Translated material
Return ppm, increase term
Photo: ITAR-TASSBecause of the tragedy on Minskaya Street , where five pupils of orphanage No. 7, a teacher and her husband died due to the fault of a drunk driver, amendments may be made to the legislation to toughen penalties for drunk driving.
The initiative from United Russia was made by Shamsail Saraliev: “We want to include a life sentence in the Criminal Code as a liability for this kind of crime.”
The Kremlin and the White House support this approach, but the opinions of bloggers, although contradictory, generally boil down to the following: decisions cannot be made in haste, but it is absolutely necessary to return the ppm abolished by Medvedev (the maximum permissible dose of alcohol in the blood of drivers).
As for other countries, in Germany, for example, drunk driving is punished depending on the ppm: for 0.5 you will have to pay 500 euros, for 1 - 1500, and for 1.1 you can lose your license or go to prison . In America, such an offense is punishable not only by a fine, but also by arrest for a period of 48 hours to six months. The most severe punishment is provided in El Salvador, Thailand, Indonesia and China, where drunk drivers responsible for the deaths can be executed.
Stanislav Kucher (Kommersant) :
Society has been sick for a long time and seriously. The readiness of people to attack each other because of different views on religion, politics, and the national question is a syndrome of intoxication no less dangerous than what led to the death of seven people at a traffic stop. When society does not heal and does not sober up on its own, “doctors” in the person of politicians take over. These do not so much deal with the disease as isolate patients, killing their brains with drugs, or cutting off everything that they consider unnecessary. Perhaps I'm exaggerating. But this is the choice, I repeat, that we all face now: either get sober ourselves, or surrender to the hands of old-school “narcologists.”
dolboeb :
The guys from United Russia are amazing after all.
Even when they try to say that 2x2=4, it comes out stupid. Who would argue that drunk driving is an absolute evil. And that this should be punished severely - even if the driver was a cop, a priest or a relative of a party bigwig.
But with the current definition of the permissible level of “alcohol in the blood” that we have today, the line between vodka, kefir, kvass, valerian and berries has long been erased. For corruption needs, the “zero” standard currently in force in Russia is simple and convenient, but for the real identification of drunk drivers it is absolutely useless. In fact, in Russia any person can be declared a “drinker and driver,” regardless of whether he drank alcohol or simply ate grapes. There would be a desire to extract money from a person for getting rid of serious troubles. And such a desire is the basic law of the functioning of all the cogs of our state machine.
An effective fight against drunk driving is impossible without fighting fools in the Duma and crooks in the police. And there is no one in EdR to fight these troubles.
Social media hesitated. Some, as usual: “Execute.” Others: “This can happen to anyone.” With everyone? But really. Travel around Moscow. One trip is enough to understand that it can.
You don’t have to be a drunken hieromonk, you don’t have to be a top manager at Lukoil, an official with a flashing light. What does the flashing light have to do with it? This one, on the Mitsubishi Lancer, which today blinked its headlights furiously from behind when I slowed down in front of a pedestrian crossing, did not have a flashing light. It wasn't on the roof. She was in the driver's head. She howled, sparkled and rotated like ten government ones.
It would be an epic stupidity on the part of legislators to miss the tragic reason to tighten the laws after the recent wild accident in Moscow, where a drunk driver at breakneck speed demolished a bus stop: seven died, most of them children.
When a small town is killed every year on the roads, there is no need to play at liberalism and moral elasticity. For driving while intoxicated for the first time, you will be deprived of your license for life and fined one hundred thousand rubles. For a repeated violation, the car will be confiscated, a multiple fine will be issued, and a real sentence of several years will be given. An accident with a fatality due to the fault of a drunk driver will be equated to premeditated murder, and a sentence of 15 to 25 years will be given without the right to be released early. At the same time, we will increase by an order of magnitude all fines for traffic violations, the size of which is now ridiculous. And everything will work, just like the fines for not allowing pedestrians to pass at the crossing worked.
Tightening laws and tightening the screws is always good and beneficial when in moderation. It is possible to go a little overboard when there is an adequate repressive mechanism. But the latter is not our case, so for now it is enough for us to simply have adequate punishments for crimes, and not laws that are created for criminals.
In addition to toughening the punishment for driving while drunk, I would also toughen the punishment for those who make shitty roads in Russia.
It's like treating a cold with rods.
We need to fight the “culture” itself, so that drunkenness is a shameful thing in people’s minds.
That's why people drink? Most often - from idleness. Submitting to the imposed stereotypes of “drinking beer after work.” Today we live in a time when there is never a dull moment. Everyone has a computer or at least a cell phone with Internet access.
There is a countless amount of information around us. By raking it into pieces in our own heads, structuring and creating something new from it, we participate in the process of development of society. And if we talk about addictions and habits, then the best of them is dependence on new information. It is this kind of addiction that brings the most benefit to the world.
