Slashdot Mirror

By car insurance industry estimates, you will file a claim for a collision about once every 17.9 years... Over the course of a typical long, driving lifetime, you should have a total of three to four accidents.
from:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mo...

More than 25% of all car drivers were involved in car accidents in a five year period.
from:
http://www.lawcore.com/car-acc...

So, that's 25% of drivers during a 5 year interval or 100% of drivers 3-4x during entire lifetime. 10% seems good now...

Sue them? And watch as they use state sovereign immunity to brush you off?

I am not a lawyer. this is not legal advice but of course you can sue the Feds for unlawful arrest, and even win.

points out:

The majority of car accidents could be avoided if only the drivers would drive more responsibly. About 40% of car accident fatalities occur because of a drunken driver. About 30% of the car accident fatalities can be attributed to driving above the speed limits and 33% and above because of reckless driving that causes the car to go off the road and result in an accident.

According to them the number of road deaths is "in excess of 40 000", which is just sad.

Take care of the drunken drivine, speeding and recklessness and you can take off the foam bumpers.

But I tend to agree that your example is how the government would handle the situation, it breaks my heart...

In theory, consumers can be first in line assuming their complaint is a valid debt - like a service or good paid but not delivered.

You will find yourself in bigger trouble if you refuse then if you just take it? I'm sorry, but did you find that on a prosecutor's website or MADD?

If you refuse the test you are denying them evidence to use against you in a criminal proceeding. You will have to deal with the civil punishment from DMV (typically a suspended license for a period of time and some civil $$$ penalties) but you are denying the state evidence to use against you at a criminal proceeding.

In most states they can't force you to submit to a chemical test of any kind (breath, urine, blood) except for a few limited sets of circumstances (accident involving injury or death, you previously agreed to the breath test and now they want blood, etc, etc). Yes, you will lose your license for awhile, but they probably won't have enough evidence to convict you of drunk driving. Whereas if you had submitted to the test you will probably be convicted (criminal record) and lose your license anyway.

Refuse the test unless you are 100% proof-positive that you aren't intoxicated. This doesn't even mean 0.08. In many states they can hit you with lesser charges at 0.05.

America has some problems, but I don' think we're to the point yet where they can arrest you on "suspicion of drunk driving" then use that to "forcibly take a blood sample".

Yes, that is close to the reality.

In the case of drunk driving, most states have adopted the law that if you are driving a vehicle, you have then given consent to submit to the approved test to find out if you're driving under the influence of alcohol. When you are stopped and you're not sure of what your alcohol level is, you cannot refuse to take a breathalyzer test. As soon as you got your drivers license, you gave consent in advance to do this. If you refuse, you will find yourself in bigger trouble than you would have by submitting to the test. This implied consent is automatic in the case of anyone who drives a vehicle. From: http://www.lawcore.com/dui-dwi/what-is-implied-con sent.html.

So, you've agreed to it in advance by having a driver's license. You get to pick your poison in terms of what kind of test it is.

For example, according to this article based on USDOT data, fully 25% of all car accidents in the US are due to the cell phone distraction.

So, while you ar efree to feel concerned about anything you want (like a meteor from outer space hitting you right on the head), the fact are something else.