The U.S. isn’t the only country that has a problem with drunk driving. Many countries across the world have the same problems – including Canada. This video news clip talks about the drunk driving dilemma in the Toronto area and how to prevent drunk driving…
It’s interesting to note that drunk driving incidents have increased in Canada and it seems like repeat offenders are at the heart of this issue – which is the same for the U.S. So, is the justice system not dealing well with repeat DUI offenders?
There were a couple topics raised in this video that I’d like to address:
1. I agree that a vehicle is just as dangerous a weapon as a gun or knife. I wonder how many more deaths it will take before the justice system really pays attention. I’ve said before that DUI penalties need to be harsher.
2. I also agree that every new vehicle that is built should have the ignition interlock system. That would help tremendously in preventing people from operating a vehicle. However, even if all new vehicles had these devices, there are still millions of older cars out there without them! However, it could definitely be the wave of the future. Imagine 30 years from now every car with the ignition interlock system! Could drunk driving be wiped out then?
=========
Need help with your San Diego DUI? Contact an experienced DUI attorney!
In some places like New York City, repeat DUI offenders are required to wear ankle bracelets that signal to an officer if the offender has had a drink. On the surface, this method of preventing drunk driving seems like a good idea, but many people feel that it is unconstitutional.
These ankle bracelets, otherwise known as SCRAM (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring), are devices that detect alcohol in a person‘s perspiration. The device sends information via a modem to a central computer. At any given moment, a probation officer can log into the computer and check to see if the person wearing the SCRAM bracelet has been drinking. The officer can find out the exact time of day the offender started drinking, their blood alcohol level, and when their body has expelled all the alcohol.
Although the SCRAM device is a step in the right direction in terms of finding ways to keep drunk drivers off the road, we have to keep in mind that a device like this doesn’t come without issues.
Is it safe to rely on technology to determine a person’s innocence or guilt? There have been many issues with the breathalyzer device – who’s to say that the SCRAM is any different? These devices will cost money to maintain – will the government commit to making sure these machines will actually work 100% of the time? What if there was a glitch in the system?
You won’t have to worry about going through this if you commit to making a change after being charged once for a DUI. Get help from a San Diego DUI lawyer now…
When we look at alcohol-related statistics, specifically alcohol-related fatalities, we assume that these numbers mean that a drunk driver was involved. However, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA):
“A motor vehicle crash is considered to be alcohol-related if at least one driver or non-occupant (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash is determined to have had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 gram per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatality that occurs in an alcohol-related crash is considered an alcohol-related fatality. The term ‘alcohol-related’ does not indicate that a crash or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol.”
So when we see these drunk driving statistics, we don’t even really know the “true” numbers. If a sober driver hits a drunk pedestrian, it is considered an alcohol-related death. Likewise, if a sober driver hits another sober driver who has a passenger that is drunk, that’s also consider an alcohol-related incident.
All of these incidents create highly inflated DUI fatality statistics. Isn’t it time to redefine what “DUI fatality” actually means? Or are these over-inflated numbers a way for the government to keep taking our constitutional rights?
