Posted on 11/09/2005 3:39:41 PM PST by elkfersupper
It is time to separate fact from fiction about our drunken driving laws. It is time to stop deluding ourselves into believing that stricter penalties are the solution. It is also time to start promulgating laws that attack the core problem, including creating a bright line that even an intoxicated person can walk.
Drunken driving is a problem in Massachusetts. It is also a problem in New York, Texas and every other state in the country. Statistically, Massachusetts’ roads are not the most dangerous in the country. There is also no proof that Massachusetts drivers are more likely to drive impaired.
-snip-
Perhaps it is time to make it illegal to drink any alcohol and drive a car.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bostonherald.com ...
Too many variables are unknown to accurately determine how much burnoff this kid had.
You pose a bypothetical and I will return one to you and see what you think about it.
Lets say he had left wherever he was at 15 minutes before he crashed into us. Lets say that right before he left he did four shots with his buddies or did a five foot beerbong.
In this event it is possible that his BAC at the time of the crash was equal to or less than when he blew.
I offer this only to take notice that there is no way to accurately measure such a thing as you attempt to measure without more information.
"what basis would you have for arguing for that particular figure?"
The links I posted earlier in this thread.
Not to many disagree that impairment is pretty evident at .08. I think that .08 is pretty well established in testing studies and does show a level of impairment where elected officials can use them to deem .08 the accepted level where driving is no longer legal, much less safe.
No sir I do not consider you a peer to him, nor would I see you punished if I had my way. I would consider you a person that excercises legal limits and personal responsibility when drinking.
I think that .08 provides a reasonable balance between allowing alcohol consumption and prohibiting it as it pertains to driving.
I have no way of knowing exactly what his BAC was when he hit me, the only number I do know is .123 when he blew.
"so try explaining how about you explaining how I jeopardize your freedom??? "
If you drive on public roads when you have had too much to drink you endanger the freedom of every person you come into contact with.
" I never drink more than three drinks and drive. I'm legally entitled to - that is less than .08 BAC "
Yes you are and I support you being free to do so.
"Nah!, just call me an extremist."
I can live with that. :)
"You are a delusional Nanny Cop, associated with MADD a for profit Corporation whose business it is to control and strip the Liberties of all Americans."
LMAO Ok.
" just a Troll looking to get a rise out of someone."
Funny how people keep saying I am a troll yet no ZOT comes........maybe that should tell you something.
"Besides, your obvious thirst for revenge"
I have stated clearly that my goal is to see that others do not walk the path I have. You wanna call that revenge, hey go for it. That is as far from the truth as it can be.
"If the government had left the threshhold at 0.10, would you still think the threshhold should be at 0.08? "
Yes I think the best balance is found at .08.
How about people respect that limit, leaving it where it is, and allow those very resources to be spent on other violent crime?
I know I'm coming to this party late, but I'd like to weigh in--and I'll preface this statement by saying that just last year, my grandmother was killed by an impaired driver.
The reason why .08 is a stupid law is because it's not concerned with removing impaired drivers from the road; rather, it's about raising revenue.
The problem is that an aribtrary BAC--whatever it is--isn't an adequate tool to determine whether or not a person is impaired. One person may be perfectly capable of operating a motor vehicle without significant impairment at .10. Another person may be far too impaired to drive at, say, .07. The problem is that the person who is far too impaired to drive can get back behind the wheel and go about his merry way after having blown a .07 while the person who was not impaired spends the night in jail.
I don't think anyone is in favor of eliminating drunk driving laws--I think what they are saying is that .08 is a dumb law--because it is.
And incidentally, I oppose current levels of airport security, too. You don't need an alternative. You want to make airplanes safer? Let people carry guns on the airplane. Do you think those three planes would have crashed into buildings if there were a few armed citizens on those airplanes? I don't think so either, and it's a lot more honest.
>>>"Funny how people keep saying I am a troll yet no ZOT comes........maybe that should tell you something"<<<
How about a ZIT? (Like a little bug in a zapper)
"The point is that the guy's BAC was certainly above 0.15"
That is nothing more than an outright guess for you also do not know what he drank or when.
