"No refusal" DUI checkpoints

[Ernest Street]

So...do they plan on restraining belligerent drunks? Trying to inject a hypodermic needle into someone struggling?
This to be done in a controlled area with official restraints and video surveillance... And sterile to say the least.

[simms3]

Notnow, I'd like to hear your opinions of DUI laws after you get pulled over for one.  I, being only 22 and growing up in the era of "serial underage drinkers and DUIers" have been going to MADD meetings and put through that crap since I was 16 years old.  Some people like the girl who was so drunk who drove on the wrong side of the highway and killed the family on their way to Disney are beyond comprehensible, but most of us just want to be able to go to a watering hole for a few beers without having to literally "stress" over how to get home, not because we can't drive but because the law is so overbearing.  Cabbing it in a city like Jax is not probable because there aren't many cabs.  I take a cab where I live when I'm with a group, and that brings the cost down, but MARTA is certainly not an option because you run the risk of assault and battery.

MADD as a private organization is valid.  MADD as an entity that the government makes us take part in is a different thing.  Once you get a DUI or an MIP, you go through two contradicting things.  One is MADD which depicts the gory side of drinking and driving.  The other is Prime for Life, which gets more into the legal aspect of it.  It's a cop's discretion whether you are intoxicated.  DWI was changed to DUI to allow for that discretion.  If you have one glass of wine and your BAC is only 0.04 and you're at a red light that turns green and a red light runner slams into you and dies, you could be charged with vehicular manslaughter and DUI.  That's what happened in one case they present.  One glass of wine and the lady had the green, but she was still held responsible for the red light runner's death, particularly because she was found to have a BAC (well within legal limit BAC of 0.04).

Notnow, sure there are a lot of accidents on the road.  Drinking and driving is unavoidable.  Drinking too much and driving is wreckless and irresponsible.  Drinking too much without driving is irresponsible.  Being a bad driver is wreckless and irresponsible.  Knowing you are too old to drive and yet still driving is wreckless and irresponsible.  Texting and driving is wreckless and irresponsible.  Knowing you're too tired to drive and nodding off yet still driving is wreckless and irresponsible.  Driving immediately after your spouse cheated on you and while you are in a rage or fit is wreckless and irresponsible.  What's to say any of these is worse than another?  Why is one activity highly illegal under the law and others are still hardly questioned?

Look at the statistics.  You are 23x as likely to wreck while texting.  That's a lot higher than having a low to moderate BAC.  Texting in FL is still perfectly legal.  In GA it is illegal, but it is just a fine.  Do I need to rattle off what people have to go through to fight a DUI?  Oh, and how about that whole job issue nowadays?  DUIs are real helpful with that.

IMO, if you are 60 years old and have never even been in a fender bender, you are obviously a better driver in all conditions than 99.999% of people out there and you should be allowed to do whatever the hell you want to do.  Too bad the law would never work that way, would never reward "model citizen" types.

[NotNow]

I understand your frustration, and I don't entirely disagree that the punishments for first time DUI are too harsh.  But it is hard to argue with groups like MADD and family members of those who have lost their lives to this.  I absolutely disagree that drinking and driving are unavoidable.  Both are voluntary activities.  I realize that you are very young, and your life is centered around socializing right now, but that will change as you grow older.    You must still be responsible for your actions.  All of the activities that you listed ARE dangerous.  The bottom line is that driving is a serious responsibility, and must be taken seriously by those that get behind the wheel.  Dulling your senses and reducing your reaction time before driving is irresponsible. 

I choose not to drink.  That solves several issues for me including the DUI issue.  Your choices are up to you.

[ChriswUfGator]

The problem I have with it is that MADD has succeeded in incrementally reducing the definition of "impaired" from being actually impaired to having had essentially anything at all. Impaired is .08 in Florida, but I don't think people get how little that truly is. That can be a glass or two of wine with dinner. It's unreasonable. Anything under .10-.12 in the average person is likely less dangerous than the bagillion people driving around without enough sleep, or without the best eyesight. In most people that isn't impairment in anything other than a technical sense. And guess what, they want to lower it again.

If you listen to interviews with these MADD people, it's crazy. They have jumped the shark, and many of them regularly rant about how they wouldn't mind seeing alcohol banned entirely. These people have a neo-Prohibitionist agenda, they're just nuts. The really funny thing is when you get into the bunk statistics behind all this. In the 1980s, when the DUI enforcement bonanza began heating up, they figured a full fifth of traffic deaths were DUI-related. But as the 1990s approached and people got more careful about it, the numbers plunged.

So what did MADD and state law enforcement do? You'd think they'd chalk it upmto a successful PR campaign and call it a day, but of course they didn't. Instead they simply changed the statistics to inflate the numbers, naturally. It's now compiled using "alcohol-related incidents" of which this is the FLDHSMV's definition;

The table above shows the total number of traffic fatalities (Tot) for the Florida, alcohol related fatalities (Alc-Rel) and fatalities in crashes where the highest BAC in the crash was 0.08 or above (0.08+).

