Charged With DUI When I Wasn’t Driving

SkyChaser said:
How do you know those are more severe crimes? If 12 people drive tired and there's 3 fatal crashes against the one guy who drove drunk and crashed fatally, it appears that driving fatigued is more dangerous when in reality, it's drunk driving.

I have never reported when I was sick or fatigued and drove. I would argue that most people do that at least once a week. I have driven what some people consider rustbuckets or deathtraps that wouldn't pass any type of safety inspection and knew many, many people who (safely) did the same. For every hundred people committing "more dangerous" crimes, there's maybe one or two drunks. Even if only one drunk crashed and 35 of the tired people crashed, statistically speaking driving drunk is still more dangerous.
Click to expand...
how do you know the number of undetected drunk drivers?

I’m thinking there are a lot more than you think.
 
FancyG said:
As a motorcycle rider that learned to ride in the pre- 'sail-foam' 1990's, drivers seem to be way more distracted now than then.
Click to expand...
almost makes you wish that there was MORE autopilot teslas drivers out there. At least they stay straight in the lane . . .
 
StraightnLevel said:
National stats say that about 1 out of 3 fatal auto events is alcohol related. What causes the other 2/3?

I can honestly say that in my local major metro commute traffic, I would easily believe that much of it is just plain old incompetence. Things like unsignalled lane changes into another vehicle, auto-braking causing rear-enders, running red lights, lack of lane discipline, etc.

That said, I see a LOT of people driving erratically, then notice as I go past that they are staring at a cellphone.
Click to expand...

Well speeding takes up almost 1/3 of all fatal accidents so there’s that. Speeding fatal rates are over 3 times distracted driver.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
how do you know the number of undetected drunk drivers?

I’m thinking there are a lot more than you think.
Click to expand...
I don't know the number of undetected drunk drivers, that's true. Maybe my observations are only true throughout my little corner of the world, and I imagine to some degree they are. But I know exponentially more people who would and have driven tired than I know people who would or have driven drunk, detected or undetected.
 
SkyChaser said:
I don't know the number of undetected drunk drivers, that's true. Maybe my observations are only true throughout my little corner of the world, and I imagine to some degree they are. But I know exponentially more people who would and have driven tired than I know people who would or have driven drunk, detected or undetected.
Click to expand...
Yeah. You just have high standards in your circle of life. ;-)
 
Anthem said:
almost makes you wish that there was MORE autopilot teslas drivers out there. At least they stay straight in the lane . . .
Click to expand...

Ask the motorcyclists who have been mowed down at night by a Tesla. Oh wait, they’re dead.

arstechnica.com

Tesla faces new probes into motorbike deaths, false advertising

NHTSA is investigating bike deaths as California says Tesla statements are "untrue."
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com

amp.cnn.com

Tesla Autopilot's safety questioned after latest fatal motorcycle crash

Tesla's Autopilot was involved in a third fatal motorcycle crash this summer, raising questions about the driver-assist system's ability to operate safely.
amp.cnn.com amp.cnn.com

americanmotorcyclist.com

Tesla Autopilot Kills Motorcyclist, Sparks Investigation

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on July 26 opened a special investigation into a crash in which a Tesla with its Autopilot system engaged hit and killed a motorcyclist in Utah.
americanmotorcyclist.com americanmotorcyclist.com
 
Velocity173 said:
Well speeding takes up almost 1/3 of all fatal accidents so there’s that. Speeding fatal rates are over 3 times distracted driver.
Click to expand...
Speeding accidents are going to have a high fatality rate if for no reason other than the amount of impact when you hit something that hits back. But I suspect most speeding accidents are about other things. Distraction, incompetence, etc.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Speeding accidents are going to have a high fatality rate if for no reason other than the amount of impact when you hit something that hits back. But I suspect most speeding accidents are about other things. Distraction, incompetence, etc.
Click to expand...
. . . and lots of drunk driving accidents also involve speeding. They can also involve fatigue, distraction and all of the other factors that happen to sober drivers. Drunk driving is the easiest of those to claim and record, based on anything from officer observation, blood tests, and anything else recognized by the courts. It could even show up as drunk driving when impairment wasn't the cause, e.g. stopped in traffic and rear ended.

So in my opinion any of these statistics need to be taken with a grain of salt.

