No Law Yet Penalizing Drunk Driving?

[praetor91313]

A law against drunk driving will be pointless if you cannot enforce it.

How will you measure the amount of alcohol in the driver?

What will be legal limit?

How many of those "breath-a-lyzer" machines will be given to the police to enforce anti-drunk driving?

How much will one machine cost? Add the price of government kickbacks (around 500%).

Good questions. Here are my suggestions:

1. By testing for blood alcohol levels and/or breath alcohol levels.
2. I suggest following 0.5mg/ml as used by 27 other countries. European countries I think have designated lower levels for certain situations, like with motorcycle drivers, drivers of sensitive equipments, and the like.
3. I would not advice giving the breathalyzers to police officers. Yung 21 inches TV nga nila na nasa camp crame ba yun(?) nananakaw-- yung pa kayang maliit pero mahal na machine? He he he... Besides, who's going to do the mainenance of these sensitive equipments. Why not issue them to emergency rooms of the local government's hospitals?

What's happening now is that once the police arrests a BG, dinadaan sa ER para sa medical examination to document all existing traumas received. Why not enforce the same rule with those caught driving under the influence of alcohol? Daan muna sa ER tapos breathalyzer bago dalhin sa precinct? That way, LEOs wouldn't have the responsibility of taking care of the equipment while making sure that the test remains objective.

What do you guys think?

[praetor91313]

sorry, double post.

[praetor91313]

Ito yung sinasabi kong lower levels in certain conditions, they're very practical, don't you think?

Recommended authorised level of blood alcohol
The Commission recommends two different AL within the Community. They will be applied in accordance with the criteria for drivers and vehicles.
The standard AL for all motor vehicle drivers which should be adopted by all of the Member States is one not exceeding 0.5 mg/ml. At the moment most of the Member States have already adopted that AL limit.
In addition a second AL of 0.2 mg/ml is recommended for certain types of driver and vehicle, namely:

• inexperienced drivers and more particularly holders of provisional driving licences, learner drivers accompanied by driving or trainee drivers attending a driving school and novice drivers having held a driving licence for less than two years;
• motorcyclists;
• drivers of large vehicles, i.e. lorries weighing more than 3.5 tonnes and any passenger vehicle fitted with more than eight passenger seats;
• drivers of vehicles carrying dangerous goods, with reference to the measures set out in Directive 94/55/EC on the carriage of dangerous goods by road.

The term "driving licence" used in this recommendation refers to the definitions set out in Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences.

[Chikselog]

Why not enforce the same rule with those caught driving under the influence of alcohol? Daan muna sa ER tapos breathalyzer bago dalhin sa precinct? That way, LEOs wouldn't have the responsibility of taking care of the equipment while making sure that the test remains objective.

What do you guys think?

I've watched sa CSI Miami na may sinabi dun "alcohol level dissipates at _____ per hour" damn I forgot that part ..Siguro totoo naman yung sinabi nilang yun..

Anyway pwede rin yung sa mga hospitals na lang dalhin as long as immediately dadalhin agad dun for breath testing..Para nandoon pa yung alcohol sa katawan at di pa nawawala.. Aba eh kung sa mga enforcers mo pa ipapahawak yan, baka mawala pa nila yan plus yung training pa nila on how to use the breathalyzer..At least sa mga hospitals mas practical, and maybe the doctors probably know already how to use such machines..

[praetor91313]

Hmn... you're right. I was thinking the offender would be at the hospital in a matter of minutes from the time he/she was apprehended.

The rate of alcoholo dissipation actually varies from one person to another, just like when one person gets drunk faster than another; generally speaking, rate of disappearance is generally about .015 percent per hour.

Maybe the ER doctor can ask the apprehending officer what time the incident took place and note this in his chart. This way, during the hearing, he can state the actual reading then compute for the probable reading during the arrest-- if the interval was long enough... If the interval was just an hour or two, I don't think .015 percent is that significant

[buriroy]

I really strongy believe that we should at least have a law in place that makes drunk driving illegal.

Before breath-a-lyzers and alcohol-detecting gizmos, in the 1960s, U.S. cops made do with what they called "The Sobriety Test" by making drivers perform
simple physical tests like walking a straight line one foot in front of the other, touching one's nose, eyes with fingers, and being made to read a prepared text to check for slurring, etc. If a "suspected" drunk driver who smells of booze can't even walk a straight line or slurs his speech, then isn't it obvious that he's in no condition to drive a car and poses a great danger to to other motorists and pedestrians. He should at least be made to stop driving and call his relatives to pick him up. But if you ask me, his sorry ass should be hauled to jail for being a threat to other motorists safety.

My point is we should at least do something by separating a drunk from his car ASAP before he kills or maims someone. A law would at least be a form of deterrence to make drunk drivers think twice before they get behind the wheel of a car. Now, DUIs simply rationalize that as long as he's careful and avoids being in an accident, then he's OK and the cops can't touch him.

But the problem with drunks is that their reflexes and hand-eye coordination are below the normal level and they still believe that everything's OK.. An accident really waiting to happen!

[praetor91313]

The problem with allowing our police officers to do sobriety tests themselves is its potential for abuse.

Right now they can't even correctly apprehend swerving and stop light violations, what more with drunk driving?

[praetor91313]

I think a good solution is this: allow them to do sobriety tests and if the driver fails, a breathalyzer test should be mandatory and should be done by a neutral third party (ER officers) before apprehending the suspect for DUI.

What do you think?

[buriroy]

I think a good solution is this: allow them to do sobriety tests and if the driver fails, a breathalyzer test should be mandatory and should be done by a neutral third party (ER officers) before apprehending the suspect for DUI.

What do you think?

Sounds like a good idea. The important thing is that our law enforcement officers be given the power by law to compel 'suspected' drunks to cease-and-desist from operating their vehicle until the normality/competence of their reflexes, motor skills, and hand-eye coordination can be established for them to resume driving. After all, below-normal reflexes brought about by alcohol ingestion makes a motor vehicle a multi-ton steel killing machine in the hands of a drunk.

It doesn't take rocket science to determine if a person is really drunk. If he smells, slurs, and staggers all over the place, then he sure as hell is in no condition to drive. He should be brought to the nearest police station to sober up and his relatives contacted to pick him up pronto. No fines or imprisonment is even necessary for the first offense.

The benefits of a law on drunk driving far outweigh the negatives, which can slowly be remedied. If it results in even just at a 20 percent reduction in motor accident fatalities/injuries, then it will have served it's purpose.

[Pol-pol]

From RA4136, unfortunately the penalty can be considered a mere slap in the wrist...

Section 53. Driving while under the influence of liquor or narcotic drug. - No person shall drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor or narcotic drug.


Also, the enforcement aspect leaves a lot to be desired...the discretion allowed to the enforcement authorities are being used "creatively". An amendment to the law should be enacted and the victim (or other party - if its a traffic accident) should be allowed to demand the conduct of an alcohol test - which can be performed by a DoH accredited clinic/laboratory. The traffic official who fails to comply with the demand should also be held administratively liable. Of course, the person demanding the test will shoulder the breath analyzer cost.

Although a summary blood testing procedure may have issues with constitutional rights (blood has to be drawn or forced out of the body, the blood should be voluntary given or with consent), I think a breath analyzer will a better tool (breath need not be "forced" out of a living person).