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.