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 ...
That is done all the time as part of the approach. All cannot ride solely on officer to person direct contact with no other tools used. Simply said there is not enough police to do it only that way. While he is following he could miss a grossly drunk driver right?
If he is in his vehicle following one driver and he overtakes or is overtaken by another vehicle whose driver is behaving even worse, he can go after whichever vehicle's driver seems to be a bigger threat. By contrast, if the officer is standing by the side of the road and a poorly-driving motorist goes past, he's far less likely to be able to do anything about it.
"I'm sure there are many unsafe things in most people's homes. Should we have "random" safety checks for people's dwellings as well?"
Are the roads public or private? Is your house public or private? You mix apples and oranges on that note.
Is the inside of a person's vehicle a public place?
Are you then saying you oppose speed limits too? Or just where the fines go? OK while your kid is out in the front yard playing on your residential street I should be able to go 90...after all the speed limit is just about revenue generation right?
At any location, there is a practical limit as to how fast a motorist may safely drive. In some places, the speed limit corresponds with the practical limit. In many places, it does not. Generally, the places where the practical and legal limits coincide are the places where the fewest people exceed the legal limits (gee, I wonder why). I would suggest that having speed limits all over the place which are way lower than the practical limits tends to reduce respect for legal limits in areas where they coincide.
"If they can perform the test at least as well as half the sober drivers out there, that means they weren't impaired."
Grading on a curve now? WOW.
If person #1 can operate a vehicle more safely than person #2, why should it matter how much he's had to drink?
It is kind of a catch-22 in the college town I live in. There isn't a good mass transit alternative and the police are just as zelous in giving out public intox tickets as they are dui's. So most people figure they are more likely to get a ticket walking because they are exposed longer so why not go ahead and drive home? Now I don't know much but someone walking is a lot less dangerous than someone driving.
I accept they are from 1992.
My mistake. 2002, actually, though if it were 1992 it would make my point stronger not weaker, since the percentage of drivers with BACs in the 0.07-0.09 range would have been higher then. But in any event, my mistake--it's 2002 data.
As for the cites you suggest, the former does not break down BAC into different levels above 0.08. You and I both agree that drivers with BAC above 0.08 are a problem, but I would argue that that's only because drivers with BAC above 0.15 also have a BAC above 0.08.
As for the other article, I saw it make mention of some studies, but I didn't see any link to read the studies themselves. Thus, I can't tell what if anything the studies did to disprove the null hypothesis (i.e. that the differential reduction in alcohol-related fatalities stems from increased enforcement action against grossly-intoxicated individuals, and from the fact that people who would have gotten into crashes with a 0.08BAC now get into crashes with a 0.00BAC). I would expect that both of those factors apply to some extent; without examining the studies themselves I can't tell that they don't account for the entire observed phenomenon.
Sure I do, the gap between .06 and .08 as it relates to the gap between .08 and .10 is substantial also. Would you agree? Hence .08 and not .06. liekwise why it is .08 and no longer .10.
I wish I could find the graph of accident rates per passenger mile vs. BAC. The difference between 0.12 and 0.15 is bigger than the difference between 0.00 and 0.10.
Another tactic of a dishonest person is to rely on 13 year old data when they know full well and good that newer data is available and chose not to take a good look at it because it leads a direction other than past information.
The newer data I've seen (including the nhtsa page you linked) does not seem to distinguish between people whose BAC was 0.15+ and the superset of those whose BAC was 0.08+. If you have data newer than 2002 which preserves this distinction, I'd like to see it.
I would say that is what the Yellow light is for. After red is after red.....that means you would be busted and should be held responsible. If you enter an intersection After it is red no matter how long then you didn't head the yellow. If it turned yellow and you would have created a danger by stopping , thus putting you in the intersection during red, then you were either speeding or lacked attention and reaction to the traffic light when on yellow.
If all of the intersections along a road have a 3.5 second yellow light, except for the one with a camera on it that has a 3.0 second yellow light, would you fault a motorist for not somehow knowing to expect the shorter yellow?
