Blood Alcohol Blues

Tech Central Station ^ | December 16, 2005 | Max Borders

[Final Authority]

When I was a teenager the cops would not make us pour out our beer, they rather would confiscate it for evidence "just in case we (got) caught you (us) again". In reality, if they did their jobs during the week and Friday night after the football game really well, they wouldn't have to buy any beer for themselves all weekend.

Same was true for fireworks leading up to the fourth.

[Final Authority]

You are correct. If one glass of wine is certain to cause impairment and lead to a tragic accident, then why are there so many drivers on the road everytime I commute to work or go to the mall? Shouldn't we all be dead by now?

[Casloy]

I think the more logical approach is a different level of punishment depending on the level of intoxication. The fact is, I prefer not to have anyone on the road who has had more than one drink, but realistically the real threat is some jerk off who had to hold a hand over one eye because he is so drunk he sees double.

[Casloy]

You're right. And here's why. Most states now require drivers convicted of DUI to attend "drunk drivers school"

In Virginia, any traffic violation gives you a choice: take the points on your license or go to traffic school. The traffic school is conducted in a hotel ballroom by a private company. You have to pay to take the class and the company gives the state a percentage of the take. There is absolutely no evidence these classes reduce traffic violations or accidents, but since the state gets a windfall from the classes and there is zero overhead, there is no incentive to stop the classes. It's a huge rip-off.

[Final Authority]

Rather than worrying about DUI laws and driving while impaired, let's just prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages? Oh, I think I remember that that has been tried before, and if I remember right, it didn't work too good.

If the cops enforced red light violations, stop sign violations, speeding, aggressive driving, and other so-called, minor violations during the day instead of pulling "details" looking into an excavators hole, having a conversation with a cup of coffee and a donut, then I would be less concerned about their predator practices at night going after the guy or woman who had two or three drinks after work coming home from an establishment.

Although we hear of tragic accidents that happened early in the morning after a night of drinking, many more accidents that cause injury happen during regular hours at traffic lights and stop signs where people have been conditioned to ignore them, and being impaired just makes that decision more risky.

If the cops began to enforce the breaking of the laws by the least law breaker (the typical traffic light violation or speeder) then I think there would be generally more respect for safety on the roads.

[Kozak]

No, you are missing the point. Anyone who drives a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol is risking "dire consequences" that have nothing to do with the DUI laws. Alcohol increases the chances of getting into an accident. The consequences can be serious injury or death.

A little personal anecdote here.

Working as an ER orderly in Chicago, we got a family of 5, dad, and 4 kids all killed by a drunk driver, who as is sometimes the sad joke had not a scratch on his sorry ass, so drunk he could hardly talk.

Dad had taken the kids for a Sunday afternoon ice cream treat. I had to clean up some of the bodies for mom who was on her way, not aware that her entire family had been massacred. I remember trying to clean the vomit out of the hair of one of the girls, and the horrible grating sensation when I moved her neck, like a bag of broken china.

Since then I have worked as an ER doc for over 20 years. I deal with drunks, and drunk drivers on a nearly daily basis. People out on the streets so drunk they piss themselves and don't know it. Not capable of operating a pencil, let alone 2000 lbs steel battering rams. Assholes pulled in on their 5th or 6th DUI, without a license and no registration or insurance.

Personally, I don't care if someone dives into a vat of whiskey at home, or shoots up heroin or tokes up as long as they do it AT HOME. Once you are out on the streets its NOT YOUR RIGHT OR YOUR PRIVATE MATTER.

If it were up to me, first offense would be suspension of license for 1 year. Second offense would be permanent loss of license with 20 years imprisonment if caught driving. Third offense you get executed, as you have proven you have NO REGARD FOR YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS AND NO JUDGEMENT.

[Darnright]

Bump to read later

[StACase]

I didn't say anything about repealing any laws. I did say something about establishing truth. I implied that the current law should not be strengthened to ensnare those who consumed a single beer or glass of wine. I implied that those who would change the law in such a way are "Nanny Staters" Also Known As liberals.

Let me guess, you vote for Democrats don't you.

[dsc]

You still don't get it. The trend is toward stricter and stricter laws, and the laws *already* criminalize levels of alcohol that DO NOT IMPAIR the driver.

"Good. It would appear that the DUI laws are working in your case"

Years n Years ago, when this nonsense was just starting, some university types decided to use SCCA members in a study. They laid out a gymkhana course, and had everyone drive it as fast as possible after measured amounts of alcohol.

The dirty little secret is that we all did **better** at .1 BAC.

DUI at .1 is overly restrictive. .08 is bloody ridiculous. As the article shows, it's not about preventing traffic accidents, it's about more power for the nazis.

What the DUI laws are "working" to do is to deprive us of another freedom.

