Interesting if this can go through. Good thing IMO
Right now WA state is struggling with the "pot issue" and driving. IOW how stoned can you be.
QuoteWASHINGTON – The National Transportation Safety Board voted to recommend to states that they lower the blood-alcohol content that constitutes drunken driving.
Currently, all 50 states have set a BAC level of .08, reflecting the percentage of alcohol, by volume, in the blood. If a driver is found to have a BAC level of .08 or above, he or she is subject to arrest and prosecution.
The National Transportation Safety Board is advising states to lower the Blood Alcohol Level that defines drunk driving from .08 to .05, which they say is the level at which many drivers' vision can be affected. NBC's Tom Costello reports.
The NTSB recommends dropping that to a BAC level of .05.
Each year, nearly 10,000 people die in alcohol-related traffic accidents and 170,000 are injured, according to the NTSB. While that's a big improvement from the 20,000 who died in alcohol-related accidents 30 years ago, it remains a consistent threat to public safety.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/14/18250824-ntsb-recommends-lowering-blood-alcohol-level-that-constitutes-drunken-driving?lite
QuoteEach year, nearly 10,000 people die in alcohol-related traffic accidents and 170,000 are injured, according to the NTSB. While that's a big improvement from the 20,000 who died in alcohol-related accidents 30 years ago, it remains a consistent threat to public safety.
'Stats' like this are sorta annoying to me. What extent does drinking increase your risk percentage? The simple numbers do not mean anything, over 30,000 people die in traffic accidents every year but it would be stupid to simply say: 'OMG over 20,000 people die in sober-related traffice accidents every year nearly twice as many who die from drunk drivers! Everybody start drinking!' But if you go from simply the number of deaths and nothing else that would be a logical conclusion.
Considering how much better safety features are on vehicles nowadays, I'm not sure a decrease in deaths from 20,000 to 10,000 is a big success in the public-awareness-of-drunk-driving front over 30 years ago. :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2013, 10:51:56 AM
QuoteEach year, nearly 10,000 people die in alcohol-related traffic accidents and 170,000 are injured, according to the NTSB. While that's a big improvement from the 20,000 who died in alcohol-related accidents 30 years ago, it remains a consistent threat to public safety.
'Stats' like this are sorta annoying to me. What extent does drinking increase your risk percentage? The simple numbers do not mean anything, over 30,000 people die in traffic accidents every year but it would be stupid to simply say: 'OMG over 20,000 people die in sober-related traffice accidents every year nearly twice as many who die from drunk drivers! Everybody start drinking!' But if you go from simply the number of deaths and nothing else that would be a logical conclusion.
Didn't we already discuss recently the percent that it increases it? In that whole discussion of "predictable".
Quote from: Malthus on May 15, 2013, 10:54:13 AM
Considering how much better safety features are on vehicles nowadays, I'm not sure a decrease in deaths from 20,000 to 10,000 is a big success in the public-awareness-of-drunk-driving front over 30 years ago. :hmm:
Yeah. Raw data with no statistical analysis: blah.
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2013, 10:54:18 AM
Didn't we already discuss recently the percent that it increases it? In that whole discussion of "predictable".
Possibly. Did I participate in that discussion? I do not remember it.
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2013, 10:51:56 AM
QuoteEach year, nearly 10,000 people die in alcohol-related traffic accidents and 170,000 are injured, according to the NTSB. While that's a big improvement from the 20,000 who died in alcohol-related accidents 30 years ago, it remains a consistent threat to public safety.
'Stats' like this are sorta annoying to me. What extent does drinking increase your risk percentage? The simple numbers do not mean anything, over 30,000 people die in traffic accidents every year but it would be stupid to simply say: 'OMG over 20,000 people die in sober-related traffice accidents every year nearly twice as many who die from drunk drivers! Everybody start drinking!' But if you go from simply the number of deaths and nothing else that would be a logical conclusion.
No it wouldn't. It would be a stunningly illogical conclusion, and stupid to boot.
Ugh. Complete bullshit.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2013, 10:45:25 AM
Each year, nearly 10,000 people die in alcohol-related traffic accidents and 170,000 are injured, according to the NTSB. While that's a big improvement from the 20,000 who died in alcohol-related accidents 30 years ago, it remains a consistent threat to public safety.
How many of those accidents are with people under .08, though? It strikes me that the problem isn't the blood alcohol levels, but idiots driving when they're well-beyond that. I've never seen any proof that lowering the level is going to have an affect on those 10,000 deaths.
Basically, they're looking at the wrong things.
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2013, 10:58:14 AM
No it wouldn't. It would be a stunningly illogical conclusion, and stupid to boot.
Yes. That is what I said, it would be stupid, which is why simply listing the number of people who died is not particularly useful in showing the dangers.
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 10:58:42 AM
How many of those accidents are with people under .08, though? It strikes me that the problem isn't the blood alcohol levels, but idiots driving when they're well-beyond that. I've never seen any proof that lowering the level is going to have an affect on those 10,000 deaths.
Basically, they're looking at the wrong things.
Well I think the inference is lowering the BAC level for arrests is what is causing the lower reduction in Drunk Driving fatalities...which again they are not really demonstrating.
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2013, 11:00:55 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 10:58:42 AM
How many of those accidents are with people under .08, though? It strikes me that the problem isn't the blood alcohol levels, but idiots driving when they're well-beyond that. I've never seen any proof that lowering the level is going to have an affect on those 10,000 deaths.
Basically, they're looking at the wrong things.
Well I think the inference is lowering the BAC level for arrests is what is causing the lower reduction in Drunk Driving fatalities...which again they are not really demonstrating.
I understand that. I'm refuting that it will lower drunk driving fatalities.
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2013, 10:59:00 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2013, 10:58:14 AM
No it wouldn't. It would be a stunningly illogical conclusion, and stupid to boot.
Yes. That is what I said, it would be stupid, which is why simply listing the number of people who died is not particularly useful in showing the dangers.
Of course it is useful.
There is an assumption of course, that had those 170,000 injury causing drivers NOT been intoxicated, then some appreciable portion of those accidents would not have happened. But that is a pretty reasonable assumption to make. I suppose they could site the data to prove that (accident rates in sober drivers compared to drunk), but it isn't unreasonable to assume that the reader knows that as a given.
Pointing out that 10,000/year are killed and 170k/year are injured in alcohol related accidents is perfectly useful information. I did not know that, and I did not know that still, even after the massive education and awareness of the dangers of drunk driving, fully a third of existing vehicular fatalities are still the result of drunk driving. That is certainly useful information to me in the context of the article.
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 10:58:42 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2013, 10:45:25 AM
Each year, nearly 10,000 people die in alcohol-related traffic accidents and 170,000 are injured, according to the NTSB. While that's a big improvement from the 20,000 who died in alcohol-related accidents 30 years ago, it remains a consistent threat to public safety.
How many of those accidents are with people under .08, though? It strikes me that the problem isn't the blood alcohol levels, but idiots driving when they're well-beyond that. I've never seen any proof that lowering the level is going to have an affect on those 10,000 deaths.
Basically, they're looking at the wrong things.
They provided you evidence though.
QuoteThe National Transportation Safety Board is advising states to lower the Blood Alcohol Level that defines drunk driving from .08 to .05, which they say is the level at which many drivers' vision can be affected.
Now, perhaps you aren't convinced by their evidence, which is fine, but they are certainly providing evidence.
Honestly, IMO, I don't care if there is direct evidence that lowering it to .05 will save lives or not - if the medical evidence that people with a BAC of 0.05 are in fact impaired (ie their vision is in fact impaired) then that is plenty of data for me to support lowering the BAC limit to 0.05.
If drinking enough to get your BAC to 0.05 means you don't see very well, then you should not be driving. I don't accept that we have to wait until we show that driving while not being able to see well kills enough people before we decide that isn't ok.
The drop from 20,000 to 10,000 is probably a significantly bigger improvement than it sounds like. Each of us are driving many more miles each year than we were 30 years ago, and we have a bigger population as well. On a drunk driver fatalities per mile driven it's probably dropped by a factor of 10 or 20.
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 11:03:05 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2013, 11:00:55 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 10:58:42 AM
How many of those accidents are with people under .08, though? It strikes me that the problem isn't the blood alcohol levels, but idiots driving when they're well-beyond that. I've never seen any proof that lowering the level is going to have an affect on those 10,000 deaths.
Basically, they're looking at the wrong things.
Well I think the inference is lowering the BAC level for arrests is what is causing the lower reduction in Drunk Driving fatalities...which again they are not really demonstrating.
I understand that. I'm refuting that it will lower drunk driving fatalities.
I don't think it will either. Most accidents where one driver is legally drunk, they have a significantly higher BAC than .08. Will lowering to .05 help, prob not. Lowering to .05 will allow the state, counties, and cities to net more fines and fees though.
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2013, 11:00:55 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 10:58:42 AM
How many of those accidents are with people under .08, though? It strikes me that the problem isn't the blood alcohol levels, but idiots driving when they're well-beyond that. I've never seen any proof that lowering the level is going to have an affect on those 10,000 deaths.
Basically, they're looking at the wrong things.
Well I think the inference is lowering the BAC level for arrests is what is causing the lower reduction in Drunk Driving fatalities...which again they are not really demonstrating.
I don't think they are infering anything of the kind.
I think they are simply saying that new medical evidence says that a BAC of 0.05 will result in am impaired driver, hence that should be the legal definition of when someone is impaired.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2013, 11:09:18 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 11:03:05 AM
I understand that. I'm refuting that it will lower drunk driving fatalities.
I don't think it will either. Most accidents where one driver is legally drunk, they have a significantly higher BAC than .08. Will lowering to .05 help, prob not. Lowering to .05 will allow the state, counties, and cities to net more fines and fees though.
That's my take on it, too.
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2013, 11:08:05 AM
They provided you evidence though.
QuoteThe National Transportation Safety Board is advising states to lower the Blood Alcohol Level that defines drunk driving from .08 to .05, which they say is the level at which many drivers' vision can be affected.
Now, perhaps you aren't convinced by their evidence, which is fine, but they are certainly providing evidence.
Honestly, IMO, I don't care if there is direct evidence that lowering it to .05 will save lives or not - if the medical evidence that people with a BAC of 0.05 are in fact impaired (ie their vision is in fact impaired) then that is plenty of data for me to support lowering the BAC limit to 0.05.
If drinking enough to get your BAC to 0.05 means you don't see very well, then you should not be driving. I don't accept that we have to wait until we show that driving while not being able to see well kills enough people before we decide that isn't ok.
My point is that if they really want to lower drunk driving fatalities, their money and energy are better spent elsewhere.
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2013, 11:09:23 AM
I don't think they are infering anything of the kind.
I think they are simply saying that new medical evidence says that a BAC of 0.05 will result in am impaired driver, hence that should be the legal definition of when someone is impaired.
I am addressing the stats presented at the bottom of the article, I think they should have picked more useful ones that help inform people on the topic at hand. That really has nothing to do with whether or not the BAC should be lowered.
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2013, 11:08:05 AM
They provided you evidence though.
That is not statistical evidence. I was only talking about the stats they chose to use Berk.
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2013, 11:08:05 AM
If drinking enough to get your BAC to 0.05 means you don't see very well, then you should not be driving.
This IMO this is sound, if they have the Medical data to back it. Just off that alone they should lower it.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2013, 11:09:18 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 11:03:05 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2013, 11:00:55 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 10:58:42 AM
How many of those accidents are with people under .08, though? It strikes me that the problem isn't the blood alcohol levels, but idiots driving when they're well-beyond that. I've never seen any proof that lowering the level is going to have an affect on those 10,000 deaths.
Basically, they're looking at the wrong things.
Well I think the inference is lowering the BAC level for arrests is what is causing the lower reduction in Drunk Driving fatalities...which again they are not really demonstrating.
I understand that. I'm refuting that it will lower drunk driving fatalities.
I don't think it will either. Most accidents where one driver is legally drunk, they have a significantly higher BAC than .08. Will lowering to .05 help, prob not. Lowering to .05 will allow the state, counties, and cities to net more fines and fees though.
Okay, last week I had an impaired driving matter set for every single day of the week. They are the majority of my caseload. So this is something I know a little bit about.
A limit of 80 (or .08 if you prefer), is surprisingly high. First of all because you want to give every possible doubt to the accused, and there is a variance of +/- 10%, in order to actually charge someone they need to blow a 90 or 100 (different jurisdictions have different thresholds). For myself, 5'8" 160lb, in order to get to 100 I'd need to drink at least 4 beer 30 minutes before hitting the road.
So we have this culture, and law, that states it's okay to drive if you've had 'just a few' drinks. Unfortunately once you have a couple, your judgment is impaired, which leads you to drinking even more, and now you're well over.
A push to 50 is meant to combat that culture. It is to change the mindset to 'you can not drink and drive at all'.
Now there has to be some cut off though. I'm pretty sure everyone has a minute, but scientifically measurable amount of alcohol in them at all times. As well many products do contain alcohol.
50 seems to be a decent spot. The science is good that most people's ability to drive if affected as low as 50. Some people are affected at even lower amounts, and absolutely everyone is affected at 100, but 50 captures most people. It does save people who have only had one drink from being over.
