Dui

[BigMistakeFl]

I don't drink and drive at all. My point is valid though, that having any legal limit above 0.00 is unfair unless it can be accurately guaged. As it stands, the person who is saddled with judging whether or not he is impaired is the person who has been drinking. What is the first sense we lose when we consume alcohol?

Drinking and driving is perfectly legal, so unless they have some connection to the DUI process, most drivers leaving restaurants by the thousands this very night, will feel secure that they are operating under the law. Many of the people who post to this forum alone did not believe they were impaired, many couldn't believe that they were over the per se limit. That is a very real problem that can cause injuries and death to other innocent people who share the road.

I expect to get flamed for my statement, but I stand by it. The legal limit should be 0.00. Anything above that and you send people out into the street believing that they can consume moderately and still drive.

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by BigMistakeFl

I don't drink and drive at all. My point is valid though, that having any legal limit above 0.00 is unfair unless it can be accurately guaged. As it stands, the person who is saddled with judging whether or not he is impaired is the person who has been drinking. What is the first sense we lose when we consume alcohol?

Drinking and driving is perfectly legal, so unless they have some connection to the DUI process, most drivers leaving restaurants by the thousands this very night, will feel secure that they are operating under the law. Many of the people who post to this forum alone did not believe they were impaired, many couldn't believe that they were over the per se limit. That is a very real problem that can cause injuries and death to other innocent people who share the road.

I expect to get flamed for my statement, but I stand by it. The legal limit should be 0.00. Anything above that and you send people out into the street believing that they can consume moderately and still drive.

No flaming here.

I don't believe that a person is necessarily a menace on the road at .08. I think it is hypocritical for us as a society to hold a person criminally liable for being .08 when he may be a far better driver (even though slightly impaired) than an 85 year old guy who can barely hear or a 16 year old with a new license.

You make a good point that it IS legal to drink and drive. Our society approves of it. However, we loose our moral authority when we say it is OK for a person to drive at .079, but not at .08 when the person in question has no reasonable method to gauge where he is. Now, if the law was such that a person can drink and drive, but you must first demonstrate/verify that you are below .08 before you drive, that would be a different story. We require people to purchase a speedometer with their car so they can monitor their speed and be informed if they are exceeding a limit. We could also do the same thing with a breathalyzer if we were sincere about the .08 limit.

The common illegal BAC used to be .1. Then, pressure was brought to lower it to .08. Why? No one brought forth scientific evidence that a person is now unsafe at .08 where they were considered to be safe before. Rather it was simply a political move. We have tons of skewed statistics concerning alchohol. If a person was drinking and an accident occurs, it is assumed to be an alcohol related accident. However, little if any effort goes into determining if there was any cause and effect relationship between the alcohol and the accident. This is how we generate tons of statistics to whip up the public into a political frenzy to further the agenda against drinking and driving and to justify .08.

The truth is... any alcohol consumption begins to impair driving ability. So, if we are so wrapped up in the evils of drinking and driving, why do we allow anything above 0.00???

[FlyingRon]

It's not hypocritical. Society blames drunks. Society doesn't blame the old, infirm, etc.. for things they can't control. Many states have taken steps to weed out people who have been driving beyond their years.

In actuality, .08 is fair. Having a measurable quantity is less subject to the subjective interpretation of the police than the various other sobriety tests.

If you don't like it, this is a republic, join DAMM (Drunks against Mad Mothers) to get the laws changed. There's no constitutional right to freedom from hypocrisy.

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by FlyingRon

It's not unfair. If you want to be safe, don't DRINK AND DRIVE. Anything between 0 and 0.08 is gray area. Above that you are presumed intoxicated. If you are stupid enough to believe you can drink whatever you calculate will bring you to 0.0799999999 you're too recklessly stupid to drive.

That's like allowing people to drive without speedometers where the vast majority of speed detecting devices are owned by the police. Then, you would say "anything between 0 and 55 is gray area. If you want to be safe... don't drive!!! We would be in a "gotcha" scenario with speed the way we are in a "gotcha" scenario with alcohol now. But, we tell people they are allowed to drive within speed limits and we require them to purchase devices to advise them where the boundry of those limits are. I think it is hypocritical not to do the same with alcohol.

Obviously, there are unarguable cases. Even if a person had no speedometer, he can reasonably tell if he is exceeding 55mph when he in fact is driving 95. On the other hand, it would be tough for him to determine if he is exceeding 55 when in fact he is driving 56. How is this different than BAC?

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by FlyingRon

It's not hypocritical. Society blames drunks. Society doesn't blame the old, infirm, etc.. for things they can't control.

