I Was In Frankfort This Week.......

**BFritz** · 02-19-2011, 06:13 AM

When an important bill goes into the Kentucky Senate, they call in the big guns :rockon:

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/201...|FRONTPAGE

~~Hoot Gibson~~ · 02-19-2011, 06:56 AM

Will the offender pay the cost of installing the ignition device? If so, then I would support this bill. No way should taxpayers pay to install these devices for people convicted of DUIs, regardless of the offenders' economic status.

**Old School** · 02-19-2011, 06:12 PM

BFritz Wrote:When an important bill goes into the Kentucky Senate, they call in the big guns :rockon:

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/201...|FRONTPAGE

You're the man Fritz. :Thumbs:

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Will the offender pay the cost of installing the ignition device? If so, then I would support this bill. No way should taxpayers pay to install these devices for people convicted of DUIs, regardless of the offenders' economic status.

There's no money left to pay for this type of system. The offender would/should have to pay for it.

The article noted that in 2009, 203 people were killed and another 2653 were injuried by drunk driving crashes and very few if any new laws were inacted to reduce this number. While the nations mining industry had 41 underground mining related deaths and 1779 work related injuries in 2010 and they're trying to rewrite minings entire Code of Federal Regulations.

**Benchwarmer** · 02-19-2011, 07:24 PM

Old School Wrote:You're the man Fritz. :Thumbs:

There's no money left to pay for this type of system. The offender would/should have to pay for it.

The article noted that in 2009, 203 people were killed and another 2653 were injuried by drunk driving crashes and very few if any new laws were inacted to reduce this number. While the nations mining industry had 41 underground mining related deaths and 1779 work related injuries in 2010 and they're trying to rewrite minings entire Code of Federal Regulations.

Frankfort could care less about Innocent drivers on the road?

~~Hoot Gibson~~ · 02-19-2011, 07:31 PM

Benchwarmer Wrote:Frankfort could care less about Innocent drivers on the road?

If convicted drunk drivers cannot afford a device to keep them off the road while intoxicated, then they don't need to be on the road at all. They need to pay for their own mistakes.

**vundy33** · 02-19-2011, 08:11 PM

I agree with you Hoot.

***Wildcatk23*** · 02-19-2011, 11:44 PM

Old School Wrote:You're the man Fritz. :Thumbs:

There's no money left to pay for this type of system. The offender would/should have to pay for it.

The article noted that in 2009, 203 people were killed and another 2653 were injuried by drunk driving crashes and very few if any new laws were inacted to reduce this number. While the nations mining industry had 41 underground mining related deaths and 1779 work related injuries in 2010 and they're trying to rewrite minings entire Code of Federal Regulations.

I dont agree with what their doing to the mines. But comparing the amout of drivers and coal miners is a little off isn;t it?

**Old School** · 02-20-2011, 09:10 AM

Wildcatk23 Wrote:I dont agree with what their doing to the mines. But comparing the amout of drivers and coal miners is a little off isn;t it?

Isn't it all about safety?

The public (mainly anti-coal groups) always complains about the lack of safety measures in the mines. While government officals want to change safety laws after every major mining accident.

MADD and a small group of politicians are about the only ones pushing for stronger laws for drunk driving. The law Fritz is working with did not pass last year. Will it pass this year? Who knows?

Shouldn't law makers be more concerned with the higher fatalities (203 -drunk driving) and passing laws to reduce them. The 203 deaths is only in the state of Kentucky, there were 10,839 deaths nation wide, where as 41 died in the nations underground coal mines.

Is comparing the two off? No, I don't think so.

***Wildcatk23*** · 02-20-2011, 02:02 PM

Old School Wrote:Isn't it all about safety?

The public (mainly anti-coal groups) always complains about the lack of safety measures in the mines. While government officals want to change safety laws after every major mining accident.

MADD and a small group of politicians are about the only ones pushing for stronger laws for drunk driving. The law Fritz is working with did not pass last year. Will it pass this year? Who knows?

Shouldn't law makers be more concerned with the higher fatalities (203 -drunk driving) and passing laws to reduce them. The 203 deaths is only in the state of Kentucky, there were 10,839 deaths nation wide, where as 41 died in the nations underground coal mines.

Is comparing the two off? No, I don't think so.

Believe me i am all for changing the DUI laws, And adding this law would maybe help? Wouldnt they just drive someone else's car? Or find away around it?

All im saying is the numbers of drivers compared to number of coal miners is a huge difference. It doesn't make a difference, but just a huge margin.

**vundy33** · 02-20-2011, 06:24 PM

Wildcatk23 Wrote:Believe me i am all for changing the DUI laws, And adding this law would maybe help? Wouldnt they just drive someone else's car? Or find away around it?

All im saying is the numbers of drivers compared to number of coal miners is a huge difference. It doesn't make a difference, but just a huge margin.

:please:

3wishes · 03-02-2011, 04:39 PM

What keeps them from having someone else blow into the device or like another poster said drive someone else's car.

Not all DUI cases are alcohol related and the majority of them are drug related. Not sure how you can monitor drug use through a blowing device.

I'm also not sure who is pressing this idea, but I don't think it would help any.
I'd be willing to bet the ones pressing for this either are or have support from groups that are private companies that come in and install the device at a per day price, much like the ankle monitor companies at local jails where you pay per day for freedom.

Bolt · 04-16-2011, 03:52 AM

How about this.....Drive Drunk, your liscense is gone....FOREVER.
Maybe that will change the minds of some thinking about it and also keep drunks off the road. As long as you blow over the legal limit, youre done.
It would solve things quickly IMO.
I aslo think it should be a zero tolerance for drugs as well.

Bolt · 04-16-2011, 03:54 AM

3wishes Wrote:What keeps them from having someone else blow into the device or like another poster said drive someone else's car.

Not all DUI cases are alcohol related and the majority of them are drug related. Not sure how you can monitor drug use through a blowing device.

I'm also not sure who is pressing this idea, but I don't think it would help any.
I'd be willing to bet the ones pressing for this either are or have support from groups that are private companies that come in and install the device at a per day price, much like the ankle monitor companies at local jails where you pay per day for freedom.

There actually working on and are almost done completing a new device that will do just that.
Id say it will mean jail time for a lot more people.

**BFritz** · 04-17-2011, 11:51 PM

3wishes Wrote:What keeps them from having someone else blow into the device or like another poster said drive someone else's car.

Not all DUI cases are alcohol related and the majority of them are drug related. Not sure how you can monitor drug use through a blowing device.

I'm also not sure who is pressing this idea, but I don't think it would help any.
I'd be willing to bet the ones pressing for this either are or have support from groups that are private companies that come in and install the device at a per day price, much like the ankle monitor companies at local jails where you pay per day for freedom.

They have to keep blowing in it in intervals while driving, so they couldn't have someone else do it (I worried about it, too).