NTSB recommends BAC of .05

[Barrister]

I personally think that .08 is a pretty fucking drunk level.  I've never driven near that, but I've driven a couple of times at what must've been about .05 level, and I was clearly out of my element.  I wasn't driving between the lanes, but a lot of driving habits that usually come naturally didn't come naturally at that level.

That said, at some point, you have to calculate the trade-off between safety and over-criminalization.  American society is pretty unforgiving of even minor criminal records, and only death will bring you redemption.  How far do we really want to go with increasing the risk that a good guy who makes a small and understandable miscalculation gets fucked with for life?

How do you know what your BAC is when you drive?  DO you check it regularly?

Estimate.  I count how much I had to drink, and how long ago I drank it.

It's actually quite easy to calculate if you measure your drinks, and know your body weight.  And almost invariably I calculate that I would blow under, but do not feel safe to drive...

[Razgovory]

Can you ride a horse while drunk?

EDIT:  Oh and what about sled dogs?  I imagine that comes up in the Yukon quite a bit.

[Barrister]

Can you ride a horse while drunk?

EDIT:  Oh and what about sled dogs?  I imagine that comes up in the Yukon quite a bit.

No law against either.  The law is "impaired operation of a motor vehicle".  So impaired bicycling is also okay.

[11B4V]

Wa state defines vehicle as such;

"Vehicle" includes every device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, including bicycles. "Vehicle" does not include power wheelchairs or devices other than bicycles moved by human or animal power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

[11B4V]

WA state's Pot clause for DUI

(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, marijuana, or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:

     (b) The person has, within two hours after driving, a THC concentration of 5.00 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or

RCW 46.61.506
Persons under influence of intoxicating liquor or drug — Evidence — Tests — Information concerning tests.
   

     (b) The blood analysis of the person's THC concentration shall be based upon nanograms per milliliter of whole blood.

[Razgovory]

Can you ride a horse while drunk?

EDIT:  Oh and what about sled dogs?  I imagine that comes up in the Yukon quite a bit.

No law against either.  The law is "impaired operation of a motor vehicle".  So impaired bicycling is also okay.

I'd hate to see a drunk sled dog accident.

[CountDeMoney]

Won't someone think of the Children?!

I did, every time I saw one roll into Shock Trauma after getting faced by the windshield from a DWI.

[OttoVonBismarck]

5th amendment rights don't come into being when the Miranda is read. You don't have to self-incriminate even when you're just chatting about how fast you were going. I know they keep track of everything you say at a traffic stop, however minor it may seem to you. How does a DUI stop differ from that? And why does it matter when Miranda is read?

Miranda is actually derived from the 5th Amendment.  The right against self-incrimination has been read to understand that it applies to custodial interrogation as well, not just court proceedings. The 5th has more application than just the scenes in a courtroom or Congressional hearing where someone says, "I'm invoking my 5th Amendment right to blah blah blah."

The Miranda warning is part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement is required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

You also obviously didn't read my post, so thanks for that. I said that questions asked during the stop are totally valid, you are not in custody then so it is not custodial interrogation. But in DUI cases, police routinely continue to ask questions after the bracelets are slipped on and even after you've been detained at the police station. These questions and your answers are fully admissible, even though you have not yet been Mirandized. With basically every other type of arrest, once you are in custody if police wish to use anything you say against you that have to Mirandize you first. (They don't have to Mirandize you when the bracelets go on, just before they begin asking you questions--and if they have no desire to interrogate you, they don't need to Mirandize you at all.)

[garbon]

Can you ride a horse while drunk?

EDIT:  Oh and what about sled dogs?  I imagine that comes up in the Yukon quite a bit.

No law against either.  The law is "impaired operation of a motor vehicle".  So impaired bicycling is also okay.

Well here it is more complex as different states have different laws.

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah, you can get banged in Maryland for operating a bicycle while intoxicated.  You're still a vehicle operator subject to traffic laws.  Just because your vehicle doesn't possess an internal combustion engine doesn't change that.

[Tamas]

I am jumping in the middle here without reading everything but how personal freedom comes into picture with driving a car? You can affect a hell of a lot more than your own person when rolling around enclosed in a ton of steel. It's a privilege to drive, not a right.

And the allowed alcohol-percentage here is zero. Eat that!

[garbon]

I am jumping in the middle here without reading everything but how personal freedom comes into picture with driving a car? You can affect a hell of a lot more than your own person when rolling around enclosed in a ton of steel. It's a privilege to drive, not a right.

And the allowed alcohol-percentage here is zero. Eat that!

Well how about you read the thread, first then?

[Ed Anger]

This thread doesn't come in beet.

[Valmy]

It would be a PITA, but that's what makes it an effective punishment.  The guys I prosecute couldn't give two shits about the fine - it's their license they are fighting to keep.

Well it is not particularly effective if the judges and lawyers think it is too draconian to actually apply.

[MadImmortalMan]

5th amendment rights don't come into being when the Miranda is read. You don't have to self-incriminate even when you're just chatting about how fast you were going. I know they keep track of everything you say at a traffic stop, however minor it may seem to you. How does a DUI stop differ from that? And why does it matter when Miranda is read?

Miranda is actually derived from the 5th Amendment.  The right against self-incrimination has been read to understand that it applies to custodial interrogation as well, not just court proceedings. The 5th has more application than just the scenes in a courtroom or Congressional hearing where someone says, "I'm invoking my 5th Amendment right to blah blah blah."

The Miranda warning is part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement is required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

You also obviously didn't read my post, so thanks for that. I said that questions asked during the stop are totally valid, you are not in custody then so it is not custodial interrogation. But in DUI cases, police routinely continue to ask questions after the bracelets are slipped on and even after you've been detained at the police station. These questions and your answers are fully admissible, even though you have not yet been Mirandized. With basically every other type of arrest, once you are in custody if police wish to use anything you say against you that have to Mirandize you first. (They don't have to Mirandize you when the bracelets go on, just before they begin asking you questions--and if they have no desire to interrogate you, they don't need to Mirandize you at all.)

I read it. The reason I asked the question is because even if a person is never mirandized nor arrested, they can still get themselves into trouble by saying shit. You can have a chat about the weather and it will be recorded by that cop for possible later use. Is blowing a breathalyzer providing evidence against yourself? I never thought about it before.