.05 Blood Alcohol Limit for Driving?

[CreamyGoodness]

Pistols I am not sure I disagree with you. Well put.

I wanted to mention, giving the devil his due and all that, that a friend of mine in college got himself in real trouble for taking a nap in his car with the keys in the ignition (car was off). Officer told him he would have been fine if the keys werent in the ignition, because now he had intent to drive. I think thats stretching quite a bit.

 

[PistolsAtDawn]

Pistols I am not sure I disagree with you. Well put.

I wanted to mention, giving the devil his due and all that, that a friend of mine in college got himself in real trouble for taking a nap in his car with the keys in the ignition (car was off). Officer told him he would have been fine if the keys werent in the ignition, because now he had intent to drive. I think thats stretching quite a bit.

Yep. Because it could be that you started to turn the car on, but then passed out drunk at the wheel. Perhaps that is a bit of a stretch, but I can also see the logical justification from the officer's side.

Was that friend drinking, or just napping sober?

 

[CreamyGoodness]

He decided to sleep one off in a topless joint's parking lot. According to him he had had 4 in about an hour and would have been ok to drive after a snooze (it was latenight). I tend to believe him but who knows.

 

[biochemedic]

I wanted to mention, giving the devil his due and all that, that a friend of mine in college got himself in real trouble for taking a nap in his car with the keys in the ignition (car was off). Officer told him he would have been fine if the keys werent in the ignition, because now he had intent to drive. I think thats stretching quite a bit.

I had heard rumors of this concept, and one time (when I was much younger) I was pretty schnockered after driving down to Seaside Heights (NJ) for the day with a GF... We ended up crashing in our car but I was very cognizant (even that drunk), not to put the keys in the ignition.

I woke up early in the morning hours to the sounds of the police chasing/arresting someone on foot near the car...after the commotion died down, I felt like I was good to go, so after taking a good look around I headed out of town....

...of relevance to the concept of the topic, I feel I was completely safe to drive (and obviously made it home safely/without incident), but very may well have been above 0.05...

 

[JeepDiver]

I had heard rumors of this concept, and one time (when I was much younger) I was pretty schnockered after driving down to Seaside Heights (NJ) for the day with a GF... We ended up crashing in our car but I was very cognizant (even that drunk), not to put the keys in the ignition.

I woke up early in the morning hours to the sounds of the police chasing/arresting someone on foot near the car...after the commotion died down, I felt like I was good to go, so after taking a good look around I headed out of town....

...of relevance to the concept of the topic, I feel I was completely safe to drive (and obviously made it home safely/without incident), but very may well have been above 0.05...

You can get a dui while sleeping in the back seat with the keys in your pocket. According to the law you are in control of the vehicle and could drive at any point. Also read a case where a guy was working on his car in the driveway, hood up with engine running, he was standing outside the car with a beer. Cop drove by stopped and gave him a dui. Courts found him guilty

 

[fuzzy2133]

You can get a dui while sleeping in the back seat with the keys in your pocket. According to the law you are in control of the vehicle and could drive at any point. Also read a case where a guy was working on his car in the driveway, hood up with engine running, he was standing outside the car with a beer. Cop drove by stopped and gave him a dui. Courts found him guilty

Yep gotta love how laws get interpreted. Easy way around sleeping in you car drunk is to put the keys in the trunk. Now you don't have possession if you are arrested.

 

[Magic8Ball]

Dear fellow brewers: The politically correct are slowly making your pastime/hobby illegal, WHAT? So lets look at the case of tobacco smoking in the US. Once accepted, then tolerated, then contained, and now ostracized and illegal in most places. Tobacco suffered a death of a thousand cuts. Brothers, we need to police our own, but we need to watch what the politically correct spin out our way. .05 is silly We need to enforce existing laws. No easy passes. No winks, no nudges, just the facts. .05 is just a way of making law abiding folks criminal. There is no data, there isnt a study to back it up, just a bureaucrat opining, SAY NO!

Listen if you can, the magic 8 ball has spoken.

 

[Paps]

As some have stated before that this isn't going to save lives.This is for extra revenue for the police state.I have had officers inform me that they `lie often on the breathalysers anyways` if the cop has a boner for you,you are getting screwed regardless if you are `legal` or not.As far as what .05 is vs .08 here is my interperatation. 1 drink of ANY kind will now get you a DUI unless you wait 90 minutes after finishing that drink to drive.(sure it still depends on your bodyweight to a degree but basically you ARE AT RISK if you have ANY drink now.) I drink at home and mostly ony stuff i've made myself. I will not put myself at risk due to these laws and therefore the businesses lose out on their profit as does the govt that made the laws due to collecting fewer taxes on that profit.

 

[seigex]

As some have stated before that this isn't going to save lives.This is for extra revenue for the police state.I have had officers inform me that they `lie often on the breathalysers anyways` if the cop has a boner for you,you are getting screwed regardless if you are `legal` or not.As far as what .05 is vs .08 here is my interperatation. 1 drink of ANY kind will now get you a DUI unless you wait 90 minutes after finishing that drink to drive.(sure it still depends on your bodyweight to a degree but basically you ARE AT RISK if you have ANY drink now.) I drink at home and mostly ony stuff i've made myself. I will not put myself at risk due to these laws and therefore the businesses lose out on their profit as does the govt that made the laws due to collecting fewer taxes on that profit.