Further, if a motorist notices a tailgater in the rear-view mirror when the light ahead turns yellow, is it better to (1) slam on the brakes to avoid running a red light if the yellow happens to be short (at the risk of being hit by the tailgater); (2) hit the brakes very briefly in an effort to get the tailgater's attention (in case he hasn't seen the yellow light yet) and then accellerate through the intersection (so as to make one's intentions clear to waiting cross-traffic motorists); (3) proceed as quickly as possible through the intersection, and hope the tailgater noticed the traffic signal.
I would suggest that #2 is the safest course of action, even though it has the greatest likelihood of "running the red light". If ones concern is merely to avoid running the red light, choice #1 would be most likely to succeed in that regard, but it would also run the greatest risk of resulting in a major accident.
BTW, a few years ago I once deliberately floorboarded my way into an intersection where I was stopped, about 100ms after my light turned red. I was passed IN THE intersection by a motorist I'd observed approaching at breakneck speed in the rear-view mirror. Although I in fact averted a collision, my intention was actually merely to minimize its severity (I could tell the vehicle behind me wasn't going to be able to stop before the intersection, and even if I accellerated and he braked he couldn't stop before overtaking me). If there had been a red light camera there, should I have been required to pay the ticket? My actions almost certainly saved that crazy motorist's life (for awhile, anyway).
Great photo. I have to wonder how the police in the photo were able to get intellectually the requirement for "probable cause." Random searches, IMHO, clearly violate the written words of the US Constitution, which each of these officers swore to protect.
Cops...Constitution... hahahahahahahahaaha...
They have a willing and devoted following, in the USSC! It goes along with "you don't mind if I look around in your car, do you? I'm sure you have nothing to hide, so if you don't let me, I'll call for backup, and a sniff dog"
The USSC does not consider it "random", if you stop EVERYBODY, like shown in the pics. On a recent trip to Charlestown racetrack (WV), I was returning about 10pm. I had to get gas, so I ended up going onto the 4 lane RT9 bypass, to save time, rather than the shorter trip through Ranson. As I came over a rise, I had to suddenly brake, behind a long string of cars, and wait for almost an hour, until my turn came to be "voluntarily" harassed. All complaints fell on deaf ears.
I'm just glad they didn't see the three foot high bongs and fifty eight pounds of hashish laying on my seat. They might have breathalyzed me, and found that I had drunk a glass of wine for dinner four hours earlier.../s
"I would expect that both of those factors apply to some extent"
That is exactly what I said and why I agree with the take the articles and the link I gave you to them at face value. It fits. Multi pronged approaches aoften work best.
I posted the link to the article that shows over 3000 deaths in one year at BAC between .08 an .10.
You are of the position that .08 doesnt cause enough death and harm to warrant .08 being the law. We respectfully disagree on that note. You will claim that .15 is where the trouble begins or that it is insiginificant. You have that right. I disagree.
Feel free to contact these folks for further information about a couple of the studies and I would say that they could prolly send youin the direction if you sought more information than they could provide to you'
"FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In NHTSA: Ms. Marlene Markison, Office
of Injury Control Operations & Resources, NTI-200, telephone (202) 366-
2121, fax (202) 366-7394; Ms. Heidi Coleman, Office of Chief Counsel,
NCC-113, telephone (202) 366-1834, fax (202) 366-3820; or Ms. Tyler
Bolden, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-113, telephone (202) 366-1834, fax
(202) 366-3820.
In FHWA: Mr. Randy Umbs, Office of Safety, HSA-1, telephone (202)
366-2177, fax (202) 366-3222; or Mr. Raymond W. Cuprill, Office of
Chief Counsel, HCC-30, telephone (202) 366-0791, fax (202) 366-7499."
I got them here : http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-2790.htm
A good bit more info there too you might find interesting.
(("If all of the intersections along a road have a 3.5 second yellow light, except for the one with a camera on it that has a 3.0 second yellow light, would you fault a motorist for not somehow knowing to expect the shorter yellow?))
Speedlimits on roads work with the timing of red yellow and green lights. IF you are driving the posted speed limits the length of the yellow light ins't an issue. However your attention is. If you blow a yellow light because you were counting in it being 3.5 I would say you are responsible for making an improper assumption.
