The Drink Drive Limt: Why?

Originally posted by Retrovertigo

Originally posted by TheDon
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

There are many other products that have alcohol in that are not related to drinking it.

So what would happen to them people if you a 0% limit?

Food for thought.

That's a fair call...

In that case, make the allowable BAC .01% or .02% tops....That should cover any scenario that might come up as a result of consuming a product that has alcohol in it as an ingredient...

So you would allow the police authority to arrest drivers that are not impaired and not displaying mannerisms / observable symptoms of alcohol intoxication? As long as the officer forms the opinion the driver might have ANY measurable BAC, that's arrestable?

Look into "nystagmus", where eyeballs display a "lack of smooth pursuit" during the "follow my finger" test.. at .01/2% BAC there is no nystagmus, no odor of an alcoholic beverage (which comes from alcohol in the blood being released into the lungs, then out the pie hole), no slurred slow speech, no deliberate mannerisms, no unsteady gait.. no observable symptoms of alcohol intoxication. These things are difficult enough to notice at .08.

That would pretty much allow the police to arrest just about everyone, it would be impossible for the officers to reasonably determine, by mere observation alone, if someone had .01% or .02% BAC... from experience I can tell you that many functional alcoholics appear lucid and sober as a judge while baked at .1+ BAC, and that on busy nights .08ers were dime a dozen little fish.

Check out "the best evidence rule".. then consider the best evidence in an alcohol related DUI is your blood, which is being destroyed by your body... .01/2% would be destroyed quickly meaning in order to preserve that evidence, the police would need to invoke the best evidence rule and force blood immediately.. literally on the side of the road... since blood can only be drawn by a nurse, the police would need nurses as ride alongs.

reply to post by Death_Kron


From your response, it seems you have been drinking. A few people have mentioned how such an inane law would affect most restaurants & many businesses. If you can’t see that after 3 minutes of thinking about such a law then far be it from me to teach you common sense & economics. I was concerned at first, but then noticed you were from England.

Seeing as you just can’t see how silly of idea this would be, understandably, try it in your little country. We have states bigger then your entire country, so it would be a good dry run (no pun intended).

Aside from your chest pounding about drinking me under the table, all your misguided points make my point. Whether you or I can drink more isn’t the point, why we shouldn’t be judged the same is.

Once you think this little fantasy through some more, you will understand how “making driving illegal” is not only sarcastic, but completely on topic.

Next time you decide to start a thread, type it out & let someone read it over before you post.

reply to post by Jake the Dog Man


You could do with seriously reading the thread and other peoples replies because it seems that your unable to share your opinions on whats actually being discussed.

Your petty insults are quite pathetic, do you really think your insulting me by calling the country I live in?

reply to post by GovtFlu


Good job at putting words into my mouth *golf claps* Assume much ?

Where did I say anything about people being arrested or charged because a cop thinks they're over the legal BAC limit based on observation ?

You cannot be charged with drink driving in Australia based on a cops observations...You must either register a BAC over the limit on a breathalyzer or in a blood test...

If the allowable BAC limit for drivers was changed to .01% or .02% the way people are detected, charged and punished in Australia would not change...

I can't and won't speak for anywhere else in the world as I don't have any experience of same...And frankly I couldn't give a fat rats clacker what anyone else does in other parts of the world with regard to drink driving...

Actually in some countries, which I won't name, raising the allowable BAC limit when driving might be a good way to cull some of the population...

I dont doubt that many governments do look forward to the revenue from fines & that may be a factor in keeping limits rather than an outright ban. However, I suspect the economic argument holds most sway. The alcohol industry is a powerful lobby. When limits 1st came in, they were much higher than now, in the UK & much of Europe, at least. Its only after plenty of scientific tests into reaction time & impairment of judgment that the limits have been reduced, often in the face of considerable opposition. There's a lot of money in 1 or 2 drinks for so many people...
Myself, I dont drive after any amount, even tho I have a high tolerance. I'm not sure that 2 drinks affects me sufficiently to impair my driving, but if I had an accident & someone was badly hurt or killed, I'd always wonder.
I think a limit that takes into account residual levels that cannot affect us is reasonable. Yes, f# the economic effects. As someone said, transport is a business too. In this recession we could do with the extra jobs created by investment in more public transport. Electric cabs wouldn't be a bad idea either.
Still, I recently sold my car because I needed the money, so perhaps I'm biased!