"Accident rates as a function of BAC are pretty flat below about 0.12, when they start going up very sharply."
"An April 1999 study of all fifty states conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) confirmed MADD’s assertions. It compared states with .08 BAC laws to states with .10 BAC laws before and after the laws were passed. The study found that states that passed .08 BAC laws reduced the involvement of drunk drivers in fatalities by 8 percent."
http://www.enotes.com/drunk-driving-article/
I think matters. Proof being in the pudding and all.
Murphy's Bar and Grill, near my office. Lumpy's on the way home, Oyster Bar Cottonwood with my wife, Club 90 with my liberal friend and...Buckskin in Fredonia when I'm near Kanab....Oh yeah The Owl in Logan when I'm hunting pheasants in Wellsville.
Reminds me, we need to set a date for a get acquainted thing this year in some joint.
"BAC--whatever it is--isn't an adequate tool to determine whether or not a person is impaired."
Then what is?
What do you poseas far as law, that would apply to all people equally?
I'd love to hear it. You say it is 'dumb' but I do not see you offer an alternative.
"You want to make airplanes safer? Let people carry guns on the airplane"
Is that what EL AL does? When was the last time one of their airplanes was hijacked?
I notice you offer an alternative for airplanes (though I disagree with it) where is the alternative for BAC?
"Less than 1.3% of 2001 fatalities involved a driver between .08 and .10 BAC vs. 12.4% at .15 or greater. Even the .00-.02 (trace level) range accounts for about 1.2% of fatalities... "Anyone with a modest understanding of this issue, and who is honest, " says NMA President Jim Baxter, "knows that drivers with low BACs such as .08% are no more likely to be involved in an accident than someone with a BAC of 0.0%."
I'm sorry, I thought the alternative was plainly obvious. Instead of setting probable cause for arrest at an arbitrary number, simply let police use their discretion to arrest who they deem to be impaired drivers. Policemen are supposedly trained to do this, and police arrest people all the time based on their own opinion as to what amounts to probable cause.
Let the policeman make the arrest, let the jury determine whether the person was or wasn't impaired. Pretty simple. It's what policemen do every day.
In other words, you are suggesting the hypothetical that he might have drunk so much liquor so quickly that it hadn't all been absorbed into his bloodstream at the time of the crash?
I suppose that's theoretically possible, though alcohol is absorbed pretty quickly. But unless you believe the guy drank alcohol between the time of the crash and his breathalizer test, he must have consumed enough to get his BAC well above 0.15 in order for him to blow a 0.123 three hours later.
As for there being too many variables, I can't tell you exactly what his BAC was. But for him not to have consumed enough alcohol to put it over 0.15 at the time of the crash, he would have to have weighed about 400lbs (using ; a 400lb male drinking 16 U.S. beers over 3 hours yields .125; 16 U.S. beers over 0 hours yields 0.151). Did the guy weigh 400lbs? You tell me.
Applying it to your example, if the jerk that hit you had a 0.15BAC at the time of the accident and a typical weight and metabolism, he would have probably had a BAC of around 0.07-0.09 three hours later.
I would suggest that a better "solution" for that problem than setting the 0.08BAC limit would be to provide a standard means of figuring imputed BAC. If it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was driving some period of time before he was tested, and that the person could not physically legally have consumed alcohol since then, then it should be possible to legally infer the BAC at the time the person was driving.
Someone who blows a 0.07BAC three hours after a crash was almost certainly a much more impaired driver than someone who blows 0.09BAC coming out of a bar.
The problem with that is that accusations will be raised (sometimes true, sometimes not) that officers were arresting people for DWB.
That being said, I think the solution is for police cars to be equipped with video cameras. If there is probable cause for pulling someone over, jurors would be able to see that. And if there isn't, jurors would be able to see that.
See posts 105 and 108 for more data.
The linked page did not link to the study, so it's unclear what methodology was used to conduct the study. Without knowing that, it's impossible to offer any meaningful interpretation of the numbers. Certainly there are many ways such "studies" can be constructed to yield "results" far different from what the actual data show.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.