(("Further, if a motorist notices a tailgater in the rear-view mirror when the light ahead turns yellow, is it better to (1) slam on the brakes to avoid running a red light if the yellow happens to be short (at the risk of being hit by the tailgater); (2) hit the brakes very briefly in an effort to get the tailgater's attention (in case he hasn't seen the yellow light yet) and then accellerate through the intersection (so as to make one's intentions clear to waiting cross-traffic motorists); (3) proceed as quickly as possible through the intersection, and hope the tailgater noticed the traffic signal."))
You are responsibile for your car and they are responsible for theirs. Here in Illinois if you rearend someone it is your fault. Period. That is to say, if I am tailgating you and you stop at a yellow/red light and I run into you, it is on me. Seems to me that this example tries to put responsibility for a person running a red light on a tailgater rather than on the person that runs it themselves.
Doesn't work that way. It is safest to stop at yellow to red lights.
# 2 (providing you are going the speedlimit) seems to offer that you would advocate disobeying the posted speed limit.
If speeding up allows you to pass thru on yellow and not red this would be appropriate ( but then this light stuff started about red lights didn't it), but if you have to speed up and pass thru on a red light you either had time to stop or you were speeding to begin with.
On the note about being passed IN the intersection by this person, I would ofer that you had another option. That being changing lanes.
Decisions made that reflect milliseconds really DO matter huh? I would wonder what the milliseconds in reaction time are affected at .08............
Had an officer been watching it take place I would offer he wouldn't be writing YOU a ticket, indeed he would be writing the person that blew by you a ticket.
Could you please define the word arbitrary for me as you use it in your post?
OK...think about this grasshopper;... I made an error,..... of .07, (you have to let me off);.... the "test" was .01...... Why was the "test" .01?
The above is "arbitrary"
If you don't get that, please, use an English language dictionary for your vocabulary needs.
arbitrary: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: (stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.)
Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: (The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.)
Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: (an arbitrary penalty)
Not limited by law; despotic: (the arbitrary rule of a dictator.)
(("But, my error as to WHAT the specific number of the BAC is, makes NO difference to my point, that is, that the BAC is an arbitrary number."))
Ok lets explore the defenitions I have laid out here GRASSHOPPER.
BAC is not determined on a whim or a chance. It is formed by lengthy studies and data accruued, so the primary defenition does not fit.
Field sobriety tests rely on an arbitrary decision on the part of an officers own observations, Bac does not. SO this one doesn't fit either.
BAC levels are a law legislated as they are supposed to be, that is to say not by a court or a judge, so this one is also out as you use it.
BAC is limited by law so the last one isn't it either.
Now you tell me how your point is made that BAC is arbitrary.
Bac in your blood is what it is, are you attempting to debate the defenition of the 'is'? I seem to recall another fella that did such a thing.
If you care to ask why the test is arbitrary then i ask you when the law is made to take a test by the legislative body it isn't arbitrary at all. Either way you use the word improperly. But see you said "that the BAC is an arbitrary number." So that fits about as well as your use of the word arbitrary. It is not an arbitray number by any defention posted here.
By all means show me what defenition you are using to claim it is arbitrary. These defentions come from here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arbitrary
Feel free to educate me in terms of your use of the word arbitrary.
Gee I have a feeling of deja vu......
You posted a number of links; I did not find any breakdown of fatalities by BAC more recent than 2002. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong place? Would you be so kind as to identify exactly where you got that particular figure from?
FYI, one source of my figures is here: http://www.ridl.us/pdf_stats/pdfs/2002/2002DriverErrorsAtBACandDrugs.pdf which is found off the link from post 105.
According to this, fatal accidents in which a driver committed one or more errors (including "unknown") in 2002, drivers with no alcohol were responsible for 46,632 crashes; those with amounts from 0.01 to 0.14 were responsible for 3,647, and those with amounts of 0.15+ were responsible for 4,409.
However your attention is. If you blow a yellow light because you were counting in it being 3.5 I would say you are responsible for making an improper assumption.
If I pass twenty traffic signals on a road and all the ones I stop at have 3.5-second yellows, is it unreasonable for me to expect that (absent something obvious cause like a municipal boundary or speed-limit change) the twenty-first will also have something resembling a 3.5 second yellow (note: the difference between 3 seconds and 3.5 seconds is huge)? In the absense of the photo revenue device, what would be the worst reasonably-expected consequence of such an assumption, even if it turns out to be mistaken?
