Drunk Driving laws

Good  laws,  active  enforcement,  and  effective  punishment-  Good  laws  that  are  strongly  supported  and  enforced  with  meaningful  penalties  decrease  drunk  driving. Three  other  strategies  support  this  policy. Public  education  updates  drivers,  especially  young  drivers,  about  alcohol  and  drunken  driving  subjects. Alcohol  dealing  is  important  for  problem  drinkers. Alcohol  control  measures  such  as  minimum  legal  drinking  ages  and  alcohol  server  training  help  diminish  drinking  in  situations  that  may  lead  to  drunk  driving.

With  tough  laws,  enforcement,  and  punishment  at  the  center,  these  strategies  support  and  endorse  a  community  standard  that  drunk  driving  is  not  tolerable. A  strong  system  that  affects  everyone-  Drunken  driving  laws  and  enforcement  should  send  a  message:  drunk  driving  is  not  tolerable. A  strong  drunk  driving  control  structure  increases  both  the  public  sensitivity  and  the  truth  that  drunk  drivers  will  be  often  detected,  arrested,  convicted,  and  punished. The  STOP-DWI  Program:- STOP-DWI  means  “Special  Traffic  Options  Program  for  Driving  While  Intoxicated”.

It  was  invented  by  the  State  Legislature  in  1981  for  the  reasons  of  authorizing  counties  to coordinate  local  efforts  to  decrease  alcohol  and  other  drug-related  traffic  crashes  within  the  milieu  of  an  inclusive  and  financially  self-sustaining  statewide  highway  safety  program. The  STOP-DWI  legislation  allows  each  of  the  State’s  62  counties  to  launch  a  county  STOP-DWI  Program  which  will  qualify  the  county  for  the  return  of  all  penalties  collected  for  alcohol  and  other  drug-related  traffic  offenses  occurring  within  its  authority.

Each  county  is  given  broad  judgment  in  the  direction  of  its  program. The  local  option  concept  set  forward  by  the  Legislature  just  requires  that  the  programs  address  alcohol  and  highway  safety  questions  and  be  non-duplicative  of  related  enduring  labors. The  strategy  includes  several  serious  elements: •  Punish  all  offenders  with  unswerving  and  convinced  sanctions  and  increase  the  severity  for  second  and  subsequent  offenses. •  Evaluate  all  offenders  for  alcohol  problems  and  assign  healing  as  appropriate.

•  Control  offenders  so  that  assigned  sanctions,  healing,  and  other  court-ordered Requirements  are  completed  suitably. •  Maintain  good  records  so  repeat  offenders  are  identified  precisely  and  apply  more  penalties  on  them. •  Establish  performance  measures  for  state  drunk  driving  enforcement  and  negotiation. •  Establish  schemes  by  which  states  can  support  each  other  in  assessing  their  drunken  driving  laws  or  court  procedures. •  Establish  a  clearinghouse  for  standards  and  enhancements  in  state  records  systems.

“Rhode  Island  has  the  deplorable  distinction  of  being  ranked  first  in  the  nation  in  the  percentage  of  highway  fatalities  related  to  alcohol. ”  In  the  past  year,  Rhode  Islanders  have  been  bombarded  with  anecdotes  and  statistics  about  the  unusually  solemn  nature  of  drunk  driving  in  the  state  as  compared  to  other  states. We  are  also  notified  about  “loopholes”  in  the  state’s  drunken  driving  laws  that  permit  drunk  drivers  to  getaway  punishment,  or  at  least  to  be  treated  much  more  mildly  than  in  other  states.

These  stories  inevitably  prompt  concerned  statements  from  local  officials,  and  fresh  calls  for  tough  legislation  to  address  the  problem. Among  the  most  important  are  proposals  to  criminalize  sanctions  for  breathalyzer  refusals,  to  authorize  roadblocks  for  random  alcohol  checks,  and  to  allow  police  to  obtain  warrants  to  compulsorily  haul  out  bodily  fluids  from  alleged  drivers  for  chemical  testing.

Rhode  Island’s  below-average  alcohol  fatality  records  are  not  now  a  recent  happenstance. That  study  shows  that  Rhode  Island’s  overall  fatality  rate  was  lower  than  the  national  average  every  year  between  1982  and  2002,  and  –  even  more  to  the  point  –  its  alcohol-related  fatality  rate  surpassed  the  national  common  only  once  during  those  two  decades.