The Drink Drive Limt: Why?

Originally posted by Death_Kron
it isn't a right to be allowed to drink alcohol before driving.

It isn't illegal either. What is illegal and rgihtfully so is having consumed an amount of alcohol that it impairs your ability to safely operate a vehicle.

I have no problem with somebody being arrested because they are not safely operating their vehicle. Whether there is alcohol involved or not.

I do have a problem with being stopped just because I pulled out of a place that serves alcoholic drinks. I do have a problem with being detained for no cause. I do have a problem with being subject to being searched without cause. I do have a problem with being forced to give potentially incriminating evidence against myself. I do have a problem with being questioned without legal counsel. I do have a problem with not being able to confront my accuser. I do have a problem with being declared guilty and having to surrender property without due process. I do have a problem with being tried more than once for the same crime. All of these are Rights and they are regularly denied when it comes to DUI/DWI.

I expected better on this subject from ATS.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by JIMC5499]

Originally posted by Death_Kron
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!

So why not give people a chance to try drive under influence..it has never been tried before publicly.

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.

Same old broken down lines...here's something new

Abstract : Although the sensory systems (vestibular and visual) most involved in disorientation and 'pilot's vertigo' would appear to be affected by the ingestion of alcohol, the locus and nature of the effect are not established. For example, there are apparently conflicting data concerning the effects of alcohol on vestibular responses to caloric irrigations. While some authors report that alcohol enhances vestibular responses, others indicate response suppression. This study was designed to investigate the effects of two levels of alcohol on the 'vertigo' and nystagmic responses resulting from caloric irrigations and visual conditions and the alertness of the subjects carefully controlled. Additional information concerning the effects of alcohol on optokinetic nystagmus was also obtained. The data clearly indicate that alcohol suppresses the nystagmic response to calorizations in total darkness. However, under conditions where visual fixation is permitted and where visual fixation would normally inhibit caloric vestibular responses, the ingestion of alcohol results in a high-frequency, low-amplitude nystagmus. This response, however, is not due to increased vestibular sensitivity, but rather to the suppression, by alcohol (directly or indirectly), of the visual fixation system. This visual inhibition was also evident in the suppression of the optokinetic response by alcohol. (Author)

source:Alcohol and Disorientation-Related Responses. I. Nystagmus and 'Vertigo' during Caloric and Optokinetic Stimulation,

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.

I'd say the same for religious people who are more driven by hallucinations of flying man/ beasts. Infact, its the religious types who should be put for checks on their mental level and discouraged from driving. Who knows someone will see a flying god in middle of road and jams his vehicle in middle of fast track road causing accident/ road jam etc.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by December_Rain]

Originally posted by JIMC5499
All of these are Rights and they are regularly denied when it comes to DUI/DWI.

I expected better on this subject from ATS.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by JIMC5499]

Not when done fairly, if the matter hasn't been handled fairly then take action with the appropriate representatives....

I don't see any problems really with the replies on this thread so far, how exactly do you expect better?

Originally posted by December_Rain

Originally posted by Death_Kron
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!

So why not give people a chance to try drive under influence..it has never been tried before publicly.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by December_Rain]

Your insane mate, why not let 10 year olds purchase guns? Why not let surgeons operate under the influence of alcohol? Why not give people a chance to turn up at work under the influence of ecstasy?

Seriously, that is the daftest thing I've ever seen on this board.

Originally posted by Retrovertigo

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...

"People don't get assessed on whether they're over the limit by observation"

Here in California people are absolutely 100% arrested every day for DUI based ONLY on the officers "observations".. the angle of onset for horizontal nystagmus is extremely accurate in determining BAC by a trained observer... I know motor officers who can nail someones BAC 9 of 10 times based on angle of onset.

People have been convicted, and do get convicted of DUI (in Ca) absent any chemical sample and based solely on the "expert" testimony of the arresting officer because the crime of DUI under 23152(a)vc DOES NOT REQUIRE a chemical sample... meaning no breathalyzer needed.

Chemical samples are not the determining factor in a DUI arrest, but they are with regard to being charged. A lot of people don't know this, but (in Ca & many states) an alcohol DUI arrest of .08 or above results in two (2) separate charges... 23152(a)vc and 23152(b)vc (see below)... if the breathalyzer breaks and there are no chemical sample evidence kits (which has happened) the police can still process DUI arrests.