[dsc]

"Once you are out on the streets its NOT YOUR RIGHT OR YOUR PRIVATE MATTER."

That is true **if** you are a danger to others. The guy you describe sounds like his BAC was well above .1

America is supposed to be a free country, and damn it, a person who drinks a couple of beers and is not impaired should be free to do it.

[Logophile]

Let me guess, you vote for Democrats don't you.

Is that your idea of a cogent argument?

[Logophile]

You still don't get it. The trend is toward stricter and stricter laws, and the laws *already* criminalize levels of alcohol that DO NOT IMPAIR the driver.

I "get it" just fine, thank you.

Years n Years ago, when this nonsense was just starting, some university types decided to use SCCA members in a study. They laid out a gymkhana course, and had everyone drive it as fast as possible after measured amounts of alcohol. The dirty little secret is that we all did **better** at .1 BAC.

That is very interesting. Where were the results published somewhere?

Would you say that the SCCA drivers who participated in these experiments were representative of the typical driver? Did the course include other moving vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, stop signs, and so on?

DUI at .1 is overly restrictive. .08 is bloody ridiculous. As the article shows, it's not about preventing traffic accidents, it's about more power for the nazis.

Okay, I am willing to be convinced. Cite for me the scientific studies showing that the average driver is not impaired at 0.08 or 0.10 BAC.

What the DUI laws are "working" to do is to deprive us of another freedom.

Well, I suppose they do, in much the same way as speed limits, traffic lights, and stop signs do.

[Smokin' Joe]

But it is not clear that failing to burn one’s lights is probable cause for suspecting impairment. (Most of us forget from time to time. It doesn’t mean we’re drunk.)

It is one more fishing tool. The local police told me that one in four drivers in the bar district at closing time who fail to turn on their headlights are DUI. Your mileage may vary.

[dsc]

"That is very interesting. Where were the results published somewhere?"

I don't really know. I wasn't politically aware at the time. Given that the results came out "wrong," it's entirely possible that they weren't.

"Would you say that the SCCA drivers who participated in these experiments were representative of the typical driver?"

In terms of physical characteristics, yes. A decrement (on an arbitrary scale) from 100 to 80 is as measurable as a decrement from 50 to 40, so driving skills shouldn't matter.

"Did the course include other moving vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, stop signs, and so on?"

Ever drive a gymkhana? They can be devilishly difficult. Points are deducted for knocking over pylons. If you can miss pylons, you can miss pedestrians and bicycles (although why anyone would want to miss a bicyclist is beyond me).

"Okay, I am willing to be convinced. Cite for me the scientific studies showing that the average driver is not impaired at 0.08 or 0.10 BAC."

When academia is in the iron grip of ideologues, studies that come out "wrong" are not permitted. However, the article above cites two figures that highly indicative of just that point.

Besides, didn't you see that recent study showing that most studies are horse puckey?

"Well, I suppose they do, in much the same way as speed limits, traffic lights, and stop signs do."

That would be true of reasonable DUI laws. It is not true of the ones we have now.

[norraad]

When you go to court with a lawyer you have paid to have one more enemy.

Remember, you & your money will pass like water under a bridge, "your" lawyer still has to work in that courtroom with his fellow workers.

"Drop the vernacular."

"That's a Derby, judgy wudgy."

[HairOfTheDog]

The trend towards continuing to lower the illegal BAC is wrong a waste of time, and counter productive.

I'd rather see increasing levels of punishment at the UPPER levels of BAC, those drivers who are truly dangerous.

[HairOfTheDog]

I you refuse the BAT in Canada it's automatic jail and license suspension.

You're right... the penalty for refusal is intentionally worse than a guilty in WA also. A refusal results in a ~revocation~ of license for at least a year, which is much worse than a suspended. It's like you never had one before. You must retake the test.

Cletus, you have given very bad advice.

[MarkL]

It's still far easier to refuse the BAT and take your chances in court...with a good lawyer.

In many states, that can get you arrested, and it can mean a one year revocation of your drivers license. Even if you go to court, it won't get your license back.

Mark

[sitetest]

Dear Kozak,

"I deal with drunks, and drunk drivers on a nearly daily basis. People out on the streets so drunk they piss themselves and don't know it. Not capable of operating a pencil, let alone 2000 lbs steel battering rams."

And this relates to someone with a BAC of .03... how?


sitetest

[MarkL]

You are correct. If one glass of wine is certain to cause impairment and lead to a tragic accident, then why are there so many drivers on the road everytime I commute to work or go to the mall? Shouldn't we all be dead by now?

I'm amazed that I survived riding in the bed of a pickup truck, or the back of a station wagon, with no seatbelts, and confounded with how I survived playing Lawn Darts!

I should be dead by now!

Mark