Originally posted by Retrovertigo
reply to post by GovtFlu

 

Good job at putting words into my mouth *golf claps* Assume much ?

Where did I say anything about people being arrested or charged because a cop thinks they're over the legal BAC limit based on observation ?

You cannot be charged with drink driving in Australia based on a cops observations...You must either register a BAC over the limit on a breathalyzer or in a blood test...

If the allowable BAC limit for drivers was changed to .01% or .02% the way people are detected, charged and punished in Australia would not change...

I can't and won't speak for anywhere else in the world as I don't have any experience of same...And frankly I couldn't give a fat rats clacker what anyone else does in other parts of the world with regard to drink driving...

Actually in some countries, which I won't name, raising the allowable BAC limit when driving might be a good way to cull some of the population...

The point is a BAC that low has no objective observable symptoms.

There is no observable difference between .01% BAC and someone who hasn't had a drop of alcohol in years...

You cannot be charged with drink driving in Australia based on a cops observations

Really?, so the police can arrest you without even observing you?.. wow.

Here in California.. the officers observations (articulated in a police report) are evidence, chemical samples (further evidence) are obtained after the arrest to confirm the officers observations.

When you get pulled over, you are being observed.. the officers observations are used to "form an opinion" as to weather the driver is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, or not... since there is no observable difference between stone sober & .01/2% BAC, what criteria should the police use to make an arrest?

Originally posted by GovtFlu
You cannot be charged with drink driving in Australia based on a cops observations

Really?, so the police can arrest you without even observing you?.. wow.

No, the police "arrest" you when you blow into a breathalyzer or take a blood test which shows your BAC level is over .05%, genius...People don't get assessed on whether they're over the limit by observation, we deal with facts here...

You blow in the bag, if you're under its "Have a good evening driver" if you blow over its "Step out of the car and follow me to the caravan over there please" where they test you on a more sensitive and accurate breathalyzer...

If you blow over on that they do the paper work, give you a copy and you call a cab or someone to come pick you up and take you home...If its a serious offense which requires going to court, you get your summons in the mail a few weeks later...

reply to post by Death_Kron


Trust me, I meant none of my point of you living in England as an insult, rather a mechanism to point out that we have many states larger then your entire country. Such a zero tolerance law would certainly be best to try on a smaller country.

My opinions are quite clear, such a law would play hell with people’s rights, not to mention destroy countless businesses throughout the country, any county, such an ill conceived law was passed. Discussing every single aspect of how silly it would be is a waste of time.

This thread, as many on ATS, isn’t interested in differing opinions but rather having others stroke your ego for having bizarre, less then mainstream ideas. Don’t create threads asking for input and opinions and then complain when someone calls you to the carpet.

Take care.

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

Trust me, I meant none of my point of you living in England as an insult, rather a mechanism to point out that we have many states larger then your entire country. Such a zero tolerance law would certainly be best to try on a smaller country.

My opinions are quite clear, such a law would play hell with people’s rights, not to mention destroy countless businesses throughout the country, any county, such an ill conceived law was passed. Discussing every single aspect of how silly it would be is a waste of time.

This thread, as many on ATS, isn’t interested in differing opinions but rather having others stroke your ego for having bizarre, less then mainstream ideas. Don’t create threads asking for input and opinions and then complain when someone calls you to the carpet.

Take care.

Well that's funny there dear old chum but the majority of posters have agreed with me...

Suggesting that there should be a complete ban on drinking alcohol before driving isn't as bizarre as you seem to think.

Your opinion is your opinion and your entitled to that but once again I would question why you think it is someones right to be allowed to consume an alcoholic beverage and then drive.

A little food for thought here. A breathalyzer doesn't measure the amount of alcohol on the breath. It measures the presence of certain methyl chemical groups. Ethyl alcohol is only one member of this group. Other members include Isopropyl alcohol, gasoline, benzine, ketones, naptha and other chemicals. The breathalyzer does not differentiate between these chemicals, it's reading is a cumulative total of the amount of these chemicals in the sample.

