New law in Washington State starts today

reply to post by Xtrozero

I know. I looked too.
Maybe you could drive to Olympia (while sober).

In any case anyone can contest any fine, breath, or blood test.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Since just about everyone NEEDS to drive for a living,

No they do not. They can walk, jog, ride a pushbike or take public transport or even taxi's....

That is not reality, unless you happen to live in a large east coast city. I drive 50 miles one way to work, and that is more common than your suggestions

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

I know. I looked too.
Maybe you could drive to Olympia (while sober).

In any case anyone can contest any fine, breath, or blood test.

Ya, as I said I have no problems with the new law other than what seems to be an ability to issue a civil fine and be totally sober. I'll follow it and see if the cops actually use it that way.

i was pulled over suspicion of dui about 2 years ago, the breathalyzer machine would not operate, i was hit with refusal to blow even though i never refused and was found not guilty at jury trial. the problem i have is that the system is crooked and yet another example of policing for profit.

reply to post by Phage


I still don't know if it is true that if a driver refuses to take the breath test but agrees to take the blood test will still get hit with the $1000 fine.

but I believe the story would go like this:

-sober driver gets pulled over by a police officer
-officer suspects driver is intoxicated and or impaired
-sober driver would rather have a blood test because he is diabetic or just doesn't trust the reliability of the breath tester
-officer arrests driver
-officer calls in a tow truck to take the car away
-officer takes arrested driver to hospital for blood work
-while driver is being taken away to hospital, police perform a search of the driver's car
-driver arrives at hospital
-tow truck takes the car away
-driver is taken to jail while the blood work is being analyzed by experts
-driver sits in jail after being booked and fingerprinted.
-a day or more go by (no weekend testing)
-results from the blood work arrive at the station
-clerk files it in a stack of other papers for the officer in charge to review
-hours go by
-driver's results are reviewed.
-officer in charge fills out paper work to release driver
-officer on duty receives release paper work
-officer on duty brings the driver out of the cell
-driver is given the belongings taken during the booking/arrest
-driver needs to get home but doesn't have a car
-driver calls friend/family member for ride home from jail
-while waiting, driver gets the tow truck information and location of the car
-driver's ride arrives.
-driver calls tow truck company
-tow truck company tells driver it will cost between $200 and $1000 to get car out of impound
-tow truck company tells driver an additional $50 to $200 a day for storage will be added
-driver borrows money or empties savings to retrieve the impounded car

several days in jail, and anywhere from $50 to $1000 in fees.......................... for not breaking any law


note: I don't know what the real financial cost would be. this is just a guess.

Originally posted by subfab
but I believe the story would go like this:

-sober driver gets pulled over by a police officer
-officer suspects driver is intoxicated and or impaired

Sober driver does the roadside breath test and is on his way within a minute....

That is how the story goes if driver does not act like a dick.

reply to post by hellobruce


breathalyzers are not measurement tools.
www.ehow.com...

A breathalyzer does not measure, but estimates, blood alcohol levels. Different machines can give estimates as much as 15 percent higher than actual blood alcohol levels so not all results are reliable. Other false positives can be caused by imprecise calibration, and many DUI (Driving Under the Influence) cases have been dismissed because estimated readings are deemed inaccurate. Breathalyzer readings can be challenged because assumptions of the blood alcohol to lung air alcohol conversion vary from person to person.

also this is associated with breathalyzers:

False positive breathalyzer readings can also be a result of alcohol, blood or vomit in the mouth at the time the reading is taken. Both ambient and human temperature can raise results as can interference from mobile phones or police radios, dirt, moisture and tobacco smoke. In Frankston, Australia, it was shown that two bites of ice cream caused a breathalyzer to register a positive result. Conversely, hyperventilation or intense physical activity lowers blood alcohol readings.

so it is in the best interest of the driver to insist on a blood test over a breath test.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by WP4YT

 

How about stupid drivers that were drunk?

Does it really matter how many? You have no right to drive while impaired. I have every right to expect you to be driving unimpaired.

The problem is where does it stop?

Impaired can mean anything from consuming too much alcohol, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, not enough sleep, low IQ, low spatial awareness, angry, sad, sneezing, talking on a mobile phone, distraction from passengers, fiddling with a radio or CD player, dropping a lit cigarette / drink / snack / map, and so on and on.

Impaired can be many things, not limited to drink. Will there be forced stops and testing to see if you're bright enough, alert enough, calm enough, happy enough to drive a vehicle too i wonder?

Yes, drinking and driving is a bad idea, i don't condone it..in fact, if you drive drunk - you're a dickhead, a dangerous one at that, but there are MANY other factors that cause death on our roads, the majority of those factors, surprisingly don't involve drunken drivers, but any number of other reasons.

The question isn't one of do various factors contribute to accidents and injuries on our roads..we know they do, the question is is it right and proper for vehicle drivers to be harrassed and have their journey impeded due to a suspicion?

A method of breath analysers fitting to an engine immobiliser would be a cheaper and smarter way to go on this issue. The driver of the vehicle has to provide a clean sample of his or her breath before the engine will start...if not, the vehicle doesn't go anywhere.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by eNumbra

 

You can be fined for being completely sober and not doing anything wrong.

Yes. Because in using public roads you are expressing implied consent to testing.

In Washington State, DUI penalties are enhanced for drivers who refuse to take a breath test at the police station. Under the Implied Consent Law, a person who drives within WA State is considered to have consented to a blood or breathalyzer test if he or she is arrested for DUI.

www.tacomaduilawyerblog.com...

I have not been drinking officer. Let me prove it to you by taking a breath or blood test.

edit on 7/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

late reply but allow me to bold some parts of this that are very important for the interpretation of the wording.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by eNumbra

 

You can be fined for being completely sober and not doing anything wrong.

