DWI...out of control in NM..... (Espanola: home, taxi, to live)
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.
MADD has defeated it's own purpose. When you lower the legal blood alcohol level to .08, you lose ALL THE IMPACT of drunk driving, because EVERYBODY knows that .08 is NOT impaired.
I think that statistically you probably are... as in there is a measurable reduction in reaction time compared to being at .00. But is this really a good measure of whether you should be allowed to drive or not? After all, nobody is required to have good reactions when they get a license... and I'm pretty sure reaction times go utterly to hell when people "multi-task" in their cars.
I always thought a good DWI defense would be to get your alcohol level up to what it was when you were busted, and then take a standard reaction test. If you score somewhere above say the 20%ile for sober people, I think you'd have a great case.
MADD has defeated it's own purpose. When you lower the legal blood alcohol level to .08, you lose ALL THE IMPACT of drunk driving, because EVERYBODY knows that .08 is NOT impaired. So they go ahead and drink and then they get caught and nobody thinks anything about it...because it is too low to make any difference and NOBODY CARES.
The drinking/driving laws are so stupid it makes me sick. NOBODY CARES.
And no, I don't drink and drive. Because I am law abiding. But most people are not. Obviously.
20yrsinBranson
Are you sure? Have you ever drank where you thought it might be at the one too many point and had your blood alcohol tested?
I think that statistically you probably are... as in there is a measurable reduction in reaction time compared to being at .00. But is this really a good measure of whether you should be allowed to drive or not? After all, nobody is required to have good reactions when they get a license... and I'm pretty sure reaction times go utterly to hell when people "multi-task" in their cars.
I always thought a good DWI defense would be to get your alcohol level up to what it was when you were busted, and then take a standard reaction test. If you score somewhere above say the 20%ile for sober people, I think you'd have a great case.
That would not be a good DWI defense. Assuming you were tested on a breathalyzer, here is the jury instruction that jurors would be looking at:
4-4503. Driving with a blood or breath alcohol concentration of eight one-hundredths (.08) or more; essential elements.
For you to find the defendant guilty of driving with a blood or breath alcohol concentration of eight one-hundredths (.08) or more [as charged in Count ________]1, the state must prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of the crime:
1. The defendant operated a motor vehicle;
2. Within three (3) hours of driving, the defendant had an alcohol concentration of eight one-hundredths (.08) grams or more in [one hundred milliliters of blood] [or] [two hundred ten liters of breath] [and the alcohol concentration resulted from alcohol consumed before or while driving the vehicle]3.
3. This happened in New Mexico, on or about the ________ day of ____________, ________.
That's it. No room for "I could still manage my vehicle." It is a per se instruction, and so if you blow .08 or more, unless you can prove the machine was faulty, or the operator was not correctly doing their job, you are sunk.
MADD has defeated it's own purpose. ... legal blood alcohol
level to .08, you lose ALL THE IMPACT of drunk driving, ...
Another factor not considered is that for a non-accident
arrest, the police have to spend the same amount of
time dealing with the 0.08-blower as the 0.16-blower.
I still remember the New-Year's incident when the KAFB airman
killed two people just a few blocks from where the police were
unjustifiably harassing people who were either not drunk or
were only legally drunk at a random DUI checkpoint.
Had they been out looking for people who were obviously impaired,
they might have found and stopped that guy before he murdered.
People who are really impaired can't fake it for long.
Because of MADD's DUI checkpoints, more people are out doing
damage with BAC readings way over 0.16.
Note also that someone who is high on prescription pain meds and is
also carrying a BAC of 0.06 would get by the DUI checkpoint, but if
they were weaving down the road, they might get spotted by a patrol
officer. Unfortunately, the patrol officers are not patrolling if they are
at the checkpoint.
Every scientific study I've ever read or seen reported on demonstrated that every person is impaired at .08 (it's just a matter of degree). The Mythbusters even did a show on this. People are affected differently, but everyone is affected to some extent. As Vinegaroon point out, there is NO legal defense to blowing .08+. You do it, you're guilty unless the DA is in a plea bargaining mood. They even cite folks at less than .08 if a cop witnesses erratic driving.
People are affected differently, but everyone is affected to some extent.
And we can assume that they are effected in a way that likely makes them a little less skilled at driving. But the point is this... there is also a broad range of driving skills among the population, and people with relatively poor skills or frequent lapses in attention are *not* prevented from having a license... this isn't tested for at all.
So really what we need to determine... if we want some sanity in this... is if a particular person with a BAC of whatever, is impaired to the point of not being able to drive responsibly. It would not be terribly difficult to do this, and it should be part of the process for convicting people of DUI. Either that or raise the BAC to a level where pretty much anybody would fail the ability and reaction time test.
And we can assume that they are effected in a way that likely makes them a little less skilled at driving. But the point is this... there is also a broad range of driving skills among the population, and people with relatively poor skills or frequent lapses in attention are *not* prevented from having a license... this isn't tested for at all.
Actually, the driving test is a pretty good arbiter of this. If you can't pass NM's driving test (laughable though it is), then you don't get a license. Seems fair.
Quote:
So really what we need to determine... if we want some sanity in this... is if a particular person with a BAC of whatever, is impaired to the point of not being able to drive responsibly. It would not be terribly difficult to do this, and it should be part of the process for convicting people of DUI. Either that or raise the BAC to a level where pretty much anybody would fail the ability and reaction time test.
How about we just come up with a test where pretty much anybody with a .08 would fail? And then we could just measure a BAC instead of administering the test?
No state is going to change the legal blood alcohol limit. 3-4 years ago a federal law was enacted that will reduce a state's federal highway funds by some amount (2%?) if that state didn't implement a .08 standard.
When I moved here 11 years ago, I didn't have to take a NM driving test. I only presented my valid out of state license and received a NM license.
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.
