Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about instead of focusing on numbers, we focus on impairment. If someone is suspected of drunk or high driving, give them an impairment test. If they can prove they are not impaired then the numbers don't really matter very much.
That method has the benefit of working not only for alcohol impairment, but all drugs, both legal and illegal. It also removes the variability of body weight and tolerance.
Good.
Alcohol is a drug. No one can claim everyone is impaired at a specific blood alcohol content.
How about instead of focusing on numbers, we focus on impairment. If someone is suspected of drunk or high driving, give them an impairment test. If they can prove they are not impaired then the numbers don't really matter very much.
That method has the benefit of working not only for alcohol impairment, but all drugs, both legal and illegal. It also removes the variability of body weight and tolerance.
It's not possible to test for someone's "impairment" without knowing their baseline. What you'd have to do is establish a minimum standard test of reactions and comprehension. For example, an electronic hand-eye response test and a ten question quiz to be completed in 30 seconds and get at least eight correct. It would have to be the same test standards required to obtain and renew a drivers license.
Shoot i usually am driving at a .11 minimum. There goes my social life.
I hope you're joking. And if you're not, you've clearly got a problem. I quit drinking & driving in 2008 when I was up north on vacation, stupidly chose to go to the bar by myself (the bar is only a 2 minute drive from my place up there), got completely wasted, drove back home & in that short 2 minute drive ended up getting lost somehow & backed into a tree. Woke up the next morning to see that I had parked my car precariously close to the edge of a retaining wall & there were pine branches sticking out of the hub caps. True story. That was it for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Which part of "federal republic" has confused you?
It's not within the authority of the government. It's just more power-grabbing.
What are you talking about? Whether it's municipal, state or federal, government is what makes the laws. You don't think there should be laws on drinking & driving? Really?
Why can't the alternative be that states and counties build and maintain their own roads?
Left to their own prerogative, states would always build roads in their most concentrated areas. Which makes perfect sense if you're a state legislator, but does nothing to help interstate commerce and would actually force interstate traffic (e.g. tractor trailers) on to your local highways.
Interstates are built with the good of the entire nation in mind, if the Feds didn't build them they simply wouldn't get built.
How about instead of focusing on numbers, we focus on impairment. If someone is suspected of drunk or high driving, give them an impairment test. If they can prove they are not impaired then the numbers don't really matter very much.
That method has the benefit of working not only for alcohol impairment, but all drugs, both legal and illegal. It also removes the variability of body weight and tolerance.
I'm certainly not opposed to that. Conviction because of a certain level of any substance should not be prima facie evidence of impairment. Over a decade ago there was a woman in Reno who was sent to prison for 2 years because she stopped in an intersection to make a left hand turn and a motorcycle cop going code 3 with no lights or siren broadsided her and died. She had a blood level of marijuana of 2 nanograms but the prosecution never attempted to show that she was impaired, or that her driving was a factor in the accident. The mere presence of marijuana in her system was enough to convict her of "causing a death while having marijuana in her system". Not the DUI's fault? - Overlawyered
"Drivers with a BAC of .01 percent, the lowest level recorded in the dataset, were 46 percent more likely to be solely blamed for the crash than a sober driver, according to the results published in the journal Injury Prevention".Buzzed drivers under legal limit still risk car accidents | Reuters
I can't find the study online. You'll need to tell us where to find it.
So what is the problem? If you aren't 100% sober, you shouldn't be driving, putting everyone else at risk.
A BAC of 0.05 is the equivalent of drinking 2 to 3 and a half bottles of beer in an hour. Our bodies burn off 0.02 in an hour, which would leave us with a BAC of 0.05 at the end of the first hour after consuming 3 and 1/2 beers...or shots...or glasses of wine.
Don't drink and drive. Why is this concept so foreign to most people?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