If a cop in Calif pulls you over and makes enough of the following observations, you're getting arrested for DUI and going to jail: red watery eyes, slow slurred speech, odor of alcohol emitting from breath & person, unsteady gait, open containers, slow & deliberate mannerisms, rebound dilation, constricted / restricted pupils, dry mouth, confusion, OPWs / FPWs (old / fresh puncture wounds), odor of burnt marijuana, and failure to negotiate FSTs (field sobriety tests).

Once in jail a chemical sample is obtained, and it's not always breath because the suspect has additional choices of Blood & urine, and those results take weeks. If the blood/urine results show .08 or above.. the suspect gets an additional charge of 23152(b)vc. A cop can make a dozen DUI arrests in a row and not use a breathalyzer once.

The wacky system you're describing sounds like a police state like sobriety roadblock where even drivers who appear totally sober are forced into submitting a breath sample before being allowed to leave.. no thanks.

Notice (a) says nothing about a chemical sample or BAC.

www.leginfo.ca.gov...

23152. (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence
of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence
of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.
(b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by
weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Your insane mate, why not let 10 year olds purchase guns?

So now from adults you jump to kids? If the kids had means to generate their money they would have been able to get their hands on guns easily.

Why not let surgeons operate under the influence of alcohol? Why not give people a chance to turn up at work under the influence of ecstasy?
Seriously, that is the daftest thing I've ever seen on this board.

They should have, they have not because of all the daft religious nuts with their religious delusions.

Originally posted by December_Rain

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Your insane mate, why not let 10 year olds purchase guns?

So now from adults you jump to kids? If the kids had means to generate their money they would have been able to get their hands on guns easily.

Why not let surgeons operate under the influence of alcohol? Why not give people a chance to turn up at work under the influence of ecstasy?
Seriously, that is the daftest thing I've ever seen on this board.

They should have, they have not because of all the daft religious nuts with their religious delusions.

You are one extremely strange minded individual!

No, kids would not be able to buy guns even if they had their own source of income.

Laws are put into place that prohibit children purchasing weapons because they are incapable of using them responsibly or safely, just like the drink drive limit prevents people from operating motor vehicles for the exact same reason!

I don't usually resort to name calling or insults on here but you are seriously mad.

Originally posted by GovtFlu
The wacky system you're describing sounds like a police state like sobriety roadblock where even drivers who appear totally sober are forced into submitting a breath sample before being allowed to leave.. no thanks.

In that case, you're welcome to your system where you can be arrested for being over the allowable BAC level based on observation only, and we'll keep our system where physical evidence is needed...

And we'll more than happily stick with our road toll which is considerably lower and falling here in Victoria compared to California per head of population (Road toll in California is approx 10x that of Victoria, however population is approx 6.5x)...

As I said in another post on this thread, the system we have here in Victoria works, which is the most important thing...And I also said my care factor as to what the situation was anywhere else in the world was somewhere between SFA and 0...I stand by both statements...

Originally posted by Retrovertigo

Originally posted by GovtFlu
The wacky system you're describing sounds like a police state like sobriety roadblock where even drivers who appear totally sober are forced into submitting a breath sample before being allowed to leave.. no thanks.

In that case, you're welcome to your system where you can be arrested for being over the allowable BAC level based on observation only, and we'll keep our system where physical evidence is needed...

((snip))

Nobody gets arrested (in ca) for "being over the allowable BAC based on observation only.." since at the time of arrest the exact BAC is unknown, unknowable and un-provable in court... BAC levels are scientific evidence.

Cops are not crime lab techs who can make scientific evidence determinations based on field observations.. example: an arrest for suspicion of possession of coc aine the evidence will be booked in as "a white powdery substance resembling coc aine" which gets sent to the lab for scientific examination... the lab results are then sent to the DA and later submitted as evidence.

A cop can make a field determination someone is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage while operating a motor vehicle based on observations, make an arrest, then obtain a chemical sample.. if the lab results show a BAC of .08 or above a charge of 23152(b)vc will be added.

