# Reminder for all mass drivers



## skiNEwhere (Sep 4, 2010)

Didn't even know about this until I went to check my fastlane statement

MassDOT Reminder: Safe Driving Law

Governor Deval Patrick in July signed legislation that bans text-messaging for all Massachusetts drivers, prohibits junior operators from using cell phones and institutes new license renewal procedures for mature drivers, among other provisions.
The Safe Driving Law becomes effective in Massachusetts on *September 30, 2010*. The law creates a series of new violations, which the RMV Division, MassDOT IT staff and the Merit Rating Board are working to program and implement.

These new violations include:

1.     Use of a Mobile Phone by a Junior Operator- Civil Offense- No insurance surcharge

(Reporting an emergency is the only exception. Drivers are encouraged to pull over and stop the vehicle to report the emergency.)
•    1st offense-$100 assessment    60-day license suspension and attitudinal course
•    2nd offense-$250 assessment    180-day suspension
•    3rd or subsequent offense-$500 assessment  1-year suspension
•    $100 reinstatement fee for any suspension
•    Knowledge and road test required for reinstatement

2.     Use of a Mobile Phone by a Public Transport Motor Vehicle Operator- Civil Offense-No insurance surcharge

•    $500 assessment each offense

3.     Use of a Mobile Phone by a Public Transport Non-Motor Vehicle Operator- Civil Offense-No insurance surcharge (MBTA Trolley)

•    $500 assessment each violation

4.     Improper Use of a Mobile Phone by Operators 18 and Over- Civil Offense-No insurance surcharge (One hand must be on the steering wheel at all times and no use of device can interfere with driving)

•    1st offense-$35 assessment
•    2nd offense in 12 months-$75 assessment
•    3rd offense in 12 months-$150 assessment

5.     Sending/Reading Text Messages- Civil Offense-No insurance surcharge

(Operators cannot use any mobile electronic device to write, send, or read an electronic message including text messages, emails, instant messages or accessing the internet while operating a vehicle. Mobile electronic device includes mobile telephone, text messaging device, paging device, PDA, laptop computer, electronic equipment capable of playing video games or video disks or can take/transmit digital photographs or can receive a television broadcast. Mobile Device does not include any equipment permanently or temporarily installed to provide     navigation, emergency assistance or rear seat video entertainment. Law applies even if the vehicle is stopped in traffic.)
•    1st offense-$100 assessment   
•    2nd offense-$250 assessment   
•    3rd or subsequent offense-$500 assessment

6.     Negligent Operation & Injury from Mobile Phone Use- Criminal Offense- Insurance surcharge   

JOL Suspensions
•    1st offense-180-day suspension
•    2nd or subsequent offense within 3 years-1 year suspension
•    $100 reinstatement fee

Over-18 suspensions
•    1st offense-60-day suspension
•    2nd or subsequent offense within 3 years-1 year suspension
•    $100 reinstatement fee

Elder Driving Provisions

License applicants, either for initial licensure in Massachusetts or license renewal, age 75 and older must conduct the transaction in a RMV office. Use of the Internet for license renewals will no longer be allowed for these applicants. All applicants, regardless of age, that obtain or renew a license in a branch office are required to undergo a vision test or provide a vision screening certificate to complete the transaction.

Medical Fitness Reporting

Health care providers and law enforcement may report operators believed not to be physically or mentally capable of safely operating due to cognitive or functional impairment
•    May request RMV to seek medical evaluation of operator
•    Requests can’t be based on operator age or solely on diagnosis of condition or impairment-must be on the effect either has on ability to drive
•    Good faith belief of impairment based on-
o    Personal observation
o    Physical evidence
o    Law enforcement investigation

I didn't know they passed the elder bill, guess i've been on the moon, so much for age discrimination?


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 4, 2010)

I doubt many folks will be against texting while driving but I am AMAZED that the politicians of MA got their act together, put their own careers in jeopardy, and passed the elder driver law. I hope they are tough on it, too. That might save more accidents than the texting bill.


----------



## WakeboardMom (Sep 7, 2010)

I had a conversation about this just yesterday, but the gentleman in question is a NH resident.  His doctor put into his medical records that he should NOT be driving.  Because of HIPAA regulations, however, this information can't be forwarded to anyone in the DMV.  The issue has to be handled by family members.  Perhaps if this goes well in MA, it will be considered by NH.


