"How about the many tens of thousands killed below 0.01?"
Far too many and I support curtailing them also. As I stated previously.
"Further, bear in mind that some of those people who are listed as "between 0.08 and 0.10" would if I had my druthers be listed higher. The guy who smacked you, depending upon weight, should have been listed somewhere between 0.16 (if he was really heavy) to 0.21 (if he was a beanpole)."
That is an argument that actually supports .05 or .06 being the law for at the time of driving. (if you admit the studies that show .08 is a level where impairment is evident.) As I said this is an unknowable variable setup and could not work when applied to all people equally.
"Watch a driver on an S-turn......"
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?
"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.
"Speed limits are another instrument of the revenue state, whose enforcement is often driven more by revenue considerations than safety. "
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?
Hardly.
Iraq is not an occupied police state. We are there at the request of the soverign elected government that exists. The reason they ask for policing action aid is because of the decisions and actions of its populace. Meaning they are refusing to follow the rule of law.
"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.
"Even if the arrestee has to pay for the test themself that's still going to be cheaper for him than the costs associated with DUI conviction."
What is cheaper is adopting the law and don't drive when you are above .08. IF you are questioning yourself when drinking and driving then you could use these: http://www.alcotesters.com/breathalyzer.htm
Far cheaper than both and you can rely on your own information as a guide and protect your own medical records.Personal responsibility isn't that hard.
" the question is what information is shared with whom."
Those tasked with governing the roads you drive upon and enforcing the rules set out by that governing body should be allowed access to that information in order that they may do their job. That is the purpose for having it right?
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?