Driving while tired...

[imax2268]

What does everyone think of this...good...bad...unfair...?

From what I understand...if you have been awake for more than 24 hours and you are driving(in NJ so far) and you cause an accident that has a fatality...you could face 10 years in jail and fines up to $150,000 dollars...
What if you are the fatality...?
What if your tired and someone else hits you that isn't...?

Here's more...

Maggie's Law...

[FlashHarry]

1. This was a huge deal in the UK last year.

Some guy fell asleep and killed someone on the motorway and was convicted for it, I think.

Personally, I think that if you're impaired--for any reason--you shouldn't drive.

[xJlM]

2. That's the best idea

An automobile can be a killing machine, and it requires your complete attention. I've driven as much as 20 hours before, but I always know when to admit I've had enough and pull over for a rest (a rest being not twenty minutes but at least four hours of sleep).

[Loyal]

3. I agree

I support the cell phone ban that we have in NY, also. It helps improve road safety.

[imax2268]

4. I agree...

when I drove across country from D.C. to Arizona...I limited myself to 12 hours of driving per day...with stops here and there to stretch and get something to eat and drink...

Do you think that this will go nationwide...?

[Loyal]

18. doubtful

n/t.

[trotsky]

5. I am guilty.

Drove 25 hours straight one time. Made a couple of stops, but not to sleep. I tried to, at a rest stop in Kentucky, but just didn't feel safe, so I pushed on.

Stupid. But I was young and stupid and in love (driving to meet her for the first time). I married her and now we've been together for 9 years, so it was worth it!

I think sleepy drivers should be punished just like drunk drivers. But it's a little harder to prove someone was sleepy rather than drunk. What kind of test can you do?

[neuvocat]

6. I did it once.

It was a long drive and I was hallucinating something fierce.

[imax2268]

8. LOL...

did you see the care bears...?

[eyesroll]

7. How do they prove this?

The article says you must either admit it, or they'd have to prove it. How? I guess they could use toll records or something, but if you just pulled an all-nighter in your dorm room or something, how could they tell?

It's a good idea in theory, but I don't know...

[imax2268]

9. That's why I was asking...

if it's unfair...how are they going to prove that you are driving while having sleep deprivation...what if you wake up in the morning after having only a few hours of sleep...

it will be interesting to see how this works out...

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

10. This is why you listen to the unions...

...when they demand work conditions. Do YOU want a sleepy driver of an 18-wheeler falling asleep while he's next to you?

[BQueen]

11. Penalties sound pretty stiff compared to

DUI with fatality (Vehicular Manslaughter here in OH - I think about a five year max fourth or fifth degree felony - haven't looked at it in a while)

I agree with basic tenet that ANY foreseeable impairment resulting in fatality should be dealt with to about the same degree as DUI. The problem here is demonstrating that the person has been awake more than 24 hours - without a statement/confession from the defendant, you're probably not going to make the case. When I was prosecuting, I NEVER went to trial if I had to depend on the defendant to supply an element of the offense (assuming no confession) - only Perry Mason gets those kind of breaks during trial.

Unfortunately, I did have misdemeanor Vehicular Manslaughter cases where the driver's actions resulted in the death of their own passenger (often their spouse), and they were heart-wrenching. But prosecutors can't apply the law piecemeal (well, those with ethics can't - as always, Asscrack is the exception).

As to not being at fault in the accident, the article has the state AG saying that exhaustion must be a "key factor" in causing the accident, although the specific language of the statute is not reported. IMHO, they're short-sighted to specify 24 hours, since they're setting a nearly impossible burden of proof absent a confession. If they stuck with a medical definition, it wouldn't matter the length of time without sleep (i.e., 23 hours without sleep could be prosecuted, and having had one hour of sleep in the past 24 wouldn't get round the law). Plus, they could rely on objective observations of cops and EMT personnel to assess the condition of the exhausted driver. As it is, if they can't determine from that condition the length of time the driver has been awake, it's not relevent at trial, even if they couldn't keep their eyes open during the interview.