Not to split hairs, but the cop can't lie on a breath test. The on-scene breath-test is probable cause only and needs to have printouts from the breathalyzer machine and is only used for probable cause to arrest. The evidentiary one taken later needs to have printouts too, though typically blood or urine are taken because they are more accurate and hold up better in court.

 

[TrubHead]

Not to split hairs, but the cop can't lie on a breath test. The on-scene breath-test is probable cause only and needs to have printouts from the breathalyzer machine and is only used for probable cause to arrest. The evidentiary one taken later needs to have printouts too, though typically blood or urine are taken because they are more accurate and hold up better in court.

Here's an interesting article how cops "influence" breathalyzer results.

http://www.duianswer.com/library/how-police-officers-influence-breathalyzer-results-in-san-francisco.cfm

 

[hops2it]

Terrible idea. The restauranteurs are already in a panic about losing revenue as many people will quit having that one glass of beer or wine with a meal. It's no secret the beverage prices are high for a reason. It's the easy profit maker and most are willing to pay it. I don't think charging $6 for a Coke is going to work out so well however.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Dear fellow brewers: The politically correct are slowly making your pastime/hobby illegal, WHAT? So lets look at the case of tobacco smoking in the US. Once accepted, then tolerated, then contained, and now ostracized and illegal in most places. Tobacco suffered a death of a thousand cuts. Brothers, we need to police our own, but we need to watch what the politically correct spin out our way. .05 is silly We need to enforce existing laws. No easy passes. No winks, no nudges, just the facts. .05 is just a way of making law abiding folks criminal. There is no data, there isnt a study to back it up, just a bureaucrat opining, SAY NO!

Listen if you can, the magic 8 ball has spoken.

I'm going to need you to tell me how political correctness is involved in this discussion.

 

[seigex]

Here's an interesting article how cops "influence" breathalyzer results.

http://www.duianswer.com/library/how-police-officers-influence-breathalyzer-results-in-san-francisco.cfm

A couple points. First, the PAS breathalyzer in the field is still just for probable cause purposes and has to be added to driving actions, and field sobriety tests. If you don't have more than just the breathalyzer results, the judge will never sign off on your PC statement. Additionally, no officer in the field is thinking, well if I can get him to blow out a certain part of his lung capacity, I'll get higher results! Especially knowing that there will still have to be an evidentiary blood draw or urine test to confirm the intoxication level of the subject.

Statements like this tell me the article is BS:

“Many police officers know this. They also know that if the machine contradicts their judgment that the person they arrested is intoxicated, they won’t look good. So when they tell the arrestee to blow into the machine’s mouthpiece, they’ll yell at him, "Keep breathing! Breathe harder! Harder!"

If they can make the assumption that "most officers know this," then I can make the assumption that most officers don't know this. Second, if a person is not drunk, then they let them go and find another one. They (most) don't care if they don't look good, there are more than enough drunks on the street to find if that one is not arrested. Third the reason that they yell "Keep Breathing! Breath harder! Harder!" is because you have to have a consistent 30 second hard breath for the machine to register. Otherwise they have to keep doing it over and over. Nothing nefarious. And what's the point of going through all that if it's going to be proven false with the blood or urine and thrown out in court or taken to trial? Not worth it, and usually you can tell somebody is drunk within the first minute of talking to them. Also keep in mind that, as mentioned before, most states include a provision that doesn't require a .08 BAC to arrest, driving actions are enough. If you can determine that there's any alcohol in the blood, and the person is incapable of safely driving the vehicle, then you can make an arrest, though it's harder to prosecute (in California this is 23152(a) CVC).

Just my .02

 

[TrubHead]

A couple points. First, the PAS breathalyzer in the field is still just for probable cause purposes and has to be added to driving actions, and field sobriety tests. If you don't have more than just the breathalyzer results, the judge will never sign off on your PC statement. Additionally, no officer in the field is thinking, well if I can get him to blow out a certain part of his lung capacity, I'll get higher results! Especially knowing that there will still have to be an evidentiary blood draw or urine test to confirm the intoxication level of the subject.

Statements like this tell me the article is BS:

“Many police officers know this. They also know that if the machine contradicts their judgment that the person they arrested is intoxicated, they won’t look good. So when they tell the arrestee to blow into the machine’s mouthpiece, they’ll yell at him, "Keep breathing! Breathe harder! Harder!"

If they can make the assumption that "most officers know this," then I can make the assumption that most officers don't know this. Second, if a person is not drunk, then they let them go and find another one. They (most) don't care if they don't look good, there are more than enough drunks on the street to find if that one is not arrested. Third the reason that they yell "Keep Breathing! Breath harder! Harder!" is because you have to have a consistent 30 second hard breath for the machine to register. Otherwise they have to keep doing it over and over. Nothing nefarious. And what's the point of going through all that if it's going to be proven false with the blood or urine and thrown out in court or taken to trial? Not worth it, and usually you can tell somebody is drunk within the first minute of talking to them. Also keep in mind that, as mentioned before, most states include a provision that doesn't require a .08 BAC to arrest, driving actions are enough. If you can determine that there's any alcohol in the blood, and the person is incapable of safely driving the vehicle, then you can make an arrest, though it's harder to prosecute (in California this is 23152(a) CVC).

