Talk:Driving under the influence/Archive 1

Archive 1

FST Effectivness

Shouldn't there be at least some mention of the fact that field sobriety tests are commonly known to be useless and ineffective at anything other than building a case against a suspect? Factors such as weight, caffeine use, road grade, traffic levels etc. can all affect the outcome of a field sobriety test. The methods designed for FSTs are also stupid and difficult for many to perform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Different penalties

Reading a book about hedge fund manager John Paulson,

it said he was arrested for drunk driving, but was able to plead to the lessor charge of "driving under the influence".

This was in NY.

What are the various specific offenses a person can be charged with?

and are they all misdemeanors, or are some infractions? 75.15.213.114 (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sobriety Tests are not required, at least not everywhere

In some jurisdictions at least, the police officer only needs suspicion of you being drunk to arrest you The snare (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but probably not in the US. The process is something like ["reasonable suspicion", basis for a stop, checkpoint] --> [probable cause, warrant or indictment] --> [arrest]. (That's were declining SFSTs come in, because a SFST or PBT is the easiest way to demonstrate probable cause.) Probable cause or a warrant is needed for arrest. There may be differences in the semantics, so a state may describe implied consent for evidentiary tests as occurring before arrest, but I'm pretty sure that probable cause is required before invoking the implied consent law in the US. Unitacx (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

On this topic, the US Supreme Ct. has rendered a few decisions that describe an evidentiary blood alcohol test as a "search incident to arrest". I think the Birchfield decision is one of those (but would have to check). Unitacx (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Drugs

While driving under the influence of many drugs can be dangerous and illegal, I think it would be worth noting that there are some drugs that can be used before or during driving and would never be considered DUI, like caffeine or nicotine. 76.24.182.188 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, some prescription drugs can impair the operator of a motor vehicle, boat or aircraft. An operator can be charged with impairment if they knew beforehand or should reasonably have known beforehand that ingesting a prescription drug could render them unfit to operate the machinery. Most prescriptions in the United States bear warning labels if this is a potential concern. — Quicksilver^{T @} 23:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Cultural Benefits

Can anybody expound on the 'cultural benefits' of drink driving in South-east asia. Having lived there, I cannot think of any.

Comment

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

I think that the image of the crashed car should be removed from this page because it is not "encyclopedically" connected to the object of the page. --Tujo (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We need statistics, specifically relating to portion of deaths caused by drink driving (note: drink driving may be distinguished from "drunk driving" in that driver reaction time is impaired long before a person considers their self to be "drunk"), so that we can understand how large or small the true significance of drink driving is (compared to, say, ordinary driving or cell phone use). It is irresponsible that the article lacks actual statistics whilst providing a section on techniques to commit DUI and escape being caught. Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Alcohol has the same effect on celebrities as it has on the rest of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.196.0 (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

"Courts have also ruled "under the influence" to include hangovers" - Someone with a hangover will likely be "over the limit" even though feeling hungover and not feeling drunk. If someone wants to post on this, lemme know and I'll see if I can find a reference. Likely sources: court cases and studies showing blood alcohol dissipation rates. For pilots, the reference can be "0.04 and 8 hours since last consumption", with or without a reference to "under the influence of alcohol". I think "under the influence of alcohol" is intended to pick up gaps in the manner that "under the influence" can be used as a basis for conviction for DUI when BAC is not available. Unitacx (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

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

A logical order for countries might be, as mentioned, alphabetical. If you're going to propose something "rational" then you need to explain why "by population" is more rational than that. Why not by number of drivers or ratio of tests administered or something else equally banal when the subject at hand is practices by country. Russell Jan 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.54.34 (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Because of the largest number of English speakers is in the USA it is hardly surprising that the United States should not come first. Pbrower2a (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

The link provided for the source to [5] under the United States portion of the Americas, quoting it's all 50 states and therein laws, http://www.madd.org/Laws/fullstate, is officially 404. Can we please update this to reflect current law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedmands (talk • contribs) 01:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed both links because MADD isn't a source meeting WP:RS, plus both links were dead and I couldn't find working links to determine what sources MADD used. Is there a better .gov or news article source that can replace those links? Flowanda | Talk 03:29, 26 August 2008 (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)

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)

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

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)

Yes, it's often presented humorously, even in recent films. I think this would be interesting to include.

