Sheer MADD-ness: When Drunk Driving Deterrence Becomes Neo-Prohibition

Status
Not open for further replies.
12-34hom
Does that hook, line and sinker interfere with your digestion? How can *you* say that .08 makes someone impaired anymore than *I* can say that talking on your radio or sulking over a fight with your wife makes you impaired? You can't. Not unless the Dept. bleach has already reached your frontal lobe. In all fairness, I figure you for an over zealous cop, out of touch with the real world. In truth, nothing personal intended. None taken, I hope.
Biker
 
i was arrested for DWI back in '97.

the best thing that ever happened to me. not at first, i didnt learn my lesson then. i still thought i was only endangering myself. but one of the things the court sentenced to me (aside from the fines, 3 days in jail, and various other things to complete) i had to attend a MADD seminar.

not only did they have the family members of those dead by drunk drivers on hand to speak, they also had people who were injured severely, and a few of the drivers themselves.

it was at that point that i realized just who i was endangering by driving after even a 'few' beers. i also came to grip with the fact that when i had a lot more than a few beers, i'd still get behind the wheel, even during complete blackouts (apparently a lot of people dont realize what 'blackout' is. a blackout is when you have no memory of what you are doing, not simply passing out).
to this day i cringe when i think of who i might have run over and not ever remember it. i remember running through red lights, jumping up over curbs onto sidewalks, all without a single care for my life or anyone elses.

this was back when AK had a .10 legal limit. i blew a .11, was sobering up fast. the officer who arrested me gave me the option of having a blood sample drawn, which would have superceded the breathalyzer, and in the time it would have taken to go to the hospital, i'd have been below the legal limit. i know that now, and i declined the suggestion. which was a good thing. if i got off easily, i'd have never gotten it through my head jsut what i was doing.

the officers who were on the scene were very nice, polite, and professional. they could see i was coming out of the blackout, and let me provide correct answers to questions like where i worked, where i lived, etc. apparently i gave them old or just wrong info.

i co-operated completely and they both thanked me for it. the officer went so far as to ask the magistrate we went before to release me on my own recognizance, clean record, and my co-operation meant i didnt have to spend any time right then in jail.


do i think the lowered .08 limit is bad? no.
do i think that MADD is out of line? no.

people who drive even after just a 'few beers' have no respect for life, their own, nor anyone elses.

simple as that.
 
I'm sorry, but I don't buy into it.

The officer I dealt with was VERY polite. Yes, he probably COULD have gotten me on DWI: I had JUST finished the drink, so my BAC was probably rising. Instead of being over-zealous, he gave me a warning (had to leave my car there: that was fine, *I* wasn't in any shape to drive). Unfortunately, too often, we get someone who is "Supercop" (had one there that night: could NOT get it through his head that I wasn't going anywhere, nor "resisting his authority"), who thinks they have to make an example of EVERYONE...

Spiff: you feel you needed that wake-up call. That's fine, some do. I've never needed one: I recognize the dangers. The ONLY reason I got behind the wheel that night was I felt fine at the time. The drink hadn't hit me yet, so I probably WAS fine, right at the start. So all fining me for having a BAC over .08 would've done is generate revenue for the state (and caused hardship on my part). Taking my liscense would've caused a disaster...

As for some of the "new" suggestions MADD has: they can bite me. They're pushing too far, and it'll eventually bite 'em someplace...
 
No Spaceman. In reference to your last few sentances, it's not as "simple as that". If I have a few beers (2, 3 or 4?) I have no respect for life? BS. How can you say that a "few beers" impairs me? You can't, and I resent the implication. You wanna get religion? Fine, but confine your limitations to yourself.
Biker
 
Beerslurper sorry but you don't know shineloa about how many beers cause .08. Sure if you weigh about 40 lbs you can be in danger of blowing .08 after one beer. If you weigh about 200 lbs it takes about eight beers to hit .08. It is all about body weight.

About four beers in a hour according to the .gov

Heh. I've been stopped (legitimately) exactly ONCE for suspicion of DWI...

