DUI discussion

[TurboDan]

I don't see a problem with it.

That's because you're drunk!? Sober up and you'll see the problem. 

[James Young]

Yes, according to MADD at least, impairment at .08 is perceptible:

"Regardless of how much alcohol it takes to get to this level, at .08 BAC any driver is a dangerous threat on the road. .08 BAC is the level at which the fatal crash risk significantly increases and virtually everyone is seriously impaired, affecting all of the basic critical driving skills including: braking, steering, lane changing, judgment and response time (NHTSA).? ?"

? ? ?http://www.madd.org/stats/4789?

MADD is not a credible source since their true objective is to bring back prohibition.? They are not scientists and do not adhere to scienctific methodology.

The quote from NHTSA is simply not true, as even their own data show.? Remember, NHTSA verbiage does not always derive from their data.

[TheIntrepid]

That's because you're drunk!  Sober up and you'll see the problem. 

:loL:

[the nameless one]

MADD is not a credible source since their true objective is to bring back prohibition.? They are not scientists and do not adhere to scienctific methodology.

The quote from NHTSA is simply not true, as even their own data show.? Remember, NHTSA verbiage does not always derive from their data.

Their focus is drunk driving. i don't see them advocating for a return to Prohibition.

If you can prove the quote wrong, prove it wrong. At what point then is impairment measureable?

[Soup DeVille]

We're talking .08, not .06, so why even bring that lower level up. The only folks who have to contend with .06 are commercial drivers who are driving big rigs, buses etc. Obviously society has an interest in those people being completely booze free so they have a lower BAC threshhold. The other class of driver that is affected by lower than .08 BAC laws are late teen drivers, once again for obvious reasons: they are inexperienced drivers and are underaged to legally consume alcohol anyway.

Yes, according to MADD at least, impairment at .08 is perceptible:

"Regardless of how much alcohol it takes to get to this level, at .08 BAC any driver is a dangerous threat on the road. .08 BAC is the level at which the fatal crash risk significantly increases and virtually everyone is seriously impaired, affecting all of the basic critical driving skills including: braking, steering, lane changing, judgment and response time (NHTSA).? ?"

? ? ?http://www.madd.org/stats/4789

You really have serious reading comprehension problems, don't you?

[James Young]

Their focus is drunk driving. i don't see them advocating for a return to Prohibition.

If you can prove the quote wrong, prove it wrong. At what point then is impairment measureable?

Which quote?? You have nested an NHTSA quote within a MADD quote.? ?


Impairment would become measurable at different times in different people and its progression would advance at different rates.? Yet, the law needs a standard by which to provide a cut-off point, which is really just an enforcement tool rather than a useful social devicd.? The ability to accurately quantify impairment is beyond the equipment and capabilities of even experienced doctors, much less cops in a patrol car.? That is why we use a measurement that is twice removed from actually measuring a degree of impairment.

Below are a few quotes regarding the new direction and outrageous lies of MADD:

Mothers Against Drunk Driving stigmatizes light or moderate alcohol consumption, even when it isn't associated with either being underage or driving. For example:
? MADD sells a graphic showing two empty glasses of alcohol surrounded by the words assault, drowning, burns, rape and suicide.
? MADD sells a graphic that equates beer with heroin by depicting a beer bottle as a drug syringe.
? MADD sells a television ad insisting that "if you think there's a difference" between heroin and alcohol, "you're dead wrong."

"Mothers Against Drunk Driving may soon have to change its name to Mothers Against Any Drinking Whatsoever -- that is, if it wants to avoid false advertising." Washington Times.

"At the forefront of the neo-prohibitionist movement is MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving)." Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo of Washington University and Dr. James T. Bennett of George Mason University.

"Mothers Against Drunk Driving (has) decided to wage war on social drinkers." Radley Balko, Fox News columnist.

"MADD has morphed from an anti-drunk-driving organization into an anti-alcohol organization. Jim Reynolds, writer.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving "engages in a form of neoprohibitionism." Christian Restifo, Carnegie Mellon University.

Although Prohibition ended 70 years ago, "a new agenda of temperance is alive and well today at Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)." Charles V. Penna, MADD?s former Northern Virginia Chapter Executive Director and now Director of policy studies at The Cato Institute.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving's "ongoing push to compel states to adopt ever-lower standards for being legally drunk? is becoming a prohibitionist jihad driven by hysteria, not medical reality." Washington Times.

A "prohibitionist movement (is) propagated by MADD." National Motorist Association.

"We believe their (MADD's) true agenda is prohibition." TalkLeft.

