Talk:Driving under the influence

Comment

This page should match its category name. -- Fplay 09:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities cited for DUI

Surprised this page doesn't exist. I suppose it would take too long to scroll through the list. NjtoTX 15:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If such a list must exist, I would MUCH prefer highlights of notable people rather then celebrities. 76.187.170.39 07:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pilots

In the U.S. section, the current article says "The blood-alcohol limit for aircraft pilots is 0.04%, ...". This is true, but not the whole truth, and as a pilot I think it's misleading. U.S. pilots can't fly within 8 hours of ANY alcohol consumption (even a tiny sip of wine), and can't fly "while under the influence of alcohol." (See FAR 91.17 section (a).) Courts have also ruled "under the influence" to include hangovers (don't have a specific case reference for this unfortunately). The point is, even though the 0.04% is "the limit" from FAR 91.17(a)(4), effectively there's a zero-tolerance policy on drinking & flying. Anyone else find the current text misleading? If so I'll change -- unless this belongs in a separate article perhaps??? David Norris 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate lovable sexy women celebrities, we should have einstein's mugshot on here.

your nerds

Order

Why does the article open with drinking and driving in the US, followed by other areas? Put it in alphabetical order. This isn't a website for Americans exclusively or primarily. Jackmont -Nov 13 2006

I would then suggest putting it in a logical order based on some rational basis. Most relevant at the top would make sense to me, or alphabetically so one could easily jump to the country one is looking for. If it is to be most relevent, then percentage of website users by country would make the most sense, if such information is available, if not then alternately by country in descending order of population. I agree with merging the "Drunk Driving - US" article into the "Driving Under the Influence" article for reasons of "country neutrality". -Kevin Mar 5 2007

Stuff

I recently de-merged this article from Drunk driving (USA) because the latter article is extensive in its consideration of the issue in America whilst virtually ignoring the rest of the world. It would have been a mammoth task to re-write it to be less USA-centric and applicable to a global readership. For the moment I think it makes sense to have a separate article. When this de-merged article has been expanded to the level of the USA version - or thereabouts - then we could consider merging them. Arcturus 16:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"drink driving"

Is "drink" a typo? I've never seen the term used before I saw this page, only "drunk driving". I noticed the U.S. page on the topic is "drunk" instead of "drink", so is "drink" the term preferred, for example, in the U.K. and elsewhere? Just curious. Sdr 21:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Drink Driving is the normal phrase used in the UK, as against Drunk Driving - which is arguably a better description - used in the US. I'm not sure about the rest of the English speaking world. Can someone from Aus, NZ or South Africa perhaps comment? Arcturus 21:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Australia is Drink Driving, or officially DUI - Driving under the Influence normally implies alcohol but can als refer to other drugs.

DUI seems pretty universal. Any objections to moving the article there? Snowspinner 15:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

To put my say in. DUI seems USA terminology (given the austrialian comment above but more tv comes from USA). Drinking and driving is the UK norm or D&D for short with us repeat offenders ;).

Idg555 21:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should redirect from both "drink" and "drunk." Exploding Boy 23:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Why does the article identify drinking and driving as be different than drink driving? it says that the two terms or often confused. can someone please clarify? Lue3378 20:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the saying goes, "Over the limit. Under arrest." SilentWind 00:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)SilentWind[reply]

Drunk Driving in Fiction

I think that it would be interesting to included an examination of how this is represented in fiction. I recently saw the Oscar-nominated film Sideways, the plot of which revolves around a wine-tasting trip and a lot of drinking and driving takes place an is presented as totally normal behaviour. Is this typical? --JBellis 17:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed New Drunk Driving Law (rough draft)

I plan on showing this to some professors and instructors on campus, namely those who specialize in law, criminal justice, or anything related. Before I do, let me know what you think of this.

Also, feel free to mail/email your legislator this new law idea. I wholeheartedly encourage you to help bring this law into fruition.

Proposed New DUI Laws

In an effort to curb drunk driving, and most of all, fatalities from drunk driving-related accidents, I have proposed a new set of laws that would be lauded by many people anywhere, especially by those who are in the appropriate organizations (MADD, SADD, et al.), and by those whose loved ones were disabled or killed in drunken driving-related crashes.

These set of laws would mandate “sin tax” increases for EACH and EVERY drunken-driving-related offense in the county. I feel that if everybody (that is, every resident of every county with this law) got stung by each drunk driving offense, the stigma placed on drunk drivers as a result will lower occurrences of drunk driving through the floor. Drinking & Smoking in excess is bad for your health anyway, so these new laws would be a deterrent; a money-generating deterrent for the county treasury.

