# Drunk Driving Laws...



## Cruentus (Apr 19, 2004)

I've never had a DUI before, because I am careful.

I also have sympathy for anyone who has lost a loved one to drunk driving.

However, I do feel that too often alcahol is demonized by special interest groups such as MADD, NCADD (http://www.ncadd.com/), and others.

Now, my goal isn't to demonize groups like MADD or SADD, because they do a lot of positive work in the community. But, I do feel that many activists often forget that we live an america, and that we have the right to drink. I think that Alcahol statistics are often inflated to unrealistically demonize the substance by these groups. Why? Well, losing a son or daughter can be very tragic and emotional, and I think that activists are often looking for something to blame. Alcahol provides a good scapegoat. What is not realized is that sometimes accidents just happened, regardless of what influence the person may be under. Often times, when alcahol is blamed for fatal accidents, the alcahol blood content level of the offender is below the legal limit.

So, because these groups are looking to place blame on something, more and more biased research comes out to support the claims that alcahol is an evil substance. On the NCADD site above, you can see all kinds of evidence supporting the new 0.08 limit (the now new legal limit in Michigan and many other States). Example: In one piece of evidence, they highlight that men's driving skills are "significantly affected" at 2 drinks. There is no indication, however, as to what "significantly affected" means, or the scientific basis behind it. Also, the information is doubtful, given that at 2 drinks, I (a 220 lb make) would only be at a 0.03 (statistically not affected by the alcahol at all) compared to 100 lb female who would be at 0.09. An example of biased statistics at its best. 
(See chart: http://www.ncadd.com/08_impairmentcharts.cfm)

All this is able to occur because their is no strong organization to oppose groups like NCADD, or MADD. If I started a group like IDFA, Irish Drinkers for America, or something like that, how many would join? People aren't as passionate about drinking because "not drinking" didn't kill their son or daughter. Furthermore, groups like MADD DO do good work when they aren't participating in logical fallicies and emotionally based arguements and research. However, a major factor is the emotional arguement. How do you argue against emotional arguements like, "My son was killed at 17 by a drunk driver. Alcahol killed my son, so no one under any kind of influence should be behind the wheel! 0 Tolerance!" ??? As illogical as the arguement is (for one, we often aren't told the actual blood alcahol content of the driver, and for two, "alcahol" didn't "Kill" her son; if anything it would have been the driver who decided to get behind the wheel while drunk, provided that he actually was drunk) it is very difficult to argue against someone who has lost a loved one. 

Now, if we look at the chart provided here we see a number of things ("Relative Risks of Fatal Crash As a Function of BAC):
http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol-info/DrinkingAndDriving.html

The main thing that we see is that the chart doesn't start to truely rise exponentially until the 0.12 BAC mark. The arguement behind the 0.01 legal limit was to set the limit BEFORE you were to be considered truely intoxicated to drive. Now, of course, new arguements have pushed the limit down to 0.08.

I don't by the idea that setting lower and lower limits is the answer. We don't throw people in jail for wanting to kill someone, for instance, but we will do so if they threaten or attempt too. To do so would be a restriction on our civil liberties. Thus, setting a legal limit below what would be considered "too drunk to drive" is a restriction on our civil liberties as well in my opinion. Despite what interest groups say, drinking and driving, as long as your not impaired, is our right.

So, I propose that we raise the limit to 0.12, where the statistics show that that is the breaking point for most people in determining intoxication. Bottom line: we have the right to drink and get behind the wheel, just as long as we aren't impaired. 0.12 and below is not impaired, despite what special interest groups and biased research wants you to think.

What are your opinions?

 :supcool:


----------



## Spud (Apr 19, 2004)

I'm pretty conservative when it comes to this. I've never regretted taking a cab home. I suspect I was probably fine to drive, but damn. I don't want to risk hurting somebody let alone the cost and hassle of a DUI. 

I suspect that a higher BAC for driving might technically, be acceptible, but end result would be more drivers blowing a 0.18 on the road...  

As with many things in our society, the responsible people are the ones who find limits on their freedom.

_edit_ I don't see a vote for keeping it at 0.08 up there. (my choice)


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 19, 2004)

Yes...I forgot to add "Keep the limit at 0.08" to the poll; could a Mod. Please edit this for me?

Tx.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 19, 2004)

http://getmadd.com/Canada .08BAC study.htm

The link above provides some more evidence in support of my point. 

"The function of a BAC limit may be to inform the public that the consumption of alcohol beyond a certain point is considered illegal and dangerous when combined with driving. The specific point at which driving after drinking crosses the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour may be of relatively little consequence. This is because the general public has only a very superficial understanding of the relationship between alcohol consumption and BAC particularly in terms of their own behaviour. Most do not have access to facilities to measure their own BAC and, hence, must make the decision about driving based on their own subjective assessment of the extent to which alcohol has adversely affected their ability to operate a vehicle safely. Merely knowing a limit exists and that the limit is reasonable may be sufficient to ensure that responsible citizens will attempt to comply with the law by drinking moderately and/or making alternative transportation arrangements."

I agree with this paragraph, but I take it a step further. Most people don't have access to a breathilizer before getting behind the wheel. So, they have to do it on estimation, and "how they feel." Most can't tell the difference, in feeling between a 0.05 or a 0.09 by feeling. You may think that your below the limit because you haven't had that much to drink, but if the bar tender made your drinks too strong, or you had an empty stomach, you could blow a 0.085. So, because we don't know by feeling any more whether or not we'll be below the limit or not, it now becomes a "game" of "am I too drunk to drive or not? I feel fine, I'm coherent and cordinated, but who knows?"

Our civil liberties are not a game. At 0.12, you can feel that you shouldn't be getting behind the wheel. THis takes the "game" out of the picture.



> I suspect that a higher BAC for driving might technically, be acceptible, but end result would be more drivers blowing a 0.18 on the road...



This may seem logical, but the problem is that there isn't any verifiable evidence that higher limits mean that more drivers will blow far beyond the legal limit. If someone is going to drive intoxicated at 0.18, then they are going to do so whether the limit is 0.08 or 0.12. THe article I referenced supports the idea that it's the simple fact of having a limit that deters drunk driving, NOT the actual number of the BAC limit.

PAUL


----------



## Tgace (Apr 19, 2004)

In NY I can charge you with DWI without even knowing your BAC....1192-3VTL (Driving While Intoxicated). If drinking any ammount of alcohol impairs your motor function to the point that it causes you to drive erratically (causing me to stop you) and fail field sobriety tests, you are too drunk to drive regardless of your BAC. When I arrest you, take you to HQ, breath test you and you come out .08 or greater, I charge you with 1192-2VTL (Driving with .08 of one per centum or more of alcohol in the blood). Both are misdemeanors. The new law means that if your tollerance is low enough to get you arrested, your chances of getting the 1192-2VTL is now better.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

-[font=verdana, arial, helvetica]Adult drivers ages 35 and older who have been arrested for impaired driving are 11 to 12 times more likely than those who have never been arrested to die eventually in crashes involving alcohol (Brewer 1994). 
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica][/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica]-Nearly three quarters of drivers convicted of driving while impaired are either frequent heavy drinkers[/font][font=verdana, arial, helvetica] (alcohol abusers) or alcoholics (people who are alcohol dependent) (Miller 1986).[/font]
[/font]


----------



## Tgace (Apr 19, 2004)

Its not outside the realm of possibility to pass a law stating that a driver shall have "no alcohol" in his blood while driving...no less "rights intrusive" than mandating seat-belt use, outlawing cell-phone use etc. The public protest and the huge drain on our courts and LEO organizations is the largest deterrant against that....


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 19, 2004)

Yes...but Millers quote refers to "driving while impaired." 0.08 is not impaired.

Also...what is Brewers statistic based on? That is the problem with stats in general, and especially stats. regarding this issue. We often don't know the basis or science behind them that resulted in their claims.

Regarding the governments arguement behind the new rule, the laogic is flawed. WHY should someone who blows a 0.08 get a conviction of a DWI at all when they are not impaired? In my opinion, they shouldn't.

Tom, a cop can use their best judgement, and they can take someone in for a DWI, or anything else really. However, a conviction will only occur for DWI if they blow beyond the legal limit at the station. Am I correct in this? If so, then I am having a hard time with the logic that people who are not intoxicated or impaired (0.08 is not intoxicated or impaired) should be convicted of  DWI for being impaired.

 :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Apr 19, 2004)

In a nutshell...I stop you,smell,see,test you for DWI and arrest you for 1192-3, I take you in and test you...if you blow .08> you get the 1192-2 and the DWI will probably stick. If you blow below the limit you will probably get the reduction to 1192-1VTL (Driving while ability impaired).


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 19, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Its not outside the realm of possibility to pass a law stating that a driver shall have "no alcohol" in his blood while driving...no less "rights intrusive" than mandating seat-belt use, outlawing cell-phone use etc. The public protest and the huge drain on our courts and LEO organizations is the largest deterrant against that....