Just my .02

I don't think most cops are lawyers and not certain how concerned/knowledgeable they are about cases getting tossed. That's up to the judicial system.

It is publicly known that there are good cops and bad cops just like any other profession. I've personally encountered some who have an aggressive attitude and others who were courteous, respectful and pleasant. But this is has strayed a bit from the original topic.

 

[fosaisu]

I don't think most cops are lawyers and not certain how concerned/knowledgeable they are about cases getting tossed. That's up to the judicial system.

It is publicly known that there are good cops and bad cops just like any other profession. I've personally encountered some who have an aggressive attitude and others who were courteous, respectful and pleasant. But this is has strayed a bit from the original topic.

I'm not a police officer but I'd bet they are much more aware of how the courts will view the evidence they bring in than you think. If an officer's cases consistently get thrown out because the evidence they bring in is inadmissible, they'll be hearing about it from management.

 

[seigex]

I don't think most cops are lawyers and not certain how concerned/knowledgeable they are about cases getting tossed. That's up to the judicial system.

It is publicly known that there are good cops and bad cops just like any other profession. I've personally encountered some who have an aggressive attitude and others who were courteous, respectful and pleasant. But this is has strayed a bit from the original topic.

More are concerned about their cases being tossed than you think as it speaks to the quality of cases the cop submits. Especially when they get the same judge over and over again and the DA is unlikely to even file on a case if the cop tends to submit bad cases, let alone the DUI judge not allowing the case to make it through the preliminary hearing.

I don't deny there are cops who will make up and submit false evidence, humans are humans, the question is whether it's the exception or the rule. The article isn't about cops being respectful and courteous or aggressive, it's trying to make the case that all cops know there are ways to manipulate breathalyzer results, use that to their advantage and therefore submit knowingly false cases to the DA for prosecution, this, I contend, is false in 9999 out of 10000 cases and those cases they will be found out by the court unless the person cops a plea. Why would a cop arrest someone who is not drinking, and not drunk driving, manipulate breathalyzer results, and then submit a false report, and lie on the stand. It's just not worth the risk to losing their job and going to jail over.

 

[TrubHead]

More are concerned about their cases being tossed than you think as it speaks to the quality of cases the cop submits. Especially when they get the same judge over and over again and the DA is unlikely to even file on a case if the cop tends to submit bad cases, let alone the DUI judge not allowing the case to make it through the preliminary hearing.

I don't deny there are cops who will make up and submit false evidence, humans are humans, the question is whether it's the exception or the rule. The article isn't about cops being respectful and courteous or aggressive, it's trying to make the case that all cops know there are ways to manipulate breathalyzer results, use that to their advantage and therefore submit knowingly false cases to the DA for prosecution, this, I contend, is false in 9999 out of 10000 cases and those cases they will be found out by the court unless the person cops a plea. Why would a cop arrest someone who is not drinking, and not drunk driving, manipulate breathalyzer results, and then submit a false report, and lie on the stand. It's just not worth the risk to losing their job and going to jail over.

The article states "Many police officers" and not "all" as your post indicates. Regardless whether all or many, it's if the police chose to do so.

Here's an article that might be of interest. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57572750/how-fired-police-officers-often-end-up-back-on-the-job/

 

[SPR-GRN]

I'm going to need you to tell me how political correctness is involved in this discussion.

Maybe "political correctness" wasn't the correct term, I would have used "public opinion" or "public acceptance". Here's my explanation, and I'll offer examples outside of alcohol afterwards.

Prior to the current law public opinion was along the lines of "I noticed you were drinking at the BBQ, are you good to drive? o.k. get home safely" after the enactment of the current law it changed; "I noticed you had three beers at the BBQ, are you good to drive? o.k. call me when you get home safely". Now if this law is further tightened, it will again change public opinion; "woah, woah, woah, you had a beer at the BBQ, you shouldn't drive, I'll call you a cab".

I know I generalized there and that's because this is the internet; no I don't condone drunk driving or breaking the law. The enactment of this law and laws like these vilify the consumption of alcohol, in the name of public safety.

So alcohol is taken care of, now back to the tobacco - the culture of tobacco had a similar progression - smoking is what everyone does, then it changed to smoking may be harmful to you, the smoker, then it changed to smoking is harmful to the user, and everyone around them, now public opinion is pretty much if you smoke you will kill yourself and everyone around you.

Again, I generalize, but the generalization is not that far off.

Lets move on to firearms (see what I did there) now the cultural acceptance of firearms went from a God given right that shall not be infringed upon and commonplace, to hunters & shooting enthusiasts, to right wing nut-jobs who want to kill children; I'm not joking that is public opinion in my state right now.

I haven't touched on the additional revenue generated by stricter regulations on these areas at all, but let me tell you, it plays a big role - Go to Connecticut and buy ammunition (if you can find any), cigarettes and beer, then go to one of the states where these items are more accepted, like New Hampshire, then look at the price difference - the places where they are more accepted they are cheaper, because the laws are less stringent and therefore the items are taxed less.

Again, I gave a view on these areas from 100 miles up, I intentionally tried not to get too specific, but the takeaway is this; PUBLIC OPINION drives the regulation of Alcohol(T&F as well), public opinion is driven by the media; and if you don't know who is in control of the media, just enjoy being part of the flock.

