Talk:Drunk driving in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

Alcohol does not have a scent. As such, in case reports you are never to state that you smelled alcohol on the subject's breath. Instead, state that there was an odor of an alcoholic beverage, as that is the scent that is recognized.

Alcohol most definitely does have a scent. In my forensics lab, we use laboratory-grade 200 proof ethanol as a solvent, and it has an unmistakable odor. One of my co-workers used to carry a small vial of 200 proof ethanol to court when he had to testify so if an attorney tried to claim alcohol doesn't have an odor, he could pull out the vial and prove it does. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Drunk Driving" is a misnomer, there is no such thing as "Drunk Driving", its either Driving Under the Influence (DUI)or Driving While Intoxicated (DWI).

If you are arrested you are charged with either DUI or DWI not "drunk driving". Describing someone as "drunk" is purely subjective, hence while the laws are called DWI and DUI.

The content of this article was submitted by the copyright holder Lawrence Taylor, Esq. ( http://www.DUIcentral.com/ ), the author of several legal textbooks, whom I introduced to Wikipedia earlier this afternoon.

While the content of the article is superb, and is no doubt the first of many such high quality contributions, it should be enhanced to be more comprehensive, or simply moved to an article entitled DUI evidence, so have at it Wikipedians! Larry has a full understanding that his work will be mercilessly edited and that the present article is now subject to free distribution under the terms of the GFDL. -- NetEsq 00:27 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

The article is from our law firm's public informational website at http://www.DUIcenter.com/ As David indicates, I understand that this article is subject to free distribution. I look forward to contributing further in the future. Letaylor

Regarding the original content of this article (see: "Critique of blood alcohol readings - This section is the previous content of this page. It needs wikifying and NPOVing.") - I'm considering moving this to Blood Alcohol Content.

Also, this article needs discussion of:

  • "drugged" driving; the title would then more appropriately be Drunk and Drugged Driving ?
  • social/medical/economic effects of drunk/drugged driving injuries & deaths
  • efforts to reduce drunk/drugged driving
  • link to MADD, which needs to be written

Harris7 11:52, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)


What about ethical/moral issues regarding Drunk Driving? I can post a decent bibliography.

Changes to this article were submitted by Attorney Marc N. Pelletier, Law Offices of Russo & Russo, St. Petersburg, Florida ([1]). My sincere thanks to my colleague in the National College of DUI Defense, Fellow Lawrence Taylor, Esq. for providing his work as the foundation from which to build.

Edits are as follows:

1. First sentence edited to clarify that it is *impairment* rather than *intoxication* by alcohol that is the key feature of DUI laws.

2. Added word drugs to first sentence with appropriate internal link to expand scope of article per user Harris7's comment on the discussion page associated with this article.

3. Reworded the third paragraph to refer to "per se" or "legal limits" found in the law of most U.S. jurisdictions. Further, changed this paragraph so that it referred to the presumption of impairment that attaches at BAC levels of .08% or higher rather then stating that the law defines .08% BAC as the "threshhold of drunkenness."

4. Added a section dealing with "drugged driving."

5. Changed the examples listed in the first sentence dealing with what penalties are imposed where BAC is over a .20. Added internal link to ignition interlock devices.

6. Deleted the last two sentences of the fourth paragraph dealing with the reasoning behind enhanced penalties in DUI cases where a BAC level of .20 was found to exist. Although habitual and chronic alcoholism is considered by the courts in the context of DUI case (i.e., "How many times were you DUI in the past, but just didn't get caught?"), the main reason for the imposition of additional penalties required in these cases is the greatly increased risk of accidents (and subsequent injury and/or property damage) associated with high BAC levels.

7. Added paragraph under Field Sobriety Tests section dealing with the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests developed by NHTSA. Placed internal link.

8. Corrected the usuage of BAL to BAC for internal consistency within the article, although the terms are interchangeable in practice.

9. Corrected the caption under the photo for accuracy. Test discovered GHB in Nolte's system. These tests were unable to determine drug levels or the fact of impairment. Also, fixed a problem with the remainder of the caption not showing after the internal link to GHB.

Lately there have been numerous edits to this article dealing with the section that states that "The most common blood alcohol content (BAC) "legal limit" in the United States is 0.10%. Only three states still use the more lax, once-common standard of 0.08%." This is factually inaccurate as the .10 level is a "more lax standard" while .08 is the by-far more common standard and also represents a "stricter standard" or lower concentration of alcohol in the human body. Please see http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/pub/alcohol-laws/08History/1_introduction.htm#The%20Case%20for as authority. Reference specifically to the section which states, "As of May 2001, forty-nine states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, had enacted per se laws (the exception is Massachusetts, where an .08 BAC is considered evidence of impairment, but it is not illegal per se.). Twenty-five states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, had established .08 BAC per se as the illegal limit. The remaining states have a .10 BAC per se limit." I am hopeful that this comment and the corresponding edit will end the confusion and numerous reversions to factually incorrect information that have been ongoing in recent weeks.

http://www.dmv.de.gov/services/driver_services/driver_improvement/dr_di_dui.shtml