I don't know man. You can argue that not wearing a seatbelt causes danger to a driver. You can argue that cell phone use while driving is a form of impairment, and can cause danger to other motorists. There is no conclusive evidence that driving with alcahol in your system (but under a limit that would make you impaired) is a danger to yourself or other motorists.

Sure, they could pass a 0 tolerance law, and I think that it is moving in that direction. However, to do so, I feel, would be to take away more of or civil liberties, and would be against our principles of a free america.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 19, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> In a nutshell...I stop you,smell,see,test you for DWI and arrest you for 1192-3, I take you in and test you...if you blow .08> you get the 1192-2 and the DWI will probably stick. If you blow below the limit you will probably get the reduction to 1192-1VTL (Driving while ability impaired).



Right. So, if someone is driving like a Jack @$$, you can pull them over and ticket them. This is fair, and they should get a ticket for driving in a manner that endangers other motorists. The part that I feel is unfair is when people recieve a DWI due to a low legal limit, and they aren't actually impaired.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 19, 2004)

Common carrier drivers/pilots arent allowed to drink at all...I know that thats a different kettle of fish but its been held up in various court cases that driving is a state granted privilege rather than a "right". 

Personally Ive "cut" drivers Ive stopped on non-moving violations to find that the driver has been drinking. If the driver passes my motor function tests and dosent appear impaired...away he goes. IMHO if you are a danger at .03 BAC and cant drive a car safely you should get arrested, and the DWI should "stick". Thats what the lower BAC's attempt to do.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 19, 2004)

Sorry to double post, but Millers quote, "Nearly three quarters of drivers convicted of driving while impaired are either frequent heavy drinkers (alcohol abusers) or alcoholics (people who are alcohol dependent) (Miller 1986)." I believe was back when the legal limit was .12, and driving over 0.12 was considered impaired, not the 0.08 standard we use today. 

Also, to add more fuel to the fire, Candy Lightner, the founder of MADD, ended up joining the liqour lobby. She is qouted in saying, I worry that the movement I helped create has lost direction. The .08 legislation ignores the real core of the problem. If we really want to save lives, lets go after the most dangerous drivers on the road.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 19, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Common carrier drivers/pilots arent allowed to drink at all...I know that thats a different kettle of fish but its been held up in various court cases that driving is a state granted privilege rather than a "right".
> 
> Personally Ive "cut" drivers Ive stopped on non-moving violations to find that the driver has been drinking. If the driver passes my motor function tests and dosent appear impaired...away he goes. IMHO if you are a danger at .03 BAC and cant drive a car safely you should get arrested, and the DWI should "stick". Thats what the lower BAC's attempt to do.



I see your point, there, Tom, and it is a good one. But, you have good judgement. There are other cops out there who don't have good judgement, or who maybe might just be having an "off" day. I don't think that someone should be stuck with a DWI if that is the case.

I think there are plenty of violations that can be handed out if someone can't drive safely. It doesn't have to be a DWI. That's just IMHO.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 19, 2004)

In my experience I saw a LOT of people who were </=.08 BAC but drove (walked,talked and acted) like .20 BAC get slapped on the wrist with impaired....I think .08 is about right.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 19, 2004)

On the otherhand...what would you do with a "career drinker" who blows .25 BAC but has no apparent motor impairment??


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 19, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> On the otherhand...what would you do with a "career drinker" who blows .25 BAC but has no apparent motor impairment??



Genetically, thats me!  :drinkbeer   

Yet, if I blew a .25 I'd expect a DWI. Yet, if a cop used his judgement to let me go or lighten the sentence I wouldn't object. I think that would be up to the cops judgement, though. 

You got to set the limit somewhere, yet I still think 0.12 should be the way to go. Sure, you have cases where people are acting like jack@$$es at 0.08, but there are more who do not. In areas like Rochester, MI, judgement by the City cops in this case are not used. As policy, since the new law changed they are to make everyone they pull over on a friday or saturday night blow, and ticket them with a DWI if they blow above the limit with no questions asked. This is the problem with the new limits; most aren't impaired.

Anyways, I can see your opinion for 0.08 and I respect it, even if I disagree.  :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Apr 19, 2004)

Dont think for a minute that I dont think DWI laws arent heavily influenced by politics..politicians want to be seen "doing" something about DWI, MADD/SADD pressure etc...local paper publishes judges conviction rates on DWI's here almost every year....but alcohol impaired driving is still a large problem, what will it take??


----------



## Tgace (Apr 19, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> Genetically, thats me! :drinkbeer
> 
> Yet, if I blew a .25 I'd expect a DWI. Yet, if a cop used his judgement to let me go or lighten the sentence I wouldn't object. I think that would be up to the cops judgement, though.
> 
> ...


Do the MI police use a roadside "alco-sensor" that can be used as evidence? Ive heard that some jurisdictions are allowing them. Here we have a "box" that gives a BAC but cant be used as evidence, only a +/- for alcohol on the breath. The BAC has to be tested on the Datamaster back at HQ.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 19, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Dont think for a minute that I dont think DWI laws arent heavily influenced by politics..politicians want to be seen "doing" something about DWI, MADD/SADD pressure etc...local paper publishes judges conviction rates on DWI's here almost every year....but alcohol impaired driving is still a large problem, what will it take??



Good question. I say stiff penalties but higher limits. When I say stiff, I mean "swift and certian" rather then unreasonably high. In other words, you shouldn't go to "pound you in the @$$" prison for a DWI. But, if you get a DWI at 0.12, on your first offense you should expect an automatic liscense suspension, followed by a restriction, then probation. Fines would be imposed, of course, along the way, as well as optional rehab and community service. A second offense perhaps should warrent jail time, and longer license restrictions and suspensions. Third offense, revoke. 

They illustrated some solutions here: http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol-info/DrinkingAndDriving.html 

I think the key is "swift and certian" punishment, though, rather then playing games with the limits, or not knowing the penalties. Right now, it could take 6 months to a year to get sentenced for DWI's, and the penalties are not certian. 

When people KNOW that, hey, a 1st offense you will be suspended and restricted, and a second offense you'll go to jail for 90 days, with more restrictions when you get out, with no room for arguement, then I think that this acts like a deterrent more so then the vague penelties we have now, or then a game with the legal limits. 

That's just what I think, anyways.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 19, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Do the MI police use a roadside "alco-sensor" that can be used as evidence? Ive heard that some jurisdictions are allowing them. Here we have a "box" that gives a BAC but cant be used as evidence, only a +/- for alcohol on the breath. The BAC has to be tested on the Datamaster back at HQ.



The roadside alco-sensor is used, but I don't think it can be used as evidence. From my understanding, it is just use to justify probable cause to take someone to the HQ to blow in the Datamaster. The BAC that gets submitted as evidence is from the Datamaster in all the cases I have seen (and I have seen quite a few since the new law changed).


----------



## Tgace (Apr 19, 2004)

That would require mandated sentences (which can be double edged). That newspaper article I mentioned hammered some local judges for dismissals on repeat DWI offenders, low conviction rates, etc....the differences between the judges in my town (strict) and some of our neighbors are like night and day.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 19, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> The roadside alco-sensor is used, but I don't think it can be used as evidence. From my understanding, it is just use to justify probable cause to take someone to the HQ to blow in the Datamaster. The BAC that gets submitted as evidence is from the Datamaster in all the cases I have seen (and I have seen quite a few since the new law changed).


Thats where I see a problem...on a DWI here, Im not going to tow a persons car, put them in my car and take them to the station unless they are under arrest. So you blow a .08 on the alcosensor but pass the field tests, if the reading cant be used as evidence, what then is the justification for detaining/arresting you for the trip to HQ? 

Am I under arrest officer?? 

No Im just taking you to HQ for a breath test. 

No Thank You.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 19, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Dont think for a minute that I dont think DWI laws arent heavily influenced by politics..politicians want to be seen "doing" something about DWI, MADD/SADD pressure etc...local paper publishes judges conviction rates on DWI's here almost every year....but alcohol impaired driving is still a large problem, what will it take??


You would think that if polititions really wanted to do something they would vote to vastly improve public transportation. However, that would make too much sense.
Sean


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 19, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> You would think that if polititions really wanted to do something they would vote to vastly improve public transportation. However, that would make too much sense.
> Sean


Nah, the driving addicts wouldn't go with riding buses/trains only to specific places and trying to coordinate their activities around a bus/train schedule...not to mention some walking involved....  How hard can it be? 

- Ceicei (occasional bus rider)


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 19, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Thats where I see a problem...on a DWI here, Im not going to tow a persons car, put them in my car and take them to the station unless they are under arrest. So you blow a .08 on the alcosensor but pass the field tests, if the reading cant be used as evidence, what then is the justification for detaining/arresting you for the trip to HQ?
> 
> Am I under arrest officer??
> 
> ...