I've done a lot of research and given a number of lectures on sleep and fatigue. Fatigue is of course not measurable after the fact, but I'm convinced that it's a critical factor in many aviation accidents, not because the operator falls asleep but because their alertness, judgment and response time are all impaired, usually without conscious awareness of the impacts of those. ("Sleep debt makes you stupid.")
 
kmacht said:
I'm certainly not one who supports the sovereign citizen thing but you may still want to question why the courts are setup so you must hire a lawyer at hundreds of dollars an hour to have any chance of winning a case. Anything outside small claims court it is almost impossible to represent yourself anymore so unless you can afford a lawyer you are screwed.
Click to expand...
You would be almost always better off with someone who does know the system. But if there wasnt a particular protocol being followed, it would be chaos. Have you seen the people who try to represent themselves with zero clue of how things are supposed to proceed ? On a really really basic level - it would be like someone who has never spoken to ATC and trying to fly ifr through the system. You /can/ represent yourself - you just need to know how, what limitations, and how to go about it
 
Anthem said:
Have you seen the people who try to represent themselves with zero clue of how things are supposed to proceed ?
Click to expand...
One of the great pro se cross-examinations of all time. Guy is accused of assault and battery. His cross examination of the victim was targeted at the victim's ability to observe and identify him. That's pretty standard stuff. But the self-represented defendant's question wasn't:

"You can't identify me! How could you identify me? Your back was turned when I hit you!"
 
kmacht said:
I'm certainly not one who supports the sovereign citizen thing but you may still want to question why the courts are setup so you must hire a lawyer at hundreds of dollars an hour to have any chance of winning a case. Anything outside small claims court it is almost impossible to represent yourself anymore so unless you can afford a lawyer you are screwed.
Click to expand...

Rephrased for you:

I'm certainly not one who supports the sovereign citizen thing but you may still want to question why the MEDICAL SYSTEM IS setup so you must hire a SURGEON at THOUSANDS of dollars an hour to have any chance of NOT KILLING YOURSELF PERFORMING YOUR OWN SURGERY. Anything outside A MINOR INJURY it is almost impossible to TREAT yourself anymore so unless you can afford a SURGEON you are screwed.
 
bradg33 said:
Rephrased for you:

I'm certainly not one who supports the sovereign citizen thing but you may still want to question why the MEDICAL SYSTEM IS setup so you must hire a SURGEON at THOUSANDS of dollars an hour to have any chance of NOT KILLING YOURSELF PERFORMING YOUR OWN SURGERY. Anything outside A MINOR INJURY it is almost impossible to TREAT yourself anymore so unless you can afford a SURGEON you are screwed.
Click to expand...

OTOH, the laws themselves are the constructs of lawyers that We The Stupid foolishly elected to Congress. The human body was not created by physicians.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
how do you know the number of undetected drunk drivers?

I’m thinking there are a lot more than you think.
Click to expand...
About all the ones who crash are detected. So the undetected are not crashing therefore lowering the rate (by a lot more than we think?). Not sure what that does to the argument though.

Clearly it's bad and no one should drive drunk, but a lot of the statistics seem to be a mess.
 
Lindberg said:
This. No one is ever driving at the moment they are charged with DUI, but they're always charged with DUI for the time when they were driving. As far as the legal outcome of this case, likely unless the witnesses are willing to testify, a lawyer may be able to get the charges dropped. Unless you did something stupid like admit that you had been driving. Make that something else stupid. The whole thing was stupid. The only smart thing, was deciding to quit driving, but that was preceded and followed by a whole bunch of stupidity. If you were under 0.15, not testing was stupid because the FAA is going to treat it as though you were .15. And yes, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the charges, you will have to report the license suspension and arrest. And frankly that doesn't seem unjust in this case, since you were DUI.

You should get the charges resolved ASAP, and talk to a HIMS AME. If you want to maintain a medical, the hammer is going to come down.
Click to expand...

the difference is, if someone gets pulled over while driving, the cop saw with his own eyes that this person was driving with symptoms of being drunk. In this case, the cop does not have that.
 
bobbylee123 said:
the difference is, if someone gets pulled over while driving, the cop saw with his own eyes that this person was driving with symptoms of being drunk. In this case, the cop does not have that.
Click to expand...
No, but the gas station probably has video of him doing whatever caused the witnesses to call the police on him...
 
jbarrass said:
Statistics like this are entertaining.