Under the field sobriety test section I added criticisms of the standardized field sobriety tests. I also added ethical concerns of the field sobriety tests, and why the NHTSA research has been disputed. I then added a section specifically for the "walk-and-turn" field sobriety test to explain it in further detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kltucker2 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

USA only[edit]

This page should be moved to one called Drunk driving (USA). Its content relates almost exclusively to the USA jurisdiction. It has limited use in the global Wikipedia. I will move the page after a suitable time if there are no objections. Arcturus 08:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page moved. I've created a new page called Drink driving for the international perspective. The new page has a See also link to this page. Arcturus 19:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Driving privilege[edit]

I notice that in this article driving in America is referred to as a 'privilege'. Is this the legal situation? I wonder haw a state can grant any privileges to its people - surely its the other way round. I've heard people make similar statements in the UK but as far as I can see driving is a right not a privilege. Of course the right can be removed by the state under certain circumstances, but by default you have the 'right'. If we make reference to the state granting privileges in forums such as Wikipedia, sooner or later 'the state' might come to the view that it does indeed confer privileges on the people - and that's dangerous in a democracy. Arcturus 18:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many people say things like "driving isn't a right, it's a privilege". This meaningless phrase is often used to justify checkpoints, zero tolerance DUI laws, racial profiling, etc. Since the difference between a "right" and a "privilege" isn't legally clear, there's no sense in claiming that people have a right to perform some acts while others are privileges granted by the state. However I don't think the word "privilege" is used in that sense in the article, it simply means that people can be disallowed from driving. Rhobite 18:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  1. In U.S. law there is a distinct difference between a Right, and a Privilege. A "Right" cannot be taken away, where as a privilige can be removed through due process. therefore,terh phrase is not meaning less. EMT1871 19:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IANAL but I don't think what you write is accurate. The Right to Vote is taken away from convicted criminals in many jurisdictions, which by by your definition would make it a privilege, but nobody ever says the Privilege to Vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.110.168 (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's not right. I am a lawyer (not yours, but I am one). Rights are automatically granted to the people and can only be taken away after due process. So, felons can lose the right to vote, probationers and parolees can lose their rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. Privileges, on the other hand, are not automatic. You only get them if the state grants them to you (such as the "privilege" of driving on the public roads they built), but once you have them they can only be taken away from you if you've been given due process. "Due process" generally only entitles you to notice and an opportunity to be heard, which really isn't all that much, so it's not that hard to yank someone's license from them if they get a DUI. Gromlakh (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

getMADD.com[edit]

I just reverted this added paragraph in the first section:

It should also be noted that the law applies differently to people suspected of driving while intoxicated. In most states, the officer only has to suspect that the person is drunk. In most states, upon arrest, the suspect, not convicted mind you, has their license suspended within a certain number of days. This suspension is, in some states, increased if the person refuses a breathalizer test, which in some states, is their legal right to refuse, the law punishes the person for refusal by this action. Organizations like MADD make significant amounts of income from hosting MADD intervention meetings for convicted DWI offenders, which is court ordered. The prices for attending these meetings range from 5 to 20 dollars (American). Drunk driving has become a big business and money maker for local law enforcement and judiciaries. The DWI laws are constantly being made stricter in states, due to the lobbying of organizations like MADD, due to the amount of money to be made. Please see getMADD.com for further information on this matter.

There is useful information there (reasonable suspicion of impairment versus actual impairment, breathalyzer refusal), but it's definitely non-NPOV and contains an advertisement for a non-NPOV lobbyist group. Could the good information be incorporated? --Quuxplusone 18:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the revert. While it's true that many people believe that MADD has overstepped its original mission (including one of its founders, I think), there's a better way to phrase this. Right now the paragraph is POV. Red flag phrases include "it should be noted" and "mind you", among others. Rhobite 21:56, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge with "Drink driving"[edit]

User:GCarty proposes merging this article back into Drink driving. That seems counterproductive to me, since the whole reason it was split off in the first place is that it has a lot of encyclopedic content that doesn't apply to "drink driving" in Europe and abroad.

However, it's true that Drink driving is a stub. Who knows anything about the relevant laws in Europe? Add some content!

I'm minorly afraid that leaving the merge notice up too long might lead to somebody actually merging before a consensus is reached, since there's no apparent procedure for discussing merges the way there is for deletions. Ideas? --Quuxplusone 16:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I support the merge. I agree that most of the content was US-specific, but the proper solution would have been to add information on other countries, not to split the article. The topic of drunk driving shouldn't be segregated into "US" and "elsewhere". Rhobite 18:49, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: I definitely support the creation of new articles about dr[iu]nk driving in countries other than the U.S.  But it would be silly, IMHO, to create one blanket article that tries to deal with drunk-driving laws in every single country on earth. Much as we currently have History of Britain, History of France, etc., we'd have Drunk driving (USA), Drink driving (France), etc.  The reason we don't have that at the moment is a lack of either interest in, or else interesting material about, drink driving outside the U.S.  In the U.S., drunk driving is understandably an interesting topic. Basically, I predict that if the articles are merged this week, they'll just have to be laboriously unmerged in a month or two, when somebody tries to expand the non-U.S. coverage. --Quuxplusone 00:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of penalties and as a societal problem?[edit]

I realize this needs to remain NPOV, but shouldn't there be some discussion of how it's a much larger problem in the United States, per capita than in other countries? Perhaps a comparison / contrast with the penalties of other countries? Just a suggestion - I think it would be a good addition, not sure of the best way to go about it.