If you are ignorant to the fact that making something illegal vilifies the act itself then you shouldn't bother yourself with the trivial opinions of those who respectfully question authority.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Do you have 2 accounts?

Anyway, assuming you are the same person as Magic8Ball, I think all you said here is true, but I'm not picking up on what your point is. Of course public opinion drives change, that's one of the fundamental building blocks of culture.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Look, I may be being unfair, but one thing I hate in an argument is the use of an empty buzzword or epithet. Right now the popular ones are "political correctness" "socialist" and some variation of liberal (lib, libtard, libby, etc.)

Its the exact opposite of sacred cow rhetoric.

Maybe you just used the wrong term by accident, but it was just as likely that you threw in a reviled term just to add emphasis.

 

[seigex]

The article states "Many police officers" and not "all" as your post indicates. Regardless whether all or many, it's if the police chose to do so.

Here's an article that might be of interest. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57572750/how-fired-police-officers-often-end-up-back-on-the-job/

You're right, they say "many" but the intent of the article is to say "most," and they don't point how they get "many" in the first place. Did they survey all cops, do they have omniscient knowledge of what "many" cops think and do? Then it tries to make the point that if they pull somebody over and it turns out they're not drunk, that they'll lie simply because they don't want to look bad, which is absurd.

My point, which I expressed, is that they can try to make up all the "evidence" they want, but they can't falsify evidentiary breathalyzer tickets, blood and urine test results which are done by independent laboratories. And I'm still lost at why any officer would put their credibility and job on the line to do so for a misdemeanor arrest that likely will be plead down to a wet reckless or lower, simply makes no sense.

Not sure how the article you linked is relevant to the discussion, can you enlighten me?

 

[Accidic]

I've seen the state I learned to drive in cite people for DWI (rather than DUI) for having only .03 although it wasn't typical. I think .05 is excessively low personally. I've read several of the original studies done on the subject and they showed with consistency that a very low BAC could actually increase a driver's alertness although I've debated with people at length as to the cause of this. Personally I'm fine with .08 being the legal limit. Lowering it looks more like a stunt than actual concern or a ploy to generate more revenue ("Drunk" driving isn't a cheap thing to bounce back from after all). That said and being fair, I'm a fairly cynical person.

I'm curious what your next step is going to be if the big bad .06% BAC are taken off the streets... Are you going to forbid cell phones (maybe not a bad idea) inside a moving vehicle? How about cigarettes? Food? Makeup? How about someone who has taken an allergy medication not meant to make them sleepy?

Either way I am getting pretty sick of the nanny state approach to every little thing. I get micromanaged enough at work that I really no desire dealing with it outside of it. I'm sorry if you feel any of the above is a buzzword inserted to drive a specific response but I'll be glad to convert them to an appropriate term if you'll give me a better one.

Also, pre-emptively... I subscribe to the if I've had any alcohol whatsoever I will not drive. I don't take cold medications before driving either (although I must admit to Zyrtec). Not because I believe that they impair my ability to drive (although admittedly if it's enough alcohol I would concede that point readily) necessarily, but rather because I've seen too many examples of police officers on power trips looking for any excuse to cite someone regardless of guilt. Don't get me wrong, there are incredibly respectable/honorable police officers out there but it's a shame the apparent minority who got into it over what I consider to be "Bully Appeal" soil their good names.

 

[Accidic]

@Trubhead, Wow. Just wow.

 

[fosaisu]

Maybe "political correctness" wasn't the correct term, I would have used "public opinion" or "public acceptance". Here's my explanation, and I'll offer examples outside of alcohol afterwards.

Prior to the current law public opinion was along the lines of "I noticed you were drinking at the BBQ, are you good to drive? o.k. get home safely" after the enactment of the current law it changed; "I noticed you had three beers at the BBQ, are you good to drive? o.k. call me when you get home safely". Now if this law is further tightened, it will again change public opinion; "woah, woah, woah, you had a beer at the BBQ, you shouldn't drive, I'll call you a cab".

I know I generalized there and that's because this is the internet; no I don't condone drunk driving or breaking the law. The enactment of this law and laws like these vilify the consumption of alcohol, in the name of public safety.

So alcohol is taken care of, now back to the tobacco - the culture of tobacco had a similar progression - smoking is what everyone does, then it changed to smoking may be harmful to you, the smoker, then it changed to smoking is harmful to the user, and everyone around them, now public opinion is pretty much if you smoke you will kill yourself and everyone around you.

Again, I generalize, but the generalization is not that far off.

Lets move on to firearms (see what I did there) now the cultural acceptance of firearms went from a God given right that shall not be infringed upon and commonplace, to hunters & shooting enthusiasts, to right wing nut-jobs who want to kill children; I'm not joking that is public opinion in my state right now.

I haven't touched on the additional revenue generated by stricter regulations on these areas at all, but let me tell you, it plays a big role - Go to Connecticut and buy ammunition (if you can find any), cigarettes and beer, then go to one of the states where these items are more accepted, like New Hampshire, then look at the price difference - the places where they are more accepted they are cheaper, because the laws are less stringent and therefore the items are taxed less.