You are responsibile for your car and they are responsible for theirs. Here in Illinois if you rearend someone it is your fault. Period. That is to say, if I am tailgating you and you stop at a yellow/red light and I run into you, it is on me. Seems to me that this example tries to put responsibility for a person running a red light on a tailgater rather than on the person that runs it themselves. Doesn't work that way. It is safest to stop at yellow to red lights.
Interesting philosoply. Interestingly, it's one I wrote about ages ago in my blog. Seems to me that you don't mind getting in an accident if you can blame it on someone else. My philosophy is that if one can prevent an accident--even if it wouldn't be your fault--you should do so.
On the note about being passed IN the intersection by this person, I would ofer that you had another option. That being changing lanes.
Let me draw you a picture:
... INTERSECTION ... || ___ || ___ | ___ || || ### || ### | ### || || CAR || ME# | CAR || || ### || ### | ### || || ___ || | ___ || || ### || | ### || || CAR || | CAR || || ### || | ### ||To my left was a left-turn lane, separated by a crossable median. In the lane to my right there were at least two cars. I noticed the maniac behind me in my lane approaching at breakneck speed.
In the second or so that I analyzed the situation (I noticed the guy before I'd come to a stop, then realized he wasn't going to), I determined that somebody's car was going to enter the intersection after the light turned red. I don't know if it would have been possible for the maniac to jump the centerline, but I certainly wasn't going to count on him doing so; as far as I could tell, his car was going to enter the intersection in my lane, my car was going to as well, and the only question was whether it should do so under its own power.
If I had remained stopped at the intersection as long as I could (i.e. until the moment of impact) my car would still have entered the intersection after the red light. Probably about 1-2 seconds after it did. Any injury caused to me or anyone the remains of my vehicle happened to hit would, legally speaking, be entirely the fault of the corpse behind me. But is it not better for all concerned that I decided to try to both warn other drivers that the intersection was not safe to enter, and lessen what I expected to still be a rather severe force of impact?
Decisions made that reflect milliseconds really DO matter huh? I would wonder what the milliseconds in reaction time are affected at .08...........
Probably comparable to the effects of being up 18+ hours without sleep. But people who do that aren't demonized.
Had an officer been watching it take place I would offer he wouldn't be writing YOU a ticket, indeed he would be writing the person that blew by you a ticket.
If he could catch him. I suppose that if he radioed for cops to be on the lookout ahead, they'd probably be able to figure out who the guy was even if the first cop didn't get the plate. On the other hand, it's not unknown for cops to go after the people they can catch.
Instead of between .08 and .10 it should read below .10.
That is my mistake. You will dismiss these deaths? Second link in post 312 is where it came from.
Dismiss these deaths all you want to and in addition dismiss the reality that lowering to .08 contributed to progress that is documented full well.
" those with amounts from 0.01 to 0.14 were responsible for 3,647, and those with amounts of 0.15+ were responsible for 4,409."
Gee seems there is not hardly any difference being twice as intoxicated......only 762 more people died at almost twice the BAC. Is this really your argument? Is it really?
rationalize it all you want to moving the numbers around all you want to but I would offer that is exactly what the is said about the 'alcohol related' numbers.
Point to take note of .08 is working as a multi pronged approach. I suppose maybe it is time that you make a case how raising it to .10 will make the numbers drop. But then that would be arguing FOR something instead of against something. The position you take is one that seems to say that ALL progress made in bringing death and injury down is aside from .08. I would offer that is something you would need to back up rather than me to refute. Could you do that for me? Could you make the case about how raising the . BAC .08 law to BAC.10 or even .15 would decrease fatalities or injuries? I betcha cannot, or you already would have.
This thread has links and my last post has people to contact if you refute the many studies done to the reductions documented since the .08 acceptance.
I cannot make you accept the studies or what they show. ( what they show being that the multi progned approach is the best bet and it shows progress).
