The Drink Drive Limt: Why?

Originally posted by Death_Kron
...being above .08 isn't exactly the same as being drunk now is it?

Originally posted by Death_Kron
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...

Which is it now? Is being above .08 not the same as being drunk or is the law the law and it doesn't matter? How can I address your points when they change from post to post. Obviously each individual should know their limit. But .08 is not the limit for many people. That's all I'm saying. And the punishment for being above .08 is too harsh. Drowsy and tired drivers cause more accidents and death and yet driving tired is not a crime.

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

So now driving "slightly above .08" is the same as committing murder? Wow.

I see your problem. You think that if anyone gets behind a wheel with any amount of alcohol in them they have already committed murder. Well, that's just not the case. Obviously, no one should ever commit murder.

reply to post by TheComte

Which is it now? Is being above .08 not the same as being drunk or is the law the law and it doesn't matter? How can I address your points when they change from post to post. Obviously each individual should know their limit. But .08 is not the limit for many people. That's all I'm saying. And the punishment for being above .08 is too harsh. Drowsy and tired drivers cause more accidents and death and yet driving tired is not a crime.

The law is the law and from a legal perspective it doesn't matter how far you are over the limit, once your over it your committing an offence.

You originally said that you think people should be allowed to drive when they are drunk and then you mentioned that many people can safely drive a vehicle when above .08

I presume you don't call being above .08 as being drunk so I'll ask you again where does the limit lie in your opinion?

So now driving "slightly above .08" is the same as committing murder? Wow.

I never said or implied that, I was referring to your flawed logic. You said that if people can drive and not cause accidents when drunk then its okay, hence the analogy that if a murderer can kill but not get caught then thats okay?

You still haven't answered my question; Would you not have a problem if your mother/father/child or spouse was killed by a drunk driver?

You think people should be allowed to drive when intoxicated so I presume you wouldn't have issue with their intoxication causing the death of one of your loved ones???

reply to post by Death_Kron


I would think that banning it out-right may cause a more reverse-psychology effect?

Originally posted by ItsAgentScully
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

I would think that banning it out-right may cause a more reverse-psychology effect?

Maybe...

I was just thinking that because there is a limit people are tempted to bend the rules slightly and as people say "I'll just have one more" or "I'm fine to drive"

If it was banned out-right then maybe people would adhere to the rules as they would know that even having one drink would be illegal?

Some people have misinterpreted this thread, I'm not asking about taking away peoples rights or make their lives a misery.

I simply thought its maybe a slight conspiracy having a limit because of the profit the government makes through the catchment area, if drinking before driving was banned out-right and people stuck to the rule then the government would loses millions...

reply to post by Death_Kron


Ok, I'll try to be as clear as I can. The legal limit is .08 therefore you are legally impaired (ie drunk) at that level. But for many people .08 does not cause impairment yet they still are charged with a crime even though they may not have damaged any property or person. And the penalty is harsh.

On the flip side, people who drive tired have been shown to be impaired and the cause of many accidents yet that is not a crime. Strange.

Of course if you do damage property or person then you should be charged with a crime. That's obvious. The penalties should be harsher if alcohol was involved, no argument there.

Obviously I wouldn't be ok with someone running over a loved one. It doesn't matter much if they're drunk or not. That's a dumb question. I certainly wouldn't be more or less ok with it just because the driver is drunk.

But that's not even what I'm talking about. I'm talking about when there is no accidents or damage at all. People get convicted of a serious crime because they "might" hit someone. Your analogy is not even relevant. A closer analogy would be to arrest a gun owner on attempted murder charges because they "might" kill someone.

reply to post by TheComte


Finally we seem to be getting somewhere!

I don't have issue with the majority of points you've raised in that last post, actually I agree in part with most of them.

However I would point out two things; firstly being tired isn't a conscious choice; voluntarily consuming alcohol is - thats why its punishable.

Secondly, it would appear what your trying to say is that the law is too harsh on people who are only slighlty over the legal limit. I do actually agree with this but like I've already mentioned the law is the law and that cannot be changed.

It's still irresponsible to say that its okay to drive whilst intoxicated as long as no damage is caused to people or property. I appreciate where you are coming from but the reality is that none of us can see into the future and therefore no one knows what will happen when they drive after they have had a drink.