As for collecting more fees? I can spend 1, or even more, days combating a drunk driving charge, only for the accused to receive a $1200 fine. That fine doesn't even cover my salary for the time I spent on it, never mind my support staff, the police time, the court staff, the courthouse, the judge...
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2013, 11:21:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2013, 11:08:05 AM
If drinking enough to get your BAC to 0.05 means you don't see very well, then you should not be driving.
This IMO this is sound, if they have the Medical data to back it. Just off that alone they should lower it.
Based on this chart, pretty much any alcohol in the system will affect your ability to drive, something that I think everyone is aware of. The question is how much?
http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/pdf/BAC-a.pdf (http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/pdf/BAC-a.pdf)
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2013, 11:28:01 AM
Okay, last week I had an impaired driving matter set for every single day of the week. They are the majority of my caseload. So this is something I know a little bit about.
A limit of 80 (or .08 if you prefer), is surprisingly high. First of all because you want to give every possible doubt to the accused, and there is a variance of +/- 10%, in order to actually charge someone they need to blow a 90 or 100 (different jurisdictions have different thresholds). For myself, 5'8" 160lb, in order to get to 100 I'd need to drink at least 4 beer 30 minutes before hitting the road.
So we have this culture, and law, that states it's okay to drive if you've had 'just a few' drinks. Unfortunately once you have a couple, your judgment is impaired, which leads you to drinking even more, and now you're well over.
A push to 50 is meant to combat that culture. It is to change the mindset to 'you can not drink and drive at all'.
Now there has to be some cut off though. I'm pretty sure everyone has a minute, but scientifically measurable amount of alcohol in them at all times. As well many products do contain alcohol.
50 seems to be a decent spot. The science is good that most people's ability to drive if affected as low as 50. Some people are affected at even lower amounts, and absolutely everyone is affected at 100, but 50 captures most people. It does save people who have only had one drink from being over.
This seems fair. My only question is that according to the CDC, motor responses aren't affected until closer to .08. How will police determine how drunk a person is at that level? Won't it now require that every police car have a breathalyzer? And I thought that an individual can refuse to use one based on the 5th amendment in the US. (Or something like that. I don't remember the specifics, only that a person can refuse it.) So, how would it be enforced?
QuoteAs for collecting more fees? I can spend 1, or even more, days combating a drunk driving charge, only for the accused to receive a $1200 fine. That fine doesn't even cover my salary for the time I spent on it, never mind my support staff, the police time, the court staff, the courthouse, the judge...
That's fair for those who fight the charge, but most don't around here unless they fear losing their license permanently.
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 11:31:12 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2013, 11:21:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2013, 11:08:05 AM
If drinking enough to get your BAC to 0.05 means you don't see very well, then you should not be driving.
This IMO this is sound, if they have the Medical data to back it. Just off that alone they should lower it.
Based on this chart, pretty much any alcohol in the system will affect your ability to drive, something that I think everyone is aware of. The question is how much?
http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/pdf/BAC-a.pdf (http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/pdf/BAC-a.pdf)
Then no reason not to lower it IMO. Right now WA state has a .08 and .04 for CDL drivers.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2013, 11:38:08 AM
Then no reason not to lower it IMO. Right now WA state has a .08 and .04 for CDL drivers.
My only question is how to enforce it.
By the way, it may seem that I'm arguing against lowering the rate. The problem is that I'm about as fascist as it comes to drunk driving, and would just as soon require every single person driving that gets into an accident be required to have a breathalyzer. If it registers above 0.02, then they get thrown in jail. I'm making a conscious effort to be reasonable about any changes to the laws as they now stand. ;)
I'm an excellent drinker.
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 11:36:14 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2013, 11:28:01 AM
Okay, last week I had an impaired driving matter set for every single day of the week. They are the majority of my caseload. So this is something I know a little bit about.
A limit of 80 (or .08 if you prefer), is surprisingly high. First of all because you want to give every possible doubt to the accused, and there is a variance of +/- 10%, in order to actually charge someone they need to blow a 90 or 100 (different jurisdictions have different thresholds). For myself, 5'8" 160lb, in order to get to 100 I'd need to drink at least 4 beer 30 minutes before hitting the road.
So we have this culture, and law, that states it's okay to drive if you've had 'just a few' drinks. Unfortunately once you have a couple, your judgment is impaired, which leads you to drinking even more, and now you're well over.
A push to 50 is meant to combat that culture. It is to change the mindset to 'you can not drink and drive at all'.
Now there has to be some cut off though. I'm pretty sure everyone has a minute, but scientifically measurable amount of alcohol in them at all times. As well many products do contain alcohol.
50 seems to be a decent spot. The science is good that most people's ability to drive if affected as low as 50. Some people are affected at even lower amounts, and absolutely everyone is affected at 100, but 50 captures most people. It does save people who have only had one drink from being over.
This seems fair. My only question is that according to the CDC, motor responses aren't affected until closer to .08. How will police determine how drunk a person is at that level? Won't it now require that every police car have a breathalyzer? And I thought that an individual can refuse to use one based on the 5th amendment in the US. (Or something like that. I don't remember the specifics, only that a person can refuse it.) So, how would it be enforced?
QuoteAs for collecting more fees? I can spend 1, or even more, days combating a drunk driving charge, only for the accused to receive a $1200 fine. That fine doesn't even cover my salary for the time I spent on it, never mind my support staff, the police time, the court staff, the courthouse, the judge...
That's fair for those who fight the charge, but most don't around here unless they fear losing their license permanently.
I'd be shocked if the US allowed you to refuse to give a breath sample. The way it works up here is that yes, you can refuse, but now you're being charged with the separate offence of refusing to provide a sample, which by the way carries the exact same punishment as drunk driving.
The chart is a vast generalization. The effects of alcohol are going to be seen on any individual vary in intensity, and at level. Someone might be slurring their words at 40, while someone else might have perfect diction even at 150.
This, by the way, is the reason we have criminalized specific BAC numbers. It was almost impossible to prove whether someone is "too drunk to drive" based on physical observations, even though we know the science is strong on the correlation between even moderate alcohol consumption and increased auto accidents.
I haven't worked out the numbers specifically. All I know is that in almost 10 years in criminal justice I have never, ever heard the suggestion that fines were a net money-maker. Instead we are always seen as a cost on government resources. There may be some jurisdictions with specific circumstances (small communities alongside major highways who write a lot of speeding tickets), but the cost of arresting and then prosecuting someone for speeding pales is orders of magnitude smaller than charging and prosecuting drunk drivers.
When Bill Murray drove a golf cart drunk in the Stockholm party district he refused to blow IIRC.
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2013, 11:48:41 AM
I'd be shocked if the US allowed you to refuse to give a breath sample. The way it works up here is that yes, you can refuse, but now you're being charged with the separate offence of refusing to provide a sample, which by the way carries the exact same punishment as drunk driving.
I'm fairly certain that you can refuse a breathalyzer on the side of the road; instead requesting a blood test at the closest ED. Depending on where you are, that request can buy you the necessary time to "sober up" and not hit the .08. (I've known plenty of folks who've done that for that very reason.)
QuoteThe chart is a vast generalization. The effects of alcohol are going to be seen on any individual vary in intensity, and at level. Someone might be slurring their words at 40, while someone else might have perfect diction even at 150.
This, by the way, is the reason we have criminalized specific BAC numbers. It was almost impossible to prove whether someone is "too drunk to drive" based on physical observations, even though we know the science is strong on the correlation between even moderate alcohol consumption and increased auto accidents.
I haven't worked out the numbers specifically. All I know is that in almost 10 years in criminal justice I have never, ever heard the suggestion that fines were a net money-maker. Instead we are always seen as a cost on government resources. There may be some jurisdictions with specific circumstances (small communities alongside major highways who write a lot of speeding tickets), but the cost of arresting and then prosecuting someone for speeding pales is orders of magnitude smaller than charging and prosecuting drunk drivers.
All of that seems perfectly reasonable. Thanks. :)
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 11:53:33 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2013, 11:48:41 AM
I'd be shocked if the US allowed you to refuse to give a breath sample. The way it works up here is that yes, you can refuse, but now you're being charged with the separate offence of refusing to provide a sample, which by the way carries the exact same punishment as drunk driving.
I'm fairly certain that you can refuse a breathalyzer on the side of the road; instead requesting a blood test at the closest ED. Depending on where you are, that request can buy you the necessary time to "sober up" and not hit the .08. (I've known plenty of folks who've done that for that very reason.)
Okay, I can see that. We don't allow it here in Canada, but it isn't shocking.
(and mind you there are plenty of other ways for people to delay enough to try and sober up in Canada)
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2013, 11:58:30 AM
Okay, I can see that. We don't allow it here in Canada, but it isn't shocking.
(and mind you there are plenty of other ways for people to delay enough to try and sober up in Canada)
In my family, I'm pretty sure it's all been done. Drunk driving (and beating the charges) was and is a hobby for most of my cousins. It's one of the many reasons I'm so rabidly against it.
I know in Oregon if you refuse a breathalyzer you get the same drivers license suspension as you would if you failed it. I don't know about asking for a blood test instead, I don't think that is allowed but I could be wrong.
Quote from: sbr on May 15, 2013, 12:01:23 PM
I know in Oregon if you refuse a breathalyzer you get the same drivers license suspension as you would if you failed it. I don't know about asking for a blood test instead, I don't think that is allowed but I could be wrong.
I'm fairly sure that it's allowed across the board. Something about how wildly inaccurate breathalyzers used to be, and it's never been changed.
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 11:53:33 AM
I'm fairly certain that you can refuse a breathalyzer on the side of the road; instead requesting a blood test at the closest ED.
Meri I think you are refering to a PBT. Yes you can refuse that. You can also refuse the Breathalyzer barring any extinuating circumstances. I you refuse the Breathalyzer it invokes implied consent. Auto one year suspension.
Quoteinstead requesting a blood test at the closest ED. Depending on where you are, that request can buy you the necessary time to "sober up" and not hit the .08. (I've known plenty of folks who've done that for that very reason.)
We are getting good at combating this stance.
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2013, 11:28:01 AM
As for collecting more fees? I can spend 1, or even more, days combating a drunk driving charge, only for the accused to receive a $1200 fine. That fine doesn't even cover my salary for the time I spent on it, never mind my support staff, the police time, the court staff, the courthouse, the judge...
Woah. BB gets paid $1,000.00 a day.
Where I work, WA State.
Quote
Under Washington's Implied Consent Law, you have already consented to the breath test. Although you have the absolute right to refuse to take the breath test at the police station, the consequences are severe, and you can still be charged with a DUI.
Under the law, there are three consequences: (1) your driver's license can be suspended for a minimum of 1 year, or substantially longer if you have prior DUI convictions or alcohol-related administrative license suspensions; (2) if you refuse to take the breath test at the police station, your refusal can be introduced into evidence as "consciousness of guilt," and a test refusal will increase the mandatory minimum sentence that the judge must impose if you are found guilty; and (3) if you refuse the breath test at the police station, the Department of Licensing will revoke your driver's license for at least 1 year, and prior DUI's can increase the revocation. Further, requirements of Ignition Interlock and SR22 high-risk insurance will be enforced. Even after your driver's license is reinstated, the Department of Licensing requires an Ignition Interlock Breathalyzer (breath-alcohol tester installed in your vehicle for at least a year) and proof of financial responsibility by way of a certificate of high-risk insurance, known as a SR22.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2013, 12:14:11 PM
Where I work, WA State.
Quote
Under Washington's Implied Consent Law, you have already consented to the breath test. Although you have the absolute right to refuse to take the breath test at the police station, the consequences are severe, and you can still be charged with a DUI.
Under the law, there are three consequences: (1) your driver's license can be suspended for a minimum of 1 year, or substantially longer if you have prior DUI convictions or alcohol-related administrative license suspensions; (2) if you refuse to take the breath test at the police station, your refusal can be introduced into evidence as "consciousness of guilt," and a test refusal will increase the mandatory minimum sentence that the judge must impose if you are found guilty; and (3) if you refuse the breath test at the police station, the Department of Licensing will revoke your driver's license for at least 1 year, and prior DUI's can increase the revocation. Further, requirements of Ignition Interlock and SR22 high-risk insurance will be enforced. Even after your driver's license is reinstated, the Department of Licensing requires an Ignition Interlock Breathalyzer (breath-alcohol tester installed in your vehicle for at least a year) and proof of financial responsibility by way of a certificate of high-risk insurance, known as a SR22.
Yeah, that's different from what I remember from the last time I looked into it. Granted, that was probably 10 years ago and in Illinois, but I'm assuming that Washington isn't too far different from anywhere else in the country.
Mandatory Breath and Blood
QuoteGenerally, the officer cannot make you take a test if you refuse, but there are some exceptions. You must take a test if you were involved in an accident where someone was seriously injured or killed. Also, if you were killed or become unconscious due to an accident, then the officer does not need to ask you before ordering a test
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 12:05:55 PM
Quote from: sbr on May 15, 2013, 12:01:23 PM
I know in Oregon if you refuse a breathalyzer you get the same drivers license suspension as you would if you failed it. I don't know about asking for a blood test instead, I don't think that is allowed but I could be wrong.
I'm fairly sure that it's allowed across the board. Something about how wildly inaccurate breathalyzers used to be, and it's never been changed.
