I just don’t understand drinking and driving

Drinking by itself with no showing that the drinking was the primary cause of an accident should not result in a manslaughter conviction any more then driving tired or driving when emotionally upset or in a hundreds of other sub par conditions.

That's illegal over here. At the end of the day you can decide whether or not to drink and drive.

Your argument breaks down at the point of "given the same initial conditions."

You cannot assume that a drunk driver and a sober driver would arrive at that same initial condition.

That is precisely the point ... with no hand-waving obfuscation.

AGREED! Beautifully written, too; nice and clear.

Thank u for that.





David

In the 'same conditions,' a sober driver would be more alert, and less likely to have an accident, and there's very little chance they would flee the scene. That's why it's very important to make the decision NOT to drink and drive.

The fact that the driver was under the influence meant that his driving abilities were, by definition, already impaired.
Where did you get the idea that intoxication has to be the primary cause of the accident? The Florida statute does not say that.

Is is illegal to drive while emotionally upset? Is it illegal to drive when tired? No, but It is possible that you could drive extremely recklessly or negligently while upset or tired, and, if you killed someone as a result, you could be charged with vehicular manslaughter.

In the case of a DUI, the driver has ingested chemical substances which impair the functioning of the brain and central nervous system in ways which adversely affect the ability to operate a motor vehicle in a safe manner. When a driver has a BAC level > .08 alcohol can be assumed to be a factor in almost any accident they are involved in that results in the death of another human being. mainly because it is difficult to exclude these existing influences. The driver is under the influence.
Since alcohol affects visual acuity, depth perception, night vision, and reaction time, an intoxicated driver is more likely to hit a cyclist who is traveling with or without lights on his bike, or to hit many other things as well, than a sober driver. In addition, intoxicated drivers would be more likely to ignore traffic signs, speed limits, weather conditions, road conditions, and other external factors that require attention for safe driving.

The state can assume that intoxication is a factor in a DUI manslaughter such as the one we are discussing because it is reasonable to infer that the driver's impaired ability either caused or contributed to the accident, or prevented the driver from avoiding it, because the driver was, in fact, under the influence of alcohol.
The discovery of evidence to the contrary can emerge from the investigations made by either the prosecution or the defense, although since the defense is obligated to try to refute the charges, they are likely to make the most vigorous effort in that regard, and there is no reason not to believe that they will try to find such exculpatory evidence in Swift's case. Realistically, the probability that they will find such evidence is low in this case. When a cyclist is traveling in front of a car, and the car strikes the cyclist from behind (as seems to be the case in this situation) the car was obviously traveling too close to the bike, and even at night, even if the bike had no rear reflector, an alert sober driver would be expected to see, and to make attempts to avoid hitting, an object of that size in his line of sight.

So, the state had a quite legitimate right to charge Swift with DUI manslaughter--while DUI the motor vehicle he was driving struck and killed another human being. You are making an erroneous assumption that the defense won't challenge this charge and try to refute it--that is exactly what they will attempt to do, but it remains to be seen whether or not they will be able to refute or cast reasonable doubt on these charges in this particular case.

What the DUI law boils down to is if you drive drunk and someone decides to throw themselves in front of your car you are then guilty of manslaughter. This is not justice, but few people care.

That's the really sad part, people just don't get it. You cannot drink and drive. Eventually your luck will run out and you will either get pulled over or you will become involved in an accident where you might kill or injure yourself or someone else. And every time someone drives drunk, they take that chance with their life and everyone else's life.

I don't think it's appropriate for extended discussion in this particular thread, but there is a significant problem in our society with binge drinking and excessive drinking, and that's reflected in most DUI arrests and accidents. It's not just the drinking and driving, it's also the amount of drinking that's going on by people who also drive cars. We accept drunk behavior, and in some ways encourage it (those Thursday night specials on Long Island Iced Tea at the bar Swift was drinking in are but one example) and I'm not sure we can get better control over the drinking and driving problem without taking a hard and realistic look at the amount of excessive alcohol consumption that seems to be all too prevalent. People tend to deny they are problem drinkers, or that they have problems with or from alcohol, but, when you regularly drink to a point of intoxication, you probably do have a problem, and, if you also drive a car, you are likely to take that problem behind the wheel with you.