(("If I pass twenty traffic signals on a road and all the ones I stop at have 3.5-second yellows, is it unreasonable for me to expect that (absent something obvious cause like a municipal boundary or speed-limit change) the twenty-first will also have something resembling a 3.5 second yellow"))
Yes it is. This is like saying twenty 'four corners' did not have a stop sign so is it unreasonable for me to expect that the twenty first one would be any different. Each traffic signal is there for a reason, it applies to that intersection and should be followed as it directs you.
(("My philosophy is that if one can prevent an accident--even if it wouldn't be your fault--you should do so."))
Well of course I agree with that and when I told you that the officer would be writing the guy that blew by you a ticket I conveyed that sentiment to you. I hope that is more clear now. I didn't offer philosphy to you with that part, I offered you truth. If you rear end someone it is your fault. I guess I could take from your post there that you think you can defensively drive for all people? Umm that would equally silly eh.
(("Let me draw you a picture"))
Hmmm, now hold on a second, if there was a car next to you how did the car behind you blow by you? Unless of course he was in the oncoming turn lane.....just doesnt sound quite right......
(("Probably comparable to the effects of being up 18+ hours without sleep. But people who do that aren't demonized."))
Ummm, ever hear of a truckers logbook and rules regarding their driving times? It isn't about demonizing sir, it is about accepting reality and in the case of truck driviers that has already been done which is why they have to keep a log book. Hundreds of bills have been introduced about these matters. The problem with passage of them surrounds people being unable to bring themselves to agree on the middle of the road mutually beneficial policy.
Talking about, dealing with and looking objectively at what happens when drinking and driving are mixed is hardly demonizing. Objective studies have been done and will continue to be done concerning this issue.
You wanna drive at .15, hey go for it. You know the risk. Apparently you take the attitude that 'it won't happen to you until you drive X amount of miles'. Or ' I'm not really impaired at .10'. I wish you the best of luck with that, not to mention all the people near you when you do.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/New-fact-sheet03/Point08BAC.pdf
an interesting tidbit here :
"An Iowa DOT review of Iowa fatal crash data from 1995-2000 indicates that 40 fatal crashes in Iowa resulting in 50 deaths involved drivers with BAC levels between .08 and .10. Sixty percent of those drinking drivers were age 25 or younger."
http://www.state.ia.us/government/dps/gtsb/gtsft_9.htm
"BAC’s between .08-.09 were involved in an estimated 40,000 crashes that killed 1,067 and injured 34,000 people that same year (Jensen et al. Impaired Driving in the United States: State Fact Sheets. Public Services Research Institute, 1999).""
You might find some useful information here: http://www.tf.org/tf/alcohol/ariv/drivsum5.html#9
Very Very interesting graphs here:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2001/2001overview.pdf
I would state that .08 all by itself may or may not decrease fatalities or injuries. I would also state that various penalty types alone could be looked at in the same light. I would further state that public education all by itself would produce the same maybe maybe not results.
I would go on to state that when a multi pronged approach is taken, as it has been, results are gained in the progress department.
.08 is here to stay and for that I am thankful. Our congress agreed on this issue better than they do about most and I think that carries a bit of weight.
When it comes right down to it, drinking and driving is just a bad idea to begin with. Alcohol does impair, that cannot be disputed. Impaired driving causes loss that range from life to dollars. Impairment cannot be refuted so those that chose to defend an act that is undefendable from the impairment angle as a whole move the debate to the actual level that the proven impairment becomes dangerous for each individual.
I would pose that this avenue is one that leads to never ending debate. As each person is affected as to impairment very differently. This is part of of humanity. This is part of the individual uniqueness that we all contain.
I would offer there is no way to logistically form a law or policy that would apply to all people equally based on the sheer volume of uniqueness. Therefor the only logical way to proceed is to set a standard limit for all people. Removing the individual impairment argument is proper in this case to end a never ending debate.
As facts become known thru studies and statistics the law should and is adjusted according to what data shows. I am convinced that data shows that the multi pronged approach that really began under President Ronald Reagan ( with his age 21 push) has shown great improvements since he was the leader of our nation.
I would offer that to see the BAC level laws changed to .10 or .15, a person should show how that will provide progress in the direction of combating the loss of life liberty and personal property. I find it very telling that I do not see that type of argument being made. I do not think it can be made, which is why i feel I do not see it being made.