I am pretty certain you can't just say no the the breathalyzer here in Oregon and opt for a blood test. I am not positive about Oregon and clueless about other states.
I have gotten a DUI here in Oregon though, almost 6 years ago. The process here is that you blow one time, I believe the reading goes out to the thousandths place and then they round to the hundredths (less than 5 down, 5 or more up). You then wait 5 minutes and blow again, with the same rounding method. Your "official" BAC is the lower of the two numbers.
I blew something that rounded up to .09 the first time, 5 minutes later it rounded up to .10 and it was a significant jump not just from .004 to .005. At that point it had been well over an hour since I had had a beer and at least 40 minutes since I had been stopped. It doesn't make too many math skills to assume that when I was stopped my BAC was under .08, but the way the laws are written here you just cannot fight them, especially if you have the option of going through a diversion program.
The law is driving under the influence of intoxicants, and you can still be cited and arrested if you blow a 0.00, because you could be under the influence of something else. At that point the court case comes down to he-said he-said between you and the cop. Not many people will win that, and the punishment for fighting and losing is much, much harsher than just bending over and taking it from the start.
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2013, 11:04:17 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2013, 10:59:00 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2013, 10:58:14 AM
No it wouldn't. It would be a stunningly illogical conclusion, and stupid to boot.
Yes. That is what I said, it would be stupid, which is why simply listing the number of people who died is not particularly useful in showing the dangers.
Of course it is useful.
There is an assumption of course, that had those 170,000 injury causing drivers NOT been intoxicated, then some appreciable portion of those accidents would not have happened. But that is a pretty reasonable assumption to make. I suppose they could site the data to prove that (accident rates in sober drivers compared to drunk), but it isn't unreasonable to assume that the reader knows that as a given.
Pointing out that 10,000/year are killed and 170k/year are injured in alcohol related accidents is perfectly useful information. I did not know that, and I did not know that still, even after the massive education and awareness of the dangers of drunk driving, fully a third of existing vehicular fatalities are still the result of drunk driving. That is certainly useful information to me in the context of the article.
Both of you have a point, though Valmy has more of a point. The way the numbers were presented can indeed be very misleading in a number of ways. There are many obvious and simple confounding factors that can affect the drop of drunk deaths from 20,000 to 10,000. On the other hand, knowing the raw numbers puts the importance of the issue in perspective.
Quote from: sbr on May 15, 2013, 12:22:55 PM
The law is driving under the influence of intoxicants, and you can still be cited and arrested if you blow a 0.00, because you could be under the influence of something else. At that point the court case comes down to he-said he-said between you and the cop. Not many people will win that, and the punishment for fighting and losing is much, much harsher than just bending over and taking it from the start.
That must be a difference between the US and Canada then. Here we have no diversion program, and the penalties after trial are identical to if you entered a guilty plea at first opportunity.
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2013, 12:37:52 PM
Quote from: sbr on May 15, 2013, 12:22:55 PM
The law is driving under the influence of intoxicants, and you can still be cited and arrested if you blow a 0.00, because you could be under the influence of something else. At that point the court case comes down to he-said he-said between you and the cop. Not many people will win that, and the punishment for fighting and losing is much, much harsher than just bending over and taking it from the start.
That must be a difference between the US and Canada then. Here we have no diversion program, and the penalties after trial are identical to if you entered a guilty plea at first opportunity.
Here's WA state
QuoteOne of the options for handling a DUI and keeping it off your long term record is called Deferred Prosecution. A deferred prosecution is a statutory creation intended to help people suffering from the disease of alcoholism who commit the crime of DUI to treat their illness in the hope that by treating the alcoholism no future law violations will occur.
Deferred Prosecution is a method by which the legal charges against you can be dismissed if you successfully complete a strict, two-year treatment program. Deferred Prosecution is available only for those who believe alcoholism, drug addiction, or a mental health problem caused the behavior leading to their DUI arrest. If you do not successfully complete the treatment program, you will face the original charges and consequences and may still be required to complete the treatment program. You only qualify for Deferred Prosecution once in your lifetime so it is very important to use your Deferred Prosecution wisely.
http://www.washingtondui.com/seattle-dui-defense/wa-deferred-prosecution
I'm having a hard time finding info about the Oregon DUII Diversion that isn't part of an ad for a lawyer.
Here is a decent one:
http://www.legalpdx.com/Criminal.php#diversion
Quote3. Diversion -[top]
What is diversion? How long or how many weeks is the diversion program? Can I drink alcohol on diversion? How much does diversion cost?
Diversion is a great program for qualified individuals who want to quietly and easily take care of their DUI. To be eligible for diversion you must meet a certain set of requirements. Most first-time offenders are eligible, but notably excepted are people who have commercial drivers licenses. The laws regarding diversion eligibility have recently changed. Under the old laws, a person was eligible if they had not completed a diversion program within the past 10 years. Today, the new law says that you are eligible only if you have not undergone a previous diversion program in the past 15 years.
The diversion program is a program of education and counseling. To succesfully complete diversion, a person must attend a victim impact panel, take an alcohol evaluation, go to recommended treatment classes, and pay a host of fees. Other requirements include not driving without a valid license, not driving after having any alcohol, not committing any traffic crimes, and generally obeying the law. The victim impact panel is a one-time class that is typically given at a hospital. There, you will see some gruesome images and hear from people whose lives have been adversely affected by drunk drivers. The alcohol evaluation is another one-time item that must be completed. A county evaluator will review your police reports, your DMV driving record, and have an in person interview with you to determine how serious your treatment needs to be. At a minimum, the lightest treatment schedule anyone can receive is to demonstrate 90 days of sobriety.
Diversion operates differently in every county as far as the nuts and bolts of getting through the process and into the program. We have successfully entered individuals into diversion programs in every major Oregon county, including Washington County, Clackamas County, Multnomah County, Hood River County, and Marion County. Furthermore, we have experience in many of the city (or "municipal") courts that operate within these counties. Finally, you should note that the diversion period in Oregon lasts a full year. At the end of the year, if you have successfully completed the requirements of the program, then your lawyer can have the original DUI charge dismissed as if it never happened.
It is legal for you to drink alcohol in diversion. It also is legal for you to drive. However, there is a zero-tolerance policy of drinking and driving while in diversion. Any alcohol while you are behind a wheel is too much. Furthermore, you must completely abstain from alcohol use while you are doing the "sobriety" portion of your treatment (typically at least 90 days). The diversion application fees total $458, and this amount can be paid on a payment plan with the court. The victim impact panel typically costs $50 and the alcohol evaluation costs $150. There are additional costs for the treatment program. We know a few ways to save you money on the treatment end of things. Give us a call to make an appointment and we will make the diversion process very smooth for you.
I recommend it too but not this early in the day.
We do have something a little bit similar in Canada - the curative discharge. But it is geared towards hard-core alcoholics, not first time offenders. If you an demonstrate that you are an alcoholic, then you can be put on a course of treatment (which invariably includes a stint at residential treatment) and at the end of the day have your conviction discharged.
Arguing those can be funny as it can completely reverse roles. Now defence is making their client out to have a huge alcohol problem, and I'm arguing "he just drank too much this one day. he's not an alcoholic". :D
In Mississippi, you can be found guilty of DUI with an Intoxilizer result under .08, because we have "common law" and "statutory" DUI; i.e., if the officer observed that you drove in an impaired fashion, even if you tested under .08 or indeed tested clean, you can be found guilty. As a practical matter, enforcing DUI is a fucking bitch, and the consequences are so severe in a mostly rural state where the average drive to work is 30 miles one way, that in practice most courts try to work around DUIs or into pre-trial diversions pending successful completion of probation, which typically includes a driver education course, plus fine payments, paying the costs of probation, a victim impact panel, and then having to jump through a few more hoops. Also, your insurance more than doubles.
Quote from: Scipio on May 15, 2013, 03:12:45 PM
In Mississippi, you can be found guilty of DUI with an Intoxilizer result under .08, because we have "common law" and "statutory" DUI; i.e., if the officer observed that you drove in an impaired fashion, even if you tested under .08 or indeed tested clean, you can be found guilty. As a practical matter, enforcing DUI is a fucking bitch, and the consequences are so severe in a mostly rural state where the average drive to work is 30 miles one way, that in practice most courts try to work around DUIs or into pre-trial diversions pending successful completion of probation, which typically includes a driver education course, plus fine payments, paying the costs of probation, a victim impact panel, and then having to jump through a few more hoops. Also, your insurance more than doubles.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Not a big fan of diverting drunk drivers. Not a fan at all.
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2013, 03:22:45 PM
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Eh this philosophy is full of fail. The penalty should be proportional to something society thinks is a reasonable penalty or you do get situations where nobody actually wants to convict anybody. It has never worked to just make all penalties draconian.
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2013, 03:59:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2013, 03:22:45 PM
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Eh this philosophy is full of fail. The penalty should be proportional to something society thinks is a reasonable penalty or you do get situations where nobody actually wants to convict anybody. It has never worked to just make all penalties draconian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(Chinese_philosophy)
The Legalist philosophy stated that of punishments for all infractions were severe, no-one would dare commit any.
The Cartoon History of the Universe put the influence of Legalism on the end of the Qin Dynasty this way: a group of soldiers are talking to each other while on manuvers in the rain: "Hey, what's the penalty for rebellion?" "Death." "What's the penalty for being late on manuvers?" "Death." "Well, guess what, fellow soldiers - we are late!" ;)
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2013, 03:59:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2013, 03:22:45 PM
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Eh this philosophy is full of fail. The penalty should be proportional to something society thinks is a reasonable penalty or you do get situations where nobody actually wants to convict anybody. It has never worked to just make all penalties draconian.
The penalty in question is you lose you license for one year. :mellow:
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2013, 04:06:36 PM
The penalty in question is you lose you license for one year. :mellow:
Which would make you a pretty much useless person in rural Mississippi.
Quote from: Scipio on May 15, 2013, 03:12:45 PM
In Mississippi, you can be found guilty of DUI with an Intoxilizer result under .08, because we have "common law" and "statutory" DUI; i.e., if the officer observed that you drove in an impaired fashion, even if you tested under .08 or indeed tested clean, you can be found guilty. As a practical matter, enforcing DUI is a fucking bitch, and the consequences are so severe in a mostly rural state where the average drive to work is 30 miles one way, that in practice most courts try to work around DUIs or into pre-trial diversions pending successful completion of probation, which typically includes a driver education course, plus fine payments, paying the costs of probation, a victim impact panel, and then having to jump through a few more hoops. Also, your insurance more than doubles.
30 miles one way to your still/meth lab?
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2013, 04:14:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2013, 04:06:36 PM
The penalty in question is you lose you license for one year. :mellow:
Which would make you a pretty much useless person in rural Mississippi.
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.
Ah, drunk, overpaid oil workers?
I'm curious: many Indian working the oil patch?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2013, 04:51:07 PM
I'm curious: many Indian working the oil patch?
Not as many as there should be, but some.
I held off posting because it seems I'd be rowing against the tide, but at a 0.05 threshold one drink will be enough to put people over the limit.
http://www.moderation.org/bac/bac-men.shtml
To expose people to the possibility of a DUI after one drink, and effectively make them some of them nearly unemployable in this job market, is really extreme. I would be interested to see a statistics showing that our typical middle aged driver is more of a risk driving after one drink than a teenage driver or an elderly person.
A long time ago, in a different era, the fine was like $50 drinking while driving. I would pick up a beer before my commute home and drink it while driving. You know what? That hurt no one, and endangered no one. Now I understand it would be treated as a serious crime. I just don't get it.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 15, 2013, 07:45:25 PM
I held off posting because it seems I'd be rowing against the tide, but at a 0.05 threshold one drink will be enough to put people over the limit.
http://www.moderation.org/bac/bac-men.shtml
To expose people to the possibility of a DUI after one drink, and effectively make them some of them nearly unemployable in this job market, is really extreme. I would be interested to see a statistics showing that our typical middle aged driver is more of a risk driving after one drink than a teenage driver or an elderly person.
A long time ago, in a different era, the fine was like $50 drinking while driving. I would pick up a beer before my commute home and drink it while driving. You know what? That hurt no one, and endangered no one. Now I understand it would be treated as a serious crime. I just don't get it.
Odd because Business Insider shows most normal people would need 2.
http://www.businessinsider.com/drinks-before-driving-if-bac-is-05-2013-5
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2013, 07:55:44 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 15, 2013, 07:45:25 PM
I held off posting because it seems I'd be rowing against the tide, but at a 0.05 threshold one drink will be enough to put people over the limit.
http://www.moderation.org/bac/bac-men.shtml
To expose people to the possibility of a DUI after one drink, and effectively make them some of them nearly unemployable in this job market, is really extreme. I would be interested to see a statistics showing that our typical middle aged driver is more of a risk driving after one drink than a teenage driver or an elderly person.
A long time ago, in a different era, the fine was like $50 drinking while driving. I would pick up a beer before my commute home and drink it while driving. You know what? That hurt no one, and endangered no one. Now I understand it would be treated as a serious crime. I just don't get it.
Odd because Business Insider shows most normal people would need 2.
http://www.businessinsider.com/drinks-before-driving-if-bac-is-05-2013-5
Fuck, my chart shows the same thing and I just assumed the decimal place was somewhere else. :Embarrass:
I'd blame that mistake on a glass of wine, but then that would kind of go against my rant.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 15, 2013, 08:08:14 PM
Fuck, my chart shows the same thing and I just assumed the decimal place was somewhere else. :Embarrass:
I'd blame that mistake on a glass of wine, but then that would kind of go against my rant.
