17 (being that I've never had a personal way of measuign alcohol content I'm kinda going off the states #'s for extreme DUI/OUI) and you were driving you get the death penalty? Hell I'd support that more then I'd support lowering the limit anymore.
Bottom line is every few years it gets stricter, and it's inch by inch.. The argument is always the same. Hey we're only doing this, it's not that big of a deal. Well add it up over the years? If and when you get arrested for DUI/OUI will you in fact be impaired? When they (if your guilty) succeed in ruining some young persons life, did the punishment really fit the crime? Is a 18 year old really deserving of the punishments they set out on them for having ONE beer? (Loss of license until 21, criminal record, not 100% sure but I believe it's 12months worth of alcohol classes & group) Did any of you have a beer before you were 21? Still sounding outlandish?
RD

RiverDave
05-20-2007, 04:12 PM
For someone who I really thought had a shit load of common sense (RD)......once again I'm amazed at how little people think sometimes.
It's all good until someone kills someone........right RD?
Spoken like someone who had never had to scoop a child off the street by someone who only had two beers. Give yourself a little reality check RD and check your self into a rehab center.
SB
UltraCrazy, you know nothing about me.. Why make judgements like check yourself into a rehab center? I probably drink less then most the people on this board. If you really want to debate the subject then I'll be happy too, but try not to get all personal about it.
RD

XtrmWakeborder
05-20-2007, 04:23 PM
Idea...no more asians driving. Now THAT would save a lot of lives and insurance rates would plummet!:D Drinking and driving is not a joke, but I do agree that there are some people that drive worse than say me after a beer. However, blood alcohol content is measurable, and "asian/granny/snowbird driving" is not. I can't be a hypocrit and denounce it because I have done it and i'm sure many of you have too. Stronger laws are fine with me, hopefully it deters those who don't think they could kill someone else if they really are impaired. ps. sorry asians:)

SK48
05-20-2007, 04:24 PM
:) Dave, I will ride in a boat with you above .08 anytime. You are correct it is the beginners I worry about. See you next weekend.

RiverDave
05-20-2007, 05:05 PM
:) Dave, I will ride in a boat with you above .08 anytime. You are correct it is the beginners I worry about. See you next weekend.
Well back in the day probably.. I don't drink n drive at all becuase it's just not worth the risk of getting caught and having to deal with all the issues associated with it.
RD

