Damn. Friend got a dui

[rgk5]

If you've ever slept for 4 hours and then driven 16 straight hours to get to Myrtle Beach in one shot, please step down from your pulpit.

If you've ever walked to the driveway and had to scrape the layer of ongoing freezing rain from your windshield before driving away, please step down from your pulpit.

If it was snowing so bad that the OPP pulled their cruisers off the highway, but you had Leaf tickets and just had to go (that was me), please step down from your pulpit.

If it was snowing and you knew your half bald summer tires were going to make this a very interesting drive, please step down from your pulpit.

If you have never driven a car due to poor road conditions or because you were tired, congratulations.

I'm not defending the guy, I'm just saying that there are more ways than one to get behind the wheel of a car when you really shouldn't be driving. The net result being the same, you make a bad decision and someone else pays for it.

Oh, and everyone is entitled to legal counsel and is innocent until proven guilty. Thanks to the young men and women who died fighting for this inalienable right that we are now gifted with.

With one major difference, none of the above listed are illegal, although idiotic.

[Marty Canuck]

I understand your points, however I must disagree with the underlying premise that individuals are not ultimately responsible for their own actions.

Peer pressure? If you're old enough to drink legally, then you're old enough to be aware of how alcohol affects you and how it may affect your ability to drive. If there's any doubt whatsoever, you don't drive. Period. Or, suffer the consequences.

I don't believe that anyone ever gets behind the wheel with the intention of hurting anyone, including themselves. However, they have to recognize that sometimes bad things happen even when there is absolutely no intent, and then it's too late. The reason that the laws are so severe is to discourage people from taking unnecessary risks such as 'having just one more because the other guys are having one'.

What I am trying to make the point is that people need better resources to make better decisions. Some people would be (legally) impaired on 2 beers while others would not.

[The Rifleman]

I believe many (at one time) have had one to many, but have learned from their error. I hope this person does learn from their error and a hefty legal bill is waiting for them at the end. But, a friend of mine lost his two daughters to a woman who was out on bail for DUI vehicular manslaughter and killed not only my friend’s two daughters but some other (under-privileged) kids they took out for a fun day. Go to a funeral where there are two white caskets and you will never, ever consider driving again under any substance influence. This was a wake-up call for all that attended this funeral. No need for anyone to experience a horror like that was.

[Secam]

With one major difference, none of the above listed are illegal, although idiotic.

It's not illegal to drink and drive. It is illegal to drink too much and then drive. As Marty Canuck points out, the issue is knowing when you've had too much. My VERY responsible friend got a DUI on two drinks. End of day, hadn't eaten since breakfast, guy poured him two rye and cokes in an hour. He blew 0.9. He thought that as a 200 pound male he could handle two drinks, but in that scenario he was wrong.

If the US mandated that all cars by 2023 must have a breathalyzer detection system before the vehicle would start, that would be a very practical solution, and would probably not add more than $75 to the price of the car once it was in full, widespread production.

[golfinseb]

I feel bad for your friend, right or wrong the repercussions are severe. I simply do not understand why the law is not just a zero limit. It would save us any confusion.

[Bern]

It's not illegal to drink and drive. It is illegal to drink too much and then drive. As Marty Canuck points out, the issue is knowing when you've had too much. My VERY responsible friend got a DUI on two drinks. End of day, hadn't eaten since breakfast, guy poured him two rye and cokes in an hour. He blew 0.9. He thought that as a 200 pound male he could handle two drinks, but in that scenario he was wrong.

If the US mandated that all cars by 2023 must have a breathalyzer detection system before the vehicle would start, that would be a very practical solution, and would probably not add more than $75 to the price of the car once it was in full, widespread production.

Two bar poured drinks would not come close to putting a 200lb man over the limit in any circumstance. Now if a friend is being liberal with their pours then those 2 drinks could easily be 4-6 drinks.

[Bern]

From the OP, he blew 100. No hint that there was a malfunctioning device or some other extenuating circumstance. It sounds like he regrets getting caught and wants to avoid the consequences. If that's not the situation then my bad. My point is just that if a friend or family member of mine got caught WAY over the limit, I'd want to get them help with their drinking/decision making, not help them avoid fines, or worse, get them back on the road sooner.

The guy is entitled to legal representation. As we are all aware the ramifications of a DUI are significant, in that regard I would also do all I could to mount a legal defence. A good legal representative would help investigate all legal avenues available to Hemnant's friend.

[guitarman]

I feel bad for your friend, right or wrong the repercussions are severe. I simply do not understand why the law is not just a zero limit. It would save us any confusion.

I agree.

[Benz]

What I'm saying is that a first offence impaired driver who is not involved an an incident with anyone else, should not lose their driving privileges or be subjected to the stigma of a criminal record. The punishment does not fit the "crime" in my opinion. Like I said in a previous post, my wake up call came after a 3 day suspension from a RIDE program. I got to learn my lesson, and continue on with my productive life making better choices in the future. I wish others the opportunity to learn their lesson as well, without ruining their life in the process.

I understand your point. I simply disagree with it.

IMO, drunk driving has the potential to inflict such serious damage on innocent people that drunk drivers should not get a legal 'mulligan'. When people know that their first offence will be treated lightly, they will take their decision to drive drunk equally lightly, and that's where they can make choices that are potentially deadly to other people.

In your case, why did it take a 3-day suspension for you to 'learn your lesson'?

As I said, I was a victim of a drunk driver and I am lucky to be alive. I had no input whatsoever in his decision to drive drunk, yet both my wife and myself were put at far more risk than he ever was. Perhaps he drove drunk after making a poor decision on the assumption that his first conviction would not have serious consequences. And, yes, he was a first-timer.

[Benz]

What I am trying to make the point is that people need better resources to make better decisions. Some people would be (legally) impaired on 2 beers while others would not.

People have brains and they should use them more often.

People do not need 'resources' to keep them from doing stupid things. That's just a way to excuse them from taking responsibility for their own behaviour, nothing more.

[Benz]

I feel bad for your friend, right or wrong the repercussions are severe. I simply do not understand why the law is not just a zero limit. It would save us any confusion.

I agree, too.

[Pimento Cheese]

Maybe a limit of zero is a good idea. I have always had a personal limit of zero -- I won't drive if I've had a drop to drink, and I won't have a drop to drink if there's a chance I'll drive. And I've never had any trouble sticking to that. Maybe I would have more trouble if I had a "no more than one or two drinks" policy, and maybe I'd find myself blowing over the limit when I thought I was well under. So, perhaps if the LAW was zero for everyone, we'd all have a lot easier time avoiding accidentally being over the limit.

I won't throw my opinion of people who drink and drive into the mix since the harsh judgments have already been expressed. I will say, though, that despite my low opinion of people who drink and drive, I think they're entitled to be represented in court and I don't think the OP was out of line asking for advice on behalf of his friend. I think it's okay to have a harsh opinion on drunk driving but also support the right to a defence.

[Shankapotamus86]

The testing is a guessing game. I've done tests where we have a few standard drinks, guess our BAC and then take a breathalyzer. I'm about 6 foot 1, 190lbs. I had eaten a full lunch one hour prior to having three standard beers within 30 minutes. I blew .05 but I physically felt as though driving was not an option.

[Ignatius Reilly]

P Cheese writes that he'll never drive if he's had some drinks.

What about driving the morning after? Or at noon?

We all drive after drinking, it's a matter of how much we drank and how long we waited. A smart guy who Ubers home after a big night out will still blow some number in the morning, so maybe that's why absolute zero tolerance isn't in place.

I also agree with Shank above, in that I know there are times when I've felt in control after numerous drinks (probably wasn't, but it's the next point that counts) and I've had some experiences where I was seriously wobbly after just 2 (and they weren't generous hand-pours). Sometimes it just affects you more than others. So as a compromise we've settled on 0.08 as a hard line.

[Weirfan]

With one major difference, none of the above listed are illegal, although idiotic.

Speeding would be a better comparison. Speeding and driving at speeds that do not take into account road/weather conditions is just as bad a decision and causes many accidents and fatalities. Speeding is also illegal but many still do it.