You shouldn't drink and drive and post.
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2013, 07:55:44 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 15, 2013, 07:45:25 PM
I held off posting because it seems I'd be rowing against the tide, but at a 0.05 threshold one drink will be enough to put people over the limit.
http://www.moderation.org/bac/bac-men.shtml
To expose people to the possibility of a DUI after one drink, and effectively make them some of them nearly unemployable in this job market, is really extreme. I would be interested to see a statistics showing that our typical middle aged driver is more of a risk driving after one drink than a teenage driver or an elderly person.
A long time ago, in a different era, the fine was like $50 drinking while driving. I would pick up a beer before my commute home and drink it while driving. You know what? That hurt no one, and endangered no one. Now I understand it would be treated as a serious crime. I just don't get it.
Odd because Business Insider shows most normal people would need 2.
http://www.businessinsider.com/drinks-before-driving-if-bac-is-05-2013-5
But not all
Quotea 100-pound woman could not have even one drink in an hour without being legally intoxicated.
Thanks, Tim, for clearing that up.
Fuck that, so you're saying if there is "any impairment" you shouldn't drive? I think that's a bullshit standard and is basically saying, "if you enjoy a glass of wine or a beer with dinner at a restaurant, feel free to not drive home." That's stupid, and basically a weird obsession with the concept of being "perfectly unimpaired." Just about every study ever shows that 24 hours of no sleep means you are as impaired as someone with a .15 BAC--far over the legal limit in the United States. It would stand to reason there is "some impairment" if you've been without sleep for say, 20 hours or 19 hours. Also, some impairment if you normally get up at 6 AM but had to get up at 4:30 AM this morning (and went to bed at the same time.) There's some impairment from prescription medications (and people can routinely get driving under the influence charges dismissed if they have a prescription for the drug that makes them impaired--a concept mind boggling to me.) So sorry, but no. Unless you really think people should not drive under any impairment I see no compelling reason to take what is already a reasonable limit and make it lower.
Also, without getting into a whole thing with you nanny-state types, alcohol and traffic fatality statistics in the United States are poorly done. NHTSA reports anything as "alcohol involved" if either driver of either vehicle had any alcohol in their system--regardless of whether they were legally impaired or not. So if I'm parked on the street at .02 BAC in a street parking area and a dump truck runs over me like Big Foot and crushes me to death, and the dump truck driver is 100% stone cold sober, NHTSA counts that as an "alcohol related fatality."
In 1999, the GAO reviewed many of the alcohol crash figures from the NHTSA and found that there were severe methodological problems with how they were reporting and collecting data. The GAO itself said their statistics fall short of providing conclusive evidence that .08% BAC laws were responsible for reductions in alcohol related fatalities. As recently as 2002 the Los Angeles Times dug into some of the statistics and found that less than 5,000 accidents involved a drunk driver killing a sober driver, and some reviews of the same data suggest it could be under 3,000.
I don't like drunk drivers that kill people or people that drive when they clearly shouldn't. But unlike people in the BB vein who simply are anathema to all civil liberties, I think principles against self-incrimination and "loop holes" to get around the fourth amendment are unconscionable. We have a Fourth Amendment right that prohibits the State from performing suspicionless stops on us, it's as clear as night and day. In Michigan v. Sitz the brain dead fucktards on the SCOTUS said that, "it would appear DUI checkpoints clearly violate the Fourth Amendment, but we think it's really good public policy so we're cool with it." The court that is literally charged with enforcing the constitutional rules, openly admits something violates them, and then says, "so?"
Same thing with implied consent and other laws, it's a loop hole to get around the self-incrimination laws. I'm fine with the administrative DMV laws, and implied consent meaning that you can lose your driver's license if you break those administrative laws. But many implied consent states no longer have the civil driver's license penalty as the consequence for violating implied consent, many have now actually criminalized refusing to provide evidence against yourself. This means in addition to the administrative civil law revoking your license (something I'm fine with, the license is not a constitutional right and State's have a right to regulate the rules for keeping one), you can be sent to prison for terms of 6-12 months for violating a first offense implied consent law. So basically telling a police officer you do not consent to a search = misdemeanor punishable by a maximum term in jail of 6-12 months in many states. Now, practically speaking it usually ends up being 24-48 hours or community service.
:wub:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 15, 2013, 09:19:31 PM
Same thing with implied consent and other laws, it's a loop hole to get around the self-incrimination laws. I'm fine with the administrative DMV laws, and implied consent meaning that you can lose your driver's license if you break those administrative laws. But many implied consent states no longer have the civil driver's license penalty as the consequence for violating implied consent, many have now actually criminalized refusing to provide evidence against yourself. This means in addition to the administrative civil law revoking your license (something I'm fine with, the license is not a constitutional right and State's have a right to regulate the rules for keeping one), you can be sent to prison for terms of 6-12 months for violating a first offense implied consent law. So basically telling a police officer you do not consent to a search = misdemeanor punishable by a maximum term in jail of 6-12 months in many states. Now, practically speaking it usually ends up being 24-48 hours or community service.
Setting aside the 4th for a minute, what about the 5th?
Personally, I recommend a BAC of 5.0.
Quote from: fahdiz on May 15, 2013, 09:31:58 PM
Personally, I recommend a BAC of 5.0.
I prefer .005, myself. All fucking drinkers must fucking hang.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2013, 09:33:37 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on May 15, 2013, 09:31:58 PM
Personally, I recommend a BAC of 5.0.
I prefer .005, myself. All fucking drinkers must fucking hang.
Meh, I don't drink very much these days so when I do I like to really get 'er goin'. I don't drive drunk, though.
I approaching .02 right now. I'll be within NTSB guidelines in maybe a couple hours.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 15, 2013, 09:37:52 PM
I approaching .02 right now. I'll be within NTSB guidelines in maybe a couple hours.
Do you have your own breathalyzer? :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2013, 09:33:37 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on May 15, 2013, 09:31:58 PM
Personally, I recommend a BAC of 5.0.
I prefer .005, myself. All fucking drinkers must fucking hang.
I've got nothing against drinkers.
I do have something against drinkers who drive.
I'm going to post a long rebuttal of Otto's post once the boys go to bed.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 15, 2013, 09:30:50 PMSetting aside the 4th for a minute, what about the 5th?
I assume you mean my references to self-incrimination (since I didn't mention the fifth directly.) Instead of setting one aside I'll cover both my arguments at once. Well, as you know under the 4th Amendment there are protections against arbitrary seizures, and a stop is generally considered a seizure. Under the fifth we have a general protection against self-incrimination that is implicit in Miranda and the right to remain silent in custodial interrogations and to abstain from assisting police in their investigation against you. With DUI laws in this country both are circumvented directly.
The Fourth it is more clear cut, the police are supposed to have reasonable suspicion to stop you, probable cause to arrest you. They require neither with "check points" and the SCOTUS acknowledges check points were essentially "obviously" a violation of the fourth amendment. But then they go on to say that "public policy concerns" lead them to decide the check points are okay, regardless.
With the Fifth Amendment, typically you can't force people to tell police stuff, and when you are in custodial interrogation the police are required to inform you of your rights prior to beginning the interrogation. If they do not, anything that comes out of that interrogation is not usable in a court against you. Now, unlike armchair defense lawyers, I understand in many cases Miranda is never read because it doesn't have to be. Many cases are resolved without custodial interrogation, and thus there is no need for the suspect/defendant to ever be read his rights. But in basically all DUI cases, the police officer is permitted to basically ask the suspect whatever he wants whenever he wants, and use that evidence against him in any trial. This is true at the initial road stop (prior to custody so fine in my opinion) but it's also true after he's been handcuffed and put in the squad car and when they are at the police station questioning you.
So you have clear cut custody, and clear cut interrogation (someone is under arrest, in custody, in a police station and being asked questions about what they did that night including what they drank and when)--and that is a custodial interrogation in basically any criminal case under American law. If you're doing that without reading Miranda, anything the suspect says and any evidence derived from what he has said is inadmissible.
Except in DUI cases, just like the Fifth Amendment, the SCOTUS has literally said there is an exception to the 5th Amendment's protections when it comes to a DUI. They basically said, "we do not know when you have to read Miranda in a DUI case, but it's later than in other cases." DUI laws in this country are a complete abortion, as is the SCOTUS response to them.
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2013, 09:39:31 PMI'm going to post a long rebuttal of Otto's post once the boys go to bed.
I think we've had a few of these conversations in the past but I always look forward to hearing a lawtalker's opinion on this topic. Now, in case it was not recognized I will mention before hand my "anti-civil liberties" jibe was trolling, I'm well aware you have an "appropriate" respect for civil liberties.
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?
If having a couple drinks is such a public menace, then perhaps we should prohibit establishments from selling alcohol if they have a clientele that typically drives to the location. I know that some people use designated drivers and taxis, but some people don't. Each night, the average alcohol serving restaurant probably serves multiple people a couple drinks before they go out and drive. That endangers the rest of us. And our children.
Won't someone think of the Children?!
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?
Quote from: DGuller on May 15, 2013, 11:00:43 PM
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.
You're a lightweight, and a shame to your slavic heritage.
Quote from: DGuller on May 15, 2013, 11:00:43 PM
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?
Quote from: sbr on May 15, 2013, 10:46:11 PM
Won't someone think of the Children?!
I try, but then I think of their backtalk, their clothes, their poor study habits, etc. and it makes me need a drink. This really is a catch 22.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 15, 2013, 09:19:31 PM
Fuck that, so you're saying if there is "any impairment" you shouldn't drive? I think that's a bullshit standard and is basically saying, "if you enjoy a glass of wine or a beer with dinner at a restaurant, feel free to not drive home." That's stupid, and basically a weird obsession with the concept of being "perfectly unimpaired." Just about every study ever shows that 24 hours of no sleep means you are as impaired as someone with a .15 BAC--far over the legal limit in the United States. It would stand to reason there is "some impairment" if you've been without sleep for say, 20 hours or 19 hours. Also, some impairment if you normally get up at 6 AM but had to get up at 4:30 AM this morning (and went to bed at the same time.) There's some impairment from prescription medications (and people can routinely get driving under the influence charges dismissed if they have a prescription for the drug that makes them impaired--a concept mind boggling to me.) So sorry, but no. Unless you really think people should not drive under any impairment I see no compelling reason to take what is already a reasonable limit and make it lower.
Also, without getting into a whole thing with you nanny-state types, alcohol and traffic fatality statistics in the United States are poorly done. NHTSA reports anything as "alcohol involved" if either driver of either vehicle had any alcohol in their system--regardless of whether they were legally impaired or not. So if I'm parked on the street at .02 BAC in a street parking area and a dump truck runs over me like Big Foot and crushes me to death, and the dump truck driver is 100% stone cold sober, NHTSA counts that as an "alcohol related fatality."
In 1999, the GAO reviewed many of the alcohol crash figures from the NHTSA and found that there were severe methodological problems with how they were reporting and collecting data. The GAO itself said their statistics fall short of providing conclusive evidence that .08% BAC laws were responsible for reductions in alcohol related fatalities. As recently as 2002 the Los Angeles Times dug into some of the statistics and found that less than 5,000 accidents involved a drunk driver killing a sober driver, and some reviews of the same data suggest it could be under 3,000.
I don't like drunk drivers that kill people or people that drive when they clearly shouldn't. But unlike people in the BB vein who simply are anathema to all civil liberties, I think principles against self-incrimination and "loop holes" to get around the fourth amendment are unconscionable. We have a Fourth Amendment right that prohibits the State from performing suspicionless stops on us, it's as clear as night and day. In Michigan v. Sitz the brain dead fucktards on the SCOTUS said that, "it would appear DUI checkpoints clearly violate the Fourth Amendment, but we think it's really good public policy so we're cool with it." The court that is literally charged with enforcing the constitutional rules, openly admits something violates them, and then says, "so?"
Same thing with implied consent and other laws, it's a loop hole to get around the self-incrimination laws. I'm fine with the administrative DMV laws, and implied consent meaning that you can lose your driver's license if you break those administrative laws. But many implied consent states no longer have the civil driver's license penalty as the consequence for violating implied consent, many have now actually criminalized refusing to provide evidence against yourself. This means in addition to the administrative civil law revoking your license (something I'm fine with, the license is not a constitutional right and State's have a right to regulate the rules for keeping one), you can be sent to prison for terms of 6-12 months for violating a first offense implied consent law. So basically telling a police officer you do not consent to a search = misdemeanor punishable by a maximum term in jail of 6-12 months in many states. Now, practically speaking it usually ends up being 24-48 hours or community service.
Otto, there are a lot of things that could impair your ability to drive. Being sleepy. Getting into an argument with your spouse. Your team just won the big game and you're excited. Unfortunately all of those are impossible to test for. A law prohibiting you from driving while arguing with your spouse would be completely unenforceable.
Consuming alcohol is easily tested for, and, if not easily, is enforceable. As a result a law prohibiting driving a vehicle while impaired by alcohol makes perfect sense.