I had just left a bar, where I had finished a second drink (quicker than planned: they decided after I had it they wanted to close early). Felt fine, got behind the wheel... cop saw me SLIGHTLY over the centerline, pulled me over. I was honest about what I had been drinking, and we started the field sobriety test... and stopped with the "follow the light" section. Why? I know what they're looking for, and I was showing the signs of intoxication! Verified with the officer (he was shocked that I'd ask about it like that, and told him "I don't care WHAT you say, I am NOT getting behind the wheel of that car again tonight!". I was given a warning. All that said...

I think .08 is WAY too low. HAs there really been any improvement since it's been lowered?

Field Sobriety Tests are designed to be failed. They are also voluntary.
 
>Field Sobriety Tests are designed to be failed. They are also voluntary.<

I was refering to the "follow the light" segment. Do you know what they're looking for? I do... jerky motion of the eyes. Happens (that I know of) both when inebreated or suffering low blood sugar. Since I knew my blood-sugar was fine, and could tell that my eyes were moving in a jerky fashion, I was therefor impaired to drive. Hadn't felt at all odd BEFORE I got into the vehicle, so the alchohol was just starting to hit me...
 
Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus or HGN is an involuntary jerking of the eye that is purportedly caused by alcohol causing a jerking (nystagmus) of the eye as it moves from side to side. This is an extremely technical test that a motorist has no control over, and the results are completely subjective, based entirely upon the officer’s observation. Most officers receive little training in this test, but it is one of the more common tests employed by police.

As far as I know, only three states let it have evidentiary admissibility with my state, Kentucky, having no regard for it at all.
 
I have seen my share of Florida accidents. Florida has TONS of accidents. Ironically, few are due to alcohol. The simple fact is that many Florida residents cannot handle sober driving on a dry straight road with wide lanes. Either they are senile, stupid, agressive, etc- they cant drive!

Again, the bit about the drunk road racer being safer than the sober average joes strikes me as particularly relevant. I have done autocross, track days and had driving instruction. Many people are lacking even the basics. They become dangerous with alcohol because they are already dangerous sober and the alchol helps them forget this- they start exploring the limits of their abilities and they get in over their head fast. Drunk people revert to their level of training, just like sober people. The problem is that drunk people with no training think they are experts. White people think they can dance, ugly nerds can talk to hot women and people who cant drive are suddenly Michael Schumacher.

Some things I think are important but are neglected by 95 percent of the population, sober or not:
-you don't know how to drive until you have spun a car at least once and learned from the mistake. Knowing how to maintain control over the car with brake, accelerator and steering wheel is hugely important in avoiding accidents.
-Every driver should experiment with the limits of their car and instinctively know how it handles when traction runs out. The time to practice this is alone and on dry pavement, not when the neighbor kid runs in front of you or when you have a fifth of bourbon in your gut. Sometimes you will pass the test without studying, but why take a chance?
-Performing proper maintenance is huge. So many cars drive around with half flat tires and worn out brakes, then are amazed when they dont stop in time or flip over.

So basically know your car and take care of it. Alcohol isnt nearly the evil demon that stupidity and ignorance are.
 
cropcirclewalker said:
except for the speeding, which we all do, so it shouldn't be a crime.

Are you kidding me? Sure, if it was only 4 or 5 mph over the posted limit, that'd be no problem, but what about the f***er who's doing 50 down my street? That's twice the limit. I have young siblings who often are outside playing. This shouldn't be a crime?

As for decreasing the drivers who are dangerously drunk, how about a driving sim before leaving the bar? Might work, at least a little.
 
Obviously driving at high speeds through crowded residential neighborhoods is bad, but what about doing double the speed limit on a mountain road or an interstate in the middle of nowhere? Also, Pamela, please consider that my race car (when I drive it on the street) can stop many times faster than a normal street car. I could safely drive 3-4 times faster than when I am in the daily driver. One size fits all speed limits have nothing to do with safety.

If the speed limit is 35 on a windy mountain road and I do 70+, who is harmed?
If the speed limit is 70 on an empty highway and I do 140, who is harmed?

The cops around here lie in wait in the places which are safest to speed because they want money, not because they are trying to discourage bad behavior. They actually encourage ticketable behavior by making ultra high quality roads with insanely low speed limits. You could safely go 200mph on many of the florida highways, many of which are marked 45-55 mph with speed traps galore. This isnt accidental.