MADD has become "overzealous." Candy Lightner, founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

"MADD continues to inflate the number of people killed by drunk drivers to further its prohibitionist agenda." Center for Consumer Freedom.

MADD's report is "chock full of inaccuries and errors," but MADD officials have refused to comment on them. Jerry McCory, Director of the Governor's Council on Impaired and Dangerous Driving.

Its "inflated drunk driving statistics confirm MADD's relevance and help it raise funds." Radley Balco, writer.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving "has basically become a propaganda mill churnig out false andmisleading statistics." Jay Caruso.

"MADD generally attempts to mask its radical, neo-prohibitionist agenda in the veneer of sound science and sober statistics." Charles V. Pena, former MADD official.

"MADD has become a ruthless lobby more concerned with prohibitionist legislation and punishment of drinkers than with improving road safety." Iain Levison.

"Criticizing MADD is like criticizing the pope. They do not lightly tolerate disagreement." LeCuyer.

"Nobody wants to be in MADD's bad graces." Bruce Freidrich, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

"MADD is just totally spiteful." Palmer Didion, attorney.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving "threatened me." James Bostad, former MADD State Treasurer.

"MADD is a hate group, without question." Darlene J. Dowling, AFA.


"MADD is spiteful, vindictive, judgmental, holier than thou, self-righteous and obnoxious." Kevin.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving "displayed its contempt for civil liberties, as well as the judicial system, by calling for (a) judge to resign because she criticized a MADD-backed program she felt violated the constitutional rights of young adults." Center for Consumer Freedom.

"One must wonder has MADD gone mad?" Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.

"MADD is out of control." Talk Left.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving is guilty of "demogoguery."

"MADD has allowed its emotions to preempt its common sense, hoping, therefore, to drive up support for its cause." S. G. Michalides.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving spends most of its time in "self-perpetuating fund-raising efforts." The American Institute of Philanthropy.

"MADD has become big bucks, and that's it." "It's a big corporation." Sandy Kaufman, former MADD chapter President.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving is guilty of "dubious budget and fundraising tactics." (MADD deceptively lists fundraising mailings as educational activities rather than fundraising activities.) American Institute of Philanthropy.

"One of the worst performance records (on spending inordinately to raise money, then spending below-average amounts on their stated mission) goes to Mothers Against Drunk Driving." Daniel Puzzo describing MADD's low grade by the independent American Institute on Philanthropy.

"MADD uses viral e-mail to build (its e-mail) list." K. Brenner.

"MADD continues to deceive." National Motorists Association.

MADD's Tina Pasco asserts that "The only safe amount when you are mixing drinking and driving is zero -- double zero.

Unfortunately, Mothers Against Drunk Driving often uses junk science to promote its agenda. For example, a very brief three-page study by MADD vice president Ralph Hingson asserts that a national definition of drunk driving set at .08 would save 500-600 lives per year. Although the U.S. Department of transporation has been unable to establish such a conclusion after 15 years of careful research, and although the General Accounting Office issued a report to Congress insisting that the Hingson claim is "unfounded," MADD continues to quote the unsubstantiated estimate as scientific fact. And the MADD vice president continues to churn out junk science reports used by the organization and other anti-alcohol groups.

A MADD ad campaign against underage drinking included purported "facts" linking alcohol to weight gain, rape and sexually transmitted diseases that weren't based on good evidence, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Reduction of consumption leaders James Mosher and Robert Reynolds criticized MADD's misuse of statistics. After reviewing MADD's ads, Reynolds informed MADD that "this is really sloppy, inadequate and embarrassing.... It imperils the integrity" of MADD and other groups in the field.

MADD's assertion that underage drinkers are 50 times more likely to use cocaine than abstainers made James Mosher "cringe," according to the Wall Street Journal. Mosher stressed that there is no research "that shows there's a cause and effect and that's being implied" by MADD.

When pioneering researcher Dr. Laurence Ross reported that increasing the severity of punishments for drunk driving has only a short-term impact on drunk driving, MADD turned on him with a vengeance usually reserved for drunk drivers themselves. It even accused Dr.Ross, an independent scholar with proven integrity, of being the drunk driver's best friend.  Actually, Dr. Ross is a strong foe of drunk driving who began studying the problem long before the existence of MADD. He has identified research-based evidence of what policies are most effective in reducing drunk driving.? ?Unfortunately for him, they are not always consistent with MADD's ideological and emotional agenda.

[the nameless one]

Looks like you've been keeping an anti-MADD file, or have an incredibly thorough search engine and a lot of time.