These increases of the sin taxes shall apply to tobacco products as well, since smoking can give people the emotions that cause them to drink in the first place. This would also create a bigger stigma against drunk drivers, and help to lower drunk driving even more!

The following penalties are not a replacement of the current ones, but an extension.

This will also vary by each individual offender. If, for example, a drunk driver commits their 3rd DUI, the county’s sin tax for alcoholic beverages and cigarettes increases by .3%.

• 1st DUI offense: Raise the sin tax of alcoholic beverages & tobacco (“both sin taxes” hereafter) by .1% • 2nd DUI offense: Raise both sin taxes by .2% • 3rd DUI offense: Raise both sin taxes by .3% • (And so on) • One-vehicle drunken driving-related crash: Raise both sin taxes by .25%

(NOTE: Such increases will be CUMULATIVE with however many DUI offenses the offender accumulated. Hence, if an offender crashes his vehicle and that happens to be their second DUI, the total sin tax increase is .45 %.)

• Drunken-driving related crash (“drunken-related crash” hereafter) that involves another vehicle: Raise both sin taxes by .5% PER EACH INVOLVED VEHICLE

(This means that if for example, FOUR vehicles are involved in a drunken driving-related crash, the total increase is 2%. If this involves a drunk driver’s first DUI offense, the total increase of the sin tax is 2.1%.)

• Drunken-related crash with injuries: Raise both sin taxes by 1% per injury

(This includes the drunk driver’s injuries, and is cumulative with the injuries of other people involved, number of vehicles involved, and however many DUI offenses the drunk driver accumulated as of that crash. Hence, if a 2nd time DUI offender crashes into 3 cars and causes 4 injuries, then the sin tax increases by 5.7% in the county where the crash took place, AND in the county where the offender resides, if in a different county.)

(If a drunk driver commits any of the related offenses in a county other than their county of residence, BOTH COUNTIES ARE AFFECTED BY THE SIN TAX HIKE. This would help deter drunk driving even more, as well as drive down alcohol & cigarette use.)

• Drunken-related crash with deaths: Raise both sin taxes by 2% per death

(Therefore, if a 2nd-time drunk driver involves a total of 4 vehicles in a crash, causes 7 injuries and 3 deaths, both sin taxes increase by 15.2%.)

• Any drunk-driving offense while operating a commercial vehicle (including any that requires a CDL license): ALL PERTINENT SIN TAX INCREASES ARE DOUBLED.

If this law also becomes state law, every 10% increase from any county in the state will increase the state’s base sin taxes by 1%. This means if 50 counties in a state each raise, on average, their sin tax by 4%, this would equal 200% put together so the state would increase its base sin tax by 20%. The state’s sin taxes would of course be cumulative with the county’s sin taxes so when they add up over the months, well, that’s a scary thought. Do you not want such high taxes? Then DON’T DRINK & DRIVE. Moreover, if you smoke but know a friend who drinks and drives, discourage them not to as much as you can. Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.

Now this law should not be complete without a reward system to reverse these tax hikes. Every month, if DUI occurrences reduce by a certain percentage, 1/10th of that would go towards lowering the taxes. The same would go for drunken-related accidents, injuries, and deaths. Thus, for example, if DUIs went down by 38%, drunken-related accidents by 64%, related injuries by 58%, and related deaths by 82%, then the county will lower its sin taxes by 24.2%.

Therefore, as long as the county behaves and there are no occurrences of drunk driving, then the sin taxes will stay low.

The money from the sin taxes will go to Alcoholics Anonymous, MADD, other related groups, reimburse funeral costs for drunk driving deaths, pay the medical bills for drunk driving injuries, fund awareness programs against the dangers of alcohol, tobacco, and drunk driving, pay medical costs for alcohol or tobacco-related ailments (cirrhosis, lung cancer, etc…), and you get the idea.

Please vote for this new law. Your lives will depend on it!: Tax everybody for one man's wrong? Your proposal will drive good men to drink.PaulBurglin 04:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was copied & pasted from an MS Word Document. The proposal would look much better on it. In any case, please feel free to reply to my User Talk page. --Shultz 15:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this has nothing to do with this article. This is not a venue or forum for political proposals. SchmuckyTheCat 00:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I think your temperament indicates that you hate me, ad-hominem. You seem to want to bring me down and inconvenience me almost everywhere I go. Voting to delete "Dechronification" was even more evidence that you personally hate me.

PS, what does "h^h^h^h" mean? --Shultz 04:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the dinkink influence for china the minumin age don't matter how old their are to be drinking. for drinving the age is 18 for them like th other country age are different but in china.

There is no minimum legal drinking age in China Legal drinking age.