So 6 hours of sleep a day makes you a .1%? That's pretty normal me thinks.
Click to expand...
So yes, obviously there are individual differences. And how does a .1%BAC actually drive? Is it normally bad enough to get noticed?

But as mentioned earlier, the impaired person isn’t necessarily able to objectively evaluate his/her level of impairment. I attended the Bombardier Safety Standdown in Wichita a few years ago, and one of the NTSB Board members gave a presentation. He said that in the “high powered environment” of government, etc, that he deals with, it’s not uncommon for someone to say, “I do just fine on 4 hours of sleep a night.” At which time the underlings standing behind silently shake their heads back and forth.
 
Last edited:
jbarrass said:
Statistics like this are entertaining.

So 6 hours of sleep a day makes you a .1%? That's pretty normal me thinks.
Click to expand...

Yes!

Not to get too technical but sleep "debt" is very interesting. It's cumulative and dissipates slowly, so getting 6 hours of sleep means roughly two hours of "debt", which hardly effects most people. But only sleeping six hours the next night causes the debt to increase to say, 3.5 hours of debt, and even 8 hours the following night still means you have a debt of, say, 3.0 hours and so forth over ensuing days. So with respect to performance, it's not the single night of sleep deprivation, it's some complex formula that's based on chronic sleep deprivation, and with only a few exceptions almost everyone requires 7 or 8 hours of sleep to maintain maximum mental acuity. Most people who claim to only "need" 5 hours of sleep per night are likely carrying a chronic sleep deficiency and have just adapted to it but that means that they have chronic fatigue. There are countless stories of people who developed an effective form of "sleep hygiene" and relate that their lives have been substantially improved. You'll find that most people who have been treated for sleep apnea will tell you the same thing, which reflects the same thing I'm describing above.

With respect to aviation and other activities I thoroughly believe that sleep debt is an important factor, but it's just hard to prove. There's good evidence that disasters like the Space Shuttle explosion, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Three Mile Island, the Chernoble nuclear disaster, and other accidents are strongly linked to fatigue in people making critical decisions. When you look at the events surrounding the Air France 447 crash into the Atlantic, there are plenty of good reasons to implicate fatigue when three highly experienced pilots stalled an airplane while cruising at 35,000 feet all the way into the ocean after encountering a transient loss of airspeed indication on the ASIs, which had fully resolved in plenty of time for the crew to correct the problem.
 
Velocity173 said:
Same way they determine speeding. Physical evidence and testimonial evidence.
Click to expand...
Hmmm.... There are a number of well-defined ways to establish speed, some of which can be readily accomplished after the fact (impact damage, video evidence, length of tire marks, witness' statements of relative speed between vehicles, collision recorder data, etc.).

Last I checked, unless you pull someone's mobile device records, the only way to determine distracted driving is to have a witness who happened to see the person looking down at a cellphone - or have an admission from the driver. It seems to me that the likelihood of citing "speed" as a provable factor is much higher than that of distracted driving.

I would also ask what counts as "speed" as being a factor. In a 70 mph zone, driving 15-20 mph over in heavy rain is almost certainly a causative factor. 2-5 MPH over in a 40 zone in clear, dry weather with little or no traffic? Technically yes it's speeding, but in reality it's irrelevant. The condition and type of the vehicle's tires matter more than the speed in this case - yet both will end up being listed as "speeding at time of collision".

Let me put this another way: When flying, the only "speed limit" that is truly a hard limit (outside of the airport pattern) is Vne, right? Everything else is dependent on the plane and conditions, not on some arbitrary limit assigned by a bureaucrat whose primary goal is to ensure the steady collection of revenue from traffic tickets.
 
kmacht said:
I'm certainly not one who supports the sovereign citizen thing but you may still want to question why the courts are setup so you must hire a lawyer at hundreds of dollars an hour to have any chance of winning a case. Anything outside small claims court it is almost impossible to represent yourself anymore so unless you can afford a lawyer you are screwed.
Click to expand...
I agree that it's a problem. I recently saw a video in which an attorney was applauding efforts in his state to legalize allowing someone like a paralegal to help people fill out legal forms in some situations. As an example, he went through the form for initiating a small claims case, showing how confusing it could be for a non-lawyer.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Hmmm.... There are a number of well-defined ways to establish speed, some of which can be readily accomplished after the fact (impact damage, video evidence, length of tire marks, witness' statements of relative speed between vehicles, collision recorder data, etc.).