----------



## Geoff (Sep 7, 2010)

WakeboardMom said:


> I had a conversation about this just yesterday, but the gentleman in question is a NH resident.  His doctor put into his medical records that he should NOT be driving.  Because of HIPAA regulations, however, this information can't be forwarded to anyone in the DMV.  The issue has to be handled by family members.  Perhaps if this goes well in MA, it will be considered by NH.



No physician is going to screw with HIPAA by releasing any medical information to the DMV.   The fines and jail time can be $1.5 million and 10 years.   Anybody who got ratted out could also turn around and file a civil suit.  Malpractice insurance doesn't cover willful disregard of the law.


----------



## billski (Sep 7, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> I hope they are tough on it, too.


 Unlikely IMHO.  It will most likely be handled the way seat-belt law is; You won't be stopped/checked, but if there is another incident or violation, the charge may be added.  That's too bad because it will only be enforced when an accident occurs.


----------



## hammer (Sep 7, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> I doubt many folks will be against texting while driving but I am AMAZED that the politicians of MA got their act together, put their own careers in jeopardy, and passed the elder driver law. I hope they are tough on it, too. That might save more accidents than the texting bill.


Last time I went to RMV to renew my license there was an elderly lady in front who did not appear to have the mental capability to drive (yes it was obvious).  Fortunately, she failed the eye test.


----------



## billski (Sep 7, 2010)

hammer said:


> Last time I went to RMV to renew my license there was an elderly lady in front who did not appear to have the mental capability to drive (yes it was obvious).



I've met a few teens like that


----------



## hammer (Sep 7, 2010)

billski said:


> I've met a few teens like that


I've instructed a teen like that...:roll:


----------



## Geoff (Sep 7, 2010)

billski said:


> Unlikely IMHO.  It will most likely be handled the way seat-belt law is; You won't be stopped/checked, but if there is another incident or violation, the charge may be added.  That's too bad because it will only be enforced when an accident occurs.



The difference is that people driving while distracted tend to weave around.   If a cop sees somebody who can't keep it between the lines, he can pull them over.   There is already adequate law to write them a ticket.   The cop could pile on by heaping a cell phone violation on top of the other laws being broken.

I don't think this particular law will ever be enforcable in court.   There is no way to prove that you were texting on your cell phone unless they confiscate your phone or get a court order to get your cellular provider to release all of your call detail records.   Nobody is going to do that for a routine traffic citation.


----------



## billski (Sep 7, 2010)

Geoff said:


> The difference is that people driving while distracted tend to weave around.   If a cop sees somebody who can't keep it between the lines, he can pull them over.   There is already adequate law to write them a ticket.   The cop could pile on by heaping a cell phone violation on top of the other laws being broken.
> 
> I don't think this particular law will ever be enforcable in court.   There is no way to prove that you were texting on your cell phone unless they confiscate your phone or get a court order to get your cellular provider to release all of your call detail records.   Nobody is going to do that for a routine traffic citation.



Reminds me of the people who get tagged for flashing their lights to warn of speed trap up ahead. 
"I'm giving you a ticket for defective lights"
"But officer, my lights are fine"
"OK, if that's true I'll give you a summons for interfering with law enforcement, which is a much higher penalty."

(or cite you for having emergency vehicle lighting which allows flashing.)


----------



## NYDrew (Sep 7, 2010)

but I have emergency vehicle lights meant for flashing.


----------



## tarponhead (Sep 7, 2010)

skiNEwhere said:


> Elder Driving Provisions
> 
> License applicants, either for initial licensure in Massachusetts or license renewal, age 75 and older must conduct the transaction in a RMV office. Use of the Internet for license renewals will no longer be allowed for these applicants. All applicants, regardless of age, that obtain or renew a license in a branch office are required to undergo a vision test or provide a vision screening certificate to complete the transaction.



At First She Didn’t Succeed, but She Tried and Tried Again (960 Times)
By CHOE SANG-HUN
Published: September 3, 2010
RECOMMEND
TWITTER
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE PAGE
REPRINTS
SHARE

SINCHON, South Korea
Enlarge This Image

Choe Sang-Hun/The New York Times
Cha Sa-soon, with her new car.
A PERSON could know South Korea for a long time without knowing Wanju, an obscure county 112 miles south of Seoul. And, at least until recently, a person could know a lot about Wanju without ever hearing of Cha Sa-soon, a 69-year-old woman who lives alone in the mountain-ringed village of Sinchon.

Now, however, Ms. Cha is an unlikely national celebrity.