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)

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)

• 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)

• • 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)

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)

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.

The article recently reflected your thoughts, with no citations, and in error. The state of Texas has one statute for Driving While Intoxiated (PC 49.04), which contains two subsections, one for impairment, the other for BAC of 0.08. You must meet the elements of only one subsection, not both, and you cannot be tried twice for both because it is one offense and one statute. If you have examples of a different system in other states, please provide citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdmccuistion (talk • contribs) 08:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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).

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)

The Pragamatics of DUI Prevention

The USA has a significantly higher rate of DUI driving than the rest of the developed world yet has a low rate of alcohol consumption. Might it be that the USA uniquely restrictive laws on the sale of alcohol might in effect be forcing drunk drivers to drive in order to obtain alcohol?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.136.0.148 (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC). I think its great there is a place some where in the world that treats dui as it should be I AM THINKING ABOUT MOVING THERE. So what if you were hit by a drunk driver if you go out side your home you need to understand you take your chances to live or die. the risks of leaving your home should be on you not me who takes the risk of drinking and driving and then getting hit by one of u sober jack asses and then go to prison for 32 months. If you leave your home and get hit by a duier thats on you and if you cant take your blame then go play out in the street you lame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.115.72 (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

I know in the US it is still illegal to drive drunk even on privately owned land. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about the private land thing? I'm not sure if it's legal in the UK or not. I often drove a tractor in a field under the influence. Job bored me to tears, there was no way I was doing it sober.

Infact, it must be legal in the UK. Because I saw the TV presenter Adrian Chiles drive a car round a track pissed up once for a show he was doing. 80.47.15.23 (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Erh!?!?!?!? The only safe vehicle for a drunk driver is a computer-controlled simulator, as I saw once on a television program about drunk driving. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

US states vary on drunk driving on private land. Unitacx (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

DUI before it was illegal

In Czechoslovakia, before it was made illegal (around 1950s), when judging a crash caused by a drunk driver, it was taken as extenuating circumstance, that the driver was drunk. So when you crashed drunk, you were not considered as guilty as sober and the alcohol was blamed for causing your partial incompetence. I don't have any evidence of this, but many older people will tell you they remember this. I bet this wasn't the case only in Czechoslovakia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.240.17.76 (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I would have loved to have lived there then! Let's bring it back! 173.16.124.196 (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Huhhh?? See above. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

SR-22 Section

I removed the links from the paragraph on the SR-22 forms in United States, because they don't really add anything. I'd like to remove the entire paragraph - this is a page about driving under the influence, not US Insurance companies.

I'm inclined to agree, as I noticed the same section and thought it rather unnecessary. -- John C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.194.127.112 (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom

As this is an article in English, it would be nice if someone put up a detailled section for the UK. 85.22.30.222 19:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There is one now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.196.0 (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Countries where drinking alcohol is illegal

It is true that drinking is illegal in some countries, but this does not mean no one drinks or alcohol is unobtainable. It is incorrect to state these countries as 'Zero' BAC. On the contrary, because alcohol is illegal, no one checks for alcohol impaired drivers. Therefore, there is virtually no limit on drinking and driving. 'No Limit' is more correct for these countries, along with a note that alcohol is illegal. Ahmad 19:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've heard the opposite, that drunk driving carries very severe penalties in Islamic countries. EamonnPKeane (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Mexico

Since this article includes the US and Canada, I think Mexico deserves a spot too for a detailed description, so the article can have all three countries generally considered as "North America"

What is a DUI

Well its driving under the influence. But what if your just sleeping in your car with it running thats kinda wrong because your sleeping and not actualy driving.riddle me that. mrsmithyx1@netzero.net63.16.187.221 (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the laws about sleeping in the car relate to being in control of a motor vehicle. The idea is that the driver has the capability of driving off, or driving later. States that permit DUI on private property (or otherwise preclude enforcement), or which have cases defining such things as seating position allow sleeping with the engine running, for example with the occupant in the back seat. e.g., what happens if a driver goes into a store? -- presumably if the drunk passenger is in the back the passenger can prove not controlling the car, but the typical case is the driver is parked.