I've added some points on DUI and its relationship to British Law - which does not recognise such an offence. It's an important legal point. I've also outlined that in terms of deterrent harsh sentences for DUI Manslaughter are much less effective than random breath testing and loss of licence Albanaich

Breath Test Redirect[edit]

"Breath Test" was redirected here, but should have gone to Driving under the influence. I've fixed that now, so no problem with NPOV. --Couttsie 01:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited Legal Details[edit]

Why was the only useful information edited out? The US legal approach to reducing DUI driving is a failure based on the misguided view that restricting alcohol access and increasing sentence lenght decreases the incidence of DUI.

All the evidence from the rest of the world suggests that it is the danger of being caught along with harsh initial penalties that reduce DUI. Also, the USA's unique attitude to the crime of DUI Manslaughter (which does not exist in other Anglo-Saxon legal systems) is also not mentioned.

Albanaich

The evidence from the NHTSA at the beginning of article 'that no other nation uses this statistical' is misleading. NHTSA publish in detail who was drunk in the car - and figures suggest that non-drunk passengers amount to less than 3% of the total. It should be removed as irrelevant to the discussion.

What is relevant, but which appears to riguoursly censored, is that US restrictions on alcohol sale and the draconian sentences for DUI manslaughter have, if anything, a NEGATIVE effect on the prevalence of drunk driving.

Albanaikch

Bacon?[edit]

Why does the first line include [bacon] ?

It's gone, but probably was a typo of blood alcohol concentration (BAC). Still not kosher but could have been the result of drunk editing in the United States. Unitacx (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Probable cause" and "Reasonable suspicion"[edit]

I did some re-wording. "probable casue" and "reasonable suspicion" seem to be used interchangebly inparts of this article. I reworded where I've seen it so far. I will do more if I spot it. There is a significant evidentiary difference between the two.EMT1871 21:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also key to the US process, and key to understanding the process. For example, the implied consent law needs probable cause to sustain a conviction based on an evidentiary chemical test (full evidentiary breathalyzer or blood alcohol test). Unitacx (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy[edit]

"The accuracy of breath, blood and urine testing is a subject of some dispute, with various scientific studies indicating unreliable results.[4]" The citation noted is an article that quotes sources from 1985 and 1987. The technology used in 1985 and 1987 was highly disputed and as a result Breath Test Operators had to testify at trials not only as to the proceedures for the test but as to the operation and scientific principles behind the test. This is no longer true. Today's technology is not nearly as disputed, and most machines use more than one technology to determine BAC. Furthermore, the technology now has Judicial Notice (inmost states), eliminating the need for operators to testify as to scientific principle and the "inner workings" of the machines. EMT1871 22:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  1. "Breath testing, as currently used, is a very inaccurate method for measuring BAG. Even if the breath testing instrument is working perfectly, physiological variables prevent any reasonable accuracy.... Breath testing for alcohol using a single test method should not be used for scientific, medical or legal purposes where accuracy is important. [Hlastala, Physiological Errors Associated with Alcohol Breath Testing, 9(6) The Champion 19 (1985).]" This is a quote from the article listed as a source for the statement quoted in the accuracy dispute. As you can see it clearly references a dispute in 1985.EMT1871 22:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


NPOV[edit]

"Its clear from comparisons with Australia, the UK and Europe that the US attempt to reduce drunk driving by restricting alcohol access and draconian sentence regimes is a failure"

This statement has no factual basis and quotes no sources. using terms like "draconian" clearly shows a POV and the statement that the approach is a failure is unsupported. EMT1871 22:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wording is pov and it needs sources, but the gist of it is definitely true. needs a rewrite —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.90.252.76 (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
If the "gist" of this statement is true than it needs to cite facts in support of it's statements and the sources of those facts. Otherwise it is just a statement of opinion.EMT1871 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Along the lines of what EMT1871 said, if terms like "draconian" are frequently used, I think they can still be stated as issues (e.g., "criticisms" sections) and descriptions used by advocates (e.g., "describe the measures as 'draconian'", with proper attribution. As with most "criticisms" sections, this addresses the NPOV issue. Unitacx (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

That depends on whether you are going to do about 2 minutes search on the internet.

For a start DUI Manslaughter is a law unique to the USA - all other systems based on Anglo Saxon law regard the causing of a death in a motor accident as just that 'an accident'. The ruling is that the causation death is unrelated to the accident. That is to say there is no intent to cause an accident or harm so manslaughter cannot apply. The very maximum sentence in British law is 14 years and very rarely employed - a common sentence for DUI Manslaughter would be 4 years or so.

