No more designated drivers in NJ!!!

I-SIG

http://biz.yahoo.com/law/040709/aa7d08da38048701216fab03aeda75ce_1.html

So much for trying to do the right thing...

Wes

Shizelbs

Uh, both the passenger and the driver were pretty drunk.

RuSsMaN

Smoke some weed and drink 8 tall boys?

Who wouldn't be F'd up? They asked for it, and got it.

I-SIG

Now imagine this situation based on what that NJ judge ruled:

You are sound asleep and in the middle of the night some and drunk kids or a hopped up addict steals your car from your driveway. While running around in your car while in a DUI condition, said car thief(ves) runs over a little old lady crossing the street to get some milk for her cats.

Guess what?

It's your car but someone else was DUI in it. Tough. You are still responsible for this old lady's death according to that judge.

How scary is that????? :eek:

Wes

Sami

"he is nonetheless guilty if he 'reasonably should have known' of the permittee's impaired condition to drive"

That pretty much sum it up. He knew his friend was drunk.

If one was to go to a bar and get drunk, thinking that the designated driver would stay sober (and not see him/her drink) then it would be a different case. Still better to let them use their own vehicle.

Now this was total BS in the article:

There may come a point, as it did in the Zanger case, that the car owner does not realize the designated driver is too drunk, too.

He knew his friend was drunk, they were drinking together.

Sami

Originally posted by I-SIG

It's your car but someone else was DUI in it. Tough. You are still responsible for this old lady's death according to that judge.

How did you come up with that conclusion? In addition to my other quote from the article, here is another:

for putting their vehicles in the hands of someone who is drunk.

F1nut

Originally posted by I-SIG
It's your car but someone else was DUI in it. Tough. You are still responsible for this old lady's death according to that judge.

The difference is he gave his friend permission to drive his car, if someone steals your car they don't have your permission and therefore you can't be held responsible.

F1nut

The best idea would be not to drink if you're going to be anywhere near a car, driver or a passenger.

I-SIG

Originally posted by Sami
How did you come up with that conclusion? In addition to my other quote from the article, here is another:

Here's how:

Here's a another quote from the article about a fellow "sleeping off" his drunkenness:

"Even so, Arnold Fishman, a Haddon Heights, N.J., defense lawyer, says the decision punishes people who seemed to at least try to do the right thing. "There are certain factual situations where we ought to be giving them a medal," he says. "Like the safe haven situation where a guy pulls off the road to sleep it off. We convict those guys. We ought to be giving those guys a medal... . But this climate in this state in particular is such that municipal court judges are virtually cowed into finding everyone guilty."

Remember, it's a slippery slope that you can't climb back up!

amulford

In the state of NJ, If you are found in your car sleeping it off, and you have the keys in the ignition, you will receive a DUI.

The owner knew his buddy was drunk. It's not really a matter of guilt, but one of culpability. What they are saying is you are cognizant of the fact, and therefore are responsible.

If they guy was passed out and his friend drove, then he might have a defense.

PhantomOG

Originally posted by amulford
If they guy was passed out and his friend drove, then he might have a defense.

so drunk but passed out --> not responsible

but drunk and not passed out --> responsible

they can't really prove whether he was passed out or not so this really can't be used as an indicator of responsibility.

how far will they take this though? what if the driver was sober but still caused a horrible accident and killed people? what then? is the drunk person still liable for the deaths caused by the driver? why does the condition of the driver matter? the owner of the car should have picked a more responsible person who wouldn't cause an accident right???

PhantomOG

As a practical matter, he adds, the decision may have minimal impact because in most cases in which owners and designated drivers are found to be intoxicated, DWI charges against the owner-passengers are usually dismissed.

F1nut

"why does the condition of the driver matter?"

Are you joking??? That IS the whole point!

PhantomOG

I'm only saying, why do they stop with just drunk driving?

what if you permit someone to drive your car who needs corrective lenses but isn't wearing them? if they permit this with DWI offenses, it should/could be extended to *any* vehicular violation where the owner permitted the violator to drive their car.

For what its worth, I think he should be in some way held accountable for the death of his friend, but I agree with others that it is difficult to draw the line with assigning resposibility in these types of cases.

TechChallenged

Peoples Republic of New Jersey.

Sami

Originally posted by I-SIG
Here's how:

Where?

Sami

Originally posted by PhantomOG
I'm only saying, why do they stop with just drunk driving?

what if you permit someone to drive your car who needs corrective lenses but isn't wearing them?

The point is do you know that. If you know then you should be held responsible. In this case the guy knew his buddy was drunk.