It is important to note that the Florida drunk driving statistics, as shown above, include data from individuals who were in an alcohol-related crash, but not driving a motor vehicle at the time. The U.S. Department of Transportation defines alcohol-related deaths as "fatalities that occur in crashes where at least one driver or non-occupant (pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash has a positive Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) value."

Ok, so does everyone else spot all the loopholes in this thing?

1: If someone dies in a crash and wasn't even driving, their death gets included if their BAL is over .08. If a drunk guy dies when his cab crashes on the way home, the state would treat it as alcohol-related.
2: If someone is involved in a crash and well under the legal limit, but shows ANY positive test for alcohol (can be .001) then that gets included in the statistic even though they weren't DUI.
3: There is no determination of fault. If the non at-fault driver has a positive BAL level, even though they weren't DUI and didn't cause the accident, it is still treated as alcohol-related.
4: The "DUI death" doesn't even have to be in a vehicle. If a driver hits a pedestrian who had the right of way, if the pedestrian had been drinking it gets included in the statistics.

These MADD people honestly make me sick. Despite a precipitous decline in the actual number of impaired drivers over the past 20 years, they succeed time and again in having the statistics changed so that they can report year after year what a large problem this is. Except, it's not. It's nothing more than bunk statistics at this point, that are so manipulated that a dunk bum who happens to die next to a roadway is probably being counted as a DUI death.

The state jumped on the bandwagon with both feet, once they realized how much money was involved in this little cottage industry. The average fine is $2,000 by itself, and that doesn't include monitoring fees, all the various fees and charges related to the suspension and reinstatement of your driver's license, or the SR-22 insurance that our state-sponsored insurance company is the primary underwriter of, mental health / substance abuse evaluations, and on and on and on. The state probably makes somewhere between $5k-$10k off each DUI arrest.

The MADD people used to have a point, but after they accomplished their goal they simply didn't want to go away. Now, their arguments rely entirely on pathos (my brother died in that crash, etc.) and bunk statistics. Not that I'm disparaging anyone's dead relative, but we shouldn't be legislating on pathos. And more rights have been lost in the name of DUI enforcement than any other area of law, at least in this state. Mandatory roadside blood testing is really just where this has been headed all along. The whole thing is really a mess.

[simms3]

Actually I rarely drink.  I go out once a week, and I usually cab or hitch a ride.  Even so, sometimes it's unavoidable, and in Jax it is unavoidable.  People who go out to eat or for a few drinks are going to end up drinking and driving at least more than a few times in that city.  There are few cabs, no public transit, and ease of driving because availability of back roads (why wouldn't someone who went to the Brick take the easy 2 lane 30 mph back roads home?).

Your choices not to drink are comendable, but are rare (at least in my world).  Everyone I know short of the last president drinks (I don't know the last president just making a point).

I also commend MADD, but for the government to basically use our pre-tax money to sponsor that group by getting every underage drinker and every DUI arrest to pay fees to sit in on meetings and group sessions "sponsored" by MADD is too much.  The amount of private groups that basically thrive and profit because the government supports each and every one of them through their arrests makes me think that these groups have lobbyists that have won them deals with the government.  How else does the government just charge a fee and some jail time and then sentence a string of punishments whereby private groups benefit?

And I guess you agree with me that anything that dulls your senses before you get behind the wheel is wreckless, but can you tell me which one is worst and which one is most deserving of a severe punishment?  You are right in that driving is an adult responsibility.

[simms3]

Chris, your're right, and how many fees go to private companies nowadays?  (and "Non-profits").  It makes me think there is a lobbying group to get the government to force everyone who is arrested to sit in on MADD, go to an AA group or rehab center, the ignition breathylizer is a chunk of change (they would not be around if it weren't for the government mandating it), the Prime for Life, the psychiatric evaluations, and the list goes on.

Also, as you go through all of this, you learn that BAC means almost nothing.  Anything at or over 0.08 means automatic DUI, any refusal to blow means DUI less safe, and any BAC under 0.08 but above 0.01 in adults (which we consider 21 and up for alcohol but 18 and up for everything else...??) is up to the cop's discretion.  Like I said, you have examples of a basically sober driver obeying all laws and a wreckless red light runner running into her and dying, but the basically sober driver gets charged with vehicular manslaughter/DUI because she had a BAC of 0.04.

Too many lives are ruined because idiots jumped in a car with BAC's of .15 or far far above and caused a wreck, but many more "innocent" lives are nearly ruined because they had a BAC of .05 when they were 20 or they were a couple coming home from Biscottis and either had a BAC of 0.08/0.09 or refused to blow.  Just examples.