This diminutive woman, now known nationwide as “Grandma Cha Sa-soon,” has achieved a record that causes people here to first shake their heads with astonishment and then smile: She failed her driver’s test hundreds of times but never gave up. Finally, she got her license — on her 960th try.

For three years starting in April 2005, she took the test once a day five days a week. After that, her pace slowed, to about twice a week. But she never quit.

Hers is a fame based not only on sheer doggedness, a quality held in high esteem by Koreans, but also on the universal human sympathy for a monumental — and in her case, cheerful — loser.

“When she finally got her license, we all went out in cheers and hugged her, giving her flowers,” said Park Su-yeon, an instructor at Jeonbuk Driving School, which Ms. Cha once attended. “It felt like a huge burden falling off our back. We didn’t have the guts to tell her to quit because she kept showing up.”

Of course, Ms. Park and another driving teacher noted, perhaps Ms. Cha should content herself with simply getting the license and not endangering others on the road by actually driving. But they were not too worried about the risk, they said, because it was the written test, not the driving skill and road tests, that she failed so many times.

WHEN word began spreading last year of the woman who was still taking the test after failing it more than 700 times, reporters traced her to Sinchon, where the bus, the only means of public transportation, comes by once every two hours on a street so narrow it has to pull over to let other vehicles pass.

They followed her to the test site in the city of Jeonju, an hour away. There, they also videotaped her in the market, where she sells her home-grown vegetables at an open-air stall.

Once she finally got her license, in May, Hyundai-Kia Automotive Group, South Korea’s leading carmaker, started an online campaign asking people to post messages of congratulations. Thousands poured in. In early August, Hyundai presented Ms. Cha with a $16,800 car.


----------



## ctenidae (Sep 7, 2010)

I think I was behind her at the toll booth yesterday.


----------



## Glenn (Sep 8, 2010)

Geoff said:


> The difference is that people driving while distracted tend to weave around.   If a cop sees somebody who can't keep it between the lines, he can pull them over.   There is already adequate law to write them a ticket.   The cop could pile on by heaping a cell phone violation on top of the other laws being broken.
> 
> I don't think this particular law will ever be enforcable in court.   There is no way to prove that you were texting on your cell phone unless they confiscate your phone or get a court order to get your cellular provider to release all of your call detail records.   Nobody is going to do that for a routine traffic citation.



We've had the law here in CT for quite some time. I beleive if you show a receipt for buying a "hands free" device, they'll waive the fine or nix the offense; provided it's your first cell phone ticket. Now you know why the cell carriers lobbied hard for this one. 

I can't say the road is any safer than it was before. IMHO, this law is just another revenue generator for states and towns. People still do other stupid sh_t behind the wheel...shave, eat, read the paper...I've seen it all...most of it at least. And I still see just as many people as before talking on their phones. Oh, and cops are exempt from the law....An interesting way to set an example. They'll pull you over for a ticket...once they get off their cellphone. It's almost like they're drinking a 6 pack...while keeping the road safe from drunk drivers. 

And regarding the other point...how will they show that you're texting? I listen to interweb radio when I drive. I pick up the phone to skip a song or mark one as a favorite. How can they tell between that an texting?


----------



## Geoff (Sep 8, 2010)

Glenn said:


> And regarding the other point...how will they show that you're texting? I listen to interweb radio when I drive. I pick up the phone to skip a song or mark one as a favorite. How can they tell between that an texting?



I read the Vermont statute carefully since that is where I constantly run the police gauntlet.   In Massholia, the police have more important things to do.   The Bridgewater sheriff and the Vermont State Police on the Killington Access Road will be using this statute to pull in an extra $100.00.   I don't need the 2 points on my license.



			
				Vermont Texting Statute said:
			
		

> Sec. 2. 23 V.S.A. § 1099 is added to read:
> § 1099. TEXTING PROHIBITED
> (a) As used in this section, “texting” means the reading or the manual
> composing or sending of electronic communications including text messages,
> ...



In Vermont, diddling with Pandora streaming audio could be construed by some traffic court judge as "electronic communications" if you use the broadest possible definition of the term rather than the narrow email & text message definition of "electronic communications".   You're reading something on your portable electronic device that has been transmitted electronically and it has nothing to do with GPS or Nav.   Doing something with Google Maps is definitely use of GPS or a Nav system.   My take-away is to always have my Blackberry on Google Maps when I'm in Vermont.   If I feel the need to post on AlpineZone or read an email, I'll just put it back to Google Maps when I'm done.


