Work acquaintance in jail for DUI manslaughter .

I used to deliver newspapers while in college and was rear ended while working at 2-3am by a drunk driver. Six lane divided road, and I was the only one at the light ... he managed to hit me and my Honda Prelude. I had to be removed through the sunroof. 

I only had PIP insurance on the car, so lost the car, had to pay a couple of thousand bucks for the ambulance ride and the ER visit along with not being able to work as I had no car. It was a 1988 Prelude and this happened in '96-97 so it was worth some money. 
 

The guy had no insurance and a NJ driver's license. He was taken to the hospital and even though someone had to be watching him, he left unnoticed and skipped town.

Great memories. Don't drink and drive.

He was driving a notchback Mustang, which you can see in the foreground ... that is his trunk, it was bent from the hit, yes the trunk!

Oh, I forgot I had to pay the wrecker plus the storage fees ... like $500 <facepalm>. When I went pick it up, they had broken the center console and stolen an Alpine radio I had installed. Of course they denied it was even there. 

If you got drunk and shot someone dead, you'd be either executed or imprisoned for life.

If you got drunk and slammed a car into someone and killed them, you're facing, what, five years?

SV reX said:

Racebrick said:

Cannabis does not impair motor function like alcohol, but it is always mentioned along side it.  For those if you that think cannabis should not be legal, do you feel the same way about all drugs?  It seems like an arbitrary distinction to me.  Millions of pill poppers seems like a bigger problem.

Seriously?

Who cares about motor function when it's obvious the driver is mentally impaired?  Sure, my muscles can technically operate the steering wheel, but I really don't give a berkeley- I'd much rather watch the little green light blinking on the stereo.

YES. I absolutely think there should be stricter responses to ANYONE who drives impaired, regardless of whether it is legal or not.  That's why those pills have labels that tell users to avoid driving or operating machinery... because your abilities ARE impaired. 
 

For the record, I am also in support of legalized recreational cannabis. But driving under the influence is an ABSOLUTE NO.  No excuse. Go to jail. 

I specifically posed this question to anti cannabis people, because they typically leave out the millions of drug addicts in this country who drive on pills every day.  If it wasn't clear, let me say that I am not advocating people drive high on anything.  In fact I think if you have a prescription for weed, benzos, or the like it should be noted on your license like eyeglasses, and you should be required to take a drug test if you are in an accident.

In reply to Racebrick :

That's fine. (And I get it). 
 

Do you see how your "motor function" comment could easily be interpreted as defending driving under the influence of cannabis?

chaparral said:

If you got drunk and shot someone dead, you'd be either executed or imprisoned for life.

If you got drunk and slammed a car into someone and killed them, you're facing, what, five years?

 

Right.  Its totally incongruent and massively unjust.  A speeding car has orders of magnitude more energy than any portable weapon.   In some countries the penalties are equal but in the US I guess its political reasons drunk drivers get away with injury and murder or receive much lighter sentences than shooting someone while drunk.

The pot stuff is something that I have to deal with as an employer. If I did randomized testing with zero tolerance I'd  probably lose most of my workers.  Fortunately California is an "at will" state, so what I tell them is that their personal life is not my business, but what they do while in my employ is. If someone is impaired or just acting stupid in a potentially dangerous manner, at the least they get sent home and its one of three strikes. If it's egregious or they lie about it they're fired. The other thing is that I remind them that workman's compensation can deny benefits if you are found to be stoned at the time of the incident. 

Is this the best in every way? No, but its pretty workable. Construction is dangerous. Statistically you're more likely to die on the job while building a house than if you are in law enforcement. So if someone isn't on his game, he's going home and I don't care if it's drugs, alcohol, sleep or your old lady calling you out. 

jharry3 said:

chaparral said:

If you got drunk and shot someone dead, you'd be either executed or imprisoned for life.

If you got drunk and slammed a car into someone and killed them, you're facing, what, five years?

 

Right.  Its totally incongruent and massively unjust.  A speeding car has orders of magnitude more energy than any portable weapon.   In some countries the penalties are equal but in the US I guess its political reasons drunk drivers get away with injury and murder or receive much lighter sentences than shooting someone while drunk.

Well, there is still intent. If you shoot someone it usually connotates intention. Car crashes usually do not connotate intention.

However, if you were "just" speeding while not drunk and killed someone you'd get even less. Same choice to break a well known law, same "completely avoidable" nature. Society views speeding differently. 

I really wish we had a way to limit cell phone usage while driving. The number of people I see looking down at their phones terrifies me. One of the major reasons I don't ride a motorcycle anymore.

In reply to Beer Baron :

Might not change the crash statistics:

Cell phone bans don't work

In reply to SV reX :

I wouldn't expect cell phone bans to work. Then people will just look at phones down in their laps, taking their eyes even further from the road.

It certainly doesn't surprise me to learn that the kind of people who talk on the phone while driving are already terrible drivers.

In reply to Beer Baron :

Are we talking about people that just talk on the phone, or is it the dialing/texting/other? I can see futzing with your phone being a distraction, but is talking really a distraction for many people? 
 

I don't like lumping distracted drivers in with impaired drivers. While distracted driving is a problem, it's typically for brief periods of time Vs. being impaired for the whole trip from start to finish. An impaired driver cannot sober up at will, distracted driver can choose to ignore the distraction. Now if the brief period of distraction happens at the wrong time, results can be similar- still a problem but not in same way as impaired driving. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

I'm talking about people looking at their phone while driving, not merely talking. It's pretty common that I see people with their heads pointed to the right and down looking at the phone in their hand. When I see a driver having trouble staying in the middle of their lane, they are frequently looking at a phone.

jharry3 said:

chaparral said:

If you got drunk and shot someone dead, you'd be either executed or imprisoned for life.