It's also why you cannot merge this article with that of other countries - the approach in law and methods of reducting drunk driving death in the USA is completely different to most other countries in the developed world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_dangerous_driving

http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=675

Drink Driving Casualites UK (population 60 million)

http://www.cadd.org.uk/facts.htm

simplyDrink Driving Casualties Florida (population 16 million)

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-florida.html

That's difference of around a factor of 4

Alcohol Consumption

http://christianparty.net/alcoholconsume.htm

So, as I said,

Its clear from comparisons with Australia, the UK and Europe that the US attempt to reduce drunk driving by restricting alcohol access and draconian sentence regimes is a failure

What does work are DUI road blocks and 'raids' outside bars and places licensed to sell alcohol, which make it impossible to drink and drive without being caught. It's also clear from watching programs like 'Cops' that many people in the US drive in condition in which the general public (and bar owners) would report them to the police in Europe and the UK.

ok, well, my first question is from who's comparisons? yours? second, is while the statement may be true, the term "draconian" shows a clear POV and has no place in this article. Next your last comment about watching shows like "cops", is part of the problem and also shows your slanted POV. If you are getting your impression of American laws, law enforcement, and people from TV you definatly are not getting any FACTS about these topics. If you would like to discuss deterrents and tactics for enforceing DUI laws in the United states I gladly will, but have all your facts first. EMT1871 23:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Draconian is NOT a POV - its accurate analysis of the approach to DUI in the USA compared to the rest of the world. A driver involved in a DUI death is likely to face a sentence 4 or 5 times that of most other countries in the developed world, that's Draconian sentencing - its show YOUR slanted point of view that you cannot accept the accuracy of that statement.

If you want to discuss the subject you have to accept the facts first (ten minutes on internet will get them)

The Facts

1. The USA has one of the highest rates of DUI death on its road in the developed world 2. It has Draconian sentencing policies with sentences 4 or 5 times that found in the rest of the developed world for DUI death - but actually LESS for DUI driving per se. In the UK you can go to prison for DUI on a first offence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/4738709.stm

3. It has restrictions on the sale of alcohol that few other countries have 4. Consumption of alcohol is LOW compared to most other countries in the developed world

There are two consensus's here - and American one which is more or less completely detached from the facts and one found in the rest of the developed world.

'Cops' is identical in format to 'Street Crime UK' and we can make direct comparisons about crimes police are encountering in two completely different societies. The comparisons support the statistics - drunkeness is a much greater problem in the UK than it is in the USA - but people do not drink drive.

Whatever it is that stops Europeans drink driving it is not Draconian sentencing, not restriction on access to alcohol, and not alcohol consumption rates (which are higher).

It's hard, if not impossible to conclude from that, that the US approach to reducing DUI deaths is completely misguided.


obviously hyou have a vast knowledge of US DWI laws that my mere 8 years of Law enforcement experience, 100's of DWI arrests, and Expert witness credentials in this area cannot possibly compete with. You are actually comparing Law Enforcement in two countries using TV shows. I can not, and will not, discuss a topic with someone who draws their research from television. You have no conception of DWI laws, sentencing, arrest proceedures, or any other area of this topic other than what you have read or scene on TV.EMT1871

You are correct - my knowledge of the effectiveness of DUI laws in different juristictions is far superior yours - I am aware that DUI deaths in the USA currently run at about 3-4 times that of the UK, even though per capita alcohol consumption is higher in the UK. All this is obvious to anyone who takes the times watch reality TV police shows in the UK and USA. It's simple, obvious stuff - the TV completely reflects the statistics, both on alcohol consumption and DUI.

Anyone interested in reducing the horrific death toll on the USA's roads due to DUI should be taking an active interest in the way DUI laws and law enforcment operate other juristictions.

No one in the rest of the developed world, and particularly the UK, has anything to learn from the legislative measures the USA uses to manage DUI driving in the USA - clearly the US methods ARE A FAILURE.

It is only by making the US public aware that the DUI legal and road safety regime in the USA is a conspicous failure compared to other countries will the political pressure for change occur.

Any discussion of the DUI Driving in the USA MUST point this out - if only the save some of the 26,000 or so lives that are lost uneccessarially on the USA's roads every year.

This is NOT opinion. There is no way the 3-4 times US death rate due to DUI, in spite of lower alcohol consumption rates, can be explained without highlighting the unusual legislative regime in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanaich (talk • contribs)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.204.139 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You are stating an opinion, based on watching "Cops", which is a show designed to show people getting caught doing something wrong. According to the Wikipedia post on England, approximatley 3,000 killed per year as a result of DWI. The population listed for England is 50,762,900. That means there is one DWI death per 16920 persons in England. The United States of America had 17,941 killed in alcohol related crashes. With a population of 303,223,000, that equals one DWI related death per 16901 persons in USA. The difference is only 19. You are expressing your opinion and bias against the USA. From what I have read, I see comparisons that are on par between the two contries.Jar3079 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Wiki article says 3,000 people are killed or seriously injured with 560 being killed - which is in line with what I previously stated,

Please study the facts more closely before expressing an opinion.