Back in CA, when I was exploring the mountain roads, I encountered some incredibly high quality roads and some insanely bad roads with identical speed limits. On the bad ones I would barely go the speed limit because I didnt feel it was safe- on the good ones I would go 2-3x the speed limit because it was safe.
 
Anyone who has ever driven through west texas will agree that some speed limits just don't make sense. There are plenty of places where doing 100 in a Semi would not only be safe, but boring, to say nothing of something like a corvette.

That isn't to say that residential speed limits should be eliminated, but I sure think interstate highway limits should be raised by 50% or more, if not eliminated outright.
 
beerslurpy said:
If the speed limit is 35 and I do 70+ because I have race tires, who is harmed?

If the speed limit is 70 on an empty highway and I do 140, who is harmed?

If it's an empty highway, probably no one will be harmed, but you can't be absolutely certain, especially if you're zipping along at over 100 mph. I suppose I'm overly cautious compared to other people, but I tend to think "what if", i.e., what if there's someone walking along the road, and I don't see him until he's plastered on my windshield because I'm going so fast. And just to clarify, I strive to keep my "what ifs" within the realm of possibility.

Scottmkiv said:
I sure think interstate highway limits should be raised by 50% or more, if not eliminated outright.

With the way people tailgate (at least where I live), it'd be better to decrease the limit rather than raise it. The last thing those idiots need is to be allowed to go faster. However, there will always be those who drive really fast, regardless of the speed limit or absence of.
 
Obviously driving at high speeds through crowded residential neighborhoods is bad, but what about doing double the speed limit on a mountain road or an interstate in the middle of nowhere? Also, Pamela, please consider that my race car (when I drive it on the street) can stop many times faster than a normal street car. I could safely drive 3-4 times faster than when I am in the daily driver . One size fits all speed limits have nothing to do with safety.
beerslurpy-
I agree with you on open highways but in local traffic you have one big very uncotrolable problem all the other crappy drivers, Most 18 wheeler crashes there is a 4 wheeler at fault.
going 90 down a street then some idiot pulls out of a parking lot when you are 20 feet away can you stop ;) and what about the yahoo that decides running a red light is only illeagle if you get caught. :rolleyes:
I fully belive the speed limit on open highways should be what you can safly drive
Texas is too big for 65.
 
Amusetec said:
I fully belive the speed limit on open highways should be what you can safly drive

There's a lot of people out there with poor judgement, though, who will think they're driving safely when they're not. Already, it happens every day. I mean, if everyone were truly driving safely, wouldn't there be less accidents?

beerslurpy said:
my race car...can stop many times faster than a normal street car

If only all cars were so equipped!

Also, in defense of reasonable highway speeds, what about fuel consumption? I read somewhere, probably Reader's Digest, that fuel economy peaks at 60 mph and decreases by 10% for every 5 mph over 60. With gas prices on the rise, that right there is a good reason to slow down.
 
You can always count on the membership here to look at every tool law enforcement uses as just another way the man keeps the brothers down :rolleyes:

Derby FALS said;
Field Sobriety Tests are designed to be failed. They are also voluntary.

Field sobriety tests are not designed to be failed. In fact they are designed to be as accurate an indicator of impairment as possible. Back in the good old days of the 50s and 60s ( I know many of you long for those days, when the police could beat up suspects and generally trample the constitution with impunity, it wasn't really Andy and Barney in those days) there were many different field sobriety tests used in different parts of the country. In late 1975 the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) sponsored extensive studies to come up with standardized field sobriety tests that were more accurate then the hodgepodge of FSTs that were in use nationwide. Six tests were used in the initial studies. The studies found that 3 of the tests, when adminsitered in a standardized manor were very accurate in determining blood alcohol content above 0.10, these tests were:

The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmous (HGN)

Walk and Turn (WAT)

One Leg Stand (OLS)

When NHTSA analyzed the data from these studies they found that:

HGN by itself was 77% accurate

WAT by itself was 68% accurate

OLS by itself was 65% accurate

By combining HGN and WAT an 80% accuracy can be achieved.