Therein lies the hypocrisy. Just because the old, infirm, etc.. cannot help their condition, they CAN help getting behind a wheel and driving. If they are impaired, why are they allowed to drive with impunity while we take a 27 year old man who has been driving well for over 10 years and has outstanding coordination and reflexes and decide to throw him in jail for being .08?? This is especially frustrating considering that the 27 year old is probably far less impaired than MANY elderly drivers.

In actuality, .08 is fair. Having a measurable quantity is less subject to the subjective interpretation of the police than the various other sobriety tests.

How did we determine .08 is fair and .1 is not? I agree with your point about a measurable quantity, but it becomes wrong when the average driver has no way of measuring.

If you don't like it, this is a republic, join DAMM (Drunks against Mad Mothers) to get the laws changed. There's no constitutional right to freedom from hypocrisy.

Wow.... don't get your panties in a wad. I'm expressing an opinion. If you don't like for people to do that, maybe you should go join the Communist state of your choice!

[cyjeff]

Originally Posted by Jim_bo

xarfox,

Interesting.... I almost agree with most of your post. However, I believe that a healty young person with a .08BAC could drive MUCH better than many senior citizens on the road. However, alcohol is an accepted evil... old age is not. Don't get me wrong, stupid people get drunk to the point where they clearly are dangerous. However, an arbitrary level of .08 is based far more on politics than it is on safety.

And your statistical proof that old people are responsible for more accidents than drunk drivers would be where?

Knowingly "dumbing down" your ability to drive and then driving anyway is not a political point... it is a logical one. You do NOT have to drive after drinking. You make a choice.

Debating whether a drunken young person is actually drunk is a study in circular logic. There has to be a benchmark. Most people would agree that when you drink enough so that eight percent of your blood is alcohol, you are there.

If you don't like it, write your congressman/woman.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by Jim_bo

That's like allowing people to drive without speedometers where the vast majority of speed detecting devices are owned by the police. Then, you would say "anything between 0 and 55 is gray area. If you want to be safe... don't drive!!! We would be in a "gotcha" scenario with speed the way we are in a "gotcha" scenario with alcohol now. But, we tell people they are allowed to drive within speed limits and we require them to purchase devices to advise them where the boundry of those limits are. I think it is hypocritical not to do the same with alcohol.

Obviously, there are unarguable cases. Even if a person had no speedometer, he can reasonably tell if he is exceeding 55mph when he in fact is driving 95. On the other hand, it would be tough for him to determine if he is exceeding 55 when in fact he is driving 56. How is this different than BAC?

Gauging speed is very different then gauging the amount of alcohol ingested by select drivers on the road. Your argument is flawed because you insist that standard safety equipment would be in the same class as equipment wanted by the select few who drink and drive. What's next on your list, the seatbelt? There were many statistics associated with the .1 to .08 reduction. The political pressure that was associated with the reduction was similar to the pressure brought when the drinking age was raised to 21. There is an option for an individual to buy a breathalyser machine at most drug stores. You act as though the breathalyser market is cornered by LE, which is not the case. You are simply flaming these DUI threads and offering no useful or accurate advice.

[cyjeff]

Originally Posted by ERAUPIKE

Gauging speed is very different then gauging the amount of alcohol ingested by select drivers on the road. Your argument is flawed because you insist that standard safety equipment would be in the same class as equipment wanted by the select few who drink and drive. What's next on your list, the seatbelt? There were many statistics associated with the .1 to .08 reduction. The political pressure that was associated with the reduction was similar to the pressure brought when the drinking age was raised to 21. There is an option for an individual to buy a breathalyser machine at most drug stores. You act as though the breathalyser market is cornered by LE, which is not the case. You are simply flaming these DUI threads and offering no useful or accurate advice.

The plus side is that, most likely, the OP will get the opportunity to have a device installed that will HELP him understand if he is drunk or not.

[FlyingRon]

Umm...just about every state has some variation of the basic speed law which essentially says you can't drive too fast for the conditions without quantifying it.

The posted speeds are the PRIMA FACIE limits.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by cyjeff

The plus side is that, most likely, the OP will get the opportunity to have a device installed that will HELP him understand if he is drunk or not.

Very good point

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by cyjeff

And your statistical proof that old people are responsible for more accidents than drunk drivers would be where?

Knowingly "dumbing down" your ability to drive and then driving anyway is not a political point... it is a logical one. You do NOT have to drive after drinking. You make a choice.

Debating whether a drunken young person is actually drunk is a study in circular logic. There has to be a benchmark. Most people would agree that when you drink enough so that eight percent of your blood is alcohol, you are there.

If you don't like it, write your congressman/woman.