A friend of mine is a police officer. We had spent a Saturday repairing and repainting his boat. That evening he gave a talk to a local Boy Scout troop on drunk driving. Part of his talk was a demonstration of a breathalyzer. They had a couple of people have a reading taken and then they drank some beer and wine, waited for a bit and then had another reading taken. One of the scouts jokingly asked my friend to take a reading on himself. Well you can imagine his suprise when he blew a 0.15.
He knew that he had nothing alcoholic to drink that day and couldn't figure out how he got that reading. A few days later a guy came to the police station to calibrate the breathalyzers and my friend asked him about how his reading was possible and the guy told him about how you can absorb certain chemicals through your skin and inhalation and asked if he had been painting that day? When he said "yes" the guy said that explained the false reading. He said that they got false readings on painters, nurses, medical technicians, home health workers and people who worked in certain industries. My friend asked the Chief of Police about these false positives and his reply was "It wasn't their problem. It was the person who was arrested's problem and let them get a lawyer and fight it in court.".

Think of it this way. Say you painted cars for a living. You get off work and on your way home, you get stopped at a checkpoint. You are ordered to take a breathalyzer and you blow a 0.09. You have had nothing alcoholic to drink, but, you still have that 0.09 reading. Now the burden of proof is on you. In every other legal situation you are innocent until proven guilty, except in this case. The machine has tried you and found you guilty. Now some people would just say that a blood test would straighten everything out, but, that isn't the case. In some areas blood is automatically taken and tested, in others you don't have a right to have a blood test. The police can have your blood taken, by force if necessary, but YOU don't have that right. Talk about a Catch-22. You need to produce evidence to refute the breathalyzer, but, you have no way of collecting that evidence.

Now here's the best part. Say you get your blood taken and it tests out 0.00 for ethyl alcohol. Hey! Cool! I'm off the hook! Not so fast. Especially if you live in California. In California it is illegal to drive with a breathalyzer reading of 0.08 or above, no matter what your blood alcohol level is!

Exerpt from DUI Blog "Drunk Driving Laws Trump Science Again" by Lawrence Taylor

In People v. Bransford, to cite one notable example, the California Supreme Court was confronted with a defendant who was challenging his DUI conviction on the grounds that he was not permitted to offer scientific evidence to the jury. Specifically, he was not permitted to offer the testimony of recognized experts that the breath machine’s computer was programmed to assume that there were 2100 parts of alcohol in his blood for every 1 part it measured in his breath. He was also prevented by the trial judge from offering further evidence that this 2100:1 ratio was only an average — and that the actual ratio varied widely from person to person, and within one person from moment to moment. (If, for example, a suspect’s ratio had been 1500:1 at the time he blew a .10% on the machine, his true blood-alcohol would have actually been .07% — that is, he would have been innocent.)

The Supreme Court of California affirmed the conviction, however, ruling that such scientific facts are irrelevant: the law was recently re-written in a way that concerned the amount of alcohol in the blood ”as measured on the breath”. In a display of either twisted logic or ignorance of the scientific facts involved, the Court simply said that the crime consisted of the amount of alcohol in the blood — but only as measured on the breath. In other words, although the crime is having .08% alcohol in the blood, you can’t offer evidence about the amount of alcohol actually in the blood!

An amazing decision. More interesting, perhaps, is language in the opinion — an opinion which gives us a window into the justices’ minds. In what must have been a complete failure to appreciate the significance of what they were writing, the Court justified its ruling in a rather frank — and incredible — admission of its hidden agenda:


It will increase the likelihood of convicting such a driver, because the prosecution need not prove actual impairment…Adjudication of such criminal charges will also require fewer legal resources, because fewer legal issues will arise. And individuals prosecuted under such a statute will be less likely to contest the charges. People v. Bransford, 8 Cal.4th 894 (1994).

When it comes to problems with the current DUI/DWI system this is just the tip of the iceberg. There is no other place in our legal system where the Constitution and our rights are trampled on such a regular basis. The worst part of this is that it is being done in the name of money, fraud and political expediency.



[edit on 9-4-2010 by JIMC5499]

It has always amazed me how quickly people will give up their rights even when it comes to safety. The same people will expedite the process when it will only affect “other” people.

You not understanding the point about making driving illegal just shows your bias.

reply to post by Death_Kron


I disagree with you simply because I enjoy driving my bike after drinking. The long road..the cool breeze hitting on face..driving in rain after drinking..nothing beats that. The sharp rain drops hitting ur face like needles...the smell of smoke in air and the bike roaring dhuk..dhuk..dhuk..dhuk.......now thats what I call a good drive with a good amount of vodka or scotch whiskey running through your veins. That's ultimate pleasure.