As to CO poisoning, there are some cars (e.g., diesels) where CO poisoning from a leaking exhaust is a negligible risk in an open area. Unitacx (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"No drive" is a common defense in which the defendant claims not to have been driving. Each case has to be dealt with individually. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sleeping in a car with its engine running risks carbon monoxide poisoning. Thank God I am teetotal. The only thing that I ever drink is water. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Being teetotal doesn't help unless you can train yourself not to get tired at night. Unitacx (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"The german model"?

The last paragraph of the Overview section references "The german model" which is not otherwise referenced or explained in the article. What then, does its presence signify? 85.178.94.34 (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

i suppose that is a remnant of some older version of the article which went into some more lenghts comparing the german and the US model ... the above comment was made more than 6 years ago, yet the article still mentions "the german model" like that --89.245.88.171 (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Mexico?

The Value of 1.9% seems to be a bit high. Maybe you mean 0.19%? 77.177.2.99 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Or even 0.19 per thousand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.44.0.4 (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Denmark

Since the 16 year limit on alcohol purchase was introduced the number of people killed in DUI related accident has been reduced. It seems that giving the youth access to alcohol before access to drive is the method that works. No parent will recommend a license to youth with a problem. Here is the statistic.

DUI death and injured 1997-2006, Secure trafic

(Red is killed, black is injured)

Covergaard (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

19 April 2008: Edited the BAC level for denmark as per §53.2 of Færdselsloven :"For spirituskørsel straffes endvidere den, som i øvrigt fører eller forsøger at føre et motordrevet køretøj efter at have indtaget spiritus i et sådant omfang, at han ikke kan føre køretøjet på betryggende måde." If you have any amount of alcohol in your blood and are involved in an accident, you may be punished.

Driving under the influence of fatigue

I know in Canada you can be charged for it, should this be put on the page somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.142.224.183 (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you have a good reference.--Nowa (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrative License Suspension Correction.

Administrative License Suspension (ALS) • If you are stopped for drunk driving and you refuse to take the sobriety test, or if your test results exceed the legal limit of Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC), the officer can take your driver's license on the spot, and the suspension begins immediately.[citation needed] •

This is under the US Section, between reference 12 and 13. In Florida, the suspension doesn't begin immediately - you have 10 days until the suspension kicks in. During that time, your ticket is your license, so you must keep it with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.57.26 (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

DUID

Perhaps if I have some time I should start a section about driving under the influence of drugs, which is a very big but often unnoticed problem. This is especially true of pain and sleep medications. -- John C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.194.127.112 (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, and would like to propose that DUID should even be a separate article (if it is not already) as there is much to talk about in it. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Horse and Bicycle?

"act of operating a vehicle (including bicycle, boat, airplane or horse) after consuming alcohol or using drugs. It is illegal in most countries."

It's illegal to drink cycle(bike) and drink ride(horse)? Wtf? really?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. In The Netherlands, even refusing to undergo a field sobriety test is an offense, carrying a 60 euro fine (May 2009). Pe1pbu (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how they do a field sobriety test on a horse... Do they have them do the three-legged stand? Touch their hoof to their nose? 206.194.127.112 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• The test is done on the rider, obviously!!! Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It's badly phrased even if horseback riding while drunk is considered drunk driving ; a horse isn't a vehicle. Jon (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It also applies to driving a horse-drawn vehicle or farm equipment of any kind. Pbrower2a (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

22 US states make DUI on a bicycle an offense ("vehicle" states). In 27 states ("motor vehicle" states), bicycles are exempt, although probably motor assisted bikes would fall under DUI in most. 1 state (OR) and DC exempt bikes under implied consent. 4 states have a bike-specific penalty (probably to exempt bikes from harsh MV DUI laws). Unitacx (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Article size and readability

I think this article has grown so large, that it's readability is going down considerably. My idea would be to split off all sections about the national laws etc. in separate articles per country. I know from the rest of this page that there have been some merge/unmerge actions already, but that does not diminish the fact that this article is getting oversized. Any opinions on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pe1pbu (talk • contribs) 07:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Dive in.--Nowa (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. I have split out Drunk driving law by country. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer Researched Drink Driving Facts

I have added a link to Drink Driving Facts (Ireland) - as it contains a vast number of well researched facts with a focus on Ireland and research drawn internationally. I haven't had time to use this to update this article, however, this would be a good way to improve the quality of the Wikipedia article with many sources cited.