First of all, I am merely making observations here. I am not on a crusade to legalize drunk driving. If you don't like reading other people's opinions, then turn your computer off.

Secondly, we "dumb down" our ability to drive every day! When we get behind the wheel and we are tired or we have driven too many miles... we have dumbed down. When we drive after an argument with a boss or spouse... we have dumbed down. When we drive in a congested area that we are unfamiliar with... we have dumbed down. When we drive an unfamiliar car... we have dumbed down. The issue of "dumbing down" below your OWN standard wasn't my point. My point was comparing driving ability to a UNIVERSAL standard. But then, you seem to be a bit emotional about this issue. I believe that may be "dumbing down" your ability to discuss objectively.

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by ERAUPIKE

Gauging speed is very different then gauging the amount of alcohol ingested by select drivers on the road. Your argument is flawed because you insist that standard safety equipment would be in the same class as equipment wanted by the select few who drink and drive. What's next on your list, the seatbelt? There were many statistics associated with the .1 to .08 reduction. The political pressure that was associated with the reduction was similar to the pressure brought when the drinking age was raised to 21. There is an option for an individual to buy a breathalyser machine at most drug stores. You act as though the breathalyser market is cornered by LE, which is not the case. You are simply flaming these DUI threads and offering no useful or accurate advice.

I'm not flaming anyone (I even stated that in a previous post). I am merely engaging in an academic discussion. If you don't want to participate, that's fine.

Speed and BAC are very similar in that they are both measurable and both are tollerated within limits. My point was, if a speedometer is a required device, why isn't a breathalyzer? It seems to me that awareness is key to any campaign of safety, and mandatory breathalyzers would provide that. The alternative is to simply say that 0.00 is the accepted limit. Then, no breathalyzer is required. Better yet, why not just ban alcohol altogether??

As far as the drinking age being raised to 21, that falls under the same level of hypocrisy. My sons are both in the military at 19. They are considered mature enough to fight and/or die for their country, but they are not mature enough to have a beer? That's just absurd.

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by FlyingRon

Umm...just about every state has some variation of the basic speed law which essentially says you can't drive too fast for the conditions without quantifying it.

The posted speeds are the PRIMA FACIE limits.

I don't understand... what's your point???

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by Jim_bo

First of all, I am merely making observations here. I am not on a crusade to legalize drunk driving. If you don't like reading other people's opinions, then turn your computer off.

Secondly, we "dumb down" our ability to drive every day! When we get behind the wheel and we are tired or we have driven too many miles... we have dumbed down. When we drive after an argument with a boss or spouse... we have dumbed down. When we drive in a congested area that we are unfamiliar with... we have dumbed down. When we drive an unfamiliar car... we have dumbed down. The issue of "dumbing down" below your OWN standard wasn't my point. My point was comparing driving ability to a UNIVERSAL standard. But then, you seem to be a bit emotional about this issue. I believe that may be "dumbing down" your ability to discuss objectively.

The universal standard is .08 and that is the ed of it. There are a variety of other laws that control the other aspects of driving. There is no law against driving mad, but there is against driving recklessly. There is no law against driving too many miles, unless you are a long haul trucker then you are limited to the amount of time you can spend driving a day. There is no law against driving into a congested new area but if you cause an accident by breaking a traffic law you will be cited. I think the ability to discuss this is hard because you are stuck in your perception that drinking and driving is socially acceptable. The examples you are giving are not in the same family as ingesting a controlled substance that alters your perception. Once you realize that and stop flaming these threads, you may take that time to research the issue further. Then you can go to the local college and have an objective debate with well thought out arguments and reliable citations.

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by Jim_bo

I'm not flaming anyone (I even stated that in a previous post). I am merely engaging in an academic discussion. If you don't want to participate, that's fine.

Speed and BAC are very similar in that they are both measurable and both are tollerated within limits. My point was, if a speedometer is a required device, why isn't a breathalyzer? It seems to me that awareness is key to any campaign of safety, and mandatory breathalyzers would provide that. The alternative is to simply say that 0.00 is the accepted limit. Then, no breathalyzer is required. Better yet, why not just ban alcohol altogether??

As far as the drinking age being raised to 21, that falls under the same level of hypocrisy. My sons are both in the military at 19. They are considered mature enough to fight and/or die for their country, but they are not mature enough to have a beer? That's just absurd.

If you said it then it must be true. Speed and BAC are not similar in reference to your argument. Speed is used to safely control the flow of traffic. BAC is used to gauge an individuals current ability to operate a motor vehicle. I don't want to participate because of two reasons;
1) This is not the place for your flawed argument
2) You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about