Sami

Originally posted by F1nut
The best idea would be not to drink if you're going to be anywhere near a car, driver or a passenger.

Works back home but not here in Texas. If you want to go out, someone has to drive.

PolkWannabie

Do you have robot cars "back home" ? or lots of public transportation ? or ?

Sami

Originally posted by PolkWannabie
Do you have robot cars "back home" ? or lots of public transportation ? or ?

Short distances, lots of accessible transports (bus, cab, tram). Not sure what F1nut's point was but these are all driven by paid personnel and you are not responsible for their actions.

Getting a cab in Dallas is hard and takes time. On top of that the distances are long so it also is expensive.

Responsible people that do not drink, at all, when they are the designated drivers. Police can stop you for no reason and have you take breath analyzer test. They also do this in the morning when some still have too high alcohol level, even if you don't feel like you're drunk. Also a lot of pedestrians crossing the roads so driving drunk (even slightly) will get you into trouble very soon if you keep doing it, unlike here.

PhantomOG

Originally posted by Sami
The point is do you know that. If you know then you should be held responsible. In this case the guy knew his buddy was drunk.

Just to be clear, I am not saying he shouldn't be held responsible or that he didn't know. It is pretty obvious he knew. My questions are pointed towards cases not covered by this case. Specifically, what other moving violations are this type of reasoning extended to and if there are some that are not, why? Having a law like this sets precendent for *all* moving violations and could be used to do so.

PolkWannabie

Originally posted by Sami
Responsible people that do not drink, at all, when they are the designated drivers.

I am NOT in favor of drunk or even impaired drivers ... but this makes it at best difficult to take ones wife out for dinner and just have a glass of wine or two with dinner over a couple of hours.

The recently reduced levels which were already very low in NJ will IMHO do more harm then good as they will do nothing to take additional drunk or impaired drivers off the road but they will "catch" a lot of unsuspecting or those who are unaware of the recent changes and how little one has to drink to be over the line.

Sami

0.05% is the limit I grew up with, meaning one beer every two hours. Everything over that and you are impaired, no matter how much you think otherwise. Take two beers in 10 minutes and you might not feel drunk but in reality your reaction time has slowed down drastically.

PolkWannabie

0.05 is very low ... where was that ?

Sami

Originally posted by PolkWannabie
0.05 is very low ... where was that ?

Finland. Our neighbor Sweden has now 0.02% limit. Drunk drivers aren't very common in (Northern) Europe.

TechChallenged

Originally posted by Sami
Finland. Our neighbor Sweden has now 0.02% limit. Drunk drivers aren't very common in (Northern) Europe.

Why was the drunk driver limit measure lowered?

Sami

Originally posted by TechChallenged
Why was the drunk driver limit measure lowered?

They wanted pretty much zero tolerance. 0.08% as it is in Texas is already quite a lot of alcohol to be driving. Take a reaction time test in totally sober state and with 0.08% and you will see a huge difference.

I wish they would stop using those stupid tests and just do a breath analyzer test. Once found to be over the limit, blood test is required to be legal evidence. I have heard cases were people were denied their right for blood test, not sure true or not.

Shizelbs

I don't know how it works in other states, but in Washington State, NEVER do the field sobriety test. I cannot do anything to prove your sobriety, but it can be used against you to help prove you were driving under the influence. You do have the right to deny the request for the field test.

Furthermore, 0.08 is still pretty low. Sure, there may be measurable differences in reaction time and all that, but, to lower it anymore would be rather ridiculous.

Sami

Originally posted by Shizelbs
Furthermore, 0.08 is still pretty low. Sure, there may be measurable differences in reaction time and all that, but, to lower it anymore would be rather ridiculous.

Not when you have pedestrians to worry about. On the highways it might be low but on urban streets 0.08% is high.

On the other hand there have been truck drivers with the level up in 0.6%...

dorokusai

I see my share of drunk drivers while working on-call, and double shifts, which are always on graveyard shift. It's crazy to do such a thing these days....simply not worth it.

However, I have seen far worse sober drivers than I have drunk drivers, and I drive about 45,000 miles a year.

Not advocating it, just stating an observation.

Mandatory remedial driving tests should be sought for in addition to enhanced drunk driving amendments.

spyderman

Virginia just cracked down on DUIs. 25 new laws added as of July 1st mean higher fines and harsher penalties. Now the toughest in the nation.

If you are 0.15, first offense, you're gettin' locked up for 5 days.

3 DUI offenses in 5 years = 6 months jail time.

Best to just call a cab.