----------



## Glenn (Sep 8, 2010)

There's some silly irony here Geoff. You could get whacked with a fine for hitting one button to advance the song on your phone. However, you can keep driving along, futzing witht the nav, checking the weather...or try to toggle the HVAC controls on the screen built into your dash.


----------



## mondeo (Sep 8, 2010)

Glenn said:


> There's some silly irony here Geoff. You could get whacked with a fine for hitting one button to advance the song on your phone. However, you can keep driving along, futzing witht the nav, checking the weather...or try to toggle the HVAC controls on the screen built into your dash.


These laws, by default, don't make sense. You can't read a text message but can read a book. (Outside the distracted driving law, which would cover the text messaging anyways.) Can't pick up a phone to say, "I'll be there in 10 minutes. Bye," but can have an in depth, heated technical discussion for an hour as long as it's a handsfree setup. No irony, just lawmakers feeling the need to appear safety-concious.


----------



## Glenn (Sep 8, 2010)

mondeo said:


> These laws, by default, don't make sense. You can't read a text message but can read a book. (Outside the distracted driving law, which would cover the text messaging anyways.) Can't pick up a phone to say, "I'll be there in 10 minutes. Bye," but can have an in depth, heated technical discussion for an hour as long as it's a handsfree setup. No irony, just lawmakers feeling the need to appear safety-concious.



Sad, but true.


----------



## ctenidae (Sep 8, 2010)

Holding the phone, on speaker, in front of your face while talking into it does NOT qualify as "hands free."

Just sayin'.


----------



## Geoff (Sep 8, 2010)

ctenidae said:


> Holding the phone, on speaker, in front of your face while talking into it does NOT qualify as "hands free."
> 
> Just sayin'.



Is texting while steering with your knee "hands free"?


----------



## hammer (Sep 8, 2010)

Geoff said:


> Is texting while steering with your knee "hands free"?


Yes...hands free driving...:razz:


----------



## 2knees (Sep 8, 2010)

mondeo said:


> These laws, by default, don't make sense. You can't read a text message but can read a book. (Outside the distracted driving law, which would cover the text messaging anyways.) Can't pick up a phone to say, "I'll be there in 10 minutes. Bye," but can have an in depth, heated technical discussion for an hour as long as it's a handsfree setup. No irony, just lawmakers feeling the need to appear safety-concious.




or could it be that they can't draft a law that would cover every possible idiotic thing someone could do while driving and went after the biggest specific issue there is.

i dont understand the problem.  it almost sounds like some of you think texting while driving is no big deal.


----------



## bvibert (Sep 8, 2010)

2knees said:


> it almost sounds like some of you think texting while driving is no big deal.



It isn't a big deal, is it?? :dunce:


----------



## 2knees (Sep 8, 2010)

bvibert said:


> It isn't a big deal, is it?? :dunce:



guess it isnt.  neither is plowing through a handle of vodka and taking a spin around the block.


----------



## o3jeff (Sep 8, 2010)

I have speak to text on my phone, make it pretty easy.


----------



## bvibert (Sep 8, 2010)

2knees said:


> guess it isnt.  neither is plowing through a handle of vodka and taking a spin around the block.



What are you trying to say?  I always make sure I finish the handle before driving home... it's too hard to text while holding the bottle... :roll:

























For those that think I'm serious...


----------



## 2knees (Sep 8, 2010)

bvibert said:


> What are you trying to say?  I always make sure I finish the handle before driving home... it's too hard to text while holding the bottle... :roll:




Nice!

I'm still hot cause some wench almost went straight through about 8 kids in the crosswalk this morning.  if it wasnt for her abs, she would've locked them up and probably nailed a few kids.  she was still holding the crackberry in her left hand when i walked up to her window to ask her what the f^&k she was thinking.


----------



## ctenidae (Sep 8, 2010)

bvibert said:


> What are you trying to say?  I always make sure I finish the handle before driving home... it's too hard to text while holding the bottle... :roll:



I find that a couple extra cans of Red Bull in the center console are useful for rinsing the last bits of goodness out of the handle. ut it's really hard to pour them through the built-in pourspout while driving. If your passengers aren't passed out yet, it elps to have them hold the wheel.


What?


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 8, 2010)

2knees said:


> she was still holding the crackberry in her left hand when i walked up to her window to ask her what the f^&k she was thinking.



Did she have an answer?


