Posted on 03/08/2006 6:12:23 AM PST by Enterprise
"Fresno police are taking enforcement of drunken driving laws to a new level — which officers expect will bring both success and outrage. Saturday night, the traffic unit unveiled a new operation in which plainclothes police officers stake out bars and target drunk patrons. If the heavy drinkers get behind the wheel, officers in unmarked cars follow them and call in marked police cars to pull them over."
(Excerpt) Read more at fresnobee.com ...
>08 is the BAC level at which every person is deemed unfit to drive. Impaired to drive. Deal with it or present why it is wrong. You saying so isn't enough. Yet that is all you will do. Why do you call for alcohol to be illegal? I sure am not doing so. Why are you? Afraid to admit this is about driving and not about drinking by itself?
Drunk drivers make a choice just like terrorists do, and people are hurt and killed by both. Sorry the comparison upsets you but hey, the truth hurts.
Show me why they are not the same in the areas I have likened them. OH wait, you would if you could.
You said it yourself, you don't believe. OK that is your right. But it doesn't make you right.
Then you go on to say ban cell phones. NOOOOOO just like booze you change the goalposts yourself. It isn't about the phone it is about the ddddrrrriiiiivvvvviiiinnngggg......see a pattern yet?
I notice that you didn't make the case that driving IS your right. I wonder why you went the direction you did instead of actually doing that?
YES at .08 BAC all people are treated the same in the eyes of the law....that is to say that none are allowed to drive after that level is reached. I love your spin trying to say that isn't the case.
You want to talk about ILK? The same folks that argued against the .08 change argued against the change TO .10 so take your straw man and go on with your bad self.
Lots more people are killed by sober drivers because there are alot more sober drivers driving. This hollow foolisness Is like saying more white people drive than black people....WELL DUH there is more white people!!!! Take these weak rants somewhere else, I have no need to play this game with you.
Yep, if someone spills a beer on you, you're going to jail and your car is going to be confiscated.
I have never met anyone in MADD and I am sure most of them are well-intentioned. So are most members of most other organizations that become eventually concerned only with their own preservation.
When drunk driving was treated like a minor faux pas, it made sense for the aggreived to petition for stricter penalties and enforcement.
Now, MADD, like the labor unions and the NAACP exist purely to continue their grievances whether it makes any sense or not.
SD
What was the reason you were told as to why you were pulled over?
IF he refused to show you the results of your test then by all means go file a complaint against him. He had to radio in about the stop as part of his operating procedure so there would be a record of your stop.
Take your getsapo stuff to whazirastan and cry me a river. It really gets old.
Every person that is killed by a driver that has been drinking could be avoided by people not driving when they drink. That is absolutely a true statement. For if noone was drinking and driving there would be noone killed or hurt by a driver that had been drinking.
If that guy wasn't drinking you would not have been involved in a drinking and driving crash now would you?????
What part about that don't you get?
Surely you can do better when trying to minimize what drinking and driving does do???????
Ok then Halve the statistics based on your argument. Do you find them acceptable then?
So you want all people to come to the DMV hammered and drive a closed course to establish how much they can drink and still drive? Do you really find this possible?
.08 is established thru study to be impairment and all 50 states have adopted that level as ground zero.
If there's one thing I have no sympathy for, it's drunk drivers.
How do you offer that the crime can be established as actual? How do you prove it in order to inflict those punishments?
LMAO @ .58
Hardly
The cops around here would have taken him to the hospital for a blood test for drugs.
Read the links I posted before. Those numbers have fallen since the changes were made also. Argue all you want to but it is a choice to drink and drive, and if you do accept the punishment you get just as you would have to do if you robbed someone and stuck a knife in them. Crash into them and you kill them just as dead.
You've finally outed yourself. Congratulations.
The question is whether it makes sense to target minimally intoxicated drivers when statistics make it clear that it is those with much larger BACs who are the problem.
If you want zero to be the legal limit, then just admit it. Don't pretend that "science" makes 0.08 a rational limit and then come around in 5 years and claim "science" means it must be 0.05.
SD
You don't have a freak'in clue what you are talking about. No one has advocated driving drunk. Apparently, you don't understand or can't appreciate the difference between driving drunk and driving with a BAL in access of an artifical limit that may or may not correlate with a person's ability or inability to drive a motor vehicle. With regard to your other remark to "Mallardx," I have news for you: Cops lie all the time and as a result, they often require people to "blow" even if they pass the field sobriety tests. How do they gey away with it? Like I said, they lie, i.e., "He had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath," "she was unable to walk a straight line," "he slurred his words," etc. The cops can get away with lying because often they are the only witness other than the accussed and who are you going to believe, a cop or a "drunk guy." Well, my city finally did something about the lying cops and installed audio/video equipment on the cop cars. And guess what? The number of arrests are way down, and the number of convictions are way up.
The links I posted show the info you wanted. Just to be clear it is not an accident when drinking is involved. Accident implies unavoidable and that has already been debunked. it's a CRASH not an accident because a simple choice could have avoided the wreck.
You can claim it is all fear all you want to. Go on and live your life thinking that people do not die and get maimed as a result of this choice. It happens is far to large a number to call it acceptable.
Come walk in my shoes for a while...Ill show it is far more than fear....its reality.
No- don't be absurd or disingenuous -- you know that states have been strongarmed by the feds to adopt that BAC level. And statistics, which are routinely bent and twisted to support all means of government intrusion, are no reason to arbitrarily incarcerate and ruin the lives of harmless individuals. I have driven for 20 years at a variety of BAC levels from zero to above .08, and my accident rate at all levels is zero - those are some additional statistics for you. And if you think real hard I bet you come up with an idea for a mobile unit to test driving skill and reaction.
http://www.ncadd.com/08_crashrisk.cfm
This site you cite above states that one is 3-5 times as likely to die in a fatal single driver crash at 0.02.
Why isn't 0.02 an "established by science" limit?
SD
yes they are much more likely than the .00 level JUST like the ,08 are more likely also.
You can go claim no citation all you want to, but that doesn't make it true. There are many studies that show impairment established at .08. Deny them all if you wish, its your dime.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/New-fact-sheet03/Point08BAC.pdf
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.