There is a seperate article, called Drunk driving law by country. This article is now more general, and does not focus on individual countries. I have therefore removed the link. Feel free to add it to Drunk driving law by country. Singularity42 (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Myth Section

The citation in the myth section (alcoholalert.com) is very weak and provides no citations for that facts that it provides. If no one can find better sources corroborating the "facts," it should probably be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.105.19 (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There is actually no evidence that the 21 year old drinking age in the united states is effective seeing as the rates of DUI among this age group and those in other countries with lower drinking ages have not been proven to be different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.31.190 (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Public Health "Research"

A lot of the data in this section comes from a source that itself cites questionable materials. It is well known that MADD and other abolitionist organizations manipulate statistics to advance their agendas. Of course raising the drinking age to 21 reduced drunk driving fatalities. So would raising it to 97. I think some balance is necessary here. Airman Dan (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. It's been adjusted so that it's clear that it's their opinion, but the question of whether the opinion is notable is still open. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Penalites and defense

The entire section is sourced only to web sites of California DUI defense lawyers. Some of the information may be accurate, but there's a clear bias here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a blatant publicity and not of enough interest in the article to deserve a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.72.144.10 (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing content and removal of edits --January 2012

I am removing a number of edits that are sourced to non-notable commercial websites that do not meet WP:RS. To readd the content, please source to well-known news or official sources or discuss here. Flowanda | Talk 08:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Trying to avoid an edit-war with a new editor on this article

A few days ago, User:TarynJWhite, added this content to the article. I reverted, with indicating that I believed that the added content was US-specific (which has its own article) rather than a global issue (which is what this article is for). After I reverted, I also discovered the added content was a copyvio.

Rather than respond to me, TarynJWhite just re-added the content without comment. I reverted the content, and gave a soft warning about the potential for edit-warring here. I pointed out that the content was a copyvio and more appropriate for the US-specific article. I also directed the user to WP:BRD, and asked them to discuss the issue on the talk page.

Again, instead of doing the above, TarynJWhite has re-added the content, this time with an edit summary that does not address any of the concerns such as copyright violations, etc. I have removed the content, and warned the editor about edit-warring.

I am now starting a discussion here in the hopes that TarynJWhite will participate in this discussion before re-adding the content. Specifically, I would like the user to address the following three concerns that I have:

• The proposed content is a copy/paste of another website, and therefore a copyright violation.
• The proposed conent is US-specific, and should therefore be dealt with at Drunk driving in the United States rather than this article which is not country-specific.
• The proposed content relies on a non-reliable source (although that should be easy to fix).

Thanks. Singularity42 (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated cell phone comments

The cell phone comparison section said that texting was "far more dangerous than DWI", citing a source that gave the eyes-off-the-road time as 4.6 seconds. That's certainly not good, but how does it compare to DWI distraction? It says "almost certain to cause an accident", yet the enormous majority of people who text while driving do not get into accidents - that's why they do it, because most of the time nothing bad happens. Again, this is not good, but any given text message is actually very unlikely to cause an accident, not "almost certain". Finally, the comment asserted 3 seconds eyes-off-the-road as "the threshold", and references a paper where the researchers decided to use 3 seconds as the limit for their automatic distraction-detecting device, with no particular background research showing that that value was particularly magical.

No question: texting while driving is a really bad idea. However, unfounded comparisons, abuse of probability, and inappropriate use of research data are not helpful.