I commented earlier on the realities of enforcement - who an 80 limit is really a 90 or 100 limit. And the science is clear that you absolutely shouldn't be driving at 100, and most people shouldn't be driving as low as 50.
You are questioning epidemiology studies trying to tie drunk driving laws to saving lives. I'm not familiar with those studies. All I can say is making any kind of conclusive finding when it comes to epidemiology is very tough.
What we have a better idea of is the effect of alcohol on individuals. We've studied individuals at BACs of 50, 100, 150 and more. We know that alcohol quite quickly affects your judgment, your reflexes, your attention span, and your fine motor controls. There is no doubt that at levels as low as 50 most people's ability to drive is impaired - that is it is less then it could or should be.
You start citing some US caselaw. I can't really comment on it. I can tell you the status in this country (which does have a quite extensive Charter of Rights which contains most of the same protections as your Bill of Rights). In this country suspiciounless stops are illegal. You can't stop a vehicle for no reason. However it is very easy to HAVE a reason to suspect an impaired driver. The vehicle swerves within the lane. The vehicle commits a minor traffic infraction. Hell the fact the driver leaves a bar at 2am and get in their vehicle is enough grounds to stop a vehicle.
Refusing to provide a sample: it's not self incrimination. Self incrimination is the right not to give statements or evidence against yourself. A breath sample is not a statement. I can tell you that in this country you absolutely do not need to answer any question the police ask of you*. What breath testing is is a search. You do not have the right to resist a search. What you do have the right to do is not be subject to UNREASONABLE searches. When a cop pulls you over after swerving all over the road, you smell of booze and admit to coming from a bar, a breath demand is a perfectly reasonable search. I can tell you at least right now, in Alberta, that is where most impaired driving trials are fought. They challenge whether the office had RPG (reasonable and probable grounds) to make a breath demand. Once you view the breath demand as a search however it all makes sense. You can't refuse to comply with a valid search warrant any more than you can refuse to comply with a valid breath demand.
*there's an exception that you are compelled to provide an accident report, but since it's compelled we as prosecutors can not use it in evidence against you. So the defence of the day is for defence lawyers to coach their client to say "I thought I had a legal obligation to tell police this information" when trying to fight these cases. I'm not naming names, but absolutely some coach their clients (which is completely unethical and sanctionable if proven). But this is a small side point.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 15, 2013, 10:02:13 PM
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?
Analogizing from Canadian law:
The right against self-incrimination is always there. If the cop pulls you over and asks if you know how fast you were going you have the right to say "I do not wish to answer that question".
Miranda / s.10(b) of the Charter, is a separate but complementary right. It says you have the right to be informed of your rights upon arrest. When the cop first pulls you over you are NOT under arrest.
Quote from: derspiess on May 15, 2013, 11:05:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 15, 2013, 11:00:43 PM
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.
You're a lightweight, and a shame to your slavic heritage.
That is true. :(
Quote from: sbr on May 15, 2013, 11:07:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 15, 2013, 11:00:43 PM
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.
I've been pulled over before on suspicion of drunk driving. Fortunately there is no law preventing you from driving while bat shit crazy. :cool:
Quote from: DGuller on May 15, 2013, 11:35:27 PM
Quote from: sbr on May 15, 2013, 11:07:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 15, 2013, 11:00:43 PM
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...
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 15, 2013, 11:42:19 PM
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.
Wa state defines vehicle as such;
Quote"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.
WA state's Pot clause for DUI
Quote(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
QuoteRCW 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.
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2013, 11:48:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 15, 2013, 11:42:19 PM
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.
Quote from: sbr on May 15, 2013, 10:46:11 PM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 15, 2013, 10:02:13 PM
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. :huh: 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."
QuoteThe 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.)
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2013, 11:48:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 15, 2013, 11:42:19 PM
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.
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.
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!
Quote from: Tamas on May 16, 2013, 09:32:33 AM
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? :hug:
This thread doesn't come in beet.
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2013, 04:45:54 PM
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 16, 2013, 07:11:53 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 15, 2013, 10:02:13 PM
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. :huh: 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."
QuoteThe 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.
Seems to me there ought to be data out there that could help answer the question.
First, figure out what accident rates are among people between .05 and .08
Then compare against accident rates for people at 0.
I don't think scoring cheap data points solves anything.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 16, 2013, 11:26:22 AM
Seems to me there ought to be data out there that could help answer the question.
First, figure out what accident rates are among people between .05 and .08
Then compare against accident rates for people at 0.
Here's what NJ says - in a driving manual
http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/Licenses/Driver%20Manual/Chapter_6.pdf
QuoteIf a motorist has reached a BAC of slightly above .05 percent after drinking, the
risk for causing a motor vehicle accident doubles. The risk is six times as great
when driving with a BAC of .10 percent.
I think that is setting the bar higher than it needs to be. I think it would be very hard to measure accident rates for people between .5 and .8 - how would you do that?
It is, however, very easy to measure impairment of people at various level of intoxication. If medical study shows that your ability to operate a vehicle is significantly impaired at 0.5, then it is prefectly reasonable, IMO, to define that as the general point of impairment.
Now, as far as the objection that other things you can do also impair you in just as dangerous a manner, I get that...but so what? We don't have a test for how tired you are, or if you are mad at your wife. Those thing shave to fall under the more general guidelines that create liability or even criminal action if you operate a motor vehicle in a dangerous manner.
If the argument that we should not set the level at 0.5 because other activities that are not specifically legislated against can also impair you ability in a similar manner, then why not apply that argument to 0.8? It is just as valid.
Or 0.10. Or even 0.2. Or any number - we all know that no matter how drunk you are, we can imagine some other state of being that would be just as dangerous, so does that mean we should just drop the entire "don't drive while drunk" thing? Of course not.
Quote from: garbon on May 16, 2013, 11:32:10 AM
Here's what NJ says - in a driving manual
Hmm
NHTSA says only 38% at .05 but rises to double at .07.
That would suggest a certain logic to a .05 cutoff.
Of course the default risk starts at a very low base in percentage terms.
The other question that has to be considered is whether the population that drives at .05 tends to have other characteristics that make them more accident prone.
Quote from: garbon on May 16, 2013, 11:32:10 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 16, 2013, 11:26:22 AM
Seems to me there ought to be data out there that could help answer the question.
First, figure out what accident rates are among people between .05 and .08
Then compare against accident rates for people at 0.
Here's what NJ says - in a driving manual
http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/Licenses/Driver%20Manual/Chapter_6.pdf
QuoteIf a motorist has reached a BAC of slightly above .05 percent after drinking, the
risk for causing a motor vehicle accident doubles. The risk is six times as great
when driving with a BAC of .10 percent.
Is doubling a reason to give a DUI? I think not, but obviously it is a judgment call. Talking on a cell phone, texting while driving, and speeding all increase the risk too. Some of those are against the law, but very rarely do they have the draconian punishments associated with a DUI.
I'd be fine with fining people (even a lot) for a .05 BAC, but a DUI is too much.
QuoteIs blowing a breathalyzer providing evidence against yourself? I never thought about it before.
Doesnt implied consent fit here? You can always refuse the BAC too.
FWIW, people talk about the horrors of prisons in different countries, but if I am going to be arrested (which is unlikely anywhere), I'd much rather it be in say Mexico than the US. Assuming I'm not going to be doing serious hard time, of course. An arrest record in the US could end my career. I have much more fear of that than time in a prison.
A DUI wouldn't do that singlehandedly, but it certainly wouldn't help.
QuoteAn arrest record in the US could end my career.
Depending, yes. :D
DUI shows poor judgement.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 16, 2013, 11:16:15 AMI 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.
I'm not sure if I misspoke somewhere or if you misread me, but I was not saying that taking breath/blood samples were self-incriminating statements. I was saying in the DUI cases, once police have arrested you based on probable cause that you were drunk (failing a PBT, a FST, or based on their "observances") they can ask you questions ("How many drinks did you have tonight?" "When did you have your last drink?" "What were you drinking?")
and they can use how you answer against you in a court. This is
after that have taken you into custody, so these are custodial questions. In all other forms of custody, they are inadmissible if you haven't first been Mirandized. In DUI arrests, the SCOTUS said, "We do not know when Miranda should apply in a DUI case, we just know it's later than in other cases." So the SCOTUS has staked out, literally, a DUI exception to the 5th Amendment in that custodial interrogations can be conducted in DUI cases without Mirandizing the suspect and the results of that interrogation are admissible in court.
This isn't the same as blood/breath draws, which are evidence collections (and should require a search warrant IMO.)
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2013, 11:48:47 AM
Is doubling a reason to give a DUI? I think not, but obviously it is a judgment call. Talking on a cell phone, texting while driving, and speeding all increase the risk too. Some of those are against the law, but very rarely do they have the draconian punishments associated with a DUI.
That's a good point.
"Moderate secondary tasks" also double accident risk according to the NHTSA.
That would include things like eating, inserting/removing a CD, combing hair, dialing a handheld, or "looking at an external object" (sorry Caliga). It also would presumably include actively using a GPS to navigate although the NHTSA study didn't break that out specifically.
None of those activities are necessary but yet most of them would not be considered serious candidates for regulation.
There are actually very few career paths where DUI is an immediate bar to employment, or even a significant negative. Federally it doesn't get in the way of secret clearances (I know this from my time as a civilian DoD employee, we had several people get clearance w/DUIs) or etc. If you want to be a LEO, DUI usually is a practical block to any chance of that happening. Many departments expressly prohibit anyone with a DUI from being a LEO and those that don't, it's unlikely you'd get through the hiring process, oral boards etc with a DUI on your record. But, why would you want to be a LEO? That's one of the worst jobs in America. [This is different from people who are already LEOs, they can usually get away with a DUI or three.]
Even many companies that employ truckers hauling hazardous materials, that are significantly regulated by DoT can and do hire guys with DUI on their record as long as it has been more than 12 months in the past and they have certification they've completed alcohol education courses. No State bar will reject a law school graduated with only a DUI on their record, etc etc. Basically as someone who has been involved in hiring decisions for over 15 years I can say categorically most jobs a single DUI on your record is not going to cost you the job. In fact, many employers only ask for felony convictions to be specified and if they do a background check it won't even find the DUI. (Tip to anyone with an embarrassing municipal/county arrest long in their past, many of those records are never digitized and sent in to the State police and thus most background check firms that corporations hire will never find them. At the Federal government level it's different and they will find them, but many corporations do not because the firms they hire do not physically travel to the court house at every place you've lied and looked through the files--which in many cases is the only way they'd find your conviction.)
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2013, 11:48:47 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 16, 2013, 11:32:10 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 16, 2013, 11:26:22 AM
Seems to me there ought to be data out there that could help answer the question.
First, figure out what accident rates are among people between .05 and .08
Then compare against accident rates for people at 0.
Here's what NJ says - in a driving manual
http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/Licenses/Driver%20Manual/Chapter_6.pdf
QuoteIf a motorist has reached a BAC of slightly above .05 percent after drinking, the
risk for causing a motor vehicle accident doubles. The risk is six times as great
when driving with a BAC of .10 percent.
Is doubling a reason to give a DUI? I think not, but obviously it is a judgment call. Talking on a cell phone, texting while driving, and speeding all increase the risk too. Some of those are against the law, but very rarely do they have the draconian punishments associated with a DUI.
I'd be fine with fining people (even a lot) for a .05 BAC, but a DUI is too much.
It's about shaping the culture.
We actually have come a long way. 30 years ago people routinely drove home while blitzed. Now people are very conscious of drinking and driving - yet the problem still persists.
The thinking used to be "it's okay to drink and drive". Now it's "you can't drink too much and drive". The problem is people are pretty poor estimators of what "too much" is. I've seen a lot of files where to be sure the driver is the most sober one in the vehicle, but they're still nicely over the legal limit.
We need to change the thinking to "you can not drink any alcohol and drive". And lowering the limit to 50 is a big part of that.
Even airline pilots get hired with DUIs on their record by the way. [Now, like with HAZMAT truckers, I'm talking people with "civilian" DUIs driving a personal vehicle, truckers driving HAZMAT with over the 0.04 threshold or pilots piloting a plane are not only never going to work again in most cases they actually face vastly elevated charges for their crime versus "ordinary" DUI in a personal vehicle.]
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 16, 2013, 12:16:53 PM
This isn't the same as blood/breath draws, which are evidence collections (and should require a search warrant IMO.)
Terrible idea. Blood / breath demands are very time sensitive. Alcohol is being eliminated by the accused every minute that goes by. Obtaining a warrant takes time. Much better to take the sample and let a judge rule after the fact whether the taking was warranted.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 16, 2013, 12:22:28 PM
There are actually very few career paths where DUI is an immediate bar to employment, or even a significant negative.
Being convicted of an impaired would ruin my career path. :)
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:23:51 PMIt's about shaping the culture.
We actually have come a long way. 30 years ago people routinely drove home while blitzed. Now people are very conscious of drinking and driving - yet the problem still persists.
The thinking used to be "it's okay to drink and drive". Now it's "you can't drink too much and drive". The problem is people are pretty poor estimators of what "too much" is. I've seen a lot of files where to be sure the driver is the most sober one in the vehicle, but they're still nicely over the legal limit.
We need to change the thinking to "you can not drink any alcohol and drive". And lowering the limit to 50 is a big part of that.