Again, I gave a view on these areas from 100 miles up, I intentionally tried not to get too specific, but the takeaway is this; PUBLIC OPINION drives the regulation of Alcohol(T&F as well), public opinion is driven by the media; and if you don't know who is in control of the media, just enjoy being part of the flock.

If you are ignorant to the fact that making something illegal vilifies the act itself then you shouldn't bother yourself with the trivial opinions of those who respectfully question authority.

I agree that public opinion often steers development of that law (that's the general concept of democracy though, right?) Of course you can find counter-examples (e.g. failure of universal background check legislation despite 80-90% approval ratings). Public opinion can be shifted/swayed by all kinds of things, including the media. It's another question whether "the media" is as hegemonic as some people believe, and whether it has a "liberal" bias (one possibility), whether there is some "shoot the messenger" going on because it turns out that the facts don't always support conservative positions, or a "corporate" bias based on financial interests (this seems most probable to me -- I don't think anyone's ever gone wrong assuming that a corporation is ultimately driven by the only metric it is ever really judged by, its share price).

On the alcohol/guns/tobacco front, I think you draw an interesting parallel. I view it like this. Each of the activities you discuss is deeply cherished by a segment of the U.S. population. And each has undeniable negative impacts on individuals and society at large. I don't personally believe that any of the three should be regulated entirely out of existence. And if you're not going to ban them outright (and enforce the bans) then you have to accept that there will be some negative consequences. There WILL be alcohol abuse and innocents will suffer, people WILL get sick and die from smoking, and guns WILL be used to do terrible things to innocent people. From there's it's just a matter of deciding how you balance "freedom" vs. "predictable bad effects" for each of them.

As long as you can admit that these particular freedoms aren't "free" and that you think they're worth the trade off (e.g. if you're going to have handguns and semi-automatic weapons in a society, someone's going to massacre an elementary school every few years much more efficiently than they could with a muzzle loader or a butcher's knife, and that's a price you're willing to pay) then I don't have a problem with you advocating that they not be further restricted, even if I weigh the cost/benefit differently than you do.

Tying this back into the .05 BAC discussion, I don't think anyone can argue with a straight face that dropping to .05 from .08 won't save a single life (whatever you make of the stats, there seems to be at least a marginal impact). But you can make a well reasoned argument that our current system deters the worst of the conduct and though it isn't perfect, it balances the freedom to enjoy a few beers with dinner or at the bar (a historically important element in most cultures, and certainly in America) with the desire to keep our roads 100% safe (a goal that won't be fully achieved until we're all riding in Google cars or they prohibit anyone without NASCAR-level driving skills from taking the wheel). It's less convincing to simply say that people who would strike a different balance than you are either brainwashed or ill intentioned (i.e. closet prohibitionists or just out to fund "big government" through DUI fines).

 

[Accidic]

As long as you can admit that these particular freedoms aren't "free" and that you think they're worth the trade off (e.g. if you're going to have handguns and semi-automatic weapons in a society, someone's going to massacre an elementary school every few years much more efficiently than they could with a muzzle loader or a butcher's knife, and that's a price you're willing to pay) then I don't have a problem with you advocating that they not be further restricted, even if I weigh the cost/benefit differently than you do.

Tying this back into the .05 BAC discussion, I don't think anyone can argue with a straight face that dropping to .05 from .08 won't save a single life (whatever you make of the stats, there seems to be at least a marginal impact). But you can make a well reasoned argument that our current system deters the worst of the conduct and though it isn't perfect, it balances the freedom to enjoy a few beers with dinner or at the bar (a historically important element in most cultures, and certainly in America) with the desire to keep our roads 100% safe (a goal that won't be fully achieved until we're all riding in Google cars or they prohibit anyone without NASCAR-level driving skills from taking the wheel). It's less convincing to simply say that people who would strike a different balance than you are either brainwashed or ill intentioned (i.e. closet prohibitionists or just out to fund "big government" through DUI fines).

I think resigning yourself to such a fate might not be the best plan but then again, I don't believe a gun would be the optimum efficiency in the first place. Either way it still doesn't take away it's tragedy but I do believe there are countermeasures that could more readily be put in place to thwart/discourage such behavior if we quit supporting the "Victimless Free Zone" that schools are typically saddled with.

To the latter paragraph, is the percentage saved equivalent or greater than other potential risks? I mean, you can eliminate potentially fatal wrecks by prohibiting smoking but the % at risk is relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things (ever dropped something on fire into your lap? I totally get forgetting the road for a minute). What about people with glasses/contacts? The chances of it causing issue is fairly insignificant as well but that doesn't make it non-existent.

I am joking a little but not entirely. I've read several of the studies posted at Sciencedirect, NHTSA, and a few of the AAlawgroup sites and they do make a compelling argument which justify the can't argue straight faced against it. That said, I can't help but wonder as to their claims of the cause of the reduction. By that I mean, is it the reduction in the BAC or the fearmongering associated with the law itself? Frankly I think the law itself does more to deter than the gain associated with the impairment of the .05-.08% range based upon their data as well as the NHTSA's but it's still just an opinion. Their assessment when pushing for .08 in the first place was right 2 out of 3 times as shown by this movement. A) It would not eliminate the problem drinker/drivers, B) It'd negatively effect the economy (drinking is up so I'd think this one is the fail), and C) Switching to .08 is merely meant as a stepping stone to push it further (.05 mentioned specifically as I recall).