Actually, in Ontario, you can be arrested for refusing a roadside breathalyzer test.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 19, 2004)

My concern is the view that laws about DWI/DUI laws are demonizing alcohol use.  I disagree.  I think it is demonising irresponsibility.  I don't know the background/reasoning behind the shift from .10 to .08 - whether it is because there is a statistical rise in DUI's/DWI's and the deterrance effect of enforcement is loosing its impact or whether it is entirely motivated by political agenda's.  Either way, driving is not a right afforded its citizens, it is a priviledge.  The stress is on responsibility, therefore the testing and licensing process, and I don't think the expectation of demonstrative responsibility by not driving under the influence is an infringement on any rights.  

But, since the law is generally set up so that if you are found impaired and unfit to drive (field sobriety and such) as well as BAC testing then it is holding those who drive while drinking responsible.  

The reduced BAC legislation gives LEO more wiggle room when the most accurate test of blood draw happens so far after the actual probable cause that initiated the stop.  In some cases, the BAC is higher because of timing, but sometimes it is lower because of timing.  Either way, alcohol tolerance/BAC and body wieght or gender are not the only variables to consider.... Food, fatigue, mental state, stress and other variables are just as significant to alcohol tolerance/impairment as the rest.  Regardless of the variables it is not a good practice, it is irresponsible and it is a willing practice of endangering yourself, passengers and everyone else around you.

There was a thread in Gen MA forum about drinking and training and the general concensus was that it wasn't a good thing to do at all.  I would say that this is true of driving as well.

I just keep hearing "Do not drive or operate heavy machinery" running through my head


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 19, 2004)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> Nah, the driving addicts wouldn't go with riding buses/trains only to specific places and trying to coordinate their activities around a bus/train schedule...not to mention some walking involved....  How hard can it be?
> 
> - Ceicei (occasional bus rider)


Thats just it, if we had an actual alternative we could take away a lot more liscences without hurting families and making situations worse. Even a free shuttle for bars a 2 am would be a step in the right direction. I thought I had it bad living in Spokane until I lived in Allen town PA for a few months. Their Bus system will drive you to drink.
Sean


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 20, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Thats where I see a problem...on a DWI here, Im not going to tow a persons car, put them in my car and take them to the station unless they are under arrest. So you blow a .08 on the alcosensor but pass the field tests, if the reading cant be used as evidence, what then is the justification for detaining/arresting you for the trip to HQ?
> 
> Am I under arrest officer??
> 
> ...



I could see how that would be a problem.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 20, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Thats just it, if we had an actual alternative we could take away a lot more liscences without hurting families and making situations worse. Even a free shuttle for bars a 2 am would be a step in the right direction. I thought I had it bad living in Spokane until I lived in Allen town PA for a few months. Their Bus system will drive you to drink.
> Sean



I think you make a very good point, Sean. My state is so dependent on people owning their own vehicles that you'll wait a half-hour for a cab even in the city (Detroit). Outside the city, your waiting longer. Plus it costs you an arm and a leg.

You could walk home by the time the cab gets there, and it would cost you less.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 20, 2004)

"Driving is a priviliage, not a right?"

I believe that this is a manufactured idea that people adhere too because we are told by the powers that be through PR that this is not only true, but good.

I believe that this is true because we come closer and closer to a police state (by 'police state' I mean total control over the rights of the individual through force), it seems, every day. But that DOES NOT mean that it is good.

I believe that it is a violation of our American right to own and use property if driving is NOT a right.

An Analogy: I have the right to own and use my camera-cell phone until my cell phone use turns into an infringement on other peoples rights (like if I were to use it to take video of people punching in their ATM pin for the purpose of identity theft, for example). Then and ONLY THEN does my right turn into a "privilage" that can be taken away.

Owning and driving my own vehicle should be a RIGHT, in my opinion, until I do something with that right that infringes on others rights.

The more we allow our rights to be comprimised, the closer we come to a police state. Soon, all your "rights" will be "priviliages," if we aren't careful.

PAUL


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 20, 2004)

If you think .08 is too strict get a commercial drivers license and deal with .04.  Doesn't matter whether I'm in the truck or in my own car it's still .04 percent.  That's one dose of cough syrup.


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 20, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> "Driving is a priviliage, not a right?"
> 
> I believe that this is a manufactured idea that people adhere too because we are told by the powers that be through PR that this is not only true, but good.
> 
> ...



So you are in favor of the State supplying everybody with cars and cell phone?

Because that's where you're going with making owing a vehicule a right. A right is something that is required for living. Affordable and available healthcare is a right.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 20, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> So you are in favor of the State supplying everybody with cars and cell phone?
> 
> Because that's where you're going with making owing a vehicule a right. A right is something that is required for living. Affordable and available healthcare is a right.



No....the right to own and use property is a right. If I buy a car, it is my property. I have the right to own and USE that property (that is, drive), just as long as it doesn't infringe on others rights.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 20, 2004)

This idea that "I can use my private property how ever I damn well see fit" is similiar to the logic of using the 1st Amendment right to justify your 'right' to spew racist comments, defame characters, spout white supremicy rhetoric.... 
I am not saying that this is what is happening here, but I am saying that this simplistic view of rights/priviledges ignores the responsibily issue of each citizen to each other to 'do unto others.'  There is another thread about a woman abusing the court system to try and sue Coors for the death of her son because he drank and drove into a tree.  It is already generally viewed, based on the posts, as ridiculous, but how much more ridiculous would it be if he had survived the crash with injuries and had hit a person instead of a tree and she was trying to sue Coors?

Rights and Priviledges do not excuse stupidity and poor judgement.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 20, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> No....the right to own and use property is a right. If I buy a car, it is my property. I have the right to own and USE that property (that is, drive), just as long as it doesn't infringe on others rights.



I would think vehicular manslaughter, potential or realized, if allowed by the gov. would be negligence on their part in protecting the citizens safety.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 20, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Actually, in Ontario, you can be arrested for refusing a roadside breathalyzer test.


Here you can get a ticket for it...and if convicted of it loose your license.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 20, 2004)

Right Vs. Privilege

http://firms.findlaw.com


Most people seem to understand that driving is not a "right" but a "privilege" granted and regulated by the State. What is not quite so well understood is that, once the license is issued, the citizen enjoys a constitutionally protected property right in that license that restrains the States ability to take it back.[31] This is but an application of the general proposition that the constitution limits the individual states authority to stop an "entitlement," regardless of whether the "entitlement" is designated as a "right" or a "privilege." [32] 

Due Process: 
The rationale for recognizing a property interest in a drivers license is based on Fourteenth Amendment Due Process protection.[33] This liberty interest is further rooted in the practical reality that once a license is issued, driving quite likely becomes essential to that individuals pursuit of a livelihood.[34] It seems well settled as appropriate Due Process that the states must afford the licensed driver reasonable notice prior to the revocation.[35] Further, the state must give the licensed driver an opportunity for a meaningful hearing on the issue.[36] Many families find themselves in crisis situations involving older loved ones exhibiting deteriorating driving ability. In these situations, the courts has recognized that fact by allowing for immediate revocation of driving privileges in crisis situations as long as a post-revocation hearing is immediately scheduled.[37] At this time, no case has come before the Supreme Court to definitively mark a constitutional distinction between the states power to revoke drivers licenses and the states authority to reject an older drivers application for license renewal.[38]





31] Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), Sniadich v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337 (1969). See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. § 1. "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . ." Id.

32] Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539 (1971), citing Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963). In Bell, the Court considered Georgia's Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, which provided that the vehicle registration and driver's license of an uninsured motorist involved in an accident shall be suspended unless he posted security in an amount sufficient to cover damages claimed by agg§rieved parties in the accident report. The Court held that since "fault" was an essential element of the decision to suspend the license, the state must provide a pre-suspension forum for determining whether there is a reasonable possibility of a judgment being rendered against him as a result of the accident. Id. at 542.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 20, 2004)

So, basically, if you pass your driver's exam and are granted a license, the consitution keeps the state from taking it back without due process (I would imagine that probable cause all the way to sentencing is involved in this) based on state procedural practices.  I notice that this example doesn't mention property law in terms of vehicular ownership.  

So, based on this, if you are guilty of impairment/DWI and charged, they can take away/suspend the "property" of your license but not the ownership of the car.  That makes sense because you can they are separate proprietary items.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 20, 2004)

Yes..the "state" can also impound (not confiscate) a vehicle for a set period if it is involved in a crime (drug laws permit forfiture but thats different altogether), but it must eventually be returned unless due process deems otherwise.

(Paul M:I sent you an e-mail...check it when you get a chance and sent it back to me.)


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 20, 2004)

Nice, informative post, Tom.

I understood that part of it, although I probably didn't explain it well.