And people who actively use their heads and develop their intellect know very well that alcohol and drug intoxication is incompatible with clarity of thinking.
Therefore, there is no need to organize a “prohibition”, as the notorious Gorby tried to do. But we need to give people food for thought, so that instead of a glass, articles and even books are consumed.
What about driving? The upper bar of punishment needs to be raised to European standards so that it is discouraging. So that a person with a salary of 30-50 thousand understands that in addition to deprivation of his rights, he also faces a 100 thousand fine. Another reason to think about it. On the other hand, you need to return the previous lower bar. Medvedev, by lowering the standard to 0 ppm, played into the hands of corrupt traffic cops.
Many had to give up kefir or kvass, because after a glass of them you can get under the traffic police breathalyzer. And go, prove to the inspector that you don’t drink alcohol at all, but drank a glass of kvass in order to cool off from the summer heat.
As doctors say, even in the blood of a person who has never consumed alcohol there is no 0 ppm, because our body itself produces a certain amount of alcohol as a result of fermentation processes.
And so many are once again faced with a choice - either a healthy, full life with benefit for other people, or a drunken stupor with danger for others. A healthy lifestyle is an integral attribute of a clear perception of the world around us. Only with a sober head can you do anything good.
makhk :
If at “0 ppm” they introduce criminal liability for drunk driving, I’ll give up the car!
There is no guarantee that even if you don’t drink at all, there will be “0 ppm” in your blood. "0 ppm" is an unmeasurable quantity. Each device has a non-zero measurement error, that is, it has a mathematical probability of false positives. By the way, in the Russian Federation, any device (from a voltmeter to a cold water meter and a breathalyzer) must undergo annual verification, which the traffic police neglects, and only God knows what their devices show. We must also take into account a significant number of simply dishonest police officers who, in order to comply with police standards, “register” sober drivers. A fine for this is one thing, a criminal sentence is another. I have no desire to go to jail because a dishonest cop drips alcohol into your breathalyzer, which has not been tested for years.
Talk about criminal penalties for drunk driving shows the failure of the state traffic safety system and the stupidity of the author of the “0 ppm” idea. Why should we - ordinary drivers (laws do not apply to security forces, judges, prosecutors, officials and deputies) - should be imprisoned for the stupidity and incompetence of the authorities? Moreover, this law will be adopted by the illegitimate Duma, elected with falsifications.
oleg-egr :
I think two things need to be done:
1) Make an addition to the Criminal Code, according to which damage caused by a drunk driver is classified as intentional.
Let’s say, if you hit a person to death, you are sued for premeditated murder; if you wounded him, you are sued for intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm. This, it seems to me, will make those who like to drive after drinking think twice.
2) Before each stop, dig a low concrete pillar with a diameter of about a meter close to the road on the sidewalk. It won’t cost that much, but every freak that “flies” into the bus stop will remain on this pole.
georg_54 :
How to make sure there are no kinks? It’s quite simple - to introduce punishment for the cops, if such emergencies continue at the station (district) of a particular police unit - the unit will be completely disbanded, and the chief will be put on trial, and punished severely. From 10 years to life with confiscation of property, including property belonging to members of his family.
I personally am against prohibition for drivers. I personally am for reasonable and fair laws for everyone without exception. A normal person, having drunk a couple of glasses of wine or a hundred grams of vodka, can calmly drive a car, presenting no greater danger to others than an exactly the same tipsy pedestrian. This is known all over the world. No amount of ppm measurements will save you from the fucking rednecks organizing races in the city, just as a ban on carrying weapons will not save you from serial maniacs. The law should not prohibit drunkenness, but punish those drunkards who caused harm, and punish not for drunk driving, but for the consequences that it brought. Killed a man? Sit for murder, not for “committing an accident while intoxicated.” I personally don’t give a damn whether a drunken redneck knocks me in the ass or a sober one. I think for everyone else, if they think about such a prospect, it makes no difference whether they are run over by a drunkard or a sober redneck who allows himself to ride in a garbage dump without brakes or drives through streets full of living people. Killed, maimed? Go to prison for murder. Speeding in the city? You lose your rights forever, and it doesn’t matter whether you’re a deputy, a minister, or a security guard for a high-ranking asshole with a flashing light.
They removed the ppm, but there were even more drunk people; accidents with drunk drivers increased compared to 2011. Therefore, the ppm should be returned, and drunks (over 0.2 ppm) should be sentenced for intentional acts, regardless of social status, from 10 to life. And the traffic cops for a bribe, fuck off for the fence!
y_alex :
Tougher punishment will only lead to more bribes and arbitrariness of the authorities. Be that as it may, this is not an intentional murder, and it cannot be punished as an intentional murder.