And have you ever noticed that DUI checkpoints are always on back roads or roads with stop signs and slow speed limits?  Anyone who has drank at all and drives on these roads are making a safe driving choice for them and everyone else.  You never see DUI check points on highways and major arterials where the majority of bad wrecks occur and speeds approach 80 mph.  It's almost like promoting for people who drink and drive to hop on a highway for as much of the drive home as possible and avoid the backroads.  Gee, that's smart.  A policy that encourages wrecks rather than tries to prevent them.

[ChriswUfGator]

Simms, your observations are quite true. The checkpoint locations are where they are to eliminate people seeing the checkpoint and exiting the roadway. Also, the only reason they advertise the checkpoint locations and grant drivers caught in them any semblance of civil rights is because the courts were routinely smacking them down until they reached somewhat of a balance with the invasiveness. Even then they aren't supposed to keep you longer than 3 minutes, which the courts have held is reasonable enough time to check your license and insurance.

For the state, this has become a moneymaking bonanza more than anything else, you're right there is a huge lobby of MADD and substance abuse "treatment" providers, state-approved DUI traffic school providers, and on and on who all have their snouts in the trough and a big lobby in Tallahassee.

I also think it's ludicrous that people under 21 can be and regularly are sent off to die for this country, but aren't considered "responsible" enough to have a beer. What does that say about our society? How are we not using someone's lack of experience to send them off and die for us, as long as their alleged lack of experience doesn't actually impact us if they have a beer? Good enough to die save my ass, but not good enough to have a beer? WTF. Seriously?

Stephen Dare has an even more interesting take on all this, which is rather chilling. He agrees these folks are neo-prohibitionists, but goes a step farther. He remembers in the 80s and 90s when these same MADD people started a series of zoning wars that resulted in it being virtually impossible to have a bar/lounge or liquor store in a residential area anymore.

Before the zoning battles, people would go to their neighborhood bar and have a drink or watch the game and go home. It was all walking distance and even if they drove it was only a couple blocks so there was no big harm. But these same people actively fought to zone all of this stuff out to the outskirts, which led to the distances requiring a car trip, and then set about lowering the legal limits and stepping up DUI enforcement plus slick PR campaigns that have essentially equated DUI with child molestation or murder in the public consciousness.

Except their own zoning agenda created a big chunk of the DUI problem to begin with, showing that they are more interested in de facto prohibition than in actual public safety. So you're not allowed to drink in your neighborhood anymore, and you're not allowed to drive to drink, so I guess the message is pretty clear on that one, huh? Don't drink. Interesting take on things, and highly informative.

In any event, I think the statistical manipulations these people have to go through in order to continue claiming that this thing is some huge problem really kind of demonstrates they've totally jumped the shark at this point. They accomplished their mission by the 1990s, but then simply started changing the definitions as they went along, so that they could claim that pretty much every roadway death was somehow "alcohol-related." Even then, these grossly manipulated statistics STILL show a 50% decline! Their mission has been accomplished, why are these people still around? (Hint: Follow the money)

[Dog Walker]

Too right!  A lot of the traffic stuff has turned into a money making machine for the city, state and the "schools", programs and lawyers.  I found out the hard way.

Two months ago I got my first traffic ticket in twenty-five years.  Illegal passing-$150 fine plus three points on the license.  I was driving twenty yards on the shoulder of I-10 to get around a completely blocked Interstate to get to the next exit.  I didn't even know it was illegal, but now it makes sense to me and the FHP guy was polite about it.  My bad.

Within three days I was getting phone calls, letters and post cards from lawyers, traffic schools, etc. saying that "for a fee" they could get me off or at least keep the points off the license.  I must have gotten twenty solicitations of various kinds over about three weeks.  What a racket!

Took my lumps.  Paid the fine.  Took the points.  Learned my lesson, but didn't get wrapped up in the scams.  Was totally amazed.

[Ernest Street]

Thank you Chris for exposing the "Dirty little secret" behind Misdemeanor DUI.
This charge caries WAY more penalties than an equivalent FELONY ARREST.
You have to go on a "Fake Probation" even if you have no probation or have taken care of all the money...and install a corporate device that draws power and kills your battery.

ALL these type fines I have referred to as "Modern Mafia" in the past.

If you are too young to remember "Protection payments" and other thug behavior..it has now been Legalized as Fines, fees,assessments and other legalized ripoffs. The FRANCHISE TAX/ FEE is a tax on a business for making money. this fee is now regularly Jacked onto  JEA customers.
How much is this fee annually? How do they get off charging everyone this fee monthly?
Just when do they pay off this bogus fee?
Honestly, do they need to be sued to stop this?

[ChriswUfGator]

The JEA franchise fee is outrageous. The intent was that they repay COJ for the billions in taxpayer investment, considering JEA is profitable. Instead JEA simply passed it straight along to the customers and continued pocketing the money.