That's unreasonable--people should be able to have a drink for dinner. Just because some of you are stupid teetotalers hung up on various psychological/religious problems with alcohol you should not be able to imprint your personal morality on everyone just because you're too much of a loser to have a healthy relationship with alcohol.
You make good points that laws against certain BAC are easier to enforce, I agree with you there--BAC is measurable while other forms of impairment are more difficult to measure. But to me, that's totally beside the point, the question should be "what level of impairment are we willing to accept in drivers?" If the answer is legitimately zero, then I want the same penalties for talking on a cell phone--in any form, as you'd get for DUI. I want bluetooth hands free banned from cars, radios removed from cars, and I want drinking, eating, or etc prohibited while driving as well.
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:23:51 PM
We need to change the thinking to "you can not drink any alcohol and drive". And lowering the limit to 50 is a big part of that.
In non-urban areas, that must make going out a pain/costly.
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:26:33 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 16, 2013, 12:16:53 PM
This isn't the same as blood/breath draws, which are evidence collections (and should require a search warrant IMO.)
Terrible idea. Blood / breath demands are very time sensitive. Alcohol is being eliminated by the accused every minute that goes by. Obtaining a warrant takes time. Much better to take the sample and let a judge rule after the fact whether the taking was warranted.
Rights are not there to be put aside whenever they are inconvenient for criminal investigations. :huh: This is standard and understood here on basically every other issue, unless you've got "hot pursuit" or "exigent circumstances" you generally need a warrant and I'd argue nothing about DUI would realistically qualify as an exigent circumstance if not for all the kooky "exceptions" to standard Constitutional interpretation the SCOTUS has promulgated in regard to DUI cases.
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:27:48 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 16, 2013, 12:22:28 PM
There are actually very few career paths where DUI is an immediate bar to employment, or even a significant negative.
Being convicted of an impaired would ruin my career path. :)
In the U.S. speaking from experience it would only affect probably less than 2% of people in their careers. Like I said, it's no bar to government employment, high security clearance, it's not a bar to transportation jobs (the field it would be the largest concern in), isn't a bar to getting a teaching job, and virtually no corporations would decline to hire over DUI. Now, this all is assuming "past DUI" as in a few years old. Someone with a fresh one will have trouble anywhere, but that's true for any misdemeanor. Misdemeanor drug possession is way different though, misdemeanor possession of marijuana here is a true black mark for many government jobs and private sector jobs alike.
Here in Virginia, Commonwealth's Attorneys are elected officials who oversee criminal prosecution in their jurisdictions (typically a county.) Their Assistants/Associates are civil servants who do the actual prosecutorial work. We had one here who had five DUIs on his record while working for the CA before he was fired (his fifth one in the newspaper was when he got the can.) So it's not a bar to a similar career path here.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 16, 2013, 12:30:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:23:51 PMIt's about shaping the culture.
We actually have come a long way. 30 years ago people routinely drove home while blitzed. Now people are very conscious of drinking and driving - yet the problem still persists.
The thinking used to be "it's okay to drink and drive". Now it's "you can't drink too much and drive". The problem is people are pretty poor estimators of what "too much" is. I've seen a lot of files where to be sure the driver is the most sober one in the vehicle, but they're still nicely over the legal limit.
We need to change the thinking to "you can not drink any alcohol and drive". And lowering the limit to 50 is a big part of that.
That's unreasonable--people should be able to have a drink for dinner. Just because some of you are stupid teetotalers hung up on various psychological/religious problems with alcohol you should not be able to imprint your personal morality on everyone just because you're too much of a loser to have a healthy relationship with alcohol.
You make good points that laws against certain BAC are easier to enforce, I agree with you there--BAC is measurable while other forms of impairment are more difficult to measure. But to me, that's totally beside the point, the question should be "what level of impairment are we willing to accept in drivers?" If the answer is legitimately zero, then I want the same penalties for talking on a cell phone--in any form, as you'd get for DUI. I want bluetooth hands free banned from cars, radios removed from cars, and I want drinking, eating, or etc prohibited while driving as well.
And in fact with a 50 limit you can have a drink with your dinner. Unless you're a petite female you can have two.
The problem is a 50 driver can quickly become a 100, and then a 150.
Using bluetooth is not that same kind of slippery slope. We don't need to crack down on someone changing the radio station so that we can also prevent someone from recording a new song while driving down the road.
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:23:51 PM
We need to change the thinking to "you can not drink any alcohol and drive".
Why?
You don't have to crack down on changing the radio station, that's hard to enforce. Just require cars not be sold with radios. In many States your car is subject to a mandatory annual inspection, if a radio is found installed after-market in the car, it fails inspection. If you get pulled over for some other reason and a radio is found installed in the car, you're punished the same as you would be for DUI. Or you can make them like DVD players in the front driving area, they have to be installed so that they are non-operational when the car is out of park or you're in violation of the law.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2013, 12:39:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:23:51 PM
We need to change the thinking to "you can not drink any alcohol and drive".
Why?
Because in 2010 1,082 Canadians were killed by drunk drivers. 63,821 Canadians were injured by drunk drivers.
http://www.madd.ca/madd2/en/impaired_driving/impaired_driving_statistics.html
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:44:04 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2013, 12:39:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:23:51 PM
We need to change the thinking to "you can not drink any alcohol and drive".
Why?
Because in 2010 1,082 Canadians were killed by drunk drivers. 63,821 Canadians were injured by drunk drivers.
http://www.madd.ca/madd2/en/impaired_driving/impaired_driving_statistics.html
If only you had laws about vehicular homicide or reckless driving to weed out the drunk drivers that actually hurt someone else, as opposed to a driver who made it home safely...
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 16, 2013, 12:36:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:27:48 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 16, 2013, 12:22:28 PM
There are actually very few career paths where DUI is an immediate bar to employment, or even a significant negative.
Being convicted of an impaired would ruin my career path. :)
In the U.S. speaking from experience it would only affect probably less than 2% of people in their careers. Like I said, it's no bar to government employment, high security clearance, it's not a bar to transportation jobs (the field it would be the largest concern in), isn't a bar to getting a teaching job, and virtually no corporations would decline to hire over DUI. Now, this all is assuming "past DUI" as in a few years old. Someone with a fresh one will have trouble anywhere, but that's true for any misdemeanor. Misdemeanor drug possession is way different though, misdemeanor possession of marijuana here is a true black mark for many government jobs and private sector jobs alike.
Here in Virginia, Commonwealth's Attorneys are elected officials who oversee criminal prosecution in their jurisdictions (typically a county.) Their Assistants/Associates are civil servants who do the actual prosecutorial work. We had one here who had five DUIs on his record while working for the CA before he was fired (his fifth one in the newspaper was when he got the can.) So it's not a bar to a similar career path here.
That's all well and good - but you are talking about people who have an impaired in the past.
A lot of the people I prosecute risk losing their jobs not because of the conviction, but by losing their license. Yes maybe they can get it back again in a year, but that's a hard sell.
Quote from: ulmont on May 16, 2013, 12:48:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:44:04 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2013, 12:39:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:23:51 PM
We need to change the thinking to "you can not drink any alcohol and drive".
Why?
Because in 2010 1,082 Canadians were killed by drunk drivers. 63,821 Canadians were injured by drunk drivers.
http://www.madd.ca/madd2/en/impaired_driving/impaired_driving_statistics.html
If only you had laws about vehicular homicide or reckless driving to weed out the drunk drivers that actually hurt someone else, as opposed to a driver who made it home safely...
But you can't. :huh:
We have laws against all kinds of things that are only potentially risky. The reason it is against the law to carry a concealed weapon isn't because carrying that weapon is risky in and of itself - it's because it might be used. Same for unsafe storage of firearms laws.
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:50:41 PM
But you can't. :huh:
You can't prosecute a drunk driver for vehicular homicide? I doubt that.
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:50:41 PM
We have laws against all kinds of things that are only potentially risky. The reason it is against the law to carry a concealed weapon isn't because carrying that weapon is risky in and of itself - it's because it might be used. Same for unsafe storage of firearms laws.
I'm not sure that analogies to restrictive firearms laws are going to be your best argument for harsh DUI laws here, Barrister... :hmm:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 16, 2013, 12:20:42 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2013, 11:48:47 AM
Is doubling a reason to give a DUI? I think not, but obviously it is a judgment call. Talking on a cell phone, texting while driving, and speeding all increase the risk too. Some of those are against the law, but very rarely do they have the draconian punishments associated with a DUI.
That's a good point.
"Moderate secondary tasks" also double accident risk according to the NHTSA.
That would include things like eating, inserting/removing a CD, combing hair, dialing a handheld, or "looking at an external object" (sorry Caliga). It also would presumably include actively using a GPS to navigate although the NHTSA study didn't break that out specifically.
None of those activities are necessary but yet most of them would not be considered serious candidates for regulation.
How is the risk defined on a time scale? Are you at double the risk of a crash for the entire trip if you play with your GPS once during an hour-long trip, or are you at double the risk only for the few seconds you're playing with it? It's very hard to compare such behaviors with drunk drivers (who are obviously drunk through the whole trip) without knowing the exposure base of these stated risks.
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:44:04 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2013, 12:39:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:23:51 PM
We need to change the thinking to "you can not drink any alcohol and drive".
Why?
Because in 2010 1,082 Canadians were killed by drunk drivers. 63,821 Canadians were injured by drunk drivers.
http://www.madd.ca/madd2/en/impaired_driving/impaired_driving_statistics.html
Those people were presumably drinking more than one or two drinks. If you want to hammer people that drive while seriously impaired, I'm with you. I'm just not convinced there is an epidemic of serious accident and injury caused by people who have had minimal alcohol intake (which would be impacted by the prohibition you want to move toward).
I would not mind the idea of a graduated penalty structure - something like over .8 is DUI, but over .5 is just "driving while influenced" or something.
So Ulmont - is your thinking that we should prosecute offences where a drunk has caused an accident, but not where they have gotten home safely?
Is that an honestly held belief, or some weird straw man / devil's advocate type position?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 15, 2013, 11:13:10 PM
Quote from: sbr on May 15, 2013, 10:46:11 PM
Won't someone think of the Children?!
I try, but then I think of their backtalk, their clothes, their poor study habits, etc. and it makes me need a drink. This really is a catch 22.
Amen, bruddah!
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2013, 12:54:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:44:04 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2013, 12:39:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:23:51 PM
We need to change the thinking to "you can not drink any alcohol and drive".
Why?
Because in 2010 1,082 Canadians were killed by drunk drivers. 63,821 Canadians were injured by drunk drivers.
http://www.madd.ca/madd2/en/impaired_driving/impaired_driving_statistics.html
Those people were presumably drinking more than one or two drinks. If you want to hammer people that drive while seriously impaired, I'm with you. I'm just not convinced there is an epidemic of serious accident and injury caused by people who have had minimal alcohol intake (which would be impacted by the prohibition you want to move toward).
Do you not see why restricting people from drinking 'moderate' amounts of alcohol, which in this case is roughly 3-5 drinks, and then driving, would also help us discourage people from drinking larger amounts of alcohol and driving?
Havent read the thread but here is some data from a recent change in BC from .08 to .05
QuoteTwo years after B.C. introduced Canada's toughest provincial impaired driving law, an estimated 104 lives have been saved and impaired driving has dropped significantly.
At an event today to mark the National Day of Remembrance for Road Crash Victims and Mothers Against Drunk Driving's 25th annual Project Red Ribbon, Justice Minister and Attorney General Shirley Bond announced preliminary road-crash fatality data for the two years ending Sept. 30, 2012, and the results of a recent driver impairment survey.
Since the September 2010 launch of the immediate roadside prohibition (IRP) program, the number of alcohol-related motor vehicle deaths has decreased to an average of 62 a year. This represents a 46 per cent decrease from the average of 114 in each of the previous five years. This success well exceeds government's goal, set in 2010 in honour of impaired driving victim Alexa Middelaer, to reduce alcohol-impaired driving fatalities by 35 per cent by the end of 2013.
Government also released today an independently conducted survey of drivers in Abbotsford, Kelowna, Prince George, Saanich and Vancouver. It took place in June 2010 and June 2012 as part of an evaluation of the impact of B.C.'s IRP legislation. The 2012 Roadside Alcohol and Drug Survey found 44 per cent fewer drivers had a blood-alcohol content (BAC) 0.05 per cent and over - and nearly 60 per cent fewer drivers were at or over the Criminal Code threshold of 0.08 per cent. The results also showed that levels of drinking and driving were the lowest recorded in the history of seven similar surveys conducted since 1995.
Quote from: DGuller on May 16, 2013, 12:52:58 PM
How is the risk defined on a time scale? Are you at double the risk of a crash for the entire trip if you play with your GPS once during an hour-long trip, or are you at double the risk only for the few seconds you're playing with it? It's very hard to compare such behaviors with drunk drivers (who are obviously drunk through the whole trip)
Also a good point, except for the last sentence which is not a sound assumption, especially for the category we are talking about: people with BACs above .05 but below .08. For those people, most likely many or even most of the trips they take are at 0 BAC (i.e. they aren't at .07 for the morning commute or a Sunday drive). And for those who might start a trip at .05 or .06 (a pint after work), it is very probably their BAC will fall below the threshold well before the destination is reached.