I dunno, sounds like "feel-good" legislation to me...passed to placate someone and look good politically, but not expected to actually be enforced or have any real impact.

The interesting sidelight here is that the only people you would consistently be able to prosecute would be professional drivers who are required to keep logs of driving and resting periods - I know semi drivers must do this and that the logs are almost uniformly computerized now. I have no idea about limo drivers, taxi drivers, etc.

[imax2268]

12. good post...

:kick:

[BQueen]

13. Thanks, imax2268 - interesting issue...n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. FYI here's the UK case referred to earlier

http://www.guardian.co.uk/selby/story/0,7369,618570,00.html

It happened early in the morning, and the driver admitted he had had no sleep that night - he had been on the phone for 5 hours to a woman he had found on the internet (so they had phone records to prove that too). He went off the motorway, onto a train track, where his Land Rover derailed one train into the path of another. 10 people died, and 70 were injured. He got a sentence of 5 years. The charges were 'causing death by dangerous driving'. Surprisingly (to me, anyway) this only passed by a 10-2 majority verdict on the jury (allowed in the UK - I believe the US still need unanimity - is that right?)

[damnraddem]

14. Driving under such conditions is no better than DUI.

Yes, it's quite fair. What happens when someone who's not DUI hits someone who is?

But, OK, if you're the fatality, forget the 10 years in jail.

[imax2268]

15. yup...lol...

I think that the cell phone issue is going to be next...here in AZ you hear about so many accidents where people were on cell phones...

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. UK is about to outlaw driving while using cell phones

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3015610.stm

small fine at first (£30), and the same number of points on your licence as for (moderate) speeding (get caught 4 times in a certain number of years and you get banned from driving).

[Heddi]

19. I heard about a case a few years ago

There was this guy, who was a diagnosed Narcoleptic, who had problems with falling asleep behind the wheel in the past, who happened to fall asleep behind the wheel, hit a car, killing the passengers inside.

He went to trial, and was found NOT GUILTY.

Of this I say: BULLSHIT.

He was a diagnosed narcoleptic who was Rx'ed stimulant drugs. He chose not to take the drugs (poor decision number one)

He also had problems (self admitted) of falling asleep while driving in the past. Yet he chose to continue to drive when he knew he could fall asleep (poor decision number two)

These two 'poor decisions' caused the unnecessary death of innocent people.

this man CHOSE to drive impared. His imparement was narcolepsy which caused him to be more prone than non-narcoleptics to fall asleep while driving.

Now, for the record, I am semi-narcoleptic. It's actually called Idopathic Hypersomnia. The only difference between myself and a 'real' narcoleptic is that I don't fall asleep like *snap* that. I can fall asleep at any time, and immediately go into REM sleep, but I don't fear falling asleep during a conversation, or while I'm making dinner, or while sitting at a Dr's office. I'm just continuously tired all the time.

That being said, I'm on the same meds that a full-blown Narcoleptic would be on.

They can make you jittery, and they don't take away the 'sleepiness' as much as they take away the ABILITY to fall asleep.

I only take my meds when I go through a 'spell" which occurs about once every six months. I've never fallen asleep behind the wheel, and I don't drive when I'm tired.

I've known people who are NOT narcoleptic who see no problem with snoozing while driving.

It's no different than sipping some Jim Beam while driving, or doing a few lines off the steering wheel while driving.

Shit--in many states, if you're epileptic, or have certain other medical conditions, you must first get Dr's approval before they'll give you your drivers license, because your risk of having a seizure COULD affect your driving, and endanger not only yourself, but other people as well.

I don't know if there should be a 'limit' to how long you can stay awake before you're considered 'incapacatated' to drive---what about insomniacs, who can function perfectly well with little or no sleep for days at a time (and I'm not talking about insomniacs who are so sleep deprived that they cannot function).

I don't know if there's a clear line to be drawn, but I think if you have a predisposition to falling asleep while driving, or have a history of falling asleep while driving, and you STILL Choose to drive under those conditions, then yes, you should be penalized, and you should face vehicular manslaughter charges should you kill someone while dozing at the wheel.