Is Harsher Action Needed to Stop Drunk Drivers?

Marking the first time that offenders were asked what would make them stop driving drunk, The Century Council, a not-for-profit organization funded by America's leading distillers and dedicated to fighting drunk driving and underage drinking, announced results of a recent, innovative survey to fight one of the most dangerous sectors of the driving population: the hardcore drunk driver.

Ralph Blackman, President and CEO of The Century Council said, "Our recent survey is interesting and innovative in that we went straight to the drunk driving offenders to find out what they think and what would make them stop. We learned that if drunk drivers received more severe sanctions the first time they were arrested, they would be less likely to drive drunk again. The Century Council has been working to rid our nation's roads of drunk drivers, particularly hardcore drunk drivers, for over fifteen years. We believe this survey will assist law enforcement, judges, and policymakers in their efforts to stop drunk driving."

Seventy-six percent of respondents said, prior to their last DUI arrest, 1 year of mandatory jail time "definitely would have made me stop drinking and driving," and 75% responded that a mandatory fine of $10,000 would do the same. The potential of longer jail time and stiffer fines increased the likelihood that DUI offenders would not drive drunk again. Additionally, 70% of respondents said that ignition interlocks would be an effective deterrent. While compliance with ignition interlocks is often low, the threat of a heavy fine and mandatory jail time could increase the installation and use of ignition interlocks, thus making it an even more effective tool in the fight against hardcore drunk drivers. A majority of respondents said that court ordered assessments, mandatory treatment, and court ordered community service regardless of the duration were tactics that were not perceived to be a deterrent.





Full 2006 LA Auto Show photos (click the link below)

2006 LA Auto Show Photo Gallery

AutoSpies.com Photo Galleries


Read Article

EL34 - 12/20/2006 11:02:04 AM

+1 Boost

In Las Vegas you can drink alcohol in the casinos 24/7 and I have relatives in Southern Illinois that have the same rule like you have in CT, but no one should drink and operate a car, boat, airplane or anything that puts others in danger.

In fact, anyone here that drinks should quit like I did.

phaetonmeister - 12/20/2006 12:49:50 PM

+1 Boost

3 words come to mind here>>>>TAKE A TAXI! When I lived in Germany(10+ years) I had a beer delivery guy! It was great.....If getting a cab is impossible which I never have found to be the case, Buy your drink on Sat. and you have zero worry. Why won't these concerned citizens discuss banning cell phone use while driving....this is also a HUGE problem!

answer - 12/20/2006 11:38:38 AM

+1 Boost

I am a firm believer in the one strike you're out policy.

Get caught drinking and driving even once and you lose your license forever.

neutral - 12/20/2006 11:43:10 AM

0 Boost

Ridiculous. Tell me you've never screwed up once in your life. Tell me you've never come across a cop whose trying to be a tough-guy and writes someone up for blowing a 0.08. They let child molesters get away with more than people who have DUI's.

answer - 12/20/2006 12:10:57 PM

+1 Boost

People make mistakes of course. But when those mistakes can kill others there should be a zero tolerance policy on them.

Whenever people drive drunk or on drugs, they made a choice to do so. The end result might be an accident, but driving under the influence sure wasn't.

neutral - 12/20/2006 11:41:15 AM

0 Boost

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

All the damn laws nowadays. There need be NO drinking age, NO restrictions on buying alchohol and a staggered penalty system for DUI. This B.A.C. level of 0.08 gets you a felony is ridiculous! I barely ever drink and this stuff still upsets me. They need to stagger the penalties so that being, lets say, from a 0.08 to a 0.14 gets you a misdemenor (I probably spelled this wrong) or something like that. And we call ourselves a "free" country. It won't be long until a DUI means you get executed or they just ban alchohol altogether. Like I said before, I rarely drink but this country and its conservatives (who believe "drinking is the devil") have gone too far.

I know what you might say, like "you've never had a family member whose been an alchoholic, etc" but truth be told, theres a long line of boozers in my family. I would hate for one of them to get even more penalized for blowing a 0.08 when some jerk cop pulls them over for a burned out tail light.

zsz1 - 12/21/2006 12:55:55 PM

+1 Boost

Another case of "do as I say, not as I do." The reality is, these studies have been done several times in the past, while lowering the limit from .15 to .10, then 0.08. Statistically, it was found that going from .10 to .08 did not deter the "committed drunk driver." In fact, many opponents of the lowered limit pointed out that going from .10 to .08 was done more for revenue purposes (it sure increased the number of convictions and the amount of money circulating through the system) than for saving lives (there was no statistically measurable difference).

http://www.getmadd.com/