When people blanketly say or believe, "driving is a privilege not a right," they are negating the fact that once your license is issued, driving indeed becomes a "right" until your "right" infringes on the rights of others through the breaking of the laws, in which case your "right" can be taken through "due process." Yes, the initial granting of a license is "privilage" because the state has to "Grant" it to you, but once granted, it becomes a right. That was how I understood it. 

Here in lies my problem with the issue at hand. Once granted, I have the right to drive my vehicle until I infringe on other peoples rights and safety (by breaking the law), which must be determined by due process. So, what is happening is that stricter laws are passed on certian behaviors that may be "frowned upon" to restrict my rights. I feel I _should_ have the right to drive 2 miles from the local bar to my home at 0.08, far below a limit that would make me impaired, yet the law right now disagrees with me. 

I am against the more and more laws that are passed every year that are designed to restrict the rights that we should have. When will it end? Sooner or later, if restrictions continue, we won't have any rights at all.



> Rights and Priviledges do not excuse stupidity and poor judgement.



I agree with you there, brutha. If someone is driving in a manner that endangers others, then they should get penalized for it. 

The problem I am having is that people are often penalized for things that I don't feel endanger other motorists. I think the majority of the public can drive at 0.08 without endangering other motorists, and the research supports this fact. So what gives?

What gives is that our civil liberities and rights are further restricted each year for political reasons, and if we don't discontinue this trend, then we will find ourselves in a position where we have no rights at all.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 20, 2004)

Well...thats what the legal process of our country is supposed to address. Our elected leaders make law, dont like them dont re-elect them. Fight the law in court and make case law. There is really no other way to take care of the problem...


----------



## Tgace (Apr 20, 2004)

"So, what is happening is that stricter laws are passed on certian behaviors that may be "frowned upon" to restrict my rights. "

One could say that that is the basis of almost any law.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 20, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> "So, what is happening is that stricter laws are passed on certian behaviors that may be "frowned upon" to restrict my rights. "
> 
> One could say that that is the basis of almost any law.



The perception is whether you view politics as synonimous with corruption, personal power play, back stabbing or as synonimous with service to the public.

Generally speaking, the connotation in most casual discussions is the first.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 20, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well...thats what the legal process of our country is supposed to address. Out elected leaders make law, dont like them dont re-elect them. Fight the law in court and make case law. There is really no other way to take care of the problem...



That and counter-legislation. 

If we all do our little part (voting, writting letters, publishing, campaigning, or whatever), then maybe the world will be a better place.  :boing1:


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 20, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> I agree with you there, brutha. If someone is driving in a manner that endangers others, then they should get penalized for it.
> 
> The problem I am having is that people are often penalized for things that I don't feel endanger other motorists. I think the majority of the public can drive at 0.08 without endangering other motorists, and the research supports this fact. So what gives?
> 
> What gives is that our civil liberities and rights are further restricted each year for political reasons, and if we don't discontinue this trend, then we will find ourselves in a position where we have no rights at all.



The endangering of other citizens can be measured in the reported, compiled number of DWI/DUI arrests in the nation over a period of x amount of time.  If the observable trend is that the overall number of instances is on the uprise, the enforcement as deterrant is loosing its kick.  I don't know if this is what the change is being based on, but in order to get this law passed some reasonable presentation of rationale had to be put forth - not just politics/corruption business as usual.  

The fact, or observable data, is that the study was done.  The observation in the study is purely a supported hypothesis.  There are just as many studies out there that will counter this one.  Whether any case study or report is factual doesn't have any bearing on it's validity under scrutiny.  This study does not address the other variables that I previously mentioned as affecting alcohol tolerance and impairment.

As far as it not seemingly being an endangerment.  .08 BAC tested could be either on the uprise because you just left the bar, or on the downslide because you sat for a while before you left.  The LEO on the scene can only test to any accuracy your state of impairment and alcohol level in that instance, not whether it is going up or down.

I really don't care what the BAC level, drinking and driving is irresponsible as a practice.  The laws are an attempt to encourage the elimination of the practice in the end.  I agree with that end.  I wouldn't tell my son that you have a higher tolerance to fatigue so you, individually are allowed to wave this sword around how ever you want after being up all day and all night, but the rest my children can't.  The practice is not safe.  

I wouldn't call any DWI/DUI laws as infringement on civil liberties as much as the responsibility of the governement to promote responsible behavior on this issue.  Since it is less efficient to give all the good drivers gold star token rewards, the negative reinforcement of capitulation motivated by avoiding the consequences is what is normally used until the society adopts the motivation of personal responsibility -sometimes it never gets ingrained.

Can't arrest folks for stupidity, but can arrest them for stupidity in action.  Driving and drinking is stupid.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 20, 2004)

So, Paul M., you sound like you basically support a drive towards 0 tolerance?
 :asian:


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 20, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> So, Paul M., you sound like you basically support a drive towards 0 tolerance?
> :asian:



That would be a yes.  

I am not talking about alcohol prohibition or demonizing drinking.  I am talking about holding people accountable for their actions.  Look at the DWI laws in other countries and how harsh they are.  We don't even come close.  Basically the message is "hey, party, socialize and drink - but don't be stupid and climb behind the wheel"

These euro countries also have no designated drinking age, so they could be seen as contradicting themselves on this issue or they could be seen as sending the message that you are free to do this and that but you will pay if your behavior endangers others.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 20, 2004)

Ground Rule: If you are asking yourself "I wonder if I had too much?" You probably have.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 20, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> That would be a yes.
> 
> I am not talking about alcohol prohibition or demonizing drinking.  I am talking about holding people accountable for their actions.  Look at the DWI laws in other countries and how harsh they are.  We don't even come close.  Basically the message is "hey, party, socialize and drink - but don't be stupid and climb behind the wheel"
> 
> These euro countries also have no designated drinking age, so they could be seen as contradicting themselves on this issue or they could be seen as sending the message that you are free to do this and that but you will pay if your behavior endangers others.



Fair enough. I will say that since the new law, I more fequently hand my keys to someone who has had a lot less or none at all. The big reason isn't because I am inhibited, though. The reason is because I have to drink copius amounts of alcahol before I "feel" anything, meaning it is impossible for me to gage by feeling if I am 0.05, 0.08, or 0.12. Some would say that this is good. I say not, because if I could "feel" the alcahol, then I wouldn't drive at all. I just feel it should be my right to drink and get behind the wheel as long as I am not inhibited.

I know many will disagree, though. So, I respect your support for 0 tolerance, even if I don't agree!  :asian:


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 21, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> Fair enough. I will say that since the new law, I more fequently hand my keys to someone who has had a lot less or none at all. The big reason isn't because I am inhibited, though. The reason is because I have to drink copius amounts of alcahol before I "feel" anything, meaning it is impossible for me to gage by feeling if I am 0.05, 0.08, or 0.12. Some would say that this is good. I say not, because if I could "feel" the alcahol, then I wouldn't drive at all. I just feel it should be my right to drink and get behind the wheel as long as I am not inhibited.
> 
> I know many will disagree, though. So, I respect your support for 0 tolerance, even if I don't agree!  :asian:



Well, much like fatigue will create a state of 'sleep' by clinical definition that the subject can't consciously 'feel' but will create zoning and microsleep where you blink and 'wake up' because in that short time - literally a second or less - you have experienced an altered state of mind, alcohol can create states of impairment that have very little to do with the conscious 'feel' for the subject.... I think even those who do these studies that split hairs over .08 or .10 will say that the practice in general is a demonstration of irresponsible operation of a machine.


----------



## OULobo (Apr 21, 2004)

I hope you guys don't mind my jumping in this thread and having to catch up, but it seem like interesting discussion. 

I wanted to mention that I didn't think that cell phone / seatbelt comparison was very accurate in that neither of these things are active arrest issues (atleast locally here). You only get charged for these things if you are pulled over for some other issue and the officer observes these actions after the stop. 

As for politics in OVI arrests, here in my town the police have quite the rep for enforcing OVI laws. The department hasn't shied away from high profile cases and to some extent it shows that the city is on the straight and narrow. This definitly allows local politicians a bonus when they show their track records against crime.

On the subject of actual charges of OVI here; the officer can pull you over for any action that he feels shows that you have a questionable ability to drive safely, but those calls must be justified. I actually had an officer tell me that he had a case thrown out because he pulled over a guy who was swerving within his lane and refused a breathalyzer and feild sobriety test. The man paid a price for refusing, but because he never left the lane and there was no proof of alcohol the OVI was dropped. No charges. The penalty for refusing the breathalyzer was 1 yr. license administrative suspension, but there was nothing on his record and no notification to the insurance companies. 

On some quick secondary topics. 

Has anyone read about the situation, in VA I believe, where a local police chief decided to make a statement about drinking, so he took a few officers, went into a local bar and arrested everyone that was shown by a breathalyzer to be intoxicated. The charge was public intox. If this isn't an example of a witch hunt / demonization of people who choose to use alcohol, I don't know what is. Sadly I wasn't able to find out if any convictions were handed out. 

