Tell that to the person that blew .123 and hurt me, the friend I was riding with and his girlfirend ( the passenger in his car. He was passed out....so much for your .15.
[later...]
He blew a .123 and that was almost three hours after the crash. He was caught with his beer and was two lanes away from his own. He admited to the cop on the scene that 'when he came to he turned the wheel left."
Are you trying to suggest that someone with a BAC of 0.123 three hours after a crash would not have had a BAC of over 0.15 before the crash? If not, it would seem that you are being disingenuous.
Can you show where eye color causes impairment in ability? Your analogy fails there.
Can you show where a BAC of 0.08 causes impairment beyond the statistical noise level? The argument that large amounts of alcohol are bad, ergo smaller amounts must still be bad is not sufficient, since many things that are harmful at certain concentrations are harmless or even beneficial in smaller concentrations (oxygen being a common example). While I won't claim that alcohol is chemically 'helpful' to driving even in low concentrations, I would suggest that someone with a 0.08BAC who is mindful of the need to drive carefully is apt to be a safer driver than someone with a 0.00BAC who is busy thinking about decorations for the upcoming company picnic (or whatever).
Should people drive with a 0.08BAC? Probably not. And if you wanted to pass a law that drivers caught with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10 would be required to take a cab home and either have a tow or arrange for their vehicle to be moved within two hours, but would have no other punishment, I'd probably go along with that. But saying that someone who drives with a 0.08BAC deserves to have his life ruined is too much. Especially given that someone whose life has been ruined by such a conviction has little to lose for repeat offenses.
"Are you trying to suggest that someone with a BAC of 0.123 three hours after a crash would not have had a BAC of over 0.15 before the crash? If not, it would seem that you are being disingenuous."
Where do you see me trying to suggest anything? What did he dilute himself with in those three hours? How much alcohol lefts his blood stream in that time? Maybe it is you beihng "disingenuous'. I state not suggest.
What is your basis for .15?
"Can you show where a BAC of 0.08 causes impairment beyond the statistical noise level? "
Sure : "0.07-0.09 BAC: Slight impairment of balance, speech, vision, reaction time, and hearing. Euphoria. Judgment and self-control are reduced, and caution, reason and memory are impaired, .08 is legally impaired and it is illegal to drive at this level. You will probably believe that you are functioning better than you really are."
http://www.brad21.org/effects_at_specific_bac.html
"•.08 is legally impaired and it is illegal to drive at this level
• slight impairment of balance, speech, vision, reaction time, and hearing
• euphoria
• reduced judgment and self-control
• impaired caution, reason and memory
• belief that they are functioning better than they really are"
http://www.gdcada.org/statistics/alcohol/bac%20levels.htm
"Virtually all drivers are substantially impaired at .08 BAC. Laboratory and test track research shows that the vast majority of drivers, even experienced drinkers, are impaired at .08 with regard to critical driving tasks. There are significant decrements in performance in areas such as braking, steering, lane changing, judgment and divided attention at .08 BAC. Studies report that performance decrements in some of these tasks are as high as 60%-70% at .08 BAC."
http://www.drivers.com/article/147/
" study by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation found that, at BAC levels of .05 to .08, the risk of collision for drivers in the 20+ age group was about twice that of drivers with zero BAC. For young novice drivers (16- to 19 years of age) the crash risk at .05 to .08 was about eight times that of normal drivers"
http://www.drivers.com/article/145/
http://www.ncadd.com/08_impairment.cfm
http://www.dps.state.mn.us/ots/Laws_Legislation/Legislation/08_Legis/Impairment.pdf
"And if you wanted to pass a law that drivers caught with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10 would be required to take a cab home and either have a tow or arrange for their vehicle to be moved within two hours, but would have no other punishment, I'd probably go along with that."
So you want a law that has no punishment? I bet you would go for that.
"But saying that someone who drives with a 0.08BAC deserves to have his life ruined is too much."
How about me riding with no BAC having his life ruined?
"Especially given that someone whose life has been ruined by such a conviction has little to lose for repeat offenses."
That shows error in punishment doled out. Each offense should become stiffer and stiffer with the means of jail time. "little to lose" is exactly where three strikes laws came from.
you have a funny sense of ruined, Ill give you that.
If a persons life is ruined by DUI convictions, I would offer to you they should have made better choices.