[James Young]

Looks like you've been keeping an anti-MADD file, or have an incredibly thorough search engine and a lot of time.

I like to keep an eye on those who hate liberty for others.  That particular search took < 30 seconds.

[hounddog]

That's why I dont' use or ask my Deps to use SFST's.? They dont' provide a broad enough test range=- and they don't allow ofr pass/fail results.? They were developed by retired and current officers working with defense lawyers- IMO- because they just don't give enough visual clues to juries in court.?

In Michigna we have some of the tougher laws on OWI in the country.
1st offense- misdemeanor -up to 93 days in the county jail- up to $500 fines plus lawyer fees and 30 days automatic suspension up to 150 days- immobilization of your car up to 180 days- up to 45 days community service.

2nd offense- misdemeanor- 5 days minimum and up to 1 year in county jail- license plate removed and red tag placed in rear window- minumum 1 year automatic revocation/denial of license- immobilization of car required 90-180 days- vehicle forfeiture permitted to police department- With child in the car becomes felony child endangerment- 1-5 years in prison.

3rd offense- felony - minimum 1 year and up to 5 years in prison- license plate removed and red tag placed in rear window- automatic state revocation of license- police can often do forfeit car- fines up to $5000.? And you definately don't want to get caught with kid in your car on your 3rd- addition up to 5 mor eyears in prison.

but none of this matters- we still get them drunk over and over and over and the courts don't do their jobs because they are elected officials who watn to be re-elected and even if they did our wonderful governor considers them non-violent and they are the first to be released when the budget gets tight.

I don't know what the answer is- stricter laws isn't the answer- and tighter enforcement does work- but the courts have to do their job to make the system work.? Thanks to the lawyers (please note my dislike for lawyers? ) the system doesn't work and people are getting 5-6-7-8 and more chances AGAINST state law which has minimun sentencing requirements.?

Randy- even though the courts choose to ignore state outlined minimum sentencing requirements set forth within state law, you and your guys have to keep enforcing those OUIL laws.  The entire system fails if the lowest level partcipants; read patrol officers; fail to act out the laws.  You are the beginning of the justice system, and without your 'input' into the system there is no system. 

You remember this? 
"Those who fail to try are destined to fail to succeed."

[Tave]

A musing about low-level BAC impairment as it relates with fitness to drive:


Does it stand to reason that a slightly "impaired" 25 year old would enjoy the same physical capabilities of a sober senior citizen?


Does anyone have any good data on impairment? I know there's a measurable level @ .08, but how much does it constitute? Is a small level of impairment much different than everyday distractions, (too a degree) personal fatigue, or any of the other completely legal reasons a body has for crashing a car?


Are most accidents preventable? I think they are, but I don't know so. It's reasonable that a physically gifted driver who lacks concentration is worse and more likely of wrecking than the average person who simply pays attention, even if that person suffers from fatigue, stress, or something else. Of course there are limits on this equation; one cannot be too tired, or too distracted, or too imbibed to drive, without becomming a risk to themself and others, but isn't there a gray area in between the drunk attentive and undrunk oblivious? Is physical fitness slways the most effective measure of ability? To a point, one must be physicaly capable of operating machinery, cars even more. Yet this is bound to differ from person to person. Alcohol is an acute risk, because it comines some of the other physical limitations a person could operate a car under: fatigue, sickness, distraction, reaction, but I don't think alcohol immediately renders someone incapable of driving, to an extent.


Police, is this where the subjective tests come into play? I realize it's impossible for an officer to access the attentiveness of each driver he stops, but I think some of the ancillaries to breathalyzers are passed with concentration as much as agility.


But I guess is goes both ways. My friend Chris related this story to me one time:

His older borther is a generally clumsy person, and was stopped in the Twin Cities. He hadn't been drinking, but his girlfriend had, so the officer smelled alcohol in the car and asked about it. Chris' brother told the officer he hadn't had anything, and the officer asked him to perform some of the impairment tests. Due to his own ineptitude and lack of grace, he failed them miserably yet aced the breathalyzer with double naughts.

Chris informed me an identical situation happened to the same brother at another time.


I, on the other hand, have been stopped after having a beer at dinner, or having a few long hours before the stop, but I have never failed a test like that. Now, in each case I would have also blown under the legal limit, but a one might have been close. It's concievable that a person could mostly pass a subjective test yet still blow over and be arrested. In other words, they demonstrated a physical aptness and alertness yet are being cited as unfit to drive, while at the same time my friend's clumsy brother can show a limited test he is completely unfit to operate a vehicle and yet