There were three validation sudies conducted between 1995 and 1998:
Colorado - 1995
Florida - 1997
San Diego - 1998

The Colorado study was a full field study that used experienced officers administering SFSTs. Correct arrest decisions were made 93% of the time using the 3 test battery, which was significantly higher then the initial studies back in the 70s indicated.

The Florida field validation study had a 95% correct arrest decision rate using the three battery SFSTs.

The San Diego study was was done to check the validity of the three test battery given the (then) nationwide trend towards the lower legal BAC limit of 0.08. Correct arrest decision were made 91% of the time. So no, they weren't designed to be failed. If they were, my friend El Tejon and others in his profession would have had them ruled inadmissible by now.

Derby FALS also said;

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus or HGN is an involuntary jerking of the eye that is purportedly caused by alcohol causing a jerking (nystagmus) of the eye as it moves from side to side. This is an extremely technical test that a motorist has no control over, and the results are completely subjective, based entirely upon the officer’s observation. Most officers receive little training in this test, but it is one of the more common tests employed by police.

Well you got one part of this right. HGN is an involuntary jerking of the eye. It is caused by alcohol and other things. There is vestibular nystagmous which is caused by movement or action to the vestibular system. there are four types of vestibular nystagmous:

Rotational: Rotational nystagmous occurs when the person is spun around or rotated rapidly, causing the fluid in the inner ear to be disturbed. If it were possible to observe the eyes of a rotating person, they would be seen to jerk noticeably.

Post Rotational Nystagmous is closely related to rotational nystagmous: when the person stops spinning, the fluid in the inner ear remains disturbed for a period of time and the eyes continue to jerk.

Caloric Nystagmous occurs when fluid motion in the canals of the vestibular system is stimulated by temperature as by putting warm water in one ear and cold water in the other.

Positional Alcohol Nystagmous occurs when a foriegn fluid, such as alcohol, that alters the specific gravity of the blood is in unequal concentrations in the blood and in the vestibular system.

Nystagmous can also result directly from neural activity. Optokinetic nystagmous occurs when the eyes fixate on an object that suddenly moves out of sight, or when the eyes watch sharply contrasting moving images.

Examples of optokinetic nystagmous include watching strobe lights, rotating lights or rapidly moving traffic in close proximity. The HGN test is not influenced by optikinetic nystagmous when administered properly. That means you don't have them facing your lit up squad car or the traffic.

Physiological Nystagmous is a natural nystagmous that keeps the sensory cells of the eye from tiring. It is the most common type of nystagmous. It happens to all of us, all the time, but it produces extreme,y minor jerks of the eys and it's generally not visible to the naked eye.

Gaze nytagmous occurs as the eyes move from the center position. Gaze nystagmous is separted into three types:

Horizontal gaze nystagmous occurs as the eyes move to the side. This is the one you look for in SFSTs. Although it's the most accurate in determinaing alcohol impairment, it's presense may indicate the use of other drugs.

Vertical gaze nystagmous occurs as the eyes gaze upwards. The presence of VGN is an indicator of high doses of alcohol and certain other drugs. There is no drug that causes VGN that also doesn't cause HGN so if only VGN is present the subject may have a medical condition.

Resting nystagmous is jerking of the eyes as they look straight ahead. Resting nystagmous is usually indication of a medcal condition or high doses of drugs such as PCP.

This is not new science. Look up Positional Nystagmous in Man During and After Alcohol Intoxication Aschan, Bergstedt, Goldberg and Laurell 1956

As for most officers receiving little training in SFSTs, the certification course is 24 hours and includes both videotaped subjects and a live drink, where volunteers get drunk on the departments dime and perform SFSTs at various levels of intoxication.

As far as I know, only three states let it have evidentiary admissibility with my state, Kentucky, having no regard for it at all.

Well lets see here: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky yes my friend, look up Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 949 S.W. 2d 621, 623 (KY Ct. App. 1996) HGN test admitted due to defendants falure to object. Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming all allow HGN to be part of probable cause for intoxication or evidence of intoxication.