I dont drive cars at all .. Im a Harley Davidson fan and own one of those similar model. Though I have never been in an accident while being drunk, infact the senses are more stronger after drinking. Its upto individuals I guess who can handle their alcohol well and this is from personal experience. My friends who drink and we drive together on bikes have never been in an accident while drunk..so I don't believe that people should not be allowed to drive after drinking alcohol. I have seen and actually been in accidents whilst being sober. I'd rather have people drink and drive just so their senses are enhanced.

Although I like a good drink when I dont have to drive. I also like to go out for a meal and have a beer with my meal, then be able to jump in the car and go home. I dont feel the need to drink myself over the alcohol limit. I just enjoy a beer alongside my meal. As do a lot of people...

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
It has always amazed me how quickly people will give up their rights even when it comes to safety. The same people will expedite the process when it will only affect “other” people.

You not understanding the point about making driving illegal just shows your bias.

It isn't a right to be allowed to drink alcohol before driving.

reply to post by December_Rain


I'm honestly struggling on deciding whether that post was ment to be serious or not.

You have basically admitted to drink driving while being way over the limit, unreal!

reply to post by Retrovertigo


Imagine if they got rid of the drunk driving lawsand just busted people for poor driving. The money they would make. The carnage it would stop. I have a friend whose niece died because a truck driver had driven for 36 hours. He wasn't drunk but he sure drived recklessly. My friend is against drunk driving. I finally got him to be against BAD driving whatever the cause. Problem is it is very easy to pin things on drunk driving. They have a test. They don't have one for pot, sleeplessness, or other things. The only test for that is BAD drining. They take the easy way out.

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
reply to post by Retrovertigo

 

Imagine if they got rid of the drunk driving lawsand just busted people for poor driving. The money they would make. The carnage it would stop. I have a friend whose niece died because a truck driver had driven for 36 hours. He wasn't drunk but he sure drived recklessly. My friend is against drunk driving. I finally got him to be against BAD driving whatever the cause. Problem is it is very easy to pin things on drunk driving. They have a test. They don't have one for pot, sleeplessness, or other things. The only test for that is BAD drining. They take the easy way out.

I completely agree with you, there needs to be stronger enforcement of dangerous driving full stop, regardless of what causes it...And yes, fatigue is a major cause of road fatalities...

On the contrary, we test for pot and amphetamines in Victoria as well as alcohol, people caught DUI of these drugs is about half as common as drink driving at the moment, but will become more common as more people are tested...

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by December_Rain

 

I'm honestly struggling on deciding whether that post was ment to be serious or not.

You have basically admitted to drink driving while being way over the limit, unreal!

Its serious and if you compare stats you will find more people have been in accident sober than being drunk..alcohol also enhances your senses from what I have experienced, ofcourse its not for sissies who cannot handle their alcohol. Imo drinking should be promoted before driving if one really wants to reduce accidents.

Originally posted by December_Rain

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by December_Rain

 

I'm honestly struggling on deciding whether that post was ment to be serious or not.

You have basically admitted to drink driving while being way over the limit, unreal!

Its serious and if you compare stats you will find more people have been in accident sober than being drunk..alcohol also enhances your senses from what I have experienced, ofcourse its not for sissies who cannot handle their alcohol. Imo drinking should be promoted before driving if one really wants to reduce accidents.

Sorry mate but thats actually one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read on here and I can't quite believe what I'm reading if I'm honest with you.

More people have been in motor vehicles accidents when sober for the simple statistical fact that there are more sober people driving on the road!

The amount of drivers under the influence of alcohol compared to drivers who are sober at any one given time must be less than 10% at a guess..

Alcohol does not "enhance the senses", thats rubbish!

Technically speaking, it's a nervous system depressant, which means it slows down your body's responses in all kinds of ways.

It also affects mental judgement which can lead to a false sense of over-confidence - exactly the reason why it's illegal to drive when intoxicated, your more likely to take dangerous risks and attempt certain inappropriate manoeuvres than if you were sober.

Think your being a WUM here to be honest but if you honestly believe you think people should drink before they drive then you need to be taken to a mental hospital.

[Duplicate post that hasen't happened yet.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by JIMC5499]