 

[Varmintman]

Tying this back into the .05 BAC discussion, I don't think anyone can argue with a straight face that dropping to .05 from .08 won't save a single life (whatever you make of the stats, there seems to be at least a marginal impact)

And yet way more people are killed every year by other than drunk reasons. It would make sense that if this was to save lives then they would address the things that kill the most people.

Do I think this is a drive from a minority of people who want to insist that the majority of people live like them....Well yes I do. Much like the original prohibition laws were passed that the majority of people did not agree with. The minority of teetotalers created such a stink that the government listened to them.

Finally I say all stats can be massaged to reflect whatever the person wants. One would be stupid to say drinking and driving is safer than say any of the other multitude of things that cause wrecks. It would be just as silly to say lowering the level to .05 is the best way to save lives on the road.

Driving is not a right but a privilege. Anytime someone gets into a car in a way that infringes on my rights to be on the road in a safe manner should lose that right.

Many of our current laws though infringe on my rights that do not affect others like a helmet and seatbelt law. My non use of those do not affect anyone other than myself yet laws have been written telling me how I must live. The drinking law though does affect others on the road and as such I think should be addressed. In my head I am not sure how I feel about it.

 

[fosaisu]

And yet way more people are killed every year by other than drunk reasons. It would make sense that if this was to save lives then they would address the things that kill the most people.

Agreed that there are other things that cause more accidents/deaths than "buzzed driving." The thing about BAC is the screening mechanism is already in place so it's relatively easy to tighten it up even if the number of lives saved might be less than by cracking down on other harder to screen for conditions (e.g. if you're going to weed out older drivers that are no longer driving well, you need to establish a testing regime and standards that will no-doubt be controversial in their own right). Lowering BAC could give more "bang for the buck" than other safety regulations if it's cheaper to implement.

Many of our current laws though infringe on my rights that do not affect others like a helmet and seatbelt law. My non use of those do not affect anyone other than myself yet laws have been written telling me how I must live. The drinking law though does affect others on the road and as such I think should be addressed. In my head I am not sure how I feel about it.

I absolutely agree that the justification for regulation is much stronger for activities likely to generate innocent victims. Of course the counter-argument is that in this modern world of advanced medicine and pooled risk, we all pay for these types of "victimless crimes" through increased insurance premiums, disability benefits, or survivor benefits to dependants. I don't find that argument terribly compelling because you could always just write exceptions into insurance and benefits laws (no seatbelt = no coverage, for example), but it underlines the point that there are costs and risks to others (as well as to ourselves) in pretty much everything we do.

[NOTE: Not attacking Obamacare (which I generally support) with the above -- purely private insurance systems have the same problem which is that once we're sharing risks at all, your "private" decisions become everyone's problem when they have expensive consequences that you don't pay for out of pocket].

 

[TrubHead]

You're right, they say "many" but the intent of the article is to say "most," and they don't point how they get "many" in the first place. Did they survey all cops, do they have omniscient knowledge of what "many" cops think and do? Then it tries to make the point that if they pull somebody over and it turns out they're not drunk, that they'll lie simply because they don't want to look bad, which is absurd.

My point, which I expressed, is that they can try to make up all the "evidence" they want, but they can't falsify evidentiary breathalyzer tickets, blood and urine test results which are done by independent laboratories. And I'm still lost at why any officer would put their credibility and job on the line to do so for a misdemeanor arrest that likely will be plead down to a wet reckless or lower, simply makes no sense.

Not sure how the article you linked is relevant to the discussion, can you enlighten me?

It's a puzzling to me the rationale where "many" = "all". Also how you derived the author's intent.

The linked article indicates how difficult it can be to remove an officer from duty which somewhat contradicts the notion that having their cases tossed is of any importance.

Are you currently or previously affiliated/employed/received compensation from a law enforcement agency?

 

[seigex]

It's a puzzling to me the rationale where "many" = "all". Also how you derived the author's intent.

You're right, they say "many" but the intent of the article is to say "most,"

^^^ does not say all

The linked article indicates how difficult it can be to remove an officer from duty which somewhat contradicts the notion that having their cases tossed is of any importance.

Are you currently or previously affiliated/employed/received compensation from a law enforcement agency?

So I can't assume the author's intent, but the author can assume the intent of "many" officers with no sources to back it up, then claim that if they aren't falsifying evidence purposefully then they assume the intent of the superior officer by suggesting they are instructing the officer to falsify evidence unknowingly? Utter hogwash. To the author's intent, if he didn't believe it was pervasive within DUI arrests amongst law enforcement officers, why would he post the article in the first place?

Officer's intent assumptions from the article:

“Many police officers know this. They also know that if the machine contradicts their judgment that the person they arrested is intoxicated, they won’t look good.So when they tell the arrestee to blow into the machine’s mouthpiece, they’ll yell at him, "Keep breathing! Breathe harder! Harder!" As Professor Hlastala has found, this ensures that the breath captured by the machine will be from the bottom of the lungs, near the alveolar sacs, which will be richest in alcohol. With the higher alcohol concentration, the machine will give a higher -- but inaccurate - - reading.” (Taylor, Lawrence. How to Fool the Breathalyzer. (http://www.duiblog.com/2004/11/27)

A police officer may not necessarily do so intentionally. A police officer may simply have been instructed by a superior or fellow officer to ensure that a subject blows long and forcefully into the machine. Nonetheless, it is staggering to consider how many falsely high breathalyzer results have been obtained—and how many people have been arrested and convicted as a result—because of these instructions, and the device’s potential for inaccuracy.