Tag removal[edit]

Just because you disagree with a neutrality dispute does not give you the right to remove the tag. The tag has been replaced because no consensus has been reached and the dispted language is still in place. I didn't just remove your wording, I palced the tag so it could be discussed So do not remove the tag until the dispute is settled. EMT1871 23:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached - unfortunately its not a consensus that Americans agree with - therefore, as with most things, the rest of the world does not count. Nothing unusual in that.

Similar consensus exist in other area's of road safety - whether that be the 'Botts Dot's v Cats Eye's or 'Roundabouts v Lighted interesections.

"Predictive Value" of FST's[edit]

Since we seem to be going repeatedly around with someone constantly re-adding information to the page that doesn't belong here, I'm explaining here why it doesn't belong.

The standardized field sobriety tests have been validated repeatedly in a number of peer reviewed studies. Not one, MANY. In fact, the scientific consensus is strong enough that courts in all fifty U.S. states are required to take judicial notice of their accuracy and ability to reveal intoxication. Defendants are certainly allowed to call their own experts to challenge them if they want, but in absence of that, their accuracy is accepted as a given.

The material being linked to is a from the website of a paid criminal defense expert witness in Colorado who has written a few articles against the FST's. Great. That's not a scientific debunking of anything. Nor is there any real breakdown of his work or that it has appeared in any peer-reviewed journals. It's certainly possible that there could be something backing up what he's got on his website; anything is possible. But to take one person's unique stance (especially one that isn't peer reviewed) and present it here as the absolute, infallible, scientific truth is at best grossly misleading.

I could perhaps see adding a quick sentence to the article with a citation to that site as a challenge to the FST's. Maybe something like: "Blah blah blah, field sobriety tests generally accepted with scientific consensus, although their accuracy and predictive value has been questioned by some defense experts." That might work; the text that user Romanstone456 has been adding is not what belongs in an encyclopedia. Tuckdogg 20:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Tuckdogg here. There is alot of things added to this article without any factual basis and with questionalble sources (please see the discussions involving me above), and alot are added by authors with only an IP address and no member name.EMT1871 13:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be useful if either the article or the reference at the bottom included what year this study was taken. (Was it before or after cell phones were widely used in the US?) I'm also wondering on some of these indicators whar those not drunk doing it were thinking. Jon 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Standardized Field Sobriety Tests have nothing to do with observing a persons driving, so talking on a cell phone would not have an impact on the predictive value of these tests.EMT1871 12:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I go back to the "Investigation Phases (NHTSA)", which has, as its purpose, the progression through the different stages of the process - "reasonable suspicion" -> "probable cause" -> "arrest". FST evidence is primarily used to show "probable cause". This purpose is also stated in several of the references on the field sobriety testing page and the "Investigation "Phases" (NHTSA)" reference on this page. FSTs are used as corroborative evidence at trial (some states) but that is secondary. That is the reason these FSTs are pretty much only used in countries with "probable cause" requirements for sustaining chemical alcohol test evidence. As nearly as I can tell, the full list of countries using FSTs is:

  1. Australia (maybe)
  2. Canada (eh?)
  3. The US of A.

Most other countries have no "probable cause" restrictions, or, more likely, use PBT/PST to establish probable cause (or the equivalent). Unitacx (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added lots of fact tags.[edit]

I added quite a few {{fact}} tags to the article on statements asserting facts and/or statistics but not providing sources per citation and verifiability guidelines. I also added {{weasel word}} tags due to weasel words. Also important, please cite drunk driving incidents with a reliable source or news article on the "famous people" section, else it could be construed as libel and subject to immediate removal. Cheers. --slakr 01:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That brings up an interesting question. When does it become "know", as per the section heading, that someone has driven drunk? Should Lindsay Lohan, for example, be included because she's been arrested, or only after he case is resolved in court? 209.212.24.145 17:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is putting a list of famous people convicted or arrested of DUI relevant to this article?? This is an encyclopedia article, not internet trivia. The main reason I contest this is that while its public information they were arrested, they're being famous really has nothing to do with it, and adds nothing to the article unlike other articles with "references in the media/popular culture" sections. I'm going to delete it but I'll leave the original text below in case someone can come up with a decent argument of relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.173.122 (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public figures arrested or convicted of driving under the influence[edit]

I removed this section from the article. This was a list-crufty unnecessary section that provided no understanding of the subject. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentencing for drunk driving?[edit]

Shouldn't there be information about the penalties for a DUI/DWI conviction, including jail time?(72.144.150.243 (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

DUI Laws by State[edit]

Washington DUI / DWI Laws: A first time DUI conviction requires 24 hours consecutive jail time, over $800 in total fines/costs/court fees, an alcohol evaluation and recommended follow-up treatment/classes. The court may suspend your license for 90 days, or up to a year if you refused the breath test or are found to have been above a .15 BAC. Also, a .15 or greater BAC conviction has greater mandatory minimums of 2 days in jail and more fines.[1]

A second DUI conviction results in increased mandatory jail time of 30-45 days, in addition to increases in the fines and license loss issues (including a much longer requirement for an ignition interlock device).[2]

In addition to the criminal court proceedings, the Department of Licensing will also seek to suspend/revoke your license. See the DUI page at www.dol.wa.gov. For those who refuse, the Department will seek to revoke your license for a year or more.Wadui08 (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)wadui08[reply]

References

  1. ^ See Revised Code of Washington Sec 46.61
  2. ^ See Revised Code of Washington Sec 46.61

Alcohol-related[edit]

This is VERY misleading and not suited for an encyclopedia. It says "In the United States the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 17,941 people died in 2006 in "alcohol-related" collisions, representing 41 percent of total traffic deaths in the US.".