So, I'd advise people not only to not drink and drive, but also to take a look at their drinking habits, since the two are often connected.

Drunk is a very emotionally loaded term with a very arbitrary cut off point of .08 percent that had been force on many states including Florida by congress and MADD lobbying.

If you do not roll over and lower your limit from .1 to .08 we will cut off hundreds of millions of fundings for your highways.

Most people who get into accidents due to alcohol had blood levels way way over the .08 limit.

One news story after another state driver was 1.5 to 3 times over the legal limit when he or she rear end another car of went the wrong way or.......

.08 limit means that you are likely not at your best in the same way as if you go off after having a fight with you partner or try to drive across country in three days or..................

Good lord.

Stop the insanity! Because suicidal people are constantly targeting drunk drivers!

That "argument" makes no sense whatsoever.

I sure it does not for you......................

But so far there had been no showing that the alcohol in the driver blood had anything at all to do with the death of the cyclist.

Thanks David..................

Is it just, or fair, that people chose to drink and drive, and kill others, because they chose to operate motor vehicles in an impaired state?

Carping about the fact that you, personally, think the DUI laws are wrong or misapplied completely misses the point that these laws affect only drunk drivers and that those people should not have been driving--they had no right to be driving in the first place. Once you drive under the influence, it can reasonably be assumed that alcohol has an influence on your behaviors and judgments behind the wheel which cause, or contribute to, an accident, or affect the ability to avoid an accident, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary in a particular case.

Well...

You basically concede that alcohol contributes to accidents and driving errors. (After you've been flailing around trying to equate drunk driving with distracted driving.)

Then you argue that the current legal standard of .08 is too low because the more drunk people are, the more accidents they cause.

What, exactly, is the nature of your cognitive impairment?

While a .08 level might be somewhat arbitrary, it's also hardly unreasonable, and it reflects the generally agreed upon level that we wish to enforce, and that we do enforce, and most people do not object to.

Not at all. That is just plain ignorant. You can't compare a temporary mood state to the known impairing effects of a chemical in your blood stream, over which you have no voluntary control after ingestion, and which will not dissipate until fully metabolized by the body.

At .08 you can demonstrate significant impairments that affect driving ability. Why argue for even higher limits, with an even greater degree of impairment, before trying to stop people from driving?

For drivers of commercial vehicles, the limit is even lower. In Florida, I think, that limit is .04. Those larger vehicles are more difficult to control and can inflict more damage on smaller vehicles, people, property, etc. and it is reasonable to set different limits for their operators.

Some states have zero tolerance for any amount of alcohol in certain age groups. Florida drivers under 21 who are stopped and have a blood alcohol level of .02 or higher will automatically have their driving privilege suspended for 6 months. How much alcohol can you drink before you reach .02? The answer is pretty much zero.

Most people want to stop drunk driving and alcohol related deaths. Are you among them?

Well when we begin to file manslaughter charges on all drivers who drive in a sub par condition without regard to whether that sub par condition have any connection to the death then the automatic charging of manslaughter for a .08 limit will be consisted with the rest of the law manslaughter concept.

WTF? Is that supposed to be logical? Makes no sense to me.

Bottom line is drunk and/or impaired drivers should be off the roads. Should they cause mayhem or death, then full enforcement of the law should be felt to remove them from the driving public.

Type your name: Drew

Type your name using your elbow: dfrerw

Type your name using your chin: sdfreew

Type your name by smashing your face into the keyboard: Well when we begin to file manslaughter charges on all drivers who drive in a sub par condition without regard to whether that sub par condition have any connection to the death then the automatic charging of manslaughter for a .08 limit will be consisted with the rest of the law manslaughter concept.