Pennsylvania ruled in three cases: Commonwealth v. Moore, Commonwealth v. Apollo and Commonwealth v. Miller that the state laid an inadequate foundation for the admissablilty of HGN under the Frye/Tropa standard.

SFSTs are only part of the arrest decision. Observing the subjects driving, personal contact with the subject and performance on the SFSTs go into the decison to arrest. If you can't articulate all of these steps, you stand the risk of having your arrest thrown out and the case dismissed. It's not as simple as dragging motorists from their cars and making them take a breathalyzer test as some of you seem to think. Don't document and articulate one step in the process and watch all your work be thrown out when the suspects attorney is granted a motion to suppress based on you not having sufficient probably cause to stop the vehicle, get the suspect out of the vehicle and have them perform SFSTs. On the other hand, cases have been made and convictions obtained without breathalyzer evidence.

DUI/DWI is a serious crime. Yes we've made great strides in the last 20 years. Yes, I believe MADD has become the new home of the temperance movement. No, I don't believe we need BAC standards any lower then they are. As long as there is alcohol and automobiles there will be drunk drivers. MADD needs to recognize that and be happy with the good work they have done. But we don't need to trivialize the problem because the fanatcis are going off the deep end. That is the big problem with advocacy groups, they don't ever recognize just what is acheiveable so they don't know when to stop.

Jeff
 
I live in florida and while most of the driver's suck, the road's are beutiful. I can drive down I-4 doing 90 with not a problem in the world. The only thing that cause me to go "Chit!" is when someone is in the fast lane doing 5 mph under the speed limit. Most tailgating is caused by people that will not move out of the way and hold up traffic, not by people perfectly capable of going faster. Ther German Autoban (or hoever it's spelled) has much less fatalities then the American highway system. And that is a road you can legaly do however fast you like on wide open road, in area's where it gets congested there is a speed limit. That is how it should be in the US.

If the speed limit is 65 and all you are doing is 65 or less, you do not belong in the left hand lane. The left hand lane is the passing lane. Unless I am going faster then condition's permit and have to put my foot on the brake because you are in that lane, you do not belong there. Last time I got pulled over was christmas eve. It was a clear night with good weather, road's were dry and not wet or icy in the slightist. I got pulled over for doing 80. Would I be doing 80 and weaving in and out of traffic? No, of course not. I know my limit's and when not to go fast. And where was the cop? A good 2 mile's to 2 and a half miles into well maintained lonly road with a steady downhill grade (pa up in the mountian's). Another favorite place for police in that area? The bottom of a very long somewhat steep hill. If you dont ride your brake's down most of it you will be a good 10-15 mph over the speed limit in more then a few vehicle's.

On the drunk driving. I know people I would trust more at twice the legal limit then I would with no drink in them. Different people drive different ways and have different levels. IMO if you are intoxicated should be concluded with solid tests of your judgment and reflex's and ablities rather then just your alcohol level. Hell I know people that would have a hard time standing on one leg or touching their nose sober let alone drunk, and people drunk that could do the same just as easy as when sober.

Drunk driving is not a joke. If oyu are impared you belong no where behind the wheel. But making it lower and lower to make it easier to arrest people for having a few drinks out before heading home is getting idiotic.
 
to go after these new "drunk" drivers who don't pose much of a threat to highway safety

Much of a threat. How many people have to be killed or maimed to be considered a real threat?

Someone wants to drink, fine have a designated driver or stay home.

Don't get on the road where you put my family at risk. You don't have that right. Period.

For those drunks who feel they can polish off a whole case and still function, well good for you. I bet that's your best feature on a job resume.

But there are plenty of people who are impaired after only one drink.
 