If you got drunk and slammed a car into someone and killed them, you're facing, what, five years?

 

Right.  Its totally incongruent and massively unjust.  A speeding car has orders of magnitude more energy than any portable weapon.   In some countries the penalties are equal but in the US I guess its political reasons drunk drivers get away with injury and murder or receive much lighter sentences than shooting someone while drunk.

I think it all starts with the term "Drunk Driving Accident". There is no accident at all with drunk driving.   This is the first thing that needs to change.  

Boost_Crazy said:

Are we talking about people that just talk on the phone, or is it the dialing/texting/other? I can see futzing with your phone being a distraction, but is talking really a distraction for many people?

People used to claim that even talking with a hands free kit was too distracting, and yet I have yet to hear someone propose banning talking to your passengers. :)

I suspect the bulk of the issue these days is texting or other text-based messaging apps.  There's been a generational shift and many people don't ever want to place an actual voice call.  Hands-free voice text systems exist, but they don't work nearly as well as they do for voice calls.

dean1484 said:

There is no accident at all with drunk driving.

Unless you're claiming that the driver intended to kill the motorcycle rider, "accident" is the right word.  It means "unintentional", it does not say anything about causes or fault.

In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :

I think he was saying that the choice to drink was completely intentional, and that the user did so with full knowledge that they would be driving after drinking. 
 

SV reX said:

I think he was saying that the choice to drink was completely intentional, and that the user did so with full knowledge that they would be driving after drinking. 

That makes the crash predictable and negligent, but does not make it intentional.  That's why it's charged as manslaughter and not first degree murder.

jharry3 said:

chaparral said:

If you got drunk and shot someone dead, you'd be either executed or imprisoned for life.

If you got drunk and slammed a car into someone and killed them, you're facing, what, five years?

 

Right.  Its totally incongruent and massively unjust.  A speeding car has orders of magnitude more energy than any portable weapon.   In some countries the penalties are equal but in the US I guess its political reasons drunk drivers get away with injury and murder or receive much lighter sentences than shooting someone while drunk.

I don't think this is true at all.  Do you have court cases to cite?  That's a face-value question because I want to know.

If you're drunk and showing your buddy your new .380 and it accidentally fires and kills him, prosecution has to prove intent and motive for a murder charge.  You might get 3rd degree manslaughter which carries anything from a little jail time to nothing but a slap on the wrist and probation.

But if you get in an accident while drunk and kill someone, you're probably down for at least 5 years locked up. 

The burden of proof (at least here in PA) is next to zero for DUI.  There isn't even an actual trial because PA is an Implied Consent state.  It's fast-laned.  You blew a 0.085 BAC?  You get a prelim hearing (which you waive) and then 30 of you stand in front a judge at the same time on a Friday and the formalities ensue.  There is no trial because there is no argument to be had.  Were you driving?  Yes.  Was your BAC 0.085?  Yes.  *slams gavel*

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

People used to claim that even talking with a hands free kit was too distracting, and yet I have yet to hear someone propose banning talking to your passengers. :)

I have read that the difference is that while you're having the same conversation, the other person in the car is still aware of the surroundings and can help alert the driver to potential dangers while the person on the other end of the phone call is completely divorced from the driver's situation. 

jfryjfry said:

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

People used to claim that even talking with a hands free kit was too distracting, and yet I have yet to hear someone propose banning talking to your passengers. :)

I have read that the difference is that while you're having the same conversation, the other person in the car is still aware of the surroundings and can help alert the driver to potential dangers while the person on the other end of the phone call is completely divorced from the driver's situation. 

Plus, your focus is in the car, not on the other end of a cell tower somewhere.  It's subtle but very different.

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

SV reX said:

I think he was saying that the choice to drink was completely intentional, and that the user did so with full knowledge that they would be driving after drinking. 

That makes the crash predictable and negligent, but does not make it intentional.  That's why it's charged as manslaughter and not first degree murder.

 

 

Yes, I understand. 
 

I wasn't agreeing with him, just interpreting. 

jfryjfry said:

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

People used to claim that even talking with a hands free kit was too distracting, and yet I have yet to hear someone propose banning talking to your passengers. :)

I have read that the difference is that while you're having the same conversation, the other person in the car is still aware of the surroundings and can help alert the driver to potential dangers while the person on the other end of the phone call is completely divorced from the driver's situation. 

As I understand, it was actually studied. They found very little distraction from conversations with someone in the car, or when talking on simplex radio (CB or ham radio where you take turns talking and listening). The conclusion was that the other person in the conversation did not intrude on the driver's attention.

With a person in the car, they didn't help notice things, but they could tell when they needed to shut up. With radio, there is no expectation of an instant response. It is perfectly normal to miss a transmission and say, "Please repeat that."

With a cell phone, people don't like awkward silences and keep talking and trying to get your attention. You can be trying to merge on a busy interchange while someone yells a shopping list in your ear.

Update (thought I had done this already but must have failed to hit "post"). Guy I know is out of jail awaiting trial. Evidently in some kind of pre-trial action a Camera from the intersection showed the motorcycle blew through a red light and t-boned the truck.

I have no idea what that does but I wonder if he will keep the DUI but shake (rightfully?) the manslaughter charge. 

In reply to OHSCrifle :

The camera won't get him out of the DUI, but it should result in the manslaughter charge being dropped. Unless the DA is trying to get a reputation for being a hard @ss.