Jordan Brown (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Citing a source to show the problems of text messaging, and then drawing an unsourced conclusion from those facts (i.e. it is worse than drinking and driving; it almost certainly causes an accident) is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH speculation. Singularity42 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the section since the claims cannot be sourced per WP:RS, but only to a banned spammer other commercial websites and unrelated gov pages. If you want to readd the content, discuss proper sourcing here first and be prepared to defend all edits upward because we will. Flowanda | Talk 04:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Insurance citation

A new editor has added a reference in this edit. To avoid an edit war, I am starting a discussion here. The editor started a discussion on my talk page (before reverting again), but I think it makes more sense for the discussion to take place on this page. I have two problems with the reference:

1. It doesn't actually provide a source for what a citation was required for. Basically, some specific numbers were added to the article about how much insurance rates can go up by in the U.S. due to a drinking and driving conviction. A {{citation required}} tag was placed on that entry. The new reference replaces the citation required tag without actually being a reference for those numbers. All the new reference says is that it insurance rates may go up. That's a far cry from actually being the citation required for the specific point in this sentence of the article.
2. With some exceptions, I do not believe "DUI lawyer" websites make for objective references. They are trying to convince people (not necessarily improperly) that that are major ramifications from a DUI conviction and therefore you should hire one of their lawyers to fight the charge. It's not exactly objective - and I include this reference as one of those. It has been brought to my attention that there are two other types of websites on this article's references (#5 and #12 in the current version). However, those are easily the exceptions to the rule: #5 contains very good charts with specific, accurate numbers that the page is being referenced for; #12 is actually a legal paper going through the legal history of one state's care or control laws.

Unless there is a consensus to keep the reference, I plan on removing it. Singularity42 (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Why does "DWAI" redirect here?

Term is not mentioned or explained in the article. 86.159.197.174 (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Driving While Ability Impaired, apparently. American. Typical WP:GLOBALIZE stuff. --Ef80 (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Polizeikontrolle Rügendamm.jpg

This picture is not the best, can someone find a better photo relating DUI? --209.107.196.80 (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you suggest a replacement should show instead?--TMCk (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Driving under the influence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304130931/http://dunlapandassociatesinc.com/crashriskofalcoholinvolveddriving.pdf to http://dunlapandassociatesinc.com/crashriskofalcoholinvolveddriving.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Driving under the influence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160301215848/http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Traffic+Techs/current/Standardized+Field+Sobriety+Test+(SFST)+Validated+at+BACS+Below+0.10+Percent to http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Traffic+Techs/current/Standardized+Field+Sobriety+Test+(SFST)+Validated+at+BACS+Below+0.10+Percent

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Driving under the influence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170329050449/http://www.madd.org/laws/law-overview/DUI_Child_Endangerment_Overview.pdf to http://www.madd.org/laws/law-overview/DUI_Child_Endangerment_Overview.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505123314/http://scc.lexum.org/en/1970/1970scr0-777/1970scr0-777.html to http://scc.lexum.org/en/1970/1970scr0-777/1970scr0-777.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Risks

Most of the text in that section referenced the Grand Rapids Dip; hence including the name of the phenomena. When it was apparent that the Grand Rapids Dip was occupying substantial space in the section, I gave it a (4th level) sub-heading, which presumably clarifies the section.

This could also be the reason direct statistics relating DUI to accidents are difficult to find from the obvious sources. (Most talk about accidents or fatalities in different years, on weekends, etc., but not actual causation or even close correlation.) It is clear that DUI is not a ticket to a long life without injury, but it is less clear at what level that the effect of alcohol takes place. Unitacx (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The main sections of this article are US-centric and should be signalled as such

The main sections of this article are US-centric and should be signalled as such (in other words moved to the countries section). The sections "other drugs" and "Field sobriety testing" are full of details and acronyms which simply do not cross over to other English speaking jurisdictions (in particular Australia, a section which is remarkably poor, since each state has its own (somewhat related, but) different laws.... (I found the article when looking for "Random Breath Testing" hoping to find what jurisdictions might have adopted it, since the concept and its often curious implementation have important philosophical underpinnings... Hope someone will pick up the baton. MargaretRDonald (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The article is heavily US-centric in its content and underlying cultural assumptions. Even the name of the article is American whereas the phrase "driving under the influence" is used only in the United States, yet it is the name of an article reportedly about activity around the world (drink driving).

In a comment in the "drink driving" section, further above, an editor argued that the term "drink driving" should be "drunk driving," however "drink driving" is the term used in Britain and lreland. A great variety of terminology is used globally, yet the title of this article quite parochially promotes a single, localized usage, limited to one country alone. — O'Dea (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)