Help with alcohol issues / Driving under the influence issues.

quote from Tufflaw 00:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Tufflaw 00:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tifflaw, I am aware that Wikipedia is not here for advertising etc.. Please note this is NOT one of my websites, I'm involved in the Not-For-Profit Sector. I felt this link was important to include as there are details in regards to what Driving Under The Influence is as well as what alcoholism is. What is not included that I find extreamly nessesary, is a link to something that might help someone deal with this problem.

Wikipedia guidelines state: Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic(see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability.

What are everyone elses thoughts on this issue? Should popular oppinion not want this link here, I'll leave it out. In general, this site is not much different than MADD, you can buy products on both, donate, etc... The difference is this is a message from a PERPATRATOR vs. A VICTIM. Something that I personally consider important.

Scoyle7832 13:55 12 January 2006 (PST)

Hi Scoyle- The link in question is clearly inappropriate and placing it on sites after being so informed would consitute intentional spamming. Wikipedians assume good faith on the part of others and you can confirm your good faith by not spamming. Thanks.

two laws in US

This article should mention that in many (perhaps all, I don't know) states, there are actually two violations that suspected violators are usually charged with. One of them does not require that the offender have a particular BAC.

Suggested Merge

I have suggested the merge of the articles Driving under the influence and Drunk driving (United States), which appear to ultimately be the same topic, with different information. Now, if the article is to be split, to me, the DUI article should be about the legal issues and the crime of DUI (or else titled whatever the technical term of the law is), while everything else should be in an article entitled drunk driving, or else, all in one article. TheHYPO 00:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply have the US article about the phenomenon in that country and the main article about it in general? Moulder 10:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that a DUI/DWI/etc article should relate to the legal/law enforcement aspects, Drunk Driving to the social/political/MADD/etc issues. Having said that, any efforts to find uniformity in DUI laws and law enforcement worldwide would be futile (it has only been recently, under federal/MADD pressure, that the laws of the 50 states have begun to resemble one another), and so dedicated U.S. articles -- perhaps within the larger articles -- for DUI and /or Drunk Driving may be appropriate. Lawrence 20:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The merge makes sense. I say, go fot it. futurebird 21:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the merge. The article clearly has a lot more information than just US stuff. Maybe it needs to be renamed or moved because the article does reference an official US term (I believe). But if all this info goes in to a specific US page, thats just stupid. Seth Cohen 12:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with the merge. The main article driving under the influence deals with the crime in general, but there are many U.S.-specific aspects to this topic that are vastly different from other countries (most notably, legal and social consequences) that cause it to merit its own article. Some highlights can be stated in the main article, however. Briguy52748 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please don't merge. thanks70.126.190.77 21:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

definitely oppose. I'll remove the merge tag soon, unless anyone can come up with a good reason not to use Wikipedia:Summary style. - TheMightyQuill 18:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kennedy

I removed the link to Ted Kennedy as he was not charged or convicted of Drunk Driving.

== Penalties == he was to loser

This article lists alcohol limits, but not penalties. In Britain a 6 month licence suspension is virtually automatic, in some countries the licence is revoked on the spot, but some countries only fine. A list of penalties alongside the alcohol limits would be useful, and would indicate how serious the offence is in each country. TiffaF 06:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drunk driving

Am I the only that feels a small percentage of drunk drivers ruins it for everyone that drives partially intoxicated? A few dumbasses that get drunk and go crazy on the road really ruins it for everyone who drinks and drives. I've driven inebriated on multiple occasions and never once have I caused any problems on the roads. It's unfair to arrest people and charge such harsh penalties on those who have done absolutely nothing while driving (by the state's definition) drunk. If they cause an accident that's a different story... if not, let them go. These god damn traffic stops waist time, energy and money on the tax payers. Instead, they should spend more time looking for rapists and murderers. These traffic stops invade the privacy and time of individuals who have done nothing wrong. Stereotyping everyone who drinks and drives as horrible drivers is another one of our United States of America's awful laws. It's just another way to put our good citizens in jail. No wonder why the USA has the highest amount of people, by percentage, behind bars out of any other country in the world. That figure may or may not include illegals, but that's a whole other issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.96.200.103 (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Nigeria = Zero?

Wow, it is simply amazing that someone can drink and drive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.213.43.60 (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thats fucked up that if you dont get in a wreck than to let them go. I was hit by a drunk driver141.225.146.205 03:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical drink driving

Is there any known organisation for drink driving enthusiasts?

I mean it is a lot of fun, and it wouldn’t be too difficult to do quite safely - and ethically - on private land somewhere well away from any public roads.

Surely someone must be doing it??

212.42.10.194 15:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]