I will go back to what I said, a DA will not file, nor will a jury convict, without evidence that holds a chain of custody. This would come from an evidentiary breath test (not done on the side of the road or with the same machine), blood, or urine the latter two which are handled by a Department of Justice laboratory. The standard PAS device is for PROBABLE CAUSE purposes only and breathing methods are dictated by the device, not the officer. Additionally the article says that "hyperventilation, running up and down stairs, or holding breath" are methods used to change the results, when is the last time an officer told a suspect to run up and down some stairs or hold their breath before doing a breath test?

To your second point, an officer can stay on duty and I agree there are some who should not be but are allowed back on duty either after expensive lawsuits or because of union pushes, but that doesn't mean he is respected by a court. An officer found to be lying on a case is no longer considered to be a credible witness and cases will be dropped before prosecuted or not even considered for filing and I'm still not clear why an officer would his reputation, career, and livelihood on a measly misdemeanor arrest that will likely be plead out. Reputation carries with the officer through the DAs office and the court.

My affiliation is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[TrubHead]

So I can't assume the author's intent, but the author can assume the intent of "many" officers with no sources to back it up, then claim that if they aren't falsifying evidence purposefully then they assume the intent of the superior officer by suggesting they are instructing the officer to falsify evidence unknowingly? Utter hogwash. To the author's intent, if he didn't believe it was pervasive within DUI arrests amongst law enforcement officers, why would he post the article in the first place?

Officer's intent assumptions from the article:


I will go back to what I said, a DA will not file, nor will a jury convict, without evidence that holds a chain of custody. This would come from an evidentiary breath test (not done on the side of the road or with the same machine), blood, or urine the latter two which are handled by a Department of Justice laboratory. The standard PAS device is for PROBABLE CAUSE purposes only and breathing methods are dictated by the device, not the officer. Additionally the article says that "hyperventilation, running up and down stairs, or holding breath" are methods used to change the results, when is the last time an officer told a suspect to run up and down some stairs or hold their breath before doing a breath test?

To your second point, an officer can stay on duty and I agree there are some who should not be but are allowed back on duty either after expensive lawsuits or because of union pushes, but that doesn't mean he is respected by a court. An officer found to be lying on a case is no longer considered to be a credible witness and cases will be dropped before prosecuted or not even considered for filing and I'm still not clear why an officer would his reputation, career, and livelihood on a measly misdemeanor arrest that will likely be plead out. Reputation carries with the officer through the DAs office and the court.

My affiliation is irrelevant to this discussion.

I appreciate your civil response and honorable standards. There are those who aren't as upstanding as yourself.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-05-08/story/jacksonville-police-officer-history-duis-charged-again

 

[highgravitybacon]

When you've seen a person split into 10 pieces with their intestines hanging out like ropes across the interstate thanks to a drunk driver, your opinion changes. I've seen that any many other things drunk drivers have done to people. It's really eye opening.

Texting and messing with the phone are just as bad, if not worse, in terms of distraction potential. But that's another story.

 

[BrewerBS]

I say that if its going to .05 may as well make it no tolerance. Lets make it black and white and see how much the accident and death numbers change? The police can't handle the # of DWI's that are being discovered now. How are they going to arrest that many more with a lower threshold? Have the death numbers really dropped from the .10 to .08 move? The only thing I see changing with a lower BAC is more DWI's.

 

[BrewerBS]

Dear fellow brewers: The politically correct are slowly making your pastime/hobby illegal, WHAT? So lets look at the case of tobacco smoking in the US. Once accepted, then tolerated, then contained, and now ostracized and illegal in most places. Tobacco suffered a death of a thousand cuts. Brothers, we need to police our own, but we need to watch what the politically correct spin out our way. .05 is silly We need to enforce existing laws. No easy passes. No winks, no nudges, just the facts. .05 is just a way of making law abiding folks criminal. There is no data, there isnt a study to back it up, just a bureaucrat opining, SAY NO!

Listen if you can, the magic 8 ball has spoken.

I don't think they're trying to make it illegal. That was already tried once.....and it didn't work for very long. They are making it illegal for you to enjoy your hobby a lot and then go and endanger everybody's life that is on the road with you. You can smoke all that you want when you are in your own vehicle, house or yard where you aren't endangering others. Unfortunately it's the person that has a few beers over a few hours and gets in his car to drive that is going to get hit if the BAC drops. The a-holes that drive hammered all the time probably won't change one bit. Kinda like how it's the guns fault......

 

[Accidic]

When you've seen a person split into 10 pieces with their intestines hanging out like ropes across the interstate thanks to a drunk driver, your opinion changes. I've seen that any many other things drunk drivers have done to people. It's really eye opening.

Texting and messing with the phone are just as bad, if not worse, in terms of distraction potential. But that's another story.