I agree that a person should be able to have wine with dinner. I agree that a person should be able to have a few during the course of a football game. I agree a person should be able to 'stop and have one' (as my grandfather used to say) on their way home from work. I agree there is a balance that needs to be struck in regards to this issue.
I would offer that .08 allows for all these things to be done legally while taking into account the danger that such activity presents.
The argument is made that .08 will just lead to .05 and to .03 and ultimately to .00. OK then if that is a vlaid argument I could pose it right back the other way. Saying that if it is raised to .10 it will only lead to .15 and eventually to no BAC limits at all. Both of those arguments hold equal validity being that they are talking point phrases that really do not have the merit they attempt to portray.
IMHO, and that of congress, and I would argue the majority of americans .08 is right and proper. Not .00 or .05 or .10 or .15. .08 is middle of the road balance as best it can be determined and still allow for people at both ends of the spectrum to benefit in their points of view. A mutual benefit solution. Something that the 'middle' (also the majority imho) can support as proper policy.
Being that I have read some of your posts from as far back as 2002, I take notice the similarity in your posts now and make a judgement call that this is a never ending debate for you.
Maybe a case made as to the mutual benefits of moving the BAC to .10 would further this conversation.
How many deaths would those people have had if they'd not drunk anything?
Gee seems there is not hardly any difference being twice as intoxicated......only 762 more people died at almost twice the BAC. Is this really your argument? Is it really? rationalize it all you want to moving the numbers around all you want to but I would offer that is exactly what the is said about the 'alcohol related' numbers.
There are almost certainly a lot more drivers on the road with BAC of 0.01-0.14 than with 0.15+. I don't know exactly how many, but it's a lot. Without knowing how many miles are driven by people with what level of BAC, it's impossible to fully judge the relative risk different levels pose, but it's pretty clear that those at 0.15+ BAC pose an excessive risk in both absolute and relative terms.
Hmmm, now hold on a second, if there was a car next to you how did the car behind you blow by you?
The picture was the situation before I floorboarded through the intersection. Once my car had proceded most of the way through the intersection, that created a gap for the other car.
I would offer that to see the BAC level laws changed to .10 or .15, a person should show how that will provide progress in the direction of combating the loss of life liberty and personal property. I find it very telling that I do not see that type of argument being made. I do not think it can be made, which is why i feel I do not see it being made.
My gripe is actually not so much with the particular level chosen as with the philosophy that it's wrong to allow the people who manage to drive fine with a 0.08 BAC escape 'punishment'. If someone is so drunk, or tired, or impaired for whatever reason that simple observation of how they drive makes it obvious, they shouldn't be driving. If someone is capable of driving well enough to escape notice, they should be left alone.
I believe police cars should be equiped with audivisual recording devices, so that jurors would be able to see for themselves what condition a motorist was in. I would suggest that would be far more indicative of the person's level of impairment than a BAC.
BTW, you asked earlier if I really believed a cop would just ignore an obviously-drunk motorist who went by while he was examining someone at a random checkpoint. Perhaps I should answer back: if a cop is standing in the road conducting a 'random sobriety check', how is he supposed to react to a drunk driver who happens to pass by? Even if the cop sprints back to his vehicle and abandons the current traffic stop, the drunk driver is still going to have a pretty big lead.
The argument is made that .08 will just lead to .05 and to .03 and ultimately to .00. OK then if that is a vlaid argument I could pose it right back the other way. Saying that if it is raised to .10 it will only lead to .15 and eventually to no BAC limits at all. Both of those arguments hold equal validity being that they are talking point phrases that really do not have the merit they attempt to portray.
The issue is not merely a quantitative one, but it's a qualitative one as well. Should cops be looking for motorists who are visibly intoxicated, or those who are not visibly intoxicated? I would suggest that since the visibly-intoxicated motorists pose far more danger to the general public, cops should focus their energies on them.
If cops were required to produce evidence for a jury that they actually had probable cause to believe that a driver was impaired before pulling over that driver, I wouldn't particularly mind the 0.08 level. But when the fact that someone might have a 0.08 without showing any signs of it is used as justification for harassing everyone, I have a problem with that. I recognize that the Supreme Court has people on it who seem to think random stops constitute "probable cause", but the court has issued plenty of other bogus rulings over the years. What the Court says might get enforced as though it's law, but that doesn't mean none of its rulings are just plain wrong.