Boatcop
05-20-2007, 05:32 PM
I dunno? It's not my job to come up with the correct laws on how to prosecute those that are a danger, and those that are not.
It is my job as a citizen however to point out when there is a problem with the system. I view this as a problem.
At what point do you realize that putting an interlock on every car in america might be an infrigement on civil rights? What do you think about that idea? No car in america will start unless you blow a .00? The idea sounds totally outlandish, I mean that's a complete and total infringement on civil rights.. Right? Well there's people out there that FIRMLY believe that's the way it should be.. and we are in fact heading towards that.
Rewind the clock 20 years.. If you grew up in AZ the idea of having to be 21 to drink in Arizona was outlandish.
Rewind a little more, the idea of having 2 - 3 beers and getting arrested for a DUI was outlandish.
Around that same time period, the very thought of it costing in the neighborhood of 10K was beyond outlandish.
The idea that if a person makes a mistake it will NEVER go away and will screw your insurance rates for the rest of your life is outlandish!! (Well not anymore in CA.) That's right DUI, does NOT go off your record anymore stays on permanently.
Hell lets rewind back to just when I was under 21.. The idea that a cop would give a kid a DUI if he had 2, 3, 4 beers was outlandish. If anything they'd tell you to park the car and give you a ride home.
Kinda sounds like gas prices. Anyone remember when 2.00 was outlandish? then 2.50? Then 3.00? WTF is now 4.00??
Except on this subject if you question it at all, your a criminal, or shock value honest to go propoganda materials surface that make it sound that if you were to argue for anything but your a child murderer etc.. Or your nuts for supporting drunk driving. Read what I wrote again peoples.. I don't support drunk driving, but on the flipside I'd like to re-evaluate what constitutes "impaired" and the punishments there in.
Bottom line is every few years it gets stricter, and it's inch by inch.. The argument is always the same. Hey we're only doing this, it's not that big of a deal. Well add it up over the years? If and when you get arrested for DUI/OUI will you in fact be impaired? When they (if your guilty) succeed in ruining some young persons life, did the punishment really fit the crime? Is a 18 year old really deserving of the punishments they set out on them for having ONE beer? (Loss of license until 21, criminal record, not 100% sure but I believe it's 12months worth of alcohol classes & group) Did any of you have a beer before you were 21? Still sounding outlandish?
RD
No one has ever been arrested for DUI after having 2 or 3 beers. Unless they slammed those beers in a short period of time and then immediately drove. Or they had a low body weight. The average person (160 lbs) who has 3 beers within an hour will have increased their BAC to .06%. In that same hour they would have metabolized .015%. Net result = .045%. The law says that below .05% is NOT impaired.
The myth that there are people being charged after one or two beers is just that. A myth. Unless those 2 beers were 40 ouncers.
The fact is that the lower BAC (.08%) and making it illegal for people under 21 to drive with ANY alcohol in their system has saved lives. The reason for the harsh penalties is deterrent. Dave, you yourself state "I don't drink n drive at all becuase it's just not worth the risk of getting caught and having to deal with all the issues associated with it." . I take this to mean that if it was a $50 fine, you'd have no problem with driving drunk. Well guess what? The deterrent factors of the DUI laws are working.
And whether they are effective or not is illustrated in the following facts:
Alcohol related traffic fatalities have moved consistently downward since 1982, the first year the National High Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began keeping such statistics.
There were 36% fewer alcohol-related fatalities in 2004 compared to 1982.1 And, according to the NHTSA, the percentage of alcohol-related traffic fatalities to overall traffic fatalities dropped from 60% to 39%, near its all time low, over the same time frame.
The total number of drivers involved in fatal accidents with BACs of 0.08 or higher, the level of legal intoxication over most of the period, decreased 41% from 1982 to 2004.
The number of 16-20 year old underage drivers involved in fatal accidents with any alcohol involved decreased 51% from 1982 to 2004 and the number of underage drivers in fatal accidents with BAC of 0.08 or greater decreased by 53% from 1982 to 2004.
It's true (and obvious) that hardcore drunk drivers are involved in accidents and fatalities, and we are increasing penalties on those that drive in the extreme (above .15%) and even harsher penalites on those above .20%.
While our nation has made great progress over the years it is important that our efforts continue, especially in regard to hardcore drunk drivers. Hardcore drunk drivers are drivers who are either arrested with a BAC of 0.15 or have had multiple drunk driving arrests. Hardcore drunk drivers continue to account for a disproportionate share of the drunk-driving problem.
Drivers with a BAC of .15 are 385 times more likely to be involved in a crash than drivers who have not been drinking.
High BAC drivers account for 58% of the alcohol-related traffic fatalities.6
22% of all drivers and 14% of drivers under 21 involved in fatal crashes where the drivers BAC was know, had a BAC of .15 or higher.
Hardcore drunk drivers are resistant to changing their behavior in spite of previous punishment, education, treatment, or public disdain. Evidence indicates that hardcore drunk drivers are contemptuous of drunk driving laws and exhibit anti-social behavior in other aspects of their lives as well.
Hardcore drunk drivers are not affected by their arrests. One study showed that over one-in-four drivers with four or more DWI arrests would face new drunk driving charges in a given year.
Other evidence indicates that hardcore drunk drivers are more likely to have prior reckless driving offenses, non-alcohol-related moving-violations and non-moving traffic violations.
Hardcore drunk drivers are also more likely to have a history of non-traffic (non-DWI) related criminal activity. One study found that 72% of repeat DWI offenders had prior criminal records.
Studies indicates that hardcore drunk driving can best be combated with comprehensive programs that apply swift, certain, and escalating punishments combined with effective treatment programs.
But that doesn't mean we're going to relax the laws on those below .15%. New Mexico already has the interlock law for all DUI convictions. Since the law went into effect their fatal accidents, with BAC above .08% has dropped 12%.
Oh. And before someone claims the above stats are from MADD, the Government or some temperance group, you should know that they come directly from the distilled spirits industry trade association.

RiverDave
05-20-2007, 05:37 PM
Wasn't going to claim against your stats boatcop, if you put em up I'd have to assume there was some backing to them..
1982 to 2004 though? What year did the law go from .10 to .08? How much of an impact did that make on the stats? Let look at it, from what has changed and how it impacted those #'s?
These are the points I'm trying to argue. Again I don't support drunk driving.. I also don't support convicting people that I'm not convinced were a huge danger to begin with? I as well surely don't support ruining some kids life becuase he had a beer (whether he was driving or not).
RD