Yes. Because in using public roads you are expressing implied consent to testing.

In Washington State, DUI penalties are enhanced for drivers who refuse to take a breath test at the police station. Under the Implied Consent Law, a person who drives within WA State is considered to have consented to a blood or breathalyzer test if he or she is arrested for DUI.

Required if arrested being the key. As unlikely it is to actually be arrested for DUI and not be impaired i still find it a bit iffy. It's like a fine for inconveniencing the officers.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Xtrozero
The troubling part to this is that none of us are actually required to do a breath test, OR to do a sobriety check, as in walking a strait line as example. What we can not turn down is a blood test at the hospital.

Sounds like one of those "empty" laws then, because I cant see that such a situation could ever occur, or has ever occurred in real life.

Seriously, you're proposing a scenario where a sober driver says:
"no, I wont do this 10 second breathalyser test,
I want to go to the hospital and get a blood test done."

Does anyone know of a situation where this has ever actually happened?
You'd have to be drunk to want to do that.

i would say except for this BS fine, you would have to be drunk to NOT refuse the "breathalyzer test", in favor of a blood test, especially when the blood test is more accurate and has a "paper trail" attached to it. not to mention being done by someone who would not have a vested interest in your failure of it.

i'd be highly surprised to find out is has never happened. in fact after my experience with a cop administering a breathalyzer test, I WOULD REFUSE IT, and instead have the blood test done by a COMPETENT medical authority, using EQUIPMENT that i don't automatically SUSPECT has been ABUSED, or DAMAGED by INCOMPETENTS use of it. why should i have to pay a HUGE FINE because i would prefer a COMPETENT TEST RESULT? also i don't recall the "roadside breathalyzer" giving a printed record of what it found, thus who can say if the cop is even being HONEST about the result? no give me the much MORE ACCURATE BLOOD TEST, administered by a NON BIASED, NON INVOLVED person who is an EXPERT with that type of thing instead, of someone who may or may not be competent, using a LESS ACCURATE test, on a machine that has very likely been abused and mishandled.

i was pulled over as a teen and given a "breathalyzer test". it was a "harassment stop" all the way. the cop asked me when my last drink was. i told him a couple months or so ago. he DID NOT LIKE THAT ANSWER, his demeanor completely changed from a fairly neutral tone to an ANGRY yelling one, at that answer. like it was impossible that a teenager could not possibly refrain from drinking that long. especially one driving in the wee hours of a Saturday or Sunday morning, (which seems to have been why i was stopped in the first place, a teen out at that time on those days HAD to be DRUNK ). so he decided i HAD to do a breath test, (i had no clue i could have or SHOULD have refused). so i had to blow for a certain period of time, the cop looked at the results (had to be a ZERO since i was TELLING THE TRUTH), then he BANGED THE MACHINE a few times with his FIST. "you have to do it again". so i did the test yet again. he THEN banged it on the DASHBOARD as well as with his fist. "do it again". yet MORE pounding of the tester. finally after the fourth time, he either gave up or busted the machine and let me go. but even then you could tell he WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE RESULT, and "let me off with a WARNING". THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD ALWAYS REFUSE THE BREATH TEST AND GET A BLOOD TEST INSTEAD.

this fine is just SO WRONG. they ALREADY have a REMEDY for someone "refusing" the test, and that is to get a blood test WHICH YOU CAN NOT REFUSE. that fine is JUST a TAX on those who would prefer NOT TO BE RAILROADED by the "police".

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot

 

Oh. By the way:

Alcohol related fatalities are defined as fatalities that occur in crashes where at least one driver or nonoccupant (pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash has a positive Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) value

www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov...
So no. Empty bottles don't do it.

like your quote, it shows what is WRONG with your stat. it does not say that at least one driver or nonoccupant (pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash is "over the legal limit", or shall we say DRUNK. it says "a positive Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) value". BIG difference, so that means that ANY alcohol whatsoever is detected is counted as an "Alcohol related fatality". that means that even a SIP of alcohol, cold medications or the like are being MISCONSTRUED as if they were IMPAIRED, which is NOT the case. that makes that stat total BUNK. it also seems to count not only supposedly "drunk drivers" but even things like pedestrians who have had any alcohol in their systems. i will say it is a couple of nice TRICKS to BUMP UP the perceived number of people killed due to "drunk drivers".

Originally posted by MysterX

A method of breath analysers fitting to an engine immobiliser would be a cheaper and smarter way to go on this issue. The driver of the vehicle has to provide a clean sample of his or her breath before the engine will start...if not, the vehicle doesn't go anywhere.

i'll admit this does sound like an elegant solution. but in practice it is not. having lived in an area that does use these devices occasionally for "repeat offender" drunk drivers (even when they have no licence). they may on on ANY vehicle such a person may have access to, like a parent's. spouse's etc's cars.

first off these can suffer the same "erroneous" readings as any other "breath test". but something else you have not thought about is ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE who have to drive your car. people like mechanics, valet parking attendants, and workers of car parking lots for example. having been on THAT end of things those devices cause MAJOR headaches, like would YOU want to PUT YOUR MOUTH on something that someone else regularly does, and blows into? that's one way sickness and disease are spread (yet another reason to avoid "breathalizer tests, sure they put a new "tip on it", but what germs and such lurk inside the rest of the unit?). and rightfully these systems are not supposed to have a "work around" for these people since the "drunks" would ALSO be able to do it. so do you deal with THAT issue? it's one thing when it is not common, you can JUST REFUSE to deal with such a car, but if ALL cars had them what do you do?