BAC is all that matters--everything else is a means to obtain BAC

Observing the subjects driving, personal contact with the subject and performance on the SFSTs go into the decison to arrest. If you can't articulate all of these steps, you stand the risk of having your arrest thrown out and the case dismissed. It's not as simple as dragging motorists from their cars and making them take a breathalyzer test as some of you seem to think.
No offense, but in my particular case I assert that I made no driving errors, with the exception of deciding to drive after drinking (Just so that my entire account is not dismissed, I must defend this statement by explaining that I was constantly checking my speed--I knew I did not want to get pulled over and was driving cautiously). Whether I actually did or did not roll-through a stop sign and speed becomes irrelevant if the arresting officer is willing to fabricate those details in order to satisfy an important criterion for a DUI arrest and to justify the stop in the first place. My point, which I believe deserves some consideration, is that IF there was no real reason to pull me over in the first place then there would NOT have been any personal contact between officer and subject (me) NOR would there have been any FST's. THEN, I would not have taken a breathalyzer and been arrested.

I do not doubt the validity of your statistics regarding the accepted FST's, but the tests are not as straightforward as pass and fail. Even regarding their most basic requirements (like walking and turning), the successful completion of any given test is determined by the subjective observations of the officer. Beyond that, if someone placed his feet perfectly and completed the "walk and turn" without ever faltering or stumbling or failing even once to place his heel at the toe of his other foot, the officer may still believe him intoxicated based on other indicators of uncoordination or lack of balance. The whole test is subjective. If you passed each test perfectly (by perfectly, I mean the motorskills component as instructed) but failed to convince the officer that you were sober enough to drive, you would still be forced to submit to a chemical test. Of course, in the officer's notes he would describe your lack of coordination or maybe even your inability to follow instructions (like if you took 10 steps instead of 9). The officer may be absolutely right in his suspicions of your intoxication, but that is not the point. The point is that once you are pulled over (for whatever reason/excuse) and are suspected of being under the influence, you WILL, if you fail to convince the officer otherwise, be blowing on that breathalyzer tube. Chances are, if you are sober you will have no problem proving to the officer that you are not DUI. But if you are intoxicated, then you may as well just be dragged from your car and forced to submit to a breathalizer, because all the steps in between are but formalities. I do not intend for any of what I have said here to imply that I deny being guilty as charged; nor am I able to propose any better system than the one existing.

In conclusion, what I'm trying to say is that impairment is secondary to BAC. If the officer believes that your BAC will exceed .08, then his observations will be biased toward perceiving impairment. I would be curious to know how many drivers with BAC below .08 "fail" FST's and are ultimately required to be breathalyzed.
 
despite conceding that they may violate the Fourth Amendment. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that the threat to public health posed by drunk drivers was reason enough to set aside concerns about searches without probable cause.

It could read in the future:

the threat to public health posed by Firearms was reason enough to set aside concerns about searches without probable cause.
Really not even close.

They said "drunk drivers" & you said "Firearms".

Either change theirs to "booze" or yours to "drunk pistol packers" or something like that. They talk about people - your statement is about an inanimate object. It's actually a long reach from one to the other. Not that a long reach would bother a liberal anti in the mood to speak out against their favorite demon, it is still something different.
 
With the way people tailgate (at least where I live), it'd be better to decrease the limit rather than raise it. The last thing those idiots need is to be allowed to go faster. However, there will always be those who drive really fast, regardless of the speed limit or absence of.
Lowering the limit from 65 to 60 will help you catch the people going 100 no more than the AWB kept "weapons of war" out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.

Also, in defense of reasonable highway speeds, what about fuel consumption? I read somewhere, probably Reader's Digest, that fuel economy peaks at 60 mph and decreases by 10% for every 5 mph over 60. With gas prices on the rise, that right there is a good reason to slow down.
I got 33mpg in a car rated for 28 highway going 75-80 for the majority of a tank. There are far too many factors for your average magazine editor to understand that will affect your milage.
 
Lupinus wrote:
Most tailgating is caused by people that will not move out of the way and hold up traffic, not by people perfectly capable of going faster.

I beg to differ. At least where I live, tailgating is very commonplace, and not just in the passing lane on the highways. People don't realize, or don't care, that if you don't leave sufficient stopping distance, you WILL ram into the car ahead of you if it suddenly stops. I was taught to leave one car length for every 10 mph in order to stop safely. In other words, going 60 mph means you oughta be pretty far back.

Lupinus also wrote:
Unless I am going faster then condition's permit and have to put my foot on the brake because you are in that lane, you do not belong there.