(("How many deaths would those people have had if they'd not drunk anything?"))
If those folks had not been drinking they would would be classified in a totally different area wouldn't they? They were drinking and that is why they are there. For an answer to that one must look to those crashes where people died that were not at those BAC levels and seek out the causes for those crashes.
(("it's impossible to fully judge the relative risk different levels pose"))
I would offer to you that people hurt and the people dead are proof enough that serious danger exists. When measurable and significanbt impairment is shown, as it is thru study, at .08, the excessive risk begins far before .15.
(("The picture was the situation before I floorboarded through the intersection. Once my car had proceded most of the way through the intersection, that created a gap for the other car."))
So then did he blow by you while in the intersection, or on the other side of it?? Did he fall in behind you? Did he cut you off as you were 'floorboarding'? Did that driver simply stop in the midle of the intersection? Did he drive in the oncoming turn lane (if there was one? If you were most of the way thru the intersection He really must have been flying to duck in front you eh? I guess I am missing details that make it all fit together.
(("If someone is capable of driving well enough to escape notice, they should be left alone."))
This strikes me as an out of sight out of mind type argument. 'Well enough' is something determined by those that govern the rules of the road. .08 is the line that defines 'well enough'. I will agree with you on thsi point, Below .08 drivers should be left alone. All risk cannot be totally avoided and I would offer that lowering it further would be responding to risk excessively.
I would agree that cameras are a sueful tool that shold be employed, but take notice of the fact that many scream 'big brother' is out of hand when they are put into use. As one tool in a toolbox I think cameras are a very good thing for all parties involved. A friend of mine got a DUI several years ago, he was going to fight it claiming he wasn't 'that drunk'....that he wasn't 'that impaired'. Till he saw the video of himself doing sobriety tests that is. He will tell you that the video spoke volumes to him about how impaired he really was at the time. Even though he didn't belive so at the time.
Police can give chase that is what their lights and sirens are for. I would offer that cops have a very difficult job and like you here and me here and both of us in our daily lives.....we all do the best we can. For all of us lack of perfection does not deem total failure.
(("Should cops be looking for motorists who are visibly intoxicated, or those who are not visibly intoxicated?"))
Both.
I would offer that the truthful scope of this problem combined with the responsibility of forming and enforcing policy on our nations roads compells law makers and enforcment entities to take a proactive approach that includes multiple tools in tackling the issue head on.
I would pose that this model is used to fight the issue of terrorism and it would serve us well to use it the area of illegal immigration also.
Does SCOTUS always rule properly? Well i would throw this bone. Sometimes I think they are forced to issue rulings that appear foolish. The recent one about property is a good example of this point. I would say it was not so much malisious towards liberties as it was an example where current laws intersect and create a crash. (bad play on words there sorry).
Congress and SCOTUS are coequal branches of government that can each take actions to bring balance to the other. This example like so many others puts the spotlight right on congress....and the fact that they play political games instead of actually doing their jobs.
Are roadside safety checks really all that different from border crossings? Is checking for compliance to law at each really so much different from one another? I think they both have the same directive. Compliance with the rule of law.
Could it be that if SCOTUS ruled that roadside safety checks were unconstitutional that the same decision would be used to bolster the position that border crossings are as well? Could this be why proper policy deems that safety checks be announced as to location and times?
It occurs to me that some people use privacy invasion as an afront to be able to hide behind such a statement in order that they may break law and do so unopposed.
It also occurs to me that truth is the best defense. Of course, somtimes the truth shows guilt. Many people wish to defer that guilt and deny taking responsibility for it.
Law enforcment has a job to do, they need the tools to do it. That is not to say they have an all powerful and endless supply but this is a case where balance is required.
Raodside safety checks are a valuable tool.
I would offer this bit, if people took more personal responsibility in their own actions and followed the rule of law as set out by our governing body, this tool would not be needed and would sit in the tool box collecting dust until such time as it is sold back to the tool man in the desire to trade it for other more useful tools. On balance the governed have the ability to show the governing body that a tool is unneccesary and thus should be 'traded'.
I do not think that case can be made today.
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.