What was done in BC (and in Alberta) is similar to what Berkut talked about. If you blow over 50 you get an administrative license suspension and fine, but it's not a criminal offence.
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 01:00:22 PM
Do you not see why restricting people from drinking 'moderate' amounts of alcohol, which in this case is roughly 3-5 drinks, and then driving, would also help us discourage people from drinking larger amounts of alcohol and driving?
It would. Criminalizing all alcohol possession would probably also reduce drunk driving.
I just don't think that putting harsh criminal penalties in place for behavior that is not especially dangerous is justified. I believe the punishment should fit the crime. I do not believe that the punishment should fit the crime that the activity could lead to if taken to excess.
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:49:12 PMThat's all well and good - but you are talking about people who have an impaired in the past.
A lot of the people I prosecute risk losing their jobs not because of the conviction, but by losing their license. Yes maybe they can get it back again in a year, but that's a hard sell.
Well, in the U.S. most states now have an interlock system. I think those strike a nice balance between punishing someone for what they did, protecting the public, and not creating social ills from misdemeanor prosecutions. It's not really to the benefit of society to expand the unemployment/welfare rolls when someone drinks and drives if there is a valid alternative (and I think the interlock is--and it is plenty punishment for first offense DUI when you factor in having to spend hundreds of dollars on alcohol education classes, usually $50-100/mo for the interlock service + the installation fee, the fine/court costs from the criminal charge itself, and the DMV fees for ultimately getting your license fully reinstated when it's all over.)
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2013, 01:14:31 PMIt would. Criminalizing all alcohol possession would probably also reduce drunk driving.
I just don't think that putting harsh criminal penalties in place for behavior that is not especially dangerous is justified. I believe the punishment should fit the crime. I do not believe that the punishment should fit the crime that the activity could lead to if taken to excess.
And that's the problem with teetotalers, they have no respect for the rich history of fine alcoholic beverages dating back thousands of years and how human society itself was in part structured around producing this stuff. To try and remove it from public life is basically anathema to the cultural heritage of all mankind, and because some people never learned to enjoy fine alcohol products like adults. It really makes no sense to say, "well when it's abused it's a problem, so we should punish it even when it's not really being abused." Some people basically want all alcohol banned despite evidence it doesn't work, or they want its use so restricted you can only have it while at home behind closed doors and shuttered windows.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 16, 2013, 01:18:42 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2013, 01:14:31 PMIt would. Criminalizing all alcohol possession would probably also reduce drunk driving.
I just don't think that putting harsh criminal penalties in place for behavior that is not especially dangerous is justified. I believe the punishment should fit the crime. I do not believe that the punishment should fit the crime that the activity could lead to if taken to excess.
And that's the problem with teetotalers, they have no respect for the rich history of fine alcoholic beverages dating back thousands of years and how human society itself was in part structured around producing this stuff. To try and remove it from public life is basically anathema to the cultural heritage of all mankind, and because some people never learned to enjoy fine alcohol products like adults. It really makes no sense to say, "well when it's abused it's a problem, so we should punish it even when it's not really being abused." Some people basically want all alcohol banned despite evidence it doesn't work, or they want its use so restricted you can only have it while at home behind closed doors and shuttered windows.
I am certainly not a teetotaller. :lmfao:
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:57:43 PM
So Ulmont - is your thinking that we should prosecute offences where a drunk has caused an accident, but not where they have gotten home safely?
Yes.*
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:57:43 PM
Is that an honestly held belief, or some weird straw man / devil's advocate type position?
Honestly held belief. If someone who has some amount of alcohol > X in their bloodstream (obviously, what specific X one might pick is open for debate) arrives at their destination safely, we have no victim. I am opposed to victimless crimes.
*EDIT: with the caveat that breaches of other generally applicable traffic regulations may of course be applied to people with some amount of alcohol > X.
Quote from: ulmont on May 16, 2013, 01:26:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:57:43 PM
So Ulmont - is your thinking that we should prosecute offences where a drunk has caused an accident, but not where they have gotten home safely?
Yes.
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:57:43 PM
Is that an honestly held belief, or some weird straw man / devil's advocate type position?
Honestly held belief. If someone who has some amount of alcohol > X in their bloodstream (obviously, what specific X one might pick is open for debate) arrives at their destination safely, we have no victim. I am opposed to victimless crimes.
So lets say a homeowner walks out their front steps, pulls out their pistol and casually starts letting off shots, not aiming at anyone or anything in particular. If no one winds up being injured this fellow has done nothing wrong?
Anyone who drinks less than me is a teetotaler.
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 01:00:22 PM
Do you not see why restricting people from drinking 'moderate' amounts of alcohol, which in this case is roughly 3-5 drinks, and then driving, would also help us discourage people from drinking larger amounts of alcohol and driving?
I thought AF said 1-2 drinks. Since when is drinking 3-4 drinks considered moderate amounts? If I sat down and had a half a sixpack I would think I had consumed quite a bit. Besides do not move the goal posts, you are saying we should all be criminals if we drink anything at all and drive.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 16, 2013, 01:29:17 PM
Anyone who drinks less than me is a teetotaler.
That sounds like a challenge. :menace:
I actually have a radically opposite view from ulmont. I think the problem with the law all too often is that it punishes for results, not actions. Given that the world we leave in is probabilistic, punishing for results is in effect punishing for bad luck. That's a sub-optimal strategy for prevention, since people can't control their luck, but they can control their actions. If anything, it makes much more sense to punish every drunk driver the same, whether they killed someone on the way home or not.
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2013, 01:29:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 01:00:22 PM
Do you not see why restricting people from drinking 'moderate' amounts of alcohol, which in this case is roughly 3-5 drinks, and then driving, would also help us discourage people from drinking larger amounts of alcohol and driving?
I thought AF said 1-2 drinks. Since when is drinking 3-4 drinks considered moderate amounts? If I sat down and had a half a sixpack I would think I had consumed quite a bit.
Because as I have said, 1-2 drinks is <50 BAC. 3-4 puts you in the 50-100 range that we're talking about. People don't understand how much you have to drink before you blow over.
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 01:29:01 PM
So lets say a homeowner walks out their front steps, pulls out their pistol and casually starts letting off shots, not aiming at anyone or anything in particular. If no one winds up being injured this fellow has done nothing wrong?
Other than potentially, in no particular order, trespass, criminal damage to property, and assault, no. I further note that my parents actually could pull this off without committing any crimes, so you'd have to be a wee bit more specific.
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 01:32:09 PM
Because as I have said, 1-2 drinks is <50 BAC. 3-4 puts you in the 50-100 range that we're talking about. People don't understand how much you have to drink before you blow over.
But you want >10 BAC to get me busted right?
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2013, 01:36:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 01:32:09 PM
Because as I have said, 1-2 drinks is <50 BAC. 3-4 puts you in the 50-100 range that we're talking about. People don't understand how much you have to drink before you blow over.
But you want >10 BAC to get me busted right?
There's a trouble with units here. The language in our Criminal Code is "milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood", and so that is what I use. The current legal limit is 80, and we're discussing reducing it to 50.
50 translates to .05, and 80 translates to .08.
Not sure what your 10 refers to.
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 01:39:07 PM
There's a trouble with units here. The language in our Criminal Code is "milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood", and so that is what I use. The current legal limit is 80, and we're discussing reducing it to 50.
50 translates to .05, and 80 translates to .08.
Not sure what your 10 refers to.
It refers to .01. You said you wanted all alcohol levels criminalized.
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2013, 01:40:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 01:39:07 PM
There's a trouble with units here. The language in our Criminal Code is "milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood", and so that is what I use. The current legal limit is 80, and we're discussing reducing it to 50.
50 translates to .05, and 80 translates to .08.
Not sure what your 10 refers to.
It refers to .01. You said you wanted all alcohol levels criminalized.
Nu'uh. Did not.
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:23:51 PM
We need to change the thinking to "you can not drink any alcohol and drive". And lowering the limit to 50 is a big part of that.
If that is not the end-game what did you have in mind? If I can go out and have a drink with dinner and drive home doesn't that ruin your little plan of changing my thinking?
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2013, 01:48:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:23:51 PM
We need to change the thinking to "you can not drink any alcohol and drive". And lowering the limit to 50 is a big part of that.
If that is not the end-game what did you have in mind? If I can go out and have a drink with dinner and drive home doesn't that ruin your little plan of changing my thinking?
50 sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It allows you to (depending on body weight and how fast you consume) 2 drinks with your dinner and still be fine.
Quote from: DGuller on May 16, 2013, 01:31:04 PM
I actually have a radically opposite view from ulmont. I think the problem with the law all too often is that it punishes for results, not actions. Given that the world we leave in is probabilistic, punishing for results is in effect punishing for bad luck. That's a sub-optimal strategy for prevention, since people can't control their luck, but they can control their actions. If anything, it makes much more sense to punish every drunk driver the same, whether they killed someone on the way home or not.
Just as it makes sense to punish everyone who gives their four year old child a rifle - whether or not that child uses it to kill a sibling?
This will surprise the gun nuts around here. But I dont think that makes much sense at all. What makes much more sense is reasonable regulation of behaviour. In the context of drinking and driving laws the kind of progressive punishment we use here in BC makes sense.
Crazy canuck saw an opportunity to hijack this thread, and by jove he took it.
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 02:04:46 PM
Crazy canuck saw an opportunity to hijack this thread, and by jove he took it.
Not really. If we go down the road of criminalizing all behaviour that might pose a risk we would have very little ability to do anything.
Haven't read every single post in the last day or so, don't necessarily agree with Beeb's position, but quite impressive the way he dealing with several counterparties simultaneously. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 01:08:10 PM
What was done in BC (and in Alberta) is similar to what Berkut talked about. If you blow over 50 you get an administrative license suspension and fine, but it's not a criminal offence.
Yet another example of my brilliance.
Berkut: He
saves lives!
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 01:52:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2013, 01:48:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 12:23:51 PM
We need to change the thinking to "you can not drink any alcohol and drive". And lowering the limit to 50 is a big part of that.
If that is not the end-game what did you have in mind? If I can go out and have a drink with dinner and drive home doesn't that ruin your little plan of changing my thinking?
50 sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It allows you to (depending on body weight and how fast you consume) 2 drinks with your dinner and still be fine.
Well I am fine with it goint to .05 and staying there. It just sounded like you were saying we needed to get society to just never drink period and drive and this was just another step.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 16, 2013, 02:11:10 PM
Haven't read every single post in the last day or so, don't necessarily agree with Beeb's position, but quite impressive the way he dealing with several counterparties simultaneously. :thumbsup:
He has gotten used to taking down multiple defense attorney excuses at once!
Well that or maybe him weighing in with his unpopular views in these sorts of areas has given him practice :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 16, 2013, 01:58:47 PM
Just as it makes sense to punish everyone who gives their four year old child a rifle - whether or not that child uses it to kill a sibling?
Yes. I'm not saying that the punishment should be the same as the punishment we dish out now for killing. Let's say that on average, an idiot parent who buys his child a bazooka will kill 0.001 children. Thus, every idiot parent should be punished for 0.001 murders. We shouldn't punish the lucky idiots for zero murders, and unlucky idiots for 1 murder.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 16, 2013, 02:11:10 PM
Haven't read every single post in the last day or so, don't necessarily agree with Beeb's position, but quite impressive the way he dealing with several counterparties simultaneously. :thumbsup:
Arguing about drunk driving is literally what I do for a living every day. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 03:25:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 16, 2013, 02:11:10 PM
Haven't read every single post in the last day or so, don't necessarily agree with Beeb's position, but quite impressive the way he dealing with several counterparties simultaneously. :thumbsup:
Arguing about drunk driving is literally what I do for a living every day. :cool:
Well, one would think you'd be better at it then :angry:
:P
A story concerning alcohol use and job prospects came to me on the way home. So we had a guy we were getting through the hiring process a subordinate of mine had decided to hire. He came in one day to report a...concerning incident from the weekend that my employee brought to me for advice on what to do. So our prospective hire basically says he was out with friends at a bar (he was a younger guy, mid-20s), and had too much to drink. He got separated from his friends and became disoriented as he was not in the town where he lives and was planning to stay with one of his friends that night. He finally arrives at a home he believes to be that of his friend, but finds the door locked and no one answers it. He breaks the door down because he assumes this is the home where he is supposed to be staying and in his intoxicated state he's under the impression that's the best thing to do.
He then passes out in the home. Except, the house belonged to an older woman who lived by herself but was out of the country for an extended vacation. Eventually the next morning when neighbors see the state of her front door, they call the local police, who arrive to find our prospective employee passed out in the home. He's charged with misdemeanor breaking and entering, and felony destruction of a Historical Landmark (the house was on the national register of historic places or some such, or maybe a local register.)
I was a little surprised to say the least when my employee brought this to me, my employee had talked with the guy and thought about the situation and he was still comfortable with hiring. Plus, from an HR perspective while obviously we can call criminal background and personal judgment type issues into question, for various political reasons policies as written for the civilian employees of the DoD (this was back in my DoD days--and this guy was a highly educated, professional-track guy in a specialized technology field) we couldn't just say no to someone because they were charged with a crime. We still could have stopped his hire at that point, but with my employee going to bat for him I was willing to consider our options. So I have the guy come in to speak with me personally, and he gives me a pretty good explanation that I can sympathize with, in that he simply became too intoxicated and made some bad decisions. So when talk to our people who are doing his security clearance and stuff, and they get back to us in a few days basically saying that anything related to alcohol that isn't a "pattern of behavior" isn't an immediate problem for them, and they'll get back to us. Ended up we hire the guy and years later now he's a pretty high ranking guy overseeing some big research project at the Department of the Navy after some career changes.