How about "scarlett letter" plates? Ohio recently instated a law making it mandatory for OVI offenders to have bright yellow with orange lettering plates after your first offense, with no leeway given to the judges discression. I'm sure Ester Pryne would be proud.

Sorry for posting these all late and at once but I figured they related atleast a little bit.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 21, 2004)

I understand DWI/DUI acronyms, but what does OVI stand for specifically?

I have said that I am for the philosophical shift to a zero tolerance of drinking and driving, just not a smart practice, but the licensing thing and the public drunkenness thing, do you know what the intention is?  What is the desired social impact?  I thought branding of villains was considered wrong in this day and age.

Hester would have hated the license plates though, she was doing it for LOOOOVEEEEEE , not a bottle of JD


----------



## Tgace (Apr 21, 2004)

Here in NY seat-belts and cell phones are PC for a traffic stop.

The VA bar crashing stunt was ill advised in my opinion. Im not aware of the details but I would think that business and "City Hall" pressure would have been applied to rein that @#$% in.

The issue of officers having to use some sort of "impaired standard" was a point I was trying to make here. The debate is that lowering BAC will "jam up" people who are not really impaired at those levels. Im saying that in order to get to HQ for the Datamaster, the subject typically must have shown some motor impairment (driving ability, accident, field testing etc.) to have gotten that far in the first place. Even at roadblocks an officer will ask if you have been drinking, maybe give you an alcosensor etc. If he believes you are impaired he will give you some field tests. Fail those and you are off to the station. Smell a little like booze and blow a .08 on the sensor but pass the tests, not be slurred, stumbling, and glassy eyed and you will probably drive away. The BAC issue nets more people who show physical impairment even though their BAC is below the limit.


----------



## OULobo (Apr 21, 2004)

OVI is the recent Ohio evolution of DUI/DWI. It stands for Operating a Vehicle while Influenced. the change was made because OH has reinstated the differance between actually driving the vehicle and just being behind the wheel or in the car. This allows for separate and more fair punishments for people who get drunk and can't get home, so decide to sleep it off in the car. They show more responsibility by not driving. 

Interesting side note, that here in OH if you are driving on private property you 1) Don't need a license and  2) Can be drive as intoxicated as you please (although it isn't advisable). Traffic laws are only applicable on public streets and property. This also means that the painted "restricted" areas in parking areas of the mall, store, ect. are just suggestions and are not enforceable by the police, however, fire lanes are a heath and safety issue and so are still enforcable. 

Loki

The intent of the things I mentioned earlier:

-bar arrest- the police cheif wanted to let everyone know that drinking to drunkeness in his city was a crime (arguable) and even made a statement that as long as the law was on the books he would continue to arrest people in bars out of bars and in any other public venue.

-licence plate- the argument here is that the plates will both become a deterant by basically labeling the offender to neibors and friends, and that it will identify the offender as a safety risk to those that are around him on the road. I think that the amount of stress/chaos that this will cause if people actually try actively to avoid the "red plates" will be worse than just letting them blend back into the public. There is a reason why some classic literature is still required reading in public schools, because there is a lesson to be learned. It looks to me that some people skipped the Hawthorn part of the semester. Branding villans is become en vogue again, just look at the treatment of sex offenders.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 21, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> OVI is the recent Ohio evolution of DUI/DWI. It stands for Operating a Vehicle while Influenced. the change was made because OH has reinstated the differance between actually driving the vehicle and just being behind the wheel or in the car. This allows for separate and more fair punishments for people who get drunk and can't get home, so decide to sleep it off in the car. They show more responsibility by not driving.
> 
> Interesting side note, that here in OH if you are driving on private property you 1) Don't need a license and  2) Can be drive as intoxicated as you please (although it isn't advisable). Traffic laws are only applicable on public streets and property. This also means that the painted "restricted" areas in parking areas of the mall, store, ect. are just suggestions and are not enforceable by the police, however, fire lanes are a heath and safety issue and so are still enforcable.
> 
> ...



On the issue of sex offenders, I am split on that one.  I recognize the problem with 'time served' and all that, but with a child of my own, I am comforted because I am at least partially informed of things like this.  I don't know if there are case studies, stats that help support the effectiveness of the practice or if it is just a nice political(as in band aid cure) hug to make those potential voters feel good.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 21, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Interesting side note, that here in OH if you are driving on private property you 1) Don't need a license and 2) Can be drive as intoxicated as you please (although it isn't advisable). Traffic laws are only applicable on public streets and property. This also means that the painted "restricted" areas in parking areas of the mall, store, ect. are just suggestions and are not enforceable by the police, however, fire lanes are a heath and safety issue and so are still enforcable.


Pretty much the same here in NY. You dont need a license to buy,insure or register a vehicle..only need it to drive on the public streets. 

As to the parking lot issue...dont forget handicap parking enforcement.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 21, 2004)

Im just curious why you can operate a boat, Jetski, or other watercraft while intoxicated, but not a car? 

I think that OVERALL "the state" (and by state I mean our government) sets standards based on... well... whatever the hell they want and it becomes law.

If my Birthday is Sep 12, Why is it on Sept 11, the day before my 21st birthday I cannot drink?  Overnight some magic "change" is going to come over my demeanor and I am going to be "responsible enough".  

Likewise, if I am 17, and my girlfriend is 17, and we are having Consensual sex, and I turn 18 and do so, I am suddenly a rapist! What happened overnight to change me into a "responsible adult" while she stayed a "child"?

Why is it, with a BAC of .08 at 250lbs, I am unsfe to drive, but some 90lb dude with a BAC less than me is ok, even tho he may be more impared?

2-3 beers will put me over the .08 limit, I am told, yet, I can drink 6 or 7 beers, before I start to feel a "buzz" and I have passed a "sobriety" test administered by a police officer who's house I was drinking at before she let me leave on that many beers... But heaven forbid the state take into account my body type and tolerance... Its an arbitraty number.

Now, that said, I dont think drunks belong on the road, and many is the night that I slept in my office (The bar we drink at is 3 doors down from our office) or paid the 20 bucks to go home in a cab... But I belive the determination of "Intoxicated" cannot really come from a stupid piece of technology that simply "measures" somthing against an "arbitrary number" assigned by some panel of persons...  Especially when that number has been "Paid For" by special interest groups.  

Ask yourself how many 250lbs + guys you have seen who are solid muscle, that if you only took into account what the scale said would be "obese" by the health industry standards...


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 21, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Im just curious why you can operate a boat, Jetski, or other watercraft while intoxicated, but not a car?
> 
> I think that OVERALL "the state" (and by state I mean our government) sets standards based on... well... whatever the hell they want and it becomes law.
> 
> ...



As far as statutory rape, there are age difference conditions here in NY, don't remember the exacts but it isn't as simple as 17 dating 18 is illegal.  I imagine each state has similiar conditions.

There are two separate laws in the works here, read back and TGACE and OOLOBa make that clearer than I do.  One is Impairment and the other is the Driving while intoxicated or Under the Influence.  You can be charged with one or both depending on the state/circumstances.

You can be charged for operating any motor watercraft if you are impaired/DWI.  Here around Lake Erie, the Sheriff, State police and Coasties have posts and boats that can patrol for just that in the high season.... does it get as well enforced?  Probably not, but it is not ignored by the law, at least in NY.


----------



## edhead2000 (Apr 21, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> There is no conclusive evidence that driving with alc[o]hol in your system (but under a limit that would make you impaired) is a danger to yourself or other motorists.


Paul, I'm curious what databases you used to search the literature and what your search parameters were on this topic.  I'd like to read some of the articles you discovered.  Thanks!

Erin


----------



## OULobo (Apr 22, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Im just curious why you can operate a boat, Jetski, or other watercraft while intoxicated, but not a car?



OH has laws against operating any vehicle while intoxicated. They are enforced fairly well around here because the Coast Guard guys get bored and go hunting on nice days. 



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> I think that OVERALL "the state" (and by state I mean our government) sets standards based on... well... whatever the hell they want and it becomes law.



To some extent I totally agree. Look at the current indecency laws that are such a hot topic on the hill. Yet I have yet to meet one person in my daily travels that sees a problem with indecency. Sometimes there are definitly bills and laws getting passede that have little or no public support, only some bureacrat's personal agenda. 



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> If my Birthday is Sep 12, Why is it on Sept 11, the day before my 21st birthday I cannot drink?  Overnight some magic "change" is going to come over my demeanor and I am going to be "responsible enough".



You're right, I agree we should abolish drinking age limits. Few european countries have limits and they don't experience major issues. 



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> Likewise, if I am 17, and my girlfriend is 17, and we are having Consensual sex, and I turn 18 and do so, I am suddenly a rapist! What happened overnight to change me into a "responsible adult" while she stayed a "child"?



Here in OH the law allows a 4 year interface before statuatory rape charges are applicable. So if the minor is 17, the elder can be up to 21 before the courts can look at charges. 



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> Why is it, with a BAC of .08 at 250lbs, I am unsfe to drive, but some 90lb dude with a BAC less than me is ok, even tho he may be more impared?
> 
> 2-3 beers will put me over the .08 limit, I am told, yet, I can drink 6 or 7 beers, before I start to feel a "buzz" and I have passed a "sobriety" test administered by a police officer who's house I was drinking at before she let me leave on that many beers... But heaven forbid the state take into account my body type and tolerance... Its an arbitraty number.
> 
> ...



Although tolerance is an issue with BAC, weight and frame are usually naturally taken into account with measuring BAC. For example the 90lb guy can only drink, lets say 2 beers before he reaches .08, but because he is larger and has more body to distribute the alcohol to the 250lb guy can prolly take 5 beers to reach the same level of .08. This obviously isn't the best type of example because either person could be more tolerant to the negative positive reactions to alcohol due to frequent drinking, drug interaction, even genetics, but in terms of weight and frame the trend is pretty reliable. I think the biggest issue is that there is no BAC level that correlates to imparment of senses or function for all people, but I guess it's the best they can do when the people want both drunks off the road and a hard evidence way of proving they are drunk.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 22, 2004)

Well, I can't say I know the law here exactly, but on the river they have dock-up bars, and I know a lot of people who sit out on the river and drink... Heck, we have been out drinking in my friend's jetboat and the river cops pulled up and chatted with us about the boat while we sat onb the water drinking.

Its common to see people anchored around the "racetrack" on the lake here, watching the races and drinking as well.  Based on that I have to assume it either is not illegal, or not enforced.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 22, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Well, I can't say I know the law here exactly, but on the river they have dock-up bars, and I know a lot of people who sit out on the river and drink... Heck, we have been out drinking in my friend's jetboat and the river cops pulled up and chatted with us about the boat while we sat onb the water drinking.
> 
> Its common to see people anchored around the "racetrack" on the lake here, watching the races and drinking as well.  Based on that I have to assume it either is not illegal, or not enforced.



So what is really the problem, the enforcement of a law or the responsibility of the operator?  Come on, can you really be critical of the LEO when you are party to the act, either immoral or illegal.... personal accountability enough to spread all around here.


----------



## OULobo (Apr 22, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Well, I can't say I know the law here exactly, but on the river they have dock-up bars, and I know a lot of people who sit out on the river and drink... Heck, we have been out drinking in my friend's jetboat and the river cops pulled up and chatted with us about the boat while we sat onb the water drinking.
> 
> Its common to see people anchored around the "racetrack" on the lake here, watching the races and drinking as well.  Based on that I have to assume it either is not illegal, or not enforced.



We have the same thing here in the Flats of the Cuyahoga. The main differance is that in a car there is the issue of open container laws, while on a boat you are more subject to maritime (sp) law, which, to my knowledge has no open container laws and the only laws for drinking involve the driver/operator, not the passengers. Good point though.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 23, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> So what is really the problem, the enforcement of a law or the responsibility of the operator?  Come on, can you really be critical of the LEO when you are party to the act, either immoral or illegal.... personal accountability enough to spread all around here.



No no, you missed my point...

I said before, that to the best of my knowlage that drinking while operating a boat wasnt illegal here, and that I was not at all sure of the law, but those circumstances led me to believe it is in fact ok.

Wasnt blaming anyone there.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 24, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Im just curious why you can operate a boat, Jetski, or other watercraft while intoxicated, but not a car?



This line from your first post hinted that you were affirming a knowledge.  But there are laws covering all the things.

As far as 'arbitrary', everything that human beings do except dieing and birth is arbitrary.  Customs, rituals, language, laws.... is arbitrary.  We give it meaning that doesn't always bet backed up by a direct natural signifiance.  The point is whether what we arbitrarily decide in the line between acceptable and unacceptable has to be drawn somewhere.  The luck for us is to exist in a society where complaining doesn't automatically lead to being dragged behind said cars or watercraft


----------



## bdparsons (Apr 24, 2004)

Bottom Line... be responsible for your own actions. Remember that the first portion of the brain to be affected by alcohol is the portion that controls self-assessment. When you make a decision to drive after drinking the hardware has already working at a diminished capacity. Wake up and smell the roses. Drunk driving is not victimless until you pull in driveway safely, and you have NO gaurantees of that happening.

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute


----------



## dearnis.com (Apr 25, 2004)

Sorry, "accidents" dont just happen.  Motor vehicle crashes happen because someone made poor decisions, or was too casual about operating a multi-ton piece of machinery.  The most common primary factors I see are speed and alcohol/drug intoxication.  
Nothing, but nothing, is more irritating to me than the at-fault operator whining that it wasn't their fault because of weather, rain, ice, the tree jumping in front of them, the building jumping in front of them, whatever.  There is a legal and moral obligation to drive in a  manner that one can control one's vehicle _under the weather and road conditions then existing._ .  As to those who choose to drink and drive, yes it is America, and yes you can do as you like; UNTIL YOU ENDANGER OTHERS.  

As a footnote, don't assume that the .08 (or the .10 in my state...still) means all that much.  If the officer can articulate a case that your driving was impaired, and bolster that with chemical evidence, you can still be convicted.

Off soapbox now.... :soapbox:


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 25, 2004)

Chad brings up an interesting point: "If an officer can articulate a case that your driving was impaired, and bolster that with chemical evidence, you can still be convicted."

I think this is as it should be. If your driving in a manner that endangers others, then you should be penalized for it, period. So what, then, is the point of having a limit at all?

The point is as I had said before (from the link I provided on page one):



> "The function of a BAC limit may be to inform the public that the consumption of alcohol beyond a certain point is considered illegal and dangerous when combined with driving. *The specific point at which driving after drinking crosses the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour may be of relatively little consequence.* This is because the general public has only a very superficial understanding of the relationship between alcohol consumption and BAC particularly in terms of their own behaviour. Most do not have access to facilities to measure their own BAC and, hence, must make the decision about driving based on their own subjective assessment of the extent to which alcohol has adversely affected their ability to operate a vehicle safely.* Merely knowing a limit exists and that the limit is reasonable may be sufficient to ensure that responsible citizens will attempt to comply with the law by drinking moderately and/or making alternative transportation arrangements.*" _Bold type for emphasis_



So, people are deterred from "drunk driving" simply because a reasonable limit exists; it has little to do with whether or not the limit is 0.08, 0.1, or 0.12. 

If that is true (as I believe it is) then the only reason I see for lowering the limit to 0.08 or lower is political pressure and manufactured ideas. The exception would be those who believe in 0 tolerance, for they have a different arguement altogether, which is basically, "If your not allowed to drive under ANY influence, then there will be less of a chance of you driving impaired." Although this is a sound arguement, with 0 tolerance we are facing a "rights vs. safety" issue. A 0 tolerance person argues that in this case, a right should be given up for the safety of others, where as I disagree and think that is unreasonable.

But, for most people who believe that 0.08 is great, or that some limit even below that is nessicary, I believe that they are adhering to unsound manufactured ideas. Part of the illogic that people use is that with a 0.08 limit, more people are being convicted of "drunk driving," so it is assumed that this new limit must be doing more to "stop crime." This is untrue. If someone is going to drive above 0.12, where they are blowing a 0.15, or 0.18, and they are clearly impaired, then they are going to do so regardless of whether or not the legal limit is 0, 0.05, 0.08, or 0.12. So it has done nothing, in my opinion, to deter "drunk driving." It has only done plenty to convict people who aren't actually drunk. 

Now, This may not be a problem in cases where Tom or Chad pull you over; in that it seems that they would use good judgement to decide if someone should have to "blow" at all. But I have seen it in detroit where they set up a baracade, and they wave cars through one by one, making random people pull over to blow into a breathilizer. I am sure they convicted a lot of the unimpaired that way. There also many cities and counties (like in Rochester, MI) where AS POLICY, you blow into a breathilizer if your pulled over on the weekend. In these areas, these cops no longer have to show reasonable cause. If you blow 0.08 and above, even if you had done nothing to warrent being pulled over, the cop can vaguely argue something like "he was drving erratically," and because you blew over the legal limit and its your word against his, your screwed. If you don't blow over the legal limit, then he lets you go...yet it would be a hard case and a waste of everyones $$ to sue the city for being pulled over w/o reasonable cause. So, with lower and lower limits, police no longer have to show reasonable cause to pull you over, or to make you blow into a tube, and more and more innocent people are facing convictions because of it. Once again, as the founder of MADD, Candy Lightner, said, I worry that the movement I helped create has lost direction. The .08 legislation ignores the real core of the problem. If we really want to save lives, lets go after the most dangerous drivers on the road.

So, I see the counter arguements, but I maintain my belief that the limit should be raised to 0.12.

 :asian:


----------



## Nightingale (Apr 25, 2004)

The point of having a legal limit is this:

if you are above the limit, you are considered "impaired" and MUST be charged.

If you are below the limit, but driving like you are impaired, you MAY be charged.  

Basically, it takes into account someone like me, who is quite buzzed after one beer.  I'm nowhere near the limit, but there's no way in hell I should be driving, and if I was stupid enough to get behind the wheel, the law needs a way to deal with it.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 25, 2004)

> The most common primary factors I see are speed and alcohol/drug intoxication.



This brings up another point of discussion: speed.

How many of you think that speed is a killer?

Unless we're talking about residential areas, I don't think that it is per say.

Speed is a force multiplier. Crashing into something at 120 mph is a lot more deadly then 20 mph.

Hwever, I think that accidents are CAUSED by poor judgement rather then excessive speed. Tailgating, not using turn signals, aggressive driving, not looking before changing lanes, not paying attention and tunring in front of people, etc., etc. etc.; all examples of poor judgement.

I understand that speed makes it more difficult to react when someone else does something stupid, however, who cause the accident, the stupid person who changed lanes in front of you while going 20 mph when you clearly were moving at a faster rate, or you because you were moving at a faster rate? I'd say, the stupid person.

So, I would vote that we crack down on stupid driving, and ease up on speed violations.. You don't use a turn signal: ticket. You ride someones @$$ to close: ticket. You drive erratically, the cop gets you on his camera for court purposes, then ticket. Once the crack down is in full effect, then we gradually move to no speed limit on highways, and looser limits on non-highways, and tight limits in residential and downtown areas.

I just don't feel that speed causes accidents. I feel the cause is poor decision making. I think that traffic laws are aimed at the wrong thing as they are designed today, and are instead (once again) restrictive over our rights while failing to prevent accidents.

What do you think...  

I posted a poll here, so we can keep this thread on subject.  :uhyeah: :http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14135


----------



## Nightingale (Apr 25, 2004)

Well...

like we say in skydiving:  its not the speed that kills you, its the sudden stop at the end.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 25, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> The point of having a legal limit is this:
> 
> if you are above the limit, you are considered "impaired" and MUST be charged.
> 
> ...



Right, but they do have a way to deal with it, in that you could be charged even though your below the limit.

Having a low limit only means that someone who isn't impaired @ 0.08 and above MUST be charged, which I feel is an infringement on our rights.

 :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Apr 25, 2004)

http://www.health.org/newsroom/rep/33.aspx


DRIVING ABILITY

Driving Skills

The ability to drive is a complex skill, but it is so familiar to most people that its complexity is often overlooked. Driving, and more specifically safe driving, involves subtle interaction of obvious things like coordination skills, reaction time, and perceptual ability and less obvious, but equally important factors like risk-taking behavior, emotional state, and personality type. Other variables like fatigue, physical and mental health, physiological factors related to hunger, and driver distraction levels are believed by many to be of great influence, but are difficult to define in functional terms. While many studies have been done on driving, it is not understood all that well, especially in terms of what particular skills or characteristics should be considered critical to driving ability.

Driving Behaviors and Accident Causation

NHTSA asserts that much of the research conducted on the behavioral causes of motor vehicle accidents finds that judgment and attention factors predominate over vehicle control maneuvers that may be considered inappropriate. Inattention, excessive speed, and improper observational practices are more frequently associated with accidents than are actions resulting from environmental or situational variables. In other words, small problems in maintaining lane position, cornering, judging gaps in traffic, or closing speed are not typically the things that occur prior to accidents. Failure to notice and respond to events or to anticipate events precedes accidents more frequently.

It is also important to differentiate between events or behaviors that are associated with accidents and causation or responsibility...

"...Tracking a simple moving object is not significantly impaired in most people at BACs as high as 0.10, but more complicated tracking tasks (for example, tracking more than one object or if attention must be divided with another task) can be affected in some at BACs below 0.10. Effects on pursuit tracking (maintaining a fix on a moving target) may occur with BACs in the range of 0.05 to 0.10. Some studies have shown that deterioration in the ability to divide attention between two tasks is detectable in some people at BACs between 0.05 and 0.08."


----------



## Tgace (Apr 25, 2004)

I can arrest you for 1192-4 (driving while ability impaird by drugs) and all I have to do is field test for impairment and get a blood/urine sample that shows ANY ammount of drug in your system to get ya. If you get into an accident and say "must have been that Nyquil I was taking for my cold....." I dont need any sort of level cut off. 

The problem you run into is that Officers testimony as to impairment dosent hold as much weight (IMHO) as the breath/blood test in Judges opinions. So when I say "this defendant was wasted" and the BAC comes out .08 (before the change) the charge gets dropped to impaired even though the guy was DWI. We go through the cricus of 3-5 physical tests, alcosensors, questioning, reports etc. on the road and the only thing most judges seem to care about is the BAC. In a "perfect world" the only thing needed should be the officers observations of impairment and a +/- test for alcohol.


----------



## dearnis.com (Apr 25, 2004)

Legal limits- IF I get a test into evidence that  shows you above the limit (.10 in my jurisdiction) the judge or jury MUST convict.  End of story.  If you are below, but there is other evidence, I must convince beyond a reasonable doubt that you were impaired.  Behavior, coordination tests, attitude, etc.  Harder, but it can be done.

As to speed.....  
Speed, often combined with poor driving or impairment, in the primary killer I see.  Relax speeding laws?? Nope.  When I run radar I run strictly in communities, NOT out on the highway.  It is nothing for my partner and I to issue 50-60 citations on a good day....and we don't start stopping for less than 18-20 over the limit.
Tomorrow when I am a bit fresher I will throw up some numbers on speed and reaction time.  In terms of stopping a car remember that energy is based on the  mass of the object times the square of its velocity....radical speed increases lead to even more radical increases in kinetic energy.
As to nightingale's points... unrestrained deceleration in the 20-25 mph range is entering the lethal zone.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 25, 2004)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Legal limits- IF I get a test into evidence that shows you above the limit (.10 in my jurisdiction) the judge or jury MUST convict. End of story. If you are below, but there is other evidence, I must convince beyond a reasonable doubt that you were impaired. Behavior, coordination tests, attitude, etc. Harder, but it can be done.
> 
> As to speed.....
> Speed, often combined with poor driving or impairment, in the primary killer I see. Relax speeding laws?? Nope. When I run radar I run strictly in communities, NOT out on the highway. It is nothing for my partner and I to issue 50-60 citations on a good day....and we don't start stopping for less than 18-20 over the limit.
> ...


Do your cars have cameras? Ours dont....they make great courtroom viewing for DWI's though.


----------



## OULobo (Apr 26, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Do your cars have cameras? Ours dont....they make great courtroom viewing for DWI's though.



Some of our officers carry audio tape recorders to record the person they pulled over doing something as simple as reciting the alphabet. It seems to help them in court.


----------



## dearnis.com (Apr 26, 2004)

We now have cameras....in the past I would use audio as well.Video is also great for stop sign violations....


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 26, 2004)

Oakland County Michigan has audio and video as well!


----------



## dearnis.com (Jul 10, 2004)

Well, Delaware has come into step with the rest of the nation; we sign .08 into law Monday.


----------



## lonecoyote (Jul 10, 2004)

I'm certainly no expert, but I think that a lot of DWI legislation is political, like it has been mentioned, a "warm hug to voters" . I think the problem with all driving stupidity is that driving is not a peripheral activity. It is the first thing you should be thinking about when you're behind the wheel, not talking on the phone, eating a taco, looking for a CD, putting on makeup, or reading a newspaper (no kidding, I've seen it) ,or worse taking out your aggression. If you can take your driving seriously, which most people dont, even after you've had a few beers then I have no problem with you being on the road with me. What does everyone think of ignition interlock devices? One has to suck, then blow into a tube, not only for the car to start, but at certain intervals while the car is functioning.  The sucking part I've heard, is because some jerk in San Antonio was found with his car wrecked into a tree, drunk and passed out with the the air compressor he'd used to blow into the device hissing in the back seat.


----------



## dearnis.com (Jul 10, 2004)

We use the interlock as a diversion program.  It allows an offender to keep a driver's license and operate an equipped vehicle subject to a lot of restrictions; I have no problem with them, especially in cases where someone made a bad choice and the result of loss of license is loss of job.
You are right on about most people seeing driving as peripheral; it is a shame. (And I have also seen them reading the paper...sadly never when I'm working....)


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 10, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> But, I do feel that many activists often forget that we live an america, and that we have the right to drink.


Agreed.  But we don't have the right to drink and drive.

I recently took a defensive driving course for the insurance discount. As I understand it, ANY level of alcohol will interfere with your judgement, reflexes, or perception to some degree.  I guess the question is how relevant it is to driving skill.  

But is it worth it, really?  Not to me.  Even if I believe I am not impaired (and this could just be a reflection of my impaired judgement) I could get into an accident because of ANOTHER driver's error...but my blood alcohol level will STILL cost me my professional license and probably some jail time.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 11, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I recently took a defensive driving course for the insurance discount. As I understand it, ANY level of alcohol will interfere with your judgement, reflexes, or perception to some degree.  I guess the question is how relevant it is to driving skill.