For those who do not know what exactly "alcohol-related" means, it means ALL cases that involved alcohol. So it includes cases in which the driver measured way below the legal limit (including, say, 0.0000001). It also includes cases in which the victim was found to have alcohol in his/her system, but the driver was fully sober. And it also includes the cases in which neither driver, nor victim, but some third party who was somehow part of it had consumed alcohol.

The term "alcohol-related" is NOWHERE near what it seems to imply, i.e. that someone in an impaired state killed someone else.

This needs clarification. Urgently. 68.200.239.84 (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of "alcohol-related" seems to depend. Some quotes I found:

[2] "While alcohol-related fatalities are those that occur in crashes involving at least one driver, pedestrian, or pedal[-]cyclist with a BAC of .01 or above"

[3] " NHTSA Defines A Fatal Crash As Alcohol-related Or Alcohol-involved If Either A Driver Or A Nonmotorist (usually A Pedestrian) Had A Measurable Or Estimated Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Of 0.01 Grams Per Deciliter (g/dl) Or Above. NHTSA Defines A Nonfatal Crash As Alcohol-related Or Alcohol-involved If Police Indicate On The Police Accident Report That There Is Evidence Of Alcohol Present. The Code Does Not Necessarily Mean That A Driver Or Nonoccupant Was Tested For Alcohol." Thus the definition is different between fatal and non-fatal crashes. Dumb. Note also that it can merely be 'estimated' in fatal crashes and 'alcohol present' for non-fatal, like an old, empty beer-bottle in the back seat.


[4] I also found this quote in a report linked to by an NHTSA site, although I've lost the link.] "The term “alcohol-related” is used by NHTSA and the various State agencies from which data were obtained to indicate that at least one of the drivers or a non-occupant, such as a pedestrian or bicyclist, involved in a traffic crash had, at that time, a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) greater than zero." [Bolding added.] Wikiweat (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Effectiveness of laws?[edit]

Does anyone have any evidence that drunk driving laws have actually improved highway safety? I don't see it mentioned in the article. --JHP (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might check the comparison with British and Australian experience —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.8 (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to google this today and found that clear statistics and numbers are very hard to come by. Why is it so hard to find a reputable government source for state by state comparison. Even the CDC's website won't list the facts plainly. The figures seem to be hidden in date ranges or per 100,000 people. I simply want to see a list of each state with number of fatalities and then each state with number of fatalities where one of the drivers (of a car) was drunk (BAC of .08 or more). L Edward T (talk) 04:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with other countries[edit]

Dalassa reverted my edit for lack of source. I Have reinstated with a additional link to Wickipedias own article on the subject Driving under the influence . Such a link was already given and I thought an additional link redundent however it is apparently needed by some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickifrank (talk • contribs) 13:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breathalyzer for drugs?[edit]

Drugs, not being volatile, would not show up on a breath instrument, so I question the section that says that "Breathalyzers" are used to test for drugs at roadside. I have heard of saliva tests being performed, but not sure how widely used they are in the US. I was always under the impression they were only widely used in Australia. And no roadside test can test for "actual level" of drugs in a person -- they are only screening devices that test for the presence of a drug, generally by use of an immunoassay.

Besides, the term "Breathalyzer" is technically not correct, as the word "Breathalyzer" is a brand name. More correct, IMO, would be a generic name such as "breath instrument" or "evidentiary breath tester." 206.194.127.112 (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I've seen roadside "tube kits" that are basically screening tests for drugs that use saliva, I'm not sure how widely used they are. Mostly I think if they want to find out the person just gets escorted to the nearest ER.Fuzbaby (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section Removal: "International Comparisons"[edit]

I removed a section that was clearly non-NPOV and contained no sources. If anybody wants to bring back that section, it will need some serious work before it comes anywhere close to meeting Wikipedia standards. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Comparisons[edit]

Depends how you define NPOV. The whole article might be considered NPOV because it makes assumptions about the effectiveness of drunk driving legislation that is not borne out by international experience.

In countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia drunk driving, and deaths caused by drunk driving are considerablly lower than the USA, yet alcohol consumption per capita is higher and the legal age for drinking lower. Research in the United Kingdom has show that the danger group for drunk driving is young men in their early 20's rather than teenagers.