The leftmost lane is not "drive however fast you like--it's the passing lane!" The speed limit applies there as well. If only common sense were applied, too. Just because I'm passing someone slower than what YOU would like does not give you the right to endanger my life by riding on my bumper, and flashing your brights at me or honking. It is you who is not driving safely; I am, and will not be forced into breaking the law.

Besides, if I get pulled over, you think the trooper is going to buy "I wanted to drive slower but they made me drive fast!" I don't think so.
 
Back before the drinking age was jacked up to 21 again, I was stopped for DUI one night. Passed the breathalyzer test at .09. I was drunk as a skunk at .09. I weighed about 250 lbs at the time.

I kept drinking and driving for about another year. Wound up with a large pine tree sitting in the passenger seat with me one night after it jumped out in front of my car. Extrapolated that pine tree into several possible scenarios: pine tree sitting in the driver's seat with me, pine tree being someone else's car with all their kids, etc. Stopped drinking and driving. Pretty simple actually. I drink at home or at friends' homes. At friends' homes, I either stay long enough for the effects to dissipate or I make arrangements to spend the night BEFORE I drink any alcohol. I don't do bars unless I have a designated driver.

The stopping drinking for a year and never going back is both simplistic and false. Go to an AA meeting. Listen to the recovering alcoholics talk. After a while you'll hear recovering alcoholics relate relapsing after years of sobriety. Many of them.

This is a difficult issue. Many of the tactics being used or proposed are dangerous to liberty. But drinking and driving is a danger to the right to life of everyone on the highway.
 
At least where I live, tailgating is very commonplace, and not just in the passing lane on the highways. People don't realize, or don't care, that if you don't leave sufficient stopping distance, you WILL ram into the car ahead of you if it suddenly stops.
And if he wasn't doing 65 in the passing lane when the speed limit is 65, I wouldn't be coming up on his back end. You do not belong in the passing lane if you are not going fast enough to pass someone at anything more then a crawl. And I have been doing 80 behind someone who was doing a similer speed. I was roughly a few car lengths (but far short of that car length for every ten mile's) behind and he hit a deer. I don't know, I managed to brake just fine without rear ending him. It is called pay attention. If you are doing sixty and I am coming up on you at 80, you should be paying attention as well to whats happening behind you and move out of the left lane. I am not going to run up to six inchs from your bumper. But I am not going to stay back ten car lengths and do sixty because you want to cruise at the speed limit in the passing lane.

The leftmost lane is not "drive however fast you like--it's the passing lane!"
Exactly, so pass and get out of it uless you are going to go fast enough to pass most car's on the road. You know in Germany on the Autoban doing that is illegal?

Just because I'm passing someone slower than what YOU would like does not give you the right to endanger my life by riding on my bumper, and flashing your brights at me or honking
And if that is all you are doing I will do nothing of the sort. But if you are just riding your life away in the left hand lane and not moving over after you have passed, I will. Move over, let faster traffic pass, and then if you feel so inclined get back over.

"I wanted to drive slower but they made me drive fast!" I don't think so.
Im 19 in a camaro, trust me, I will get pulled over long before you do even if you are going faster.
 
Why is the number 0.08 a problem? The only problem I can see is someone beeing punished for something that could (easily) have gone bad, but did not. The number is irrelevant; either you accept that the autorities have this power or you do not. It is as simple as whose right is more important: My right to not be wacked down by a drunk driver, or your right to not be subject to random testing for (exessive) alcohol. If you are so drunk that it shows on your driving, it really doesn't matter as you will/should be stopped if the police sees you anyway.

It is (in Norway at least) illegal to drive while incapasitated by anything be it lack of sleep, alcohol, medications, drugs or anything else. The only special thing about alcohol is that it is easily tested. And since driving is a privilege (spelling??) you accept the limitations our you don't drive. We have random testing at random spots along the road, the limit is 0.02, if cought you will lose your driving lisence (for a limited time or for life), you will pay a lot of money and probably go to jail (above 0.05 usually go to jail). If this works is impossible to know as no official statistics is avilable. But subjectively it looks as drunk driving is relatively rare and decreasing, but driving under influence of other drugs is rising in popularity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top