----------



## bvibert (Sep 8, 2010)

2knees said:


> I'm still hot cause some wench almost went straight through about 8 kids in the crosswalk this morning.  if it wasnt for her abs, she would've locked them up and probably nailed a few kids.  she was still holding the crackberry in her left hand when i walked up to her window to ask her what the f^&k she was thinking.



That sounds pretty effed up.  glad to hear no one was hurt!


----------



## WakeboardMom (Sep 8, 2010)

2knees said:


> I'm still hot cause some wench almost went straight through about 8 kids in the crosswalk this morning.  if it wasnt for her abs, she would've locked them up and probably nailed a few kids.  she was still holding the crackberry in her left hand when i walked up to her window to ask her what the f^&k she was thinking.





wa-loaf said:


> Did she have an answer?



I was wondering the same thing?!?  Did she at least have the decency to be embarrassed?


----------



## 2knees (Sep 8, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> Did she have an answer?





bvibert said:


> That sounds pretty effed up.  glad to hear no one was hurt!





WakeboardMom said:


> I was wondering the same thing?!?  Did she at least have the decency to be embarrassed?



nothing.  she just stared straight ahead.


----------



## Geoff (Sep 8, 2010)

WakeboardMom said:


> I was wondering the same thing?!?  Did she at least have the decency to be embarrassed?



Meh.  Typical woman driver.   Men have no problem texting while driving.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 8, 2010)

I wouldn't be surprised to someday see bluetooth technology that disables hand held devices when cars are put in drive.

I know the argument and a valid one will be made about passengers using their phones, but given the severity of the problem over reaching laws are to be expected. 

At the very least we need to be a little less nanny like and be frank with people about the dangers.

I posted this a long while ago.  It's quite graphic and disturbing.  But, I think such PSAs are affective


----------



## mondeo (Sep 8, 2010)

o3jeff said:


> I have speak to text on my phone, make it pretty easy.


 Pretty easy to commit both crimes at once?

The problem isn't non-hands free cell phone use, or texting, it's distracted driving. Holding a phone isn't that big a tax on the brain. It's the phone call itself that is. Reading a text message is one of the most benign things you can do while driving, I don't text (and I let anyone that texts me know they just cost me 20 cents,) but I'd be less distracted reading a 140 character message than just driving home after a stressful day.

What it really comes down to is selective law enforcement. It's extremely easy to spot distracted drivers. How? They're not following any of the other driving laws. They don't keep right except to pass. They tailgate. Don't travel the correct speed, or have random changes in speed. Unsafe lane change maneuvers. etc. If legislators/law enforcement agencies decided to nail people for all that stuff, and treated the enforcement of driving laws as a public good rather a revenue stream, distracted driving itself due to any cause would actually be affected. If you make texting illegal, the people that would have texted are still going to be programming nav systems in heavy traffic, throwing themselves into conversations on their legal hands-free systems or with passengers, fiddling with their iPod, drinking coffee, whatever. If you make it about a culture of paying attention to the frakking road while you're behind the wheel, you're actually addressing the root of the problem.

For the record, I consider both texting and talking on the phone while driving to be 98% moronic practices. But to me it's a mid-process symptom, not a cause.


----------



## ctenidae (Sep 8, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> I wouldn't be surprised to someday see bluetooth technology that disables hand held devices when cars are put in drive.



Several years ago, some restaurants and theaters were installing cell phone jammers that killed the signal to phones. A brilliant idea, I think. Unfortunately, illegal, as they violate Part 15 of FCC rules, and a raft of other laws.I have often thought of building one for my car, limited to, say, a 100 yard radius, so I could just zip through traffic dropping calls left and right. An instant-on, EMP burst type device would be great, especially for those times wihr the moron with a phone up their nose is sitting at a green light.


Coupled with, I think, a harpoon gun. For effect, you know.


/I grinned at the mental image of firing a harpoon thorugh a car at a stop light, I hope you did, too.


----------



## mondeo (Sep 8, 2010)

ctenidae said:


> Coupled with, I think, a harpoon. For effect, you know.


Given that it's a land target, I'd think the SLAMing them would be more effective, though equally as hard to package in a car. A TOW truck would seem to be more plausible.

</double entendre>


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 8, 2010)

ctenidae said:


> Several years ago, some restaurants and theaters were installing cell phone jammers that killed the signal to phones. A brilliant idea, I think. Unfortunately, illegal, as they violate Part 15 of FCC rules, and a raft of other laws.



It's a private business.  Why wouldn't they be allowed to take what ever measures necessary to prohibit the use of a cell phone?