Last I checked, unless you pull someone's mobile device records, the only way to determine distracted driving is to have a witness who happened to see the person looking down at a cellphone - or have an admission from the driver. It seems to me that the likelihood of citing "speed" as a provable factor is much higher than that of distracted driving.

I would also ask what counts as "speed" as being a factor. In a 70 mph zone, driving 15-20 mph over in heavy rain is almost certainly a causative factor. 2-5 MPH over in a 40 zone in clear, dry weather with little or no traffic? Technically yes it's speeding, but in reality it's irrelevant. The condition and type of the vehicle's tires matter more than the speed in this case - yet both will end up being listed as "speeding at time of collision".

Let me put this another way: When flying, the only "speed limit" that is truly a hard limit (outside of the airport pattern) is Vne, right? Everything else is dependent on the plane and conditions, not on some arbitrary limit assigned by a bureaucrat whose primary goal is to ensure the steady collection of revenue from traffic tickets.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you just cited specific examples of physical & testimonial evidence. I never said it’s necessarily an easy thing to determine. But there are ways.

Ways to Prove The At-Fault Driver Was Speeding

Proving a driver was at-fault by speeding is not simple and requires evidence. Learn how to prove speeding.
atlantaadvocate.com

And as far as speeding being exaggerated as the causal factor, I agree. The simple fact is though, American drivers can’t safely drive at a high rate of speed for a number of reasons. I drove in Germany for 4 years and there was rarely an accident. Their accident rates are a fraction of ours.

www.businessinsider.com

8 reasons that Germany’s Autobahn is so much better than US highways

The recommended speed limit of 81 MPH is higher than most speed limits in America.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
 
MauleSkinner said:
I think what I saw once is that 18 hours without sleep is the equivalent of .1% BAC.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced that a single number tells the whole story in that comparison. I don't doubt that sleep deprivation causes alertness and skills to deteriorate, but I find it hard to believe that it impairs judgment as badly as drunkenness does. For example, I suspect that it's easier for a sleep-deprived person to make the decision to not drive, or to stop and take a nap, than it is for a drunk to make appropriate decisions about whether to drive.
 
bobbylee123 said:
the difference is, if someone gets pulled over while driving, the cop saw with his own eyes that this person was driving with symptoms of being drunk. In this case, the cop does not have that.
Click to expand...
There were witnesses who can be called to testify.
 
Velocity173 said:
The simple fact is though, American drivers can’t safely drive at a high rate of speed for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...
I can't argue this at all. I raced formula cars for 17 years, and the more I learned, the more I became disgusted with the lack of driving capability on our streets.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I’m not convinced that a single number tells the whole story with regard to alcohol, either.
Click to expand...
It doesn't, but the reality is that every advanced society on the planet has put firm measurable limits on BAC. The law isn't about how badly you are impaired, but whether or not you are at a BAC that is likely to cause hazardous impairment.
 
Last edited:
bradg33 said:
Rephrased for you:

I'm certainly not one who supports the sovereign citizen thing but you may still want to question why the MEDICAL SYSTEM IS setup so you must hire a SURGEON at THOUSANDS of dollars an hour to have any chance of NOT KILLING YOURSELF PERFORMING YOUR OWN SURGERY. Anything outside A MINOR INJURY it is almost impossible to TREAT yourself anymore so unless you can afford a SURGEON you are screwed.
Click to expand...
Uhhh...do you really think that is an appropriate analogy? Not even close. Mankind did not create the complicated human body; mankind did create a complicated legal system. For the record I have greatly valued the service that attorneys have provided for me. The unethical ones give the profession a bad rep but there are scumsuckers in every profession.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Let me put this another way: When flying, the only "speed limit" that is truly a hard limit (outside of the airport pattern) is Vne, right? Everything else is dependent on the plane and conditions, not on some arbitrary limit assigned by a bureaucrat whose primary goal is to ensure the steady collection of revenue from traffic tickets.
Click to expand...
The ones I can think of off the top of my head are:
dependent on plane and conditions:
vne
Yellow arc, smooth air speeds
white arc, full flaps speeds

dependent on regulations:
250kt below 10,000 ft
200kt in controlled patterns

Is that it?
 