Unlike the USA these countries do not see restricting access to alcohol as having any useful role to play in reducing drunk driving, and their lower drink drive deaths would seem to bear this out. Their experience is that random breath tests, severe penalties, including imprisonment for a first offence, combined with blanket public service broadcasting are the most effective strategy.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/1998/comdd/combatingdrinkdrivingnextsteps

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0847/is_n1_v14/ai_9356459/?tag=content;col1

It's notable that anti-drink driving adverts in Australia and the UK do not attempt to stigmatise drinking, in fact they make the point that it is a normal social activity - its when you mix it with driving that it becomes a problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfe5fUfXMxU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdZi-iJm3g8&feature=related

Australian and British Law also does not recognise the crime of DUI Manslaughter and sentences for causing death by drunk driving much lower - though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.5.57 (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Europe's significantly lower prevalence of access to vehicles at younger ages might also explain the lower drink drive deaths. Int21h (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, advertising by government agencies is pretty minimal, and doesn't really stigmatize drinking. Much of the media adverts are from independent operations such as MADD, although such organizations do have unique relationships with the government within the certain legal systems, such as in California. Int21h (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can find, the car ownership rate in the UK is around 48%, and in the US its around 78%. I would assume DUI numbers would be commensurate with this. This fact alone, if correct, would make comparisons very tenuous. Int21h (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The DUI numbers are not commensurate with this. They are much worse. How does car ownerhship affect things? How does it affect the fact that you are twice as likely to be killed by a drunk driver in the USA than in the UK? Drunk driving accidents, and drunk drivers, are twice as common in the USA. We are talking about ratio's not absolute numbers. There is also detailed research to show that in the UK it is not teenagers (who usually start drinking illegally at around 16) do the drunk driving.

A good case can be made that the overall fatal accident rate in the UK is lower because of much superior highway design, notablly the use of the roundabout. Check out the Federal Highways Bureau site. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeVWPvRFDi4 it only took 60 years for US highway designers to catch on. How many thousands of people have to die before Americans figure out its not alcohol that is the problem - its getting into the car with a skinful that is the problem.

It a case of 'belief v facts'. There is widespread, social belief in the USA that restricting access to alcohol reduces drunk driving deaths. If anything the evidence is the reverse is true. There evidence that drunk driving fatalties are higher in the 'dry' counties of Kentucky than the 'wet' ones because people have to drive further to get their beer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_county

The strategies that reduce drunk driving are well known outside the USA.

1. Increase local availability of alcohol so it is not necessary to drive to get to it. 2. Late night public transport schemes and programs to make sure you don't take your car to the bar. 3. Attitude change to make drink driving socially unacceptable. Police can give bar owners who allow their customers to drunk drive a really hard time. 4. Random breath testing and punitive INITIAL sentencing. (95.146.75.6 (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)) 5. Introduce teenagers to alcohol when they are young and teach them to drink responsibly in a social setting. I mum can hold her drink and not drink drive - the kids won't binge and throw up in the bathroom.[reply]

Unfortunately, that all goes completely against the societal consensus in the USA which see the alcohol as the problem - not the individual.

Car ownership is significant. In a country where only 48% of your population own vehicles, it stands to reason that the number alcohol-related driving fatalities will be significantly lower than a country where 78% of the population own vehicles. Compare the 29.6 million car owners in the UK, to the (roughly calculated from the ownership rate) 28.6 million car owners in California. Actual drivers are a significant factor when it comes to the number of people killed by drunk drivers, a subset of drivers. In other words, how many people who make less than the median wage drive in the UK? It will be significantly lower than in the US, probably by several fold. Teenagers? Ditto. These issue make comparisons murky. Int21h (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, these "well known strategies" that are discussed usually discard the fact that there are thousands of different jurisdiction in the US, each with its own culture and history regarding alcohol. Kentucky, where there apparently are dry towns and people can own and operate automatic weapons and canons and such, is a different place than say Nevada where that will get you life in prison for such weapons and you can drink your bottle of vodka at McDonalds. As well as the fact that what held true in the 80s does not necessarily hold true today. I reiterate, at least here in California, neither the state, local, or federal government contend that alcohol is the problem. Int21h (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the highway design may be an issue. Keep in mind though, compare the UK to California, and when comparing the United States, compare it to the European Union. And as for roundabouts, they are really only in use in some of the richest countries in the world. I can go to Beverly Hills and say this or that is safer because there are only 1/500th of the deaths there compared to everywhere else, but this may be due to the fact that it's Beverly Hills, not to whatever design or attribute is in use there. Int21h (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Car ownship is not signficant factor - its only a measure of the number of cars on the road. What is measurable and comparable is the percentage of accidents caused by drunk drivers. The UK has 380 deaths out of a total of 3000 (12%) or so, California 1490 out of 6934 (22%), so with the same number of car owners California has almost twice the perecntage of drunk driving deaths and twice as many accidents.

What that tells you is that someone in California is twice as likely to drive drunk and that you are twice as likely to be killed in an RTA - with or without drink.

All car ownership will tell you is that the accdent in the rate in the USA is going to be higher - it says nothing about the percentage of accidents due to drink driving.

Roundabouts were first deployed in the UK in the late 60's at which time the USA was a vastly richer country, with a much better hughway system. That has changed in the last 40 years.