Live in a Doctor or Nurse's family and you guarantee the above. I've also seen several instances where seat belts took lives and the petson not wearing them survived but it doesn't mean I think seat belt laws should be eliminated. BAC reduction from .08 to .05 is said to reduce fatalities by 1-3% according to some estimates and as much as 11-16% by some of the more bold predictions. The problem I have with this is the presumed predictions (regardless of which you believe) never attribute any of the reduction to improvements in car safety. This matched with inability to differentiate the true cause of wrecks (i've seen, albeit only once, an officer write up an accident as being due to an intoxicated driver when the two blown tires looked to be a far more likely cause). I still think the, bigger portion is to perpetuate further fearmongering and the additional revenue potential but being fair, that may vary state to state.

Gotta agree on the texting tho. Can't see how that can be done safely. I still wonder about radios and cigarettes as a catalyst tho.

 

[bobmcstuff]

Texting while driving is illegal here. They get you under "driving without due care and attention".

Speaking of other catalysts, I was knocked off my bike (pedal not motor) by a woman with a young child in the back, she was distracted by the kid and pulled out right in front of me without looking. Had I sustained any serious injuries (I escaped with scratches and bruises) or been of particularly libellous nature I could have pressed charges against her as well. But it's not like you can legislate for kids in the back seat.

 

[Accidic]

You could actually. The backlash is what they're afraid of. Driving impaired by alcohol is much easier to legislate, however, and while I'm not saying you might not save an occasional life, I can't help but wonder how many lives you'll ruin of people who were legitimately not impaired enough to hinder their ability to drive safely. And I'm not buying the "If it just saves ONE life" argument when there are countless other distractions costing greater than that one life that they're blatantly ignoring.

In the tone of fun catalysts though... I once had a lady hit me because there was a police officer handling a wreck up the street with the lights on his cruiser on. The lady was watching the officer down the street and drove her car straight into the turning lane as if to merge after an oncoming car passed which would have been fine had I not been in it waiting to turn into that parking lot. I simply couldn't get out of her way fast enough.

 

[Accidic]

You can smoke all that you want when you are in your own vehicle, house or yard where you aren't endangering others.

If you want to engage in a fun exercise, ask a mechanic just how many cars he repairs with seats that appear to be freshly burned (not weathered, no dust in the burn, etc). My father kept a log of those for a HS project I did years ago and at least back then the sample showed very nearly 20% of all wrecks (sample size 318 over the fall/early-winter months). Don't get me wrong, it's not guaranteed as the cause of the accident but I'm curious how much attention you'd be paying to the road if you dropped a lit torch into your lap. Heck, I won't ride with one of my very best friends to this day as he tried to kill us in exactly that situation several times when I was younger.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

I miss driving like I miss my virginity (ie. not one iota).

If I trusted the 11% number, which I honestly dont, I would be a lot less wishywashy about the whole thing. 11% fewer fatalities? No brainer. Thing is I think the reduction in fatalities (and accidents on a whole) will be annecdotal at best.

Once again, much like much of the gun control legistlation that has been discussed, I think this movement is well-meaning but misplaced and mistaken. I DON'T think there is some sort of conspiracy from the state and local politicians and police forces to ruin lives while collecting tax revenue. And this is coming from me, a dedicated cynic.

 

[befus]

I think the issue is largely political. When someone registers .008 they are not a danger to themselves or anyone else. The guy driving down the wrong side of an interstate who hits a. family of 6 returning from vacation is not .008. People in an accident at the lower level are people who had a drink and had an accident, not caused an accident. I am 64 and those under 40 could probably be at .01 and have faster reaction time than I completely sober, and I am not a danger behind the wheel. It is just a way for prosecutors and local law enforcement to generate press.Just my opinion.

 

[PistolsAtDawn]

But it's not like you can legislate for kids in the back seat.

I believe you can and they have: careless/reckless driving and endangerment laws, not just to you and the driver but to the child. Unfortunately, I don't think those laws are enforced enough to make them truly effective.

This has been a really good thread so far. I've enjoyed reading everyone's take on this issue.

At least one poster here mentioned that our driving tests are far too easy to pass. I have to agree with this. In my state at least, we next-to-never have to retake any test at the DMV. Charleston has become a hard place in which to drive. I think that's from the culture clash we're experiencing (as in Charleston is now a "destination city" for most people and I get lots astonished responses when I tell people, "Actually, I was born here.").

You have some families here who've lived here for generations upon generations. They're not in any hurry as all of their family members are within a short drive, or they just have that relaxed, Southern attitude about not being in a hurry all the time (as opposed to the "hurry up" nature of many Northerners). Those people are a problem because they are inconsiderate to everyone else (as in they drive far below the speed limit, becoming a hazard in the process).

And then you have the rest of the country mingling with the native population. That brings in a lot of different - an opposing - driving styles. The person in a huge hurry darts around those who aren't and puts everyone in danger. This is a FAR bigger problem in Charleston than drunk driving. Granted, I think most of the drivers here are reasonably okay, but far too many are not.

So I'm in favor of revamping our laws regarding tests for drivers licenses as I believe that we're far too lax about that and far too many careless/aggressive/inconsiderate/brain dead drivers are on the road who will never have to retake that drivers test. One of them (driving on an already-suspended license, no insurance, car wasn't hers as well as the loaded gun in the car that wasn't hers) totaled my car back when I was 18 and permanently injured my left hand. She spent one night in jail. One. How is that not a more flagrant disregard for the law than a DUI?