Yes, but so could any variable. If I am a little sleepy, or playing with the radio, or scoping out a chick in another car, or reading a road sign, or eating a breath mint, or whatever. Pick any action, and I'll bet we could do tests to find out that the action effects your driving to some degree.

So, we should take down all road signs and car radios, because they could be a distraction.  

I think you get the idea. The tests show that on average, the impairment of the driver does not start to rise incrementally until 0.15 BAC. This is why I think 0.12 is/was perfectly fair.

btw...I am careful; if I have had more then 2 drinks, I let a friend or my fiance'e drive, even if I am perfectly O.K.. However, that doesn't justify excessively low BAC requirements, and it doesn't justify manditory laws that prevent people from being productive members of society. All these things accomplish are a further stripping of our rights, and a filling of our jails with more victemless criminals.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 11, 2004)

> However, that doesn't justify excessively low BAC requirements, and it doesn't justify manditory laws that prevent people from being productive members of society. All these things accomplish are a further stripping of our rights, and a filling of our jails with more victemless criminals.


Yes, but we don't get pulled over and breath tested for driving on a couple of beers.  We get pulled over because *we did something funny* while driving on a couple of beers:  speeding, running a stop sign, driving erractically.  It can be argued that these are victimless crimes...unless we hit somebody while doing it. Then there's a victim.  Is that what it takes?


----------



## dearnis.com (Jul 11, 2004)

Paul;
.15???? what tests would those be?  Reaction time is out the window long before that!!!


----------



## Tgace (Jul 11, 2004)

I thought weve already been around this block?? I have nothing more to add than Ive already posted to this thread.


----------



## TigerWoman (Jul 12, 2004)

I was young and stupid once, probably still some of the latter, and drank and drove.  But I was stupid in that I didn't know how precious life is... your own and as well as others.  When young and indomitable, it's like it will never happen to me, I am in control.  Only takes a second of not being in control, and wham, someones's daughter or son or carload of kids or grandparents or mom's & dads are GONE.  Just for being stupid. You are operating a car, a machine in sometimes bad rainy conditions, icy conditions with crazed maniacal drivers these days who insist on getting ahead of you, swerving in front, braking at the last minute etc. etc etc.  Get a designated driver or stay home, much more intelligent and people don't have to weep for your mistake.  Always wanted to join MADD and I don't want to lose someone to feel compelled to. Better yet stop drinking and abusing your "temple" for it surely will catch up with you.  my 2c Sorry, being a little feisty on this one. TW


----------



## SMP (Jul 12, 2004)

What we need to do is teach/demonstrate responsible drinking.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 12, 2004)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Paul;
> .15???? what tests would those be?  Reaction time is out the window long before that!!!



Personal tests I have done with a honda civic, a high school track, and a case of Coors.  :rofl: 

Seriously...I'll have to dig up the stat. The limit was 0.12 at one time, though, as I am sure that you know.

In a perfect world, the limit would be at a level NEAR where MOST people show impairment (0.12). If someone is driving like a tard, they fail sobriety tests (which you'll have on camera for court), and as an officer you don't feel that they are O.K. to drive, then you can ticket them for it, inpound their car for the night, and let them call at the station for a ride home.

Just IMHO. Whether I am right or wrong, one thing that has got to happened in our state is Due process needs to be given back to the courts, instead of the manditory punishments that are enforced by the Secretary of State.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 12, 2004)

SMP said:
			
		

> What we need to do is teach/demonstrate responsible drinking.



I agree...and we can start with running tests with a honda civic, a high school track, and a case of coors...  :rofl: 
Man...that joke just doesn't get old...  :boing2:


----------



## dearnis.com (Jul 15, 2004)

My last post on this thread....
Reduction in legal limit from .10 to .08 leads to a 6-8% reduction in fatal crashes.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 15, 2004)

Would you run live blade drills after your drill partner has had three beers?  I wouldn't.  I don't see a live blade drill as potentially more dangerous than operating a vehicle.  If you can't put 100% of awareness into the activity, the risk of accident increases.  It's simply an issue of public safety.  

Having children has significanly changed my ideas on this topic.  I certainly did not used to be this square.


----------



## dearnis.com (Jul 19, 2004)

I lied...this will be my last post.  A Delaware State Trooper was killed early Saturday morning when a drunk driver headed north in the S/B lanes of a divided highway struck him head on.  The drunk had no lights, you see, because he was fleeing a previous crash.  The trooper was looking for the fleeing vehicle.  
He is survived by his wife and two young children.
I could add some more details, but won't as the information has not been publicly released.  
Lets just leave it with the question of why again we need to roll back BAC limits?.

My task force arrested 19 DUIs earlier friday night/saturday morning; clearly we didn't do enough.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 19, 2004)

Chad,

 I'm very sorry to hear about the death of that State Trooper.  This was both a crime and a tragedy.

 Do you think pushing the BAC limit from 0.08 to a lower value would have stopped him?


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 20, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Chad,
> 
> I'm very sorry to hear about the death of that State Trooper. This was both a crime and a tragedy.
> 
> Do you think pushing the BAC limit from 0.08 to a lower value would have stopped him?


Might have stopped him last time.  That may have been enough.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 20, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Might have stopped him last time.  That may have been enough.


 At the risk of seeming insensitive, I know there is a point at which I am no longer willing to give the police additional power to probe my activities in order to concievably prevent something that may happen in the future.

 Where that point lies along the whole drunk-driving debate, I'm simply not sure.  I have a gut feeling that people who are angry and hurt over their losses, combined with the media, have blown the issue out of proportion, but I have no actual data to back that up.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 20, 2004)

Ontario allows for random checks. The officers cannot charge you with anything that is not in plain view, and don't use lights to look in the vehicule at night. I, for one, don't mind the 30 second it takes to say hello to the officer if it will take one of those idiots off the road.


----------



## OULobo (Jul 20, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Ontario allows for random checks. The officers cannot charge you with anything that is not in plain view, and don't use lights to look in the vehicule at night. I, for one, don't mind the 30 second it takes to say hello to the officer if it will take one of those idiots off the road.



Do you mean road block type checks? I noticed these on a trip to Winsor, but they were really easy to avoid.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 20, 2004)

Sorry, but there is no corrolation between bringing down the limit from 0.1 to 0.08 and stopping a drunk driver from killing someone. If someone decides to drive drunk and they kill a bunch of people, in the majority of the cases their BAC is above 0.12. That person will drive above 0.12 regardless of what the limit is, whether it be 0.08 or even 0 tolerance. And...the person who will drive above 0.12 and endanger everyones lives should have there license taken away for a while. 

The problem is when you bring down the limit to 0.08 as we have, or even lower to like a 0.05 or even lower like some of you have voted for in this poll, you are doing absolutely nothing to effect the real criminals who are going to drive above 0.12 regardless of the law. Your only punishing the guy who isn't drunk or the real problem, but who happends to be over your idea of a fair limit. 

The problem is further complicated with the manditory punishments that many states have implimented. The 0.08 guy is lumped into the same category as the 0.2 guy, with no discresion or due process. THis is actually what bothers me the most. In this "free" country that we call "America" we are supposed to have the right to due process through the court system. With manditory sentencing, that right has been taken away. I would actually rather see a 0 tolerance law implimented if it ment manditory sentencing would be reversed so we could have our rights to due process again. It's not like I want to go around and "drive drunk"... I just want my rights and liberties back. And, whether you drink or not, you should want your rights and liberties to be maintained as well...that is, if you are to call yourself "American."

Unfortunatily, we use emotional ad hoc and anecdotal arguements instead of logic, and our civil liberties go away. "My son (or brother, or friend or co-worker, or whoever) was killed by a drunk driver, so we need to crack down on these laws. Lower BAC's and manditory sentences for everyone....sounds great!" Sorry, but this is not only illogical, but passing such nonsense is contrary to this "free" country we are supposed to be living in.

Have fun with that one...
 :supcool:


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 20, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> The problem is when you bring down the limit to 0.08 as we have, or even lower to like a 0.05 or even lower like some of you have voted for in this poll, you are doing absolutely nothing to effect the real criminals who are going to drive above 0.12 regardless of the law.
> :supcool:


That's a really good point, Paul.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 20, 2004)

Great points, cogently stated, Paul.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 20, 2004)

> In this "free" country that we call "America" we are supposed to have the right to due process through the court system. With manditory sentencing, that right has been taken away. I would actually rather see a 0 tolerance law implimented if it ment manditory sentencing would be reversed so we could have our rights to due process again.


 Excellent point about mandatory sentencing.  It drives me crazy - it takes the judgement (literally) out of the hands of the presiding judge and makes everyone in a certain catefory "the same", no matter the details of your case.


----------