----------



## mondeo (Sep 8, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> It's a private business. Why wouldn't they be allowed to take what ever measures necessary to prohibit the use of a cell phone?


FCC has the right to regulate all radio frequency *transmissiting* devices. Just because it's private doesn't give you free reign on the property.


----------



## Geoff (Sep 8, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> It's a private business.  Why wouldn't they be allowed to take what ever measures necessary to prohibit the use of a cell phone?




It's illegal to broadcast on a licensed frequency.   The cell phone companies pay billions for that spectrum.

What you can legally do in a restaurant is encapsulate it in a Faraday cage so cell phones don't work.   A tin ceiling.   Metal mesh in the walls behind the sheet rock.   Metallic window tint.  Tie everything to a copper rod pounded into the ground.

You can buy cell phone jammers.   You just aren't supposed to operate them.


----------



## AMAC2233 (Sep 8, 2010)

Thank you for posting that video. It completely changed my outlook on distracted driving.


----------



## Black Phantom (Sep 9, 2010)

2knees said:


> Nice!
> 
> I'm still hot cause some wench almost went straight through about 8 kids in the crosswalk this morning.  if it wasnt for her abs, she would've locked them up and probably nailed a few kids.  she was still holding the crackberry in her left hand when i walked up to her window to ask her what the f^&k she was thinking.



This is not very uncommon. Distracted driving is far too pervasive. This example isn't any better...*

Mom Picking Up Kid At School Arrested For DUI*

SEMINOLE COUNTY, Fla. -- A Lake Mary mother was behind bars Wednesday morning after she was arrested on DUI charges outside an elementary school.

Police say 43-year-old Renee Godby was picking her child Tuesday afternoon outside Lake Mary Elementary School when she crashed into another driver.

Officers say it was obvious the mother was intoxicated. Luckily, no children or any other parents were hurt. 

http://www.wftv.com/news/24921835/detail.html


----------



## WakeboardMom (Sep 9, 2010)

Geoff said:


> Meh.  Typical woman driver.   Men have no problem texting while driving.



It's biological fact that women have smaller brains than men.  I yield to men's superiority in many things, particularly this.

I have no doubt that men would have no problem texting/eating a big mac/yelling at the sports announcer on the radio/swearing at other drivers/drinking a coffee/deciding on their survivor pool picks all while driving. Men tend to demonstrate superhuman abilities and men as a rule are generally larger than life.  

(I would say that, in general, women are good at drinking wine, watching TV, shopping online and IM'ing...all at the same time.)

; )


----------



## bvibert (Sep 9, 2010)

WakeboardMom said:


> It's biological fact that women have smaller brains than men.  I yield to men's superiority in many things, particularly this.
> 
> I have no doubt that men would have no problem texting/eating a big mac/yelling at the sports announcer on the radio/swearing at other drivers/drinking a coffee/deciding on their survivor pool picks all while driving. Men tend to demonstrate superhuman abilities and men as a rule are generally larger than life.
> 
> ...



Plus girls have cooties.


----------



## 2knees (Sep 9, 2010)

Black Phantom said:


> This is not very uncommon. Distracted driving is far too pervasive. This example isn't any better...*
> 
> Mom Picking Up Kid At School Arrested For DUI*
> 
> ...



I read about that on cnn this morning.  her poor kid is gonna be tortured in school from here on out.  

what an idiot.


----------



## billski (Sep 9, 2010)

2knees said:


> I read about that on cnn this morning.  her poor kid is gonna be tortured in school from here on out.
> 
> what an idiot.



Indeed the kid will suffer.  No parent, I repeat no parent is ever gonna let their kid in the same car as that mother.  And they are probably gonna think twice about letting their kid go over to the house for a play-date.   The kid's social life is going down the drain.

Sounds like the woman needs some serious help.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 9, 2010)

Just so folks are aware, in VT if you have kids in the car you can receive a DWI when well under the legal BAC limit.

A friend of mine in Stowe had this happen.  She had one glass of wine with a friend, picked up her daughter from a sitter, blew under .03.  She was given a DWI, which is less severe than DUI up there and lost her license for 90 days.


----------



## Geoff (Sep 9, 2010)

billski said:


> Indeed the kid will suffer.  No parent, I repeat no parent is ever gonna let their kid in the same car as that mother.  And they are probably gonna think twice about letting their kid go over to the house for a play-date.   The kid's social life is going down the drain.



Until everybody in the neighborhood learns that mom will buy alcohol for them.


----------

