01-28-2003, 11:46 PM #26Originally posted by protomkv
DUI laws in this country are way too lenient. Just this week in New mexico there was a fatal accident. One driver had a revoked licence and several convictions for DUI, he was under the influence at the time of the accident.
Since we are on the subject. I did a little research, and shorten this to the relavent parts:
New Mexico State Code
66-5-39. Driving while license suspended or revoked; providing penalties.
Any person who drives a motor vehicle on any public highway of this state at a time when his privilege to do so is suspended or revoked... is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment for not less than four days or more than three hundred sixty-four days and there may be imposed in addition a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000)... If the person's privilege to drive was revoked for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs... that person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than seven consecutive days... and the fine and imprisonment shall not be suspended, deferred or taken under advisement.
Sound like the problem is not the law, its the courts, up to 1 year in jail is permited just for the suspended lic, nevermind the DUI half of things. How much time did this guy serve when his ticket was pulled? If your state has a three strikes or habitual offender law, they might also qualify under that.
There are plenty of laws out there that are just fine, the problem is that the courts are too lenient on criminals. Send the SOB to jail, let his sit for a year and consider what he/she did. If they come out and do it again, send them back, for longer this time.
Random drug and alcohol testing is carried out by Los Alamos County
03-03-2013, 01:25 AM #27
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
03-05-2013, 06:26 PM #28
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
We I usually find is that drivers with CDL licenses want it required. Those who do not already have it, think that it should not be required. I think with all the training we are now required to take to meet state regulations, adding a CDL to it is too much to ask.
03-06-2013, 03:48 PM #29
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Northeast Coast
I think requiring CDL's will not do much at all. The reason commercial drivers have a better record is not their CDL training, it's the mileage and experience they have. Having a CDL then driving less than 100 miles a year will not help our apparatus accident rates in my eyes, on top of costing a ton of money. Of course all FD's should already have a driver training program that ensures the drivers have proper training on each apparatus and their limitations and systems.
03-07-2013, 02:30 PM #30
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Pa Wilds
More going on here than meets the eye. I have held a CDL for over 20 years, and drove Over-The-Road for ten before retiring. Beginning last Spring, The State of Pennsylvania and the FHSA want to have EVERY commercial driver on a drug test schedule. This is not a problem for full time employees, since the employer is making enough from their services to pay for the costs of random drug testing. Since I am licensed as a CDL driver my part time employer (I may drive his equipment 10 to 20 times per year for a couple of hours each) is now expected to have me enrolled in a random drug testing program ($) from a "certified" provider, and then pay for the tests. I'm already paying a higher than everyone else rate for my license, I am subjected to a more stringent standard than other drivers, and thenext thing will be that the Fire company will need to join this service (random testing) to satisfy the Fed. & State requirements. Just another way to force a small employer into more expense.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)