There's an interesting calculation to be made about your chances of survival at a crash with a drunk driver at an intersection the UK v USA. Try it. Mulitiply Seat belt usage (80%) USA (99%) UK Alcohol 22% USA 12% UK Intersection Design (90%) USA (10%) UK


Most Europeans have access to cars AND alcohol at 17, most Americans not till they are 21. Saying that the lower driving ages in the USA is major factor when the drivers have no legal access to alcohol does not make sense. 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.75.6 (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both the UK and Cali numbers for DUI Fatalities were wrong. UK is 21% not 12% and Cali (according to that old fact sheet) was 39%. I thought it would be best to compare like years so I used the latest data I could find from a Cali government source (2009) which is 31%. L Edward T (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Test[edit]

I'm new to wiki but it bothered me greatly that the text implied that a US law enforcement officer would "take" or "force" a blood sample from a person.

I did my best to clarify that it requires a search warrant issued be a criminal magistrate. Further only medical personal such as a RN are allowed to draw the blood.

As a LEO that has investigated a dozen DUI cases I think its important that people understand that any search of a persons blood will require a warrant issued only by giving in person testimony to the probable cause before a neutral judicial official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.126.108 (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally true, but, in many states, if a person refuses to have appropriate tests, his/her drivers license is immediately revoked, and may not be returned even if he is found not guilty of DUI. If the "breathalyzer" test is inconclusive or inoperative, a blood or urine test may be required by the officer. If the test is not agreed to and performed by the person, his license will be pulled. (I recall a case where the driver refused a breathalyzer test, and requires a urine test, but was unable to perform. If he did not agree to a blood test, he would have his license pulled.)
As an aside, as someone who knows how the breathalyzer test works, I have been excused from a jury panel by the defense attorney, even though, if the case was based on breathalyzer evidence only, I would be probably lean more toward the defense point of view than the prosecution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DUI in Germany[edit]

From the article: " German police forces may also obtain blood for testing if they suspect an individual of DUI without reasonable cause or a search warrant. "

That's wrong / confusing. German police can only obtain blood for testing without a judge, if the suspect agrees. Unfortunately, I can only find German sources for that.

77.11.146.123 (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chart for Easy State-by-State Comparison.[edit]

This article really needs a chart for comparisons of each state instead of the five or so state descriptions. What is the vernacular the state uses (OWI, DUI, DWI)? Code provision citation. What class of crime is it? (Ex.: C Felony, misdemeanor;) Maybe when multiple offenses elevate the class of crime. Statutory punishment scheme? (How long is license suspended? Mandatory Fines? Rehabilitation?) [Could be split up into checkboxes or listed as prose so long as there would be a consistent form.]

Does anyone have a suggestion on whether it makes more sense to set up the table first even if it is incomplete (by >40 states) or whether to collect and source the information and then compile the complete table all at once? This information could be compiled under the section titled "DUI Laws by State" as there is already a short description of Washington State's laws with citations. RedDarling (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The moon is made of cheese — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.79.231 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Drunk driving in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Drunk driving in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drunk driving in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move the details of Field Sobriety Testing to the Field sobriety testing article?[edit]

What it says. It seems that the details of this are best covered in the Field sobriety testing. In part, the details (number of clues, etc.) distract from the subject matter of the present article. Since there is a separate page on the subject, discussion of FSTs (and SFSTs) on this page should be limited to the tests being requested, the tests being used to establish probable cause, and their legal status as voluntary. Unitacx (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One minor matter is the "partisan sources" status of the criticisms section, which carries over to the Field sobriety testing page. (This should be easy enough to cure, since this is a single reference and the source material for the reference can probably be found.) Unitacx (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"partisan sources" issue fixed on the Field sobriety testing page, and maintenance template removed. (That section can be copied back to this page, as the substance of the text is largely unchanged.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitacx (talk • contribs) 06:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The substance of the FST section has been copied to the FST page, with formatting edits, combining the material from the 2 pages. At this point, we could take advantage of the hatnote cross-reference and reduce the "in the weeds" details on this page. As a side note, it seems that FSTs are limited to a few countries, notably the US, Canada, Australia. Unitacx (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

"Technical" template ("may be too technical for most readers to understand")[edit]

I'm not sure if there is an easy way to address this. The subject matter combines:

  • sociology
  • criminal justice
  • interaction of criminal justice with constitutional law
  • technical issues as applied by the impaired driving laws
  • technical aspects of testing

By moving details of the FSTs to some obscure place (looking at the hatnote, that would be the FST page) we deleted some of the details such as how "clues" are counted, as well as FST instructions, and I think that helped reduce the "Microsoft technical support" nature of this page. I also tried to distinguish between the "investigative phases (NHTSA)" and "legal stages", describing how the "investigative phases" relate to the legal stages.

The real problem here is similar to many tech documents - providing salient information without getting too far "in the weeds" with people who do not have criminal justice or technical backgrounds. (But that's the purpose of Wikipedia.) I think getting rid of the "technical" template will be an ongoing project.

As an aside, for a pathetic example of how to describe the process, see:

https://aizmanlaw.com/field-sobriety-testing-in-california/ [1] Unitacx (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST for someone familiar with use of the "Technical" template to review the article (with the FST details removed), and remove the template if appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitacx (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "I don't know what I'm talking about" Law Firm (except for the "true suspect" and "probable cause to stop you")
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States&oldid=1207041515"