172andyou said:
The ones I can think of off the top of my head are:
dependent on plane and conditions:
vne
Yellow arc, smooth air speeds
white arc, full flaps speeds

dependent on regulations:
250kt below 10,000 ft
200kt in controlled patterns

Is that it?
Click to expand...

well, those "dependent on regulations" are derived from safety considerations, e.g., not mixing aircraft with vastly different speeds and helping the "see and avoid" process. So those aren't quite arbitrary.
 
172andyou said:
The ones I can think of off the top of my head are:
dependent on plane and conditions:
vne
Yellow arc, smooth air speeds
white arc, full flaps speeds

dependent on regulations:
250kt below 10,000 ft
200kt in controlled patterns

Is that it?
Click to expand...
Landing gear (or anything else moveable) speeds

200 kts below Class B
 
Tools said:
Why so hard on drunk driving? ANY distracted driving yields the same result. You text and drive… you NEVER drive again. And your career and life savings should be shot. We can tell DEFINITIVELY if you did with your smart car and smart phone. No need for accusers or witnesses… and it’s administrative, so no appeal. After all, driving is a privilege.
Click to expand...

What about posting on PoA while driving? I assume you come salt my crops, burn down my neighborhood, and outlaw my favorite color? (medium blue btw)
 
172andyou said:
dependent on regulations:
250kt below 10,000 ft
200kt in controlled patterns

Is that it?
Click to expand...
Well, this morning I flew a Cherokee. A 200kt "speed limit" may exist, but I'm not sure how it impacts most GA pilots; if the Cherokee ever sees that speed, it's not going to end well. It would be roughly equivalent to a 150mph "speed limit" on a US interstate, where most of the cars would never be able to achieve that speed anyway.

My point, though, is that pilots are expected to operate at speeds that are safe and appropriate for their aircraft, capabilities, and conditions. For cars on public roads, an arbitrary speed limit is set that has nothing to do with the capabilities of individual drivers or cars, much less for conditions. Thus, a statement that a particular incident is "speed related" may have little or no relation to the actual cause of the collision.

What's also interesting is that a number of studies have shown that the slowest drivers on the road are the most likely to be involved in a collision; the safest path is to minimize the speed differential between vehicles:

Crash–involvement rates decreased with increasing speeds up to 65 mi/h (105 km/h), then increased at higher speeds. Further, Solomon reported that the results of his study showed that "low speed drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents than relatively high speed drivers." Cirillo (1968) in a similar analysis of 2,000 vehicles involved in daytime crashes on interstate freeways confirmed Solomon's results, extending the U–shaped curve to interstate freeways, as illustrated in figure 1.
Click to expand...
1704929337611.png

The slower motorists go relative to the median speed, the more overtakings and potential inter–vehicle conflicts encountered. This is illustrated in figure 4, which compares the relative overtaking rates for a 100–km/h road with a standard deviation of 10 percent with the crash risk form various studies. Hauer claimed "the indiscriminate public crusade against speeding should be replaced by a balanced approach emphasizing the dangers of both fast and slow driving."
1704929556641.png

Figure 4. Crash involvement and overtaking rates relative to average rate and speed.
Click to expand...


suttoninsurance.com

Why Slow Driving Can Be Dangerous - Edward H. Sutton Insurance Agency

In any given day, on any roadway you can experience the slow driver. You know that driver that it is no hurry to get to their destination, not realizing that...
suttoninsurance.com suttoninsurance.com
Driving slower than the surrounding traffic is more likely to cause an accident than speeding, according to research.
Click to expand...

www.arnolditkin.com

Why Speed Matters: The Dangers of Driving Too Slowly

Find out why driving slowly can be just as dangerous as speeding.
www.arnolditkin.com
People drive slowly for various reasons. Unfortunately, these reasons are usually additional factors that will increase the likelihood of an accident.

Distracted Drivers​

Distracted drivers account for about one-third of traffic fatalities in the U.S. each year. They are perhaps most known for colliding with other vehicles or striking pedestrians when they veer out of their lane, run a red light, or fail to stop in time. However, these drivers might also drive too slowly, placing others at risk as a result.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top