Ultracrazy
05-23-2007, 10:51 PM
UltraCrazy, you know nothing about me.. Why make judgements like check yourself into a rehab center? I probably drink less then most the people on this board. If you really want to debate the subject then I'll be happy too, but try not to get all personal about it.
RD
My point is that your are talking like you actually know something about this subject. But you really don't because your prospective is so sKewed that your thinking from just one prespective.......your own. Did you know that you don't have to have an .08 to be convicted of drunk driving? It could be an .07 or lower if they DA can prove that you were impaired (that means buzzed). So you seem to think its okee to drink and drive ONLY if your an .08. We had a case where a subject with less than an .08 killed a family of 5..............convicted of manslaughter due to the "impairment".
Don't start your rhetoric on here because some one just might believe it's okee to just have "one for the road" and end up in jail or prison. Stick to what you know RD..........not what you think you know.

dumbandyoung
05-24-2007, 08:02 AM
Is pot still a felony there?:D :D :confused:

Boatcop
05-24-2007, 08:14 AM
Is pot still a felony there?:D :D :confused:
Yes it is. Although simple possession comes under the "Proposition 200" provisions whereby first or second offense violators can only be sentenced to probation, treatment and community service. No jail or prison time. It also is recorded on your record as a Felony, unless there were provisions through the prosecutor to have it reduced to a misdemeanor.
But that's only for sentencing. You can still be arrested and put in jail by the arresting Officer/Agency when found in possession of drugs (marijuana included) and/or paraphernalia..

dumbandyoung
05-24-2007, 08:22 AM
Yes it is. Although simple possession comes under the "Proposition 200" provisions whereby first or second offense violators can only be sentenced to probation, treatment and community service. No jail or prison time. It also is recorded on your record as a Felony, unless there were provisions through the prosecutor to have it reduced to a misdemeanor.
But that's only for sentencing. You can still be arrested and put in jail by the arresting Officer/Agency when found in possession of drugs (marijuana included) and/or paraphernalia..
Hmm....interesting and nothing I need to worry about, just curious. :D ;)
I remember some guy telling me in BHC.
Thanks for the info.

rvr_d8
05-24-2007, 08:31 AM
Is pot still a felony there?:D :D :confused:
Dennis! ......... D & Y!!!:rolleyes:
Hmmmmmmm......Ask that question and have a picture of your ride and mention your heading to the River today!!!:eek: See any probs here?!!!:idea:
and I'm the dizzy one right??!:)

WYRD
05-24-2007, 08:33 AM
My point is that your are talking like you actually know something about this subject. But you really don't because your prospective is so sKewed that your thinking from just one prespective.......your own. Did you know that you don't have to have an .08 to be convicted of drunk driving? It could be an .07 or lower if they DA can prove that you were impaired (that means buzzed). So you seem to think its okee to drink and drive ONLY if your an .08. We had a case where a subject with less than an .08 killed a family of 5..............convicted of manslaughter due to the "impairment".
Don't start your rhetoric on here because some one just might believe it's okee to just have "one for the road" and end up in jail or prison. Stick to what you know RD..........not what you think you know.
I wonder how many people are killed by sober drivers. I am sure there is a statistic for every stereotype out there. I don't agree with drinking and driving(even though I am guilty of it), but I have read many of RDs rants on this subject and I personally see his point. Everyday people are killed in nonalchol related accidents. (ricky racers, women puttin on lipstick, fat guy eatin donuts, young kid checkin out hottie, ect) I was an active paramedic for several years and have seen alot. The point RD is trying to make is that people react differently and the left wing extremist take the "one" drink is too many thing way too far. It is not necessarily the "one" drink that makes the situation "unsafe" but rather the person who drank it. Each situation should be analyzed separately and not grouped together. Now that being said, what RD is failing to realize is that there is no expert way of knowing how different Blood alcohol levels effect the individual person at the front lines (by front lines I mean the street cop that stops the DUI suspect) so they have created several guidelines to help train the officer to make a rational decision given modern technology mixed with a little common sense. Point being if someone gets stopped and blows a .08 but passes every other field sobriety test, the officer has the ability to draw his own conclusion. The same goes for the guy who is driving like an ass and cant stand up straight but passes the breathalyzer with a .05. You have to have a line in the sand somewhere.
WYRD

dumbandyoung
05-24-2007, 08:43 AM
Dennis! ......... D & Y!!!:rolleyes:
Hmmmmmmm......Ask that question and have a picture of your ride and mention your heading to the River today!!!:eek: See any probs here?!!!:idea:
and I'm the dizzy one right??!:)
They can pull me over all they want. I have a DD and nothing illegal but limo tint and burned cds, but I thinks that limo tint legal in AZ.:confused: :D ;) haha