But interestingly there was a detail of his adventuresome night he left out of his telling to us, and I only found out maybe two years later when on a whim I decided to check up on his incident in a local newspaper search. I found the police blurb from the night of his arrest and it said something like, "Police arrived at the residence to find the front door broken in. They found the door to one of the downstairs bathrooms blocked, when they pushed it open they found an extremely intoxicated male unconscious on the other side of the door who appeared to be covered in his own feces." I was basically in shock when I read it, it wasn't a material part of his criminal charge so it wasn't like he had lied to us (and I sure as hell wouldn't have shared those details) but I can't imagine having my name in the papers with that story attached to it. Also confirms earlier when I said no one should want to be a LEO, I'm sure that was not that officer's first time dealing with a situation like that.
Stories like this remind me I really have no idea what it is like to be drunk. Even in my worst moments I never got anywhere near drunk enough to do that.
It's very difficult to get that drunk just from regular drinking. But if you hardcore binge drink your BAC spikes very high and you get very, very intoxicated to the point most people black out. Most people at that point spend the rest of the night in a mixed state of unconsciousness and vomiting but some people retain a degree of function while blacked out and can get into big troubles. It really can't happen with regular drinking, and is something you only see with mostly younger males engaging in the kind of hardcore binge drinking associated with that group. Basically people that use beer bongs to drink 10 beers in 1.5 hours or take shot after shot of liquor or something else that's out of bounds with how you're supposed to enjoy alcohol.
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2013, 03:40:18 PM
Stories like this remind me I really have no idea what it is like to be drunk. Even in my worst moments I never got anywhere near drunk enough to do that.
That's why alcohol can be a real bitch sometimes. I mean - it tastes good. It can feel great to be drunk. But maybe twice I've gotten so blotto drunk I couldn't remember what I was even doing, and that SUCKS.
Mind you what I was doing wasn't in any way bad - I guess I'm a pretty happy drunk.
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2013, 03:40:18 PM
Stories like this remind me I really have no idea what it is like to be drunk. Even in my worst moments I never got anywhere near drunk enough to do that.
Never woken up with the cops harrasing you because you are covered with your own shit in some old lady's house?
You are just no fun. :P
Reminds me of the "naked chef" incident my friend told me about.
Basically, my friend goes on a date with this chef dude who proceeds to get righteously hammered - to the point where he basically passes out on her couch. She throws a blanket over him and goes to bed by herself. Next thing she knows, some cops are in her bedroom asking if she's okay.
Waht happened is this: chef dude wakes up, still hammered. Decides to get naked and find my friend. But first, he needed to pee. So he looked for the can ... but was so drunk that he just walked out the door of her apartment instead. Eventually, he wanders out the door of the building, which shuts and locks behind him. He has a pee on the front lawn, but can't get back in ... so he goes to sleep on the "welcome" mat.
Next morning, early, landlord is up and about and finds a naked body on his welcome mat. Police are called. They wake chef dude and take him to the station. Chef dude has no idea what number of apartment he came from. Cops look around for the one with the open door and wander in.
The kicker? His
wife came to collect him from the station! [Naturally, he'd made no mention of her existence before to my friend]. :lol:
A second date was not had.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 16, 2013, 03:49:12 PM
It's very difficult to get that drunk just from regular drinking. But if you hardcore binge drink your BAC spikes very high and you get very, very intoxicated to the point most people black out. Most people at that point spend the rest of the night in a mixed state of unconsciousness and vomiting but some people retain a degree of function while blacked out and can get into big troubles. It really can't happen with regular drinking, and is something you only see with mostly younger males engaging in the kind of hardcore binge drinking associated with that group. Basically people that use beer bongs to drink 10 beers in 1.5 hours or take shot after shot of liquor or something else that's out of bounds with how you're supposed to enjoy alcohol.
I was gonna say the only way to get that drunk is to get drunk first then engage in competitive drinking after you're drunk.
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 03:50:35 PMThat's why alcohol can be a real bitch sometimes. I mean - it tastes good. It can feel great to be drunk. But maybe twice I've gotten so blotto drunk I couldn't remember what I was even doing, and that SUCKS.
Mind you what I was doing wasn't in any way bad - I guess I'm a pretty happy drunk.
Yeah, from what I've seen the collegiate style binge drinking is what will usually bring this out. But there have been a few times in my life when I've had "long days" that start with early morning golf where we're drinking, then lunch where we're drinking, then a cookout where we start drinking heavily where the sheer accumulation of alcohol gets me nice and drunk by the waning hours of day and I've gotten to that point that way. But typically normal drinking I've never had that happen, and even heavy drinking over the course of a day it only very rarely has lead to that--but it can happen.
For many people there is a safety valve in that the more you drink the closer you get to just passing out which removes you from trouble, but sometimes your mind basically passes out but your body keeps going. There's a guy I know about from news stories and such who was like a senior in college from a really wealthy family who got really drunk by bonging beers. He drives home on the interstate, people who saw him going by said it was uncanny because he was perfectly within the lines, no swerving, going normal interstate speeds (not slow and not speeding.) He was basically driving perfectly--except he was going northbound on the southbound interstate lanes. When he collided with another car he killed three people and ended up getting an extremely long prison sentence (I think 45+ years or something.) Anyway, he now is big into educational outreach while in prison, and in his telling of the story he says what's so horrible is he has absolutely no recollection of ever getting in the car. He had every intention when he drove to that party that night to crash with his friends, and the last thing he remembers he was just talking with some of them outside. The next memory he has is being under arrest in the hospital. [His wealthy dad is a real piece of work, the son is basically deeply remorseful for what he did, makes no excuses, thinks he fully got the punishment he deserves etc. The dad in every interview he's ever given makes excuses, claims his son was drugged etc.]
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 16, 2013, 03:53:45 PM
I was gonna say the only way to get that drunk is to get drunk first then engage in competitive drinking after you're drunk.
And you have to have a shitload of experience drinking, because normal people are just going to get too sick to keep drinking at some point.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 16, 2013, 03:53:45 PM
I was gonna say the only way to get that drunk is to get drunk first then engage in competitive drinking after you're drunk.
I did that. Once.
Drinking simply affects different people differently.
I'm a happy drunk - I get talkative and then sleepy. My wife's sister's husband is a violent, paranoid drunk - you just don't want to be near him when he's been drinking. Similarly, most people simply get sick if they have had too much, and eventually pass out, but others do not.
Also my personal rule post "party years" of my 20s for drinking and driving is basically I take however many drinks I can drink in one hour and still be under .04 (so half the legal limit) and that's how many drinks I'll have and then still drive. For me, at my weight, I can have 3 drinks in hour and be under .04.
But mind, that's my rule for total drinks during the whole night. In practice we're usually talking 3-4 hours at a friend's house or 1.5-2 hours at a restaurant, so in practice my BAC never gets that close to .04.
The only exceptions are really long affairs, like golf days or long cook outs where I plan to drive home. I'll usually allow myself a maximum of 6 beers for the day as long as the drinking is over at least 4+ hours. And actually a typical event like that I might drink six beers, but over six hours time--and that's actually not only lower than .04 but like under .01 BAC; because a beer an hour and you never accumulate a high blood alcohol concentration. I could realistically probably drink twice that in a 6 hour event, but I feel you start playing loose with it and trouble comes. If I know I'm getting intoxicated I'd rather just do it and have my wife drive and not play the counting game--so when I do drink and drive I do it under some rough guidelines to make sure I'm not only never close to .08 but never close to being at a point where I'd make a bad decision to even try tempting fate.
If I am driving I just dont drink at all anymore. One of the reasons I enjoy entertaining at my house. :D
Nothing livens up a party like someone mathematically calculating his BAC the entire fucking time.
Quote from: fahdiz on May 16, 2013, 04:42:26 PM
Nothing livens up a party like someone mathematically calculating his BAC the entire fucking time.
:thumbsup:
Actually only if a slide rule is involved.
I had a friend who did something similar to Otto's story.
He got REALLY drunk, took a cab home and then couldn't get into what he thought was his own house. The key didn't work, the back door wouldn't open and he couldn't find the spare key. So he kicked the door down and lucky he wasn't shot by the homeowner who was standing just on the other side of the door.
Quote from: fahdiz on May 16, 2013, 04:42:26 PM
Nothing livens up a party like someone mathematically calculating his BAC the entire fucking time.
Having run too many impaired trials, and having heard too many experts testify, I can not help but calculate my estimated BAC in my head. :Embarrass:
And I've seen a handful of files similar to Otto's. My favourite was actually a client of mine - guy got whacked out of his gourd on mushrooms, busted into his neighbours's house, cut himself doing so and for some reason took his clothes off. Home owner freaked out when they came home and found a naked, bleeding man in their bathroom.
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 03:25:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 16, 2013, 02:11:10 PM
Haven't read every single post in the last day or so, don't necessarily agree with Beeb's position, but quite impressive the way he dealing with several counterparties simultaneously. :thumbsup:
Arguing about drunk driving is literally what I do for a living every day. :cool:
Sad really, lots of human potential wasted.
Was watching a programme about the NHS last night, and nearly ever case was caused or complicated by the people smoking. And after they' been seen to/patched, they all continued to smoke. :(
Quote from: Malthus on May 16, 2013, 04:02:11 PM
I'm a happy drunk - I get talkative and then sleepy.
Ditto. People at work don't know me as being very talkative, but people I pretty much only hang out with during happy hour think I'm a chatterbox.
When I drink I like to pick fights with girls and cripples.
HEY NOW
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 16, 2013, 07:23:03 PM
When I drink I like to pick fights with girls and cripples.
Channelling Andy Kaufman, eh?
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 01:42:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2013, 01:40:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 01:39:07 PM
There's a trouble with units here. The language in our Criminal Code is "milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood", and so that is what I use. The current legal limit is 80, and we're discussing reducing it to 50.
50 translates to .05, and 80 translates to .08.
Not sure what your 10 refers to.
It refers to .01. You said you wanted all alcohol levels criminalized.
Nu'uh. Did not.
You said "We need to change the thinking to "you can not drink any alcohol and drive". And lowering the limit to 50 is a big part of that."
I don't know how we can change the thinking that you can not drink any alcohol and drive without legal prohibitions (admittedly not criminalization). But you think we can do that from .05 to zero, then lets try that from .08 to .05 too.
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 01:32:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2013, 01:29:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 01:00:22 PM
Do you not see why restricting people from drinking 'moderate' amounts of alcohol, which in this case is roughly 3-5 drinks, and then driving, would also help us discourage people from drinking larger amounts of alcohol and driving?
I thought AF said 1-2 drinks. Since when is drinking 3-4 drinks considered moderate amounts? If I sat down and had a half a sixpack I would think I had consumed quite a bit.
Because as I have said, 1-2 drinks is <50 BAC. 3-4 puts you in the 50-100 range that we're talking about. People don't understand how much you have to drink before you blow over.
According to my reading of Garbon's chart posted upthread, 2 drinks is .05 for a male up to 160 pounds. Is Garbon's chart wrong (or am I reading it wrong, which seems to have some precedent :blush:)
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2013, 08:26:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 01:32:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2013, 01:29:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 16, 2013, 01:00:22 PM
Do you not see why restricting people from drinking 'moderate' amounts of alcohol, which in this case is roughly 3-5 drinks, and then driving, would also help us discourage people from drinking larger amounts of alcohol and driving?
I thought AF said 1-2 drinks. Since when is drinking 3-4 drinks considered moderate amounts? If I sat down and had a half a sixpack I would think I had consumed quite a bit.
Because as I have said, 1-2 drinks is <50 BAC. 3-4 puts you in the 50-100 range that we're talking about. People don't understand how much you have to drink before you blow over.
According to my reading of Garbon's chart posted upthread, 2 drinks is .05 for a male up to 160 pounds. Is Garbon's chart wrong (or am I reading it wrong, which seems to have some precedent :blush:)
You read it just fine. That's why I said 1-2 drinks if <50. Someone with a pretty low bodyweight can go over 50 with 2 drinks (think it's less than 160 lb though).
Remember though, to have those 2 drinks put you over, you need A: to drink them both quite quickly, and B: to be driving 30 minutes later, once you have full absorption. Once you start adding any amount of time in there you introduce elimination into the equation.
Actually, I went to Garbon's chart. I was looking at men.
Women seem to be a different scale. The average woman who weighs 100 pounds (per the A&F catalog) apparently hits .05 with just one drink. A woman up to 200 pounds hits it with 2. A 140 pound woman is apparently .07 after 2 drinks, which I assume will keep them over .05 for a bit.
So it seems that if Garbon's chart is correct, women and less heavy men are potentially exposed to a DUI after two drinks. (it is from business insider and claims a source of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).
Quote from: alfred russel on May 16, 2013, 10:50:05 PMThe average woman who weighs 100 pounds (per the A&F catalog) apparently hits .05 with just one drink.
Yeah they get ready to rock pretty fast. :P