I'm not talking about being legally intoxicated (i.e. over the drink drive limit) you didn't say its okay for people to drive whilst slightly over the limit, you said whilst drunk and I take that to mean well over the legal limit i.e. in the UK a male can drink at most 2 cans of normal strength lager, any more and they would be over the limit, I could drink 3 cans not feel a thing but be over the limit.

reply to post by TheComte


Other than being pulled over by a booze bus or something similar, the police would need some other reason to pull someone over before arresting such driver for drink driving. If the driver is safe and abiding by the rules, there most probably wouldn't be a cause to be stopped in the first place.

as for driving tired, people are urged to stop and rest every two hours. truck drivers need to produce log books to show their rest break. and yes, it is more than likely a bigger problem on the roads.

for here anyway, those who are fully licenced, do blow .05 up to around .12 are charged with a lesser offence in penalties in a lot of cases as to those who blow over, so really it depends on how high in the range you go and what your past history is like. and for the higher ranges or for not submitting it could also pose a penalty of dangerous driving as well.

the limits have come down a lot from what they used to be in the past, guessing from more detailed studies of effects or just from reasons of a few spoil it for all mentality. Who knows but that is the rules we got to abide by now. Still sucks for those who wish to drink drive though.


[edit on 15-4-2010 by redgy]

Originally posted by redgy
reply to post by TheComte

 

the limits have come down a lot from what they used to be in the past, guessing from more detailed studies of effects or just from reasons of a few spoil it for all mentality. Who knows but that is the rules we got to abide by now. Still sucks for those who wish to drink drive though.
[edit on 15-4-2010 by redgy]

I still can't fathom why anyone would want to drive after they had drunk alcohol, I know when I'm drunk I wouldn't even want to attempt to drive a car...

reply to post by Death_Kron


You're confusing the issue between drunk and impaired. If the law is the law.. "drunk" means intoxicated to the point you are unable to care for your safety or the safety of others (647(f)PC)... 'impaired', in the DUI scene, refers to alcohol intoxication diminishing your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

The govt has decided to assume that at .08 BAC, everybody is impaired and cant drive safely... thats like the govt deciding everyone who eats a happy meal is legally full.

BTW for those (in Ca) who still think proof of a .08 BAC is required for a DUI arrest.. you can test this theory today:

Drink yourself into a good stupor, drive to the 1st cop car you see, tell the nice officer "I'm not as think as you drunk I am and your ugly mother wears combat boots."

After being pulled over, don't perform field sobriety tests, don't blow into any hand held device and refuse to submit blood, breath or urine.. give the cops nothing.

Then demand to be freed since there is no physical proof your BAC is .08 or higher, and the officers observations of your intoxication are not enough for an arrest... let me know how that works out.

There are several bakery baked items that are sprinkled with poppy seeds, keep in mind they do not provoke any form of stimulation other than your taste buds, but if you happen to be subjected to a blood test then you will be presented with a positive result indicating that you have consumed opium.

How's that for a random head twister.

Nice to see you cooling off some & listening to people.

“I still can't fathom why anyone would want to drive after they had drunk alcohol, I know when I'm drunk I wouldn't even want to attempt to drive a car...”

Do you actually get drunk after simply a few beers? Are you actually impaired enough to not drive after 4 beers? What about 2? What about 1? What about even a sip of beer?

When I am drunk, which I haven’t been for years, I wouldn’t drive either. I am not drunk or even impaired after a few beers. I have a friend who is done after 1 beer. I have another who can drink more then most people can.

I can’t fathom why anyone would want to punish everyone then encourage personal responsibility in a few.

PS- The thing about poppy seeds & opium is closer to urban legend then fact. You would need to eat so many poppy seeds it would likely make you sick before you tested for anything. That is a defense lawyer tactic, not really a concern for an average person.

reply to post by Jake the Dog Man


No mate, like your friend I can also drink more than most, I'd be fine to drive after 2 beers, maybe even 6 beers but I simply wouldn't risk it.

Surely thats why a limit exists in the first place? Because people have different intoxication thresholds?

It would be impossible to judge on an individual basis case by case whether someone had consumed enough alcohol to impair their ability.