I don't think that's a good attitude to take. I do believe that drunk drivers are a really big problem and I do not sympathize with them at all - I believe punishments should be far harsher than is practical, but the constitution of the US is the most important document in the entire country and it restricts government from impeding free travel.

Bars should be forced to install mandatory "key lockers" at the door that require a breathalyzer test in order to get your keys back when you leave. Fail the test, call a cab or find someone else to drive. I believe more effort should be spent on combating the problem at the source rather than catching people after it's too late. A drunk driver caught at a road check is a good thing, but on the way to that road check how many people did he endanger? It's too late.

Or personal responsibility could rule the day. Yeah right, silly thought...

Which has nothing to do with making sure people aren't driving while drunk. There is no Right to Not Be Inconvenienced. Some people are a bit too lose with what "free" is supposed to mean.



The Jedi Master

We have a drinking problem in our state. A massive one, resulting in many, many dead folks every year. We also happen to have oxygen thieves driving around without licenses and multiple previous DUIs. I'm all for effectively locking them in a small box and losing the key forever.

With the recent amount of drunk driving arrests down, it looks like the current laws are working. This also means a lot less money to be made for many in the legal system. If I go out for a steak and one beer, I am fine to drive. But I bet I would be close to .05. This new law will mean that the only time most people can have a drink is when they are home for the night. I don't see that happening. Drive by any bar or restaurant that sells alcohol on a Friday or Saturday night, they are packed. Just seems like a money maker law.

The Government already restricts 'free' travel with the NoFly list. Those on the list are still free to travel using other modes of transportation including walking.

Exactly, if DUI checkpoints were unconstitutional restrictions on free travel, what would TSA screenings be? Or traffic lights? The right to travel refers to the gov't not being able to require you to apply for permission to move from one place to another as you see fit.

Same here. The saving grace in Maine is it's low population and being generally rural otherwise it would be much worse though this also contributes to the difficulty in enforcing DUI laws.

These days I don't want to drive with more than one beer/wine with dinner. It just doesn't feel smart.

Still, it blows my mind that bars have parking lots and not every car has a DD. Just asking for trouble.
Wouldn't it be better to require bars have someone at the door for those exiting, to have a DD take a breathalyzer? If they can pay someone to let people in, they can pay someone to let them out to the parking lot. If the driver doesn't pass, they have to call a cab.

Well, taking away your irresponsible patrons' keys to the car by force is just asking for trouble. Even IF it were legal (it isn't) it would surely drive away the customers. So, no. Not a viable option. What people who want to drink and to drive need are fully autonomous cars without the option to override the steering. Or they need to go out for dinner by walking.

Numerous solutions exist, the driverless car is probably the most expensive one, and I'm not convinced that people will really buy them in numbers. But if the concept should have any chance of success at all, there must be an option for fully autonomous mode that absolves the passenger from all responsibility in case of accident. Otherwise, what's the point?

I'm still stunned that someone thinks they can drink a 12-pack and drive just fine.

Watched an experiment on TV once
Three guys had to drive around a race track for couple of hours.
The experiment was conducted at night under strict supervision
Various hazards were placed on the track one guy had to speed, one was well over the legal limit and one was sleep deprived
Under no circumstances would I condone drink driving but the guy who was sleep deprived faired far worse in the various tests then the other two drivers.

Let's just hope they don't pass a law saying driving without the proper amount of sleep is illegal. I'm sure they can come up with some test for that too that applies to everyone. And no, I am not condoning drunk driving.

They can't keep your keys from you, but they can be responsible for calling you in. Bars get sued for letting drunks leave, give them some recourse. I'm talking about a law that puts all bars on equal footing, not singling out some place for people to abandon. Even better if they get uniformed, but off-duty, cops to do that job. It's already done for security purposes around here, why not preventing DUI's?
Or, you could automate it. Fence in the parking lot, like many already are. When you park you drop your keys into an automated valet, something that looks like a Red Box or coke machine. To leave, you take the test and get your keys. You get the keys regardless, but the machine takes your picture, documents the time and blood alcohol level--which you are also given and offers to call a cab/Uber for you. That alone might be enough, but you could also have it alert the police to people over the limit that drive off.

It's common to see road blocks put up as well, just a few blocks out, but covering the roads so they can't be avoided. They can't be expected to do that all the time though.

You need to down a 12 pack and your attitude will change.

You need 13. "One more for the road."



I've always been Eight Hours Bottle to Throttle - not because of any law, but because I have a real fear of hitting a kid with my truck. Oddly specific, I know, but I've never had a beer and got behind the wheel.

This is where driverless cars could be a real boon. We could go from breathalizer devices to start vehicles to making DUI people restricted to them.

And I could rent one, go pub crawling with the wife and tell it to take me home in a slurred voice.

Point of information:

Both the wife and I have alcoholics on both sides of the family, and all the genetic fun that comes with it. We've more than once drove up a bar tab well into three digits and had the bartenders scratching their heads on why we weren't sloppy. Too loud, yes, and a bit too deliberate in our actions (natural coping technique), but happily sitting on our stools joking around as the whiskey flows on and on. Without being very cognizant of this it would be very easy to fool ourselves into thinking we were okay to drive.

Yeah... plus he might start preferring Glocks since he wouldn't need to fumble around looking for a thumb safety...

I could drink a 12 pack and drive.. never stumbled while walking... no seeing double ect..I drive just fine with normal driving (iam not saying pushing the limit wouldnt show my BAC) but just normal driving I never faulted or drove bad.... I am not saying that was the right thing to do.. remember, I am 6'3 250 (being scottish doesnt hurt either)

I just handle booze VERY well.. like I said, some people are the opposite.. they drink 4 beers and run a red light and kill somebody.

Here's the real problem with DUI laws: It's the same bust for the person who had two beers and the person who had twenty.

There's no "degree of severity" with the charge itself, yet there is a huge degree of severity with the offense itself.

The ability to pass a field sobriety test should make it an infraction - albeit heavily escalated for repeat offenses.

Just another symptoms of a litigation mentality based on illusion that there's always someone else at fault BUT the one who did wrong.

Either way, I'm shocked to see in this thread how many people are still defending the indefensible. Two beers or ten, if you're above the blood alcohol limit for operating a vehicle you shouldn't be allowed to drive. It doesn't matter if you would "almost make it" avoiding an accident or if you're wildly swerving and zig-zagging the road and then crash. In both cases someone else is paying the price for your irresponsible behavior - and therefore society has a say in this.

It is sufficiently established by medical science that .05 is the threshold beyond which you can't react adequately to a surprising situation in traffic. There is no rational basis to argue in favor of a .08 limit, or to call for proportional punishment because "others are so much worse". You already get punished for ANY alcohol in your blood if you are involved in an accident (and rightfully so). The .05 threshold doesn't say that it's safe to drink up to this point and then it becomes gradually unsafe until, after well into the second 12-pack, it eventually reaches a critical level.

The impairment of driving skills setting in can be demonstrated at .005 (!) already, and from then on it's going downhill, period. You want to drive a car? Then don't drink. You want to drink? Call a taxi. It's quite simple, actually.