BAC results are not needed, required or necessary to make a DUI ARREST. BAC results only matter with regard to being CHARGED. I have already mentioned this, but nobody seems to get it.. an alcohol related DUI arrest usually results in two charges, for example:

23152(a)vc - is based on the officers "observations" (which can include a hand held breathalyzer indications obtained during the investigation)

23152(b)vc - is based on the scientific results of examining the suspects chemical sample by a crime lab, or calibrated / serviced Intoxilyzer / other brand device.

The police dont stop making DUI arrests or let suspected intoxicated drivers go free, and DAs don't drop DUI charges just because chemical sample evidence is unavailable... absent scientific evidence of a .08 BAC the only charge will be 23152(a)vc.. which people are more than welcome to take to a jury and challenge the offices observations.

reply to post by Death_Kron


Just coz' you have nothing else to say you come up with same old boring name calling. blah blah blah, it's getting rather boring....getting back on topic if drinking driving is against the law then religious people driving should be too.

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

Just coz' you have nothing else to say you come up with same old boring name calling. blah blah blah, it's getting rather boring....getting back on topic if drinking driving is against the law then religious people driving should be too.

Could you please explain to me exactly how its dangerous and peoples lives are put at stake when a person who believes in religion drives a motor vehicle?

...back in the day you would only be breathalized if you crashed or were caught doing something stupid behind the wheel.

...nowadays breathalizing is an excellent source of revenue for the police, government and public transport firms.

Does it actually deter drink driving>? I doubt it. People are going to drink drive no matter the limit.... but then I do know some pussies who'd rather drive than drink...

Why should it be a crime if someone does no damage to property or persons and just arrives at their destination no problem?

You should be allowed to drive drunk as long as you don't hurt anyone. Just like people are allowed to own guns as long as they don't shoot anyone. If you hit someone then the punishment should be harsher because you being drunk is an aggravating factor.

Originally posted by TheComte
Why should it be a crime if someone does no damage to property or persons and just arrives at their destination no problem?

You should be allowed to drive drunk as long as you don't hurt anyone. Just like people are allowed to own guns as long as they don't shoot anyone. If you hit someone then the punishment should be harsher because you being drunk is an aggravating factor.

So, using your logical I suppose you would find it acceptable for a surgeon to perform operations on patients whilst drunk as long as he/she doesn't make a mistake?

Or airline pilots should be allowed to fly their aircrafts drunk as long as they don't crash their plane?

Ridiculous.

[edit on 14/4/10 by Death_Kron]

reply to post by TheComte


good points,

I guess it's like a preventitive measure to take by governments in those reguards. trying to stop these fatalities from occuring before they might happen, hence all the rules and regulations.

Sure, someone could drive home safely still while under the influence nine out of ten times, but that would not mean that they do not pose a danger to the public or other road users when they do.

It might not be a right for the individual who gets caught while drink driving, but is a right for the innocent victims and families who have to suffer the loss of losing loved ones from these over the limit drivers.

reply to post by Death_Kron


What is ridiculous is you comparing driving a car to surgery or piloting a plane. I didn't think it was that hard to drive a car. Maybe for you it is, I don't know.

Fact is many people can drive perfectly fine if their blood alcohol limit is above .08. And equally as many people shouldn't be on the road at all regardless. Why is it a crime for one and not the other when it is driving ability that is being judged?

Ridiculous.

Originally posted by TheComte
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

What is ridiculous is you comparing driving a car to surgery or piloting a plane. I didn't think it was that hard to drive a car. Maybe for you it is, I don't know.

It's exactly the same, performing an action that could result in injury or death to other human beings because your intoxicated...

Fact is many people can drive perfectly fine if their blood alcohol limit is above .08. And equally as many people shouldn't be on the road at all regardless. Why is it a crime for one and not the other when it is driving ability that is being judged?

Yes they probably can, but being above .08 isn't exactly the same as being drunk now is it?

You said people should be allowed to drive when drunk, not when slightly over the drink drive limit, theres a big difference.

What if someone is so drunk they can barely walk straight or pronounce their own name? Should they still be allowed to drive then?

What if they are so drunk they can't see straight? Can they still drive then?

Please clarify exactly where your limit lies as you specified people should be allowed to drive when drunk.

Yes some people shouldn't be on the road regardless of whether they are drunk, high or stone cold sober but thats not whats being discussed.

Oh and bravo, you repeated the word ridiculous! Thats pretty clever... (go on do it again, you know you want to)

[edit on 14/4/10 by Death_Kron]

Originally posted by redgy
reply to post by TheComte

 

Sure, someone could drive home safely still while under the influence nine out of ten times, but that would not mean that they do not pose a danger to the public or other road users when they do.

It might not be a right for the individual who gets caught while drink driving, but is a right for the innocent victims and families who have to suffer the loss of losing loved ones from these over the limit drivers.

I'm glad someone has some common sense!

Drinking alcohol impairs ones ability to drive a vehicle, no ifs or buts about it.

If someone is drunk then they have a signicantly higher chance of making a mistake and that mistake could potentially injure or kill someone.

I know for a fact that I'd never drive home drunk, I don't know maybe The Comte is a doesn't handle alcohol very well?

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Yes they probably can, but being above .08 isn't exactly the same as being drunk now is it?

You said people should be allowed to drive when drunk, not when slightly over the drink drive limit, theres a big difference.

What if someone is so drunk they can barely walk straight or pronounce their own name? Should they still be allowed to drive then?

What if they are so drunk they can't see straight? Can they still drive then?

Please clarify exactly where your limit lies as you specified people should be allowed to drive when drunk.

Yes some people shouldn't be on the road regardless of whether they are drunk, high or stone cold sober but thats not whats being discussed.

Oh and bravo, you repeated the word ridiculous! Thats pretty clever... (go on do it again, you know you want to)

[edit on 14/4/10 by Death_Kron]

Yes, according to the law it is the same, and exactly the point. The limit for some people to drive safely can be over .08. And yet it is still a crime if they get caught even though they didn't cause any injury of damage of property in any way. And if they do get caught the punishment is way too harsh for the crime.

And driving is not even close to being the same as surgery or piloting. That's just crazy talk.

Oh, and bravo, you are managing to sound like a little baby. Get over it or go cry in the corner, the adults are talking.

Originally posted by TheComte

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Yes they probably can, but being above .08 isn't exactly the same as being drunk now is it?

You said people should be allowed to drive when drunk, not when slightly over the drink drive limit, theres a big difference.

What if someone is so drunk they can barely walk straight or pronounce their own name? Should they still be allowed to drive then?

What if they are so drunk they can't see straight? Can they still drive then?

Please clarify exactly where your limit lies as you specified people should be allowed to drive when drunk.

Yes some people shouldn't be on the road regardless of whether they are drunk, high or stone cold sober but thats not whats being discussed.

Oh and bravo, you repeated the word ridiculous! Thats pretty clever... (go on do it again, you know you want to)

[edit on 14/4/10 by Death_Kron]

Yes, according to the law it is the same, and exactly the point. The limit for some people to drive safely can be over .08. And yet it is still a crime if they get caught even though they didn't cause any injury of damage of property in any way. And if they do get caught the punishment is way too harsh for the crime.

And driving is not even close to being the same as surgery or piloting. That's just crazy talk.

Oh, and bravo, you are managing to sound like a little baby. Get over it or go cry in the corner, the adults are talking.

Well done for successfully evading my points, I thought you would...

I'll ask again because maybe your a little slow and didn't see it the first time round, could you please tell me if you think its acceptable that people who are so drunk and can't even pronounce their own name should be allowed to drive?

You mentioned that people should be allowed to drive whilst drunk so I look forward to your answer.

The law is the law, it doesn't matter if you are over the limit ten fold or only just slightly past the allowed limit, the limit is there for a reason...

I suppose by your logic if someone commits murder but doesn't get caught then its okay yeah?

If this is the "adults talking" then I'll start spending my time chatting to ten year olds because even they know its not a good idea (to say the least!) to drive whilst intoxicated.

I suppose you wouldn't have a problem with a drunk driver killing your mother/father/child or spouse because they were intoxicated as you think people should be allowed to drive whilst drunk?

I look forward to your reply.

Brilliant! (Go on copy it again, your just making me laugh)

[edit on 14/4/10 by Death_Kron]