I've used an actual statistic and am labeled extreme. You use a made up statistic to counter my real statistic. I am playing semantics?
Having too much to drink and getting behind the wheel is a bad thing. Getting behind the wheel when too tired (what's the test for that again?) or after having a few drinks, or while talking on the phone or texting are all known to impair. Sounds like the cop did the right thing by pulling him over. My problem with the above quoted statement is that I do not feel that having the equivalent of 4 drinks and then a meal (two hour period for this, plus the drive?) and driving is as deplorable as molesting a 12 year old girl . Maybe I'm old fashioned and am not up with the latest in propaganda and public politically correct opinion, but I don't see those two being the same, and the fact that some do is disturbing to me. Very. As for Breathalyzers, word is that they are not reliable. Much like a lie detector, advice from a lawyer is generally that you shouldn't take it. If OP's "amounts" are legitimate, it sounds like you may have grounds for at least an investigation as to whether you should be considered to have been DWI. Receipts and time frames may help state you weren't intoxicated depending on your testing video. They may not. You have a right to a trial in search of that answer. I wish you luck in neither direction on that. I know people have lost loved ones to this, I am someone who has. That said, I still find myself able to generally keep my ability to reason from letting my emotions dictate what is best for the entire society.
Your 40% number was pretty close (in 2007, the number was ~37%). Also, the percentage seems to have gone down dramatically in the past 25 years or so. Perhaps it is because the police are being more proactive in pulling over suspected drunken drivers.
They aren't the same. I shouldn't have used that as a comparison. In general I was just trying to illustrate that if a poster asks whether he can get away with a crime that has had great personal costs for other posters, it's likely he is going to get an earful of stuff he doesn't want to hear. I'm not really sure how to read this. You mean that losing a loved one shouldn't play into whether you think people should be allowed to drive drunk?
Two drinks does not affect my driving significantly. Maybe a little but no significantly to the point where people are in harms way.
Yeah, I knew it wasn't exactly 40%, but it had been awhile since I had done research on the matter. I did point out that it was around 40% when I used that number. As to your point about police pulling people over playing a role in declining numbers, can't say. I'm not familiar with when the laws were changed and what not.
What about drank? Drank in mah cup, mayne hol' up! You know what I'm saying. One hit of that lean, and I'm cruising Acres Homes at 5 mph.
I was making a point that just about every accident is caused due to driver error. Quite frankly, I'm fairly sure that even a driver that hit a deer could be charged with "driver inattention." Being "extreme" is applauding zero-tolerance and one-size-fits-all legislature. I think we've all seen how ludicrous these types of laws become.
Who here did that? I'll admit to not reading every single post, but I don't recall seeing anyone applaud "zero-tolerance" laws or "one-size-fits all legislature." Furthermore, the idea that our current laws fit into those categories is bogus.
Someone who has 2 drinks with a meal = someone driving recklessly with a BAC of .24 under current law. A law the Federal Gov't forced on every State in the U.S. to receive federal highway funding. Sure sounds like "one size fits all" to me.
Woops. FWI, .08 is one of (if not the) highest BAC levels in the world. You are also treated differently based on first offense, etc. Edit 2: But I do agree. The law should be changed if treats .08 the same as .24. If you drive with .24 you should have your license revoked immediately.
I'd like to see proof of this. Currently, if you drive with a BAC of .08, your license is suspended immediately. But let me guess, you don't drink at all, do you? I'm guessing you'd be ok with prohibition if it were legal again.
Give me until tomorrow, I'll have to go through my research on it. I think we are up with Canada and a few other nations, but most countries are below us, including most Euro nations. I would absolutely be against prohibition and I do drink. We are getting way off course here. If you view my posts in this thread I've been pretty lax on the "two glasses of wine" scenario. I feel like you are arguing about whether someone who drinks two glasses of wine is the devil or not, while the rest of the people discussing the issue are discussing people who are impaired, such as someone falling asleep at the wheel.
Here it is Fatty. http://www.driveandstayalive.com/ar...cl--drunk-driving-0005--global-BAC-limits.htm The highest in the world is .10 in Uganda, the next highest is .08 in the United States and the following countries: Belize, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, Fiji, Ghana, Ireland, Jamaica, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, Singapore, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, Zimbabwe The following are at .05: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Macedonia, Monaco, Namibia, Netherlands, Portugal*, Russia*, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Yugoslavia Edit: Beaten by Bobrek! Well, I'm out.
I know I'm in late on this one but I have been given this test and failed too. What makes that significant is that I had not had a drink of alcohol that day (probably that week). That test is complete BS. I think it's a cop's "ace in the hole" when they need an excuse to drag you in.
I guess the world figured out that the US was making a ****load of money off of this and followed suit, then. As I've stated, what percentage of accidents was speed a factor? Under similar circumstances, I suppose a person driving 10 miles over the speed limit should be treated the same as someone going twice the speed limit or someone going 50-100 miles over. After all, they're both endangering other drivers to a degree...
I don't think anyone is arguing your .08 vs. .08+ point. Generally, a first offender who blows a .08 should be treated more leniently than a first offender who blows a .16.
Sure seems so. That has been my argument from the beginning. As I've stated, I think any impaired driver who causes a fatal accident should be held fully accountable. And I include reckless drivers, cell phone users, speeders in the same class. But, again, the law should have different levels of DWI. .08 is minimally impairing, and again, no more harmful than talking on a cell phone. The idiot driving all over the curbs at 3:00 in the morning should have more severe penalties.
It's much harder for them to prove a reckless driver (without witnesses), cell phone use (I guess they could pull their records, but they'd have to do that every time.. and someone could always claim speaker phone or something), and even speeding isn't always something they can prove definitively However, if someone's still drunk well after the accident, you can be sure they were during it..
