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, ĀI 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, letĀs go after the most dangerous drivers on the road.Ā
So, I see the counter arguements, but I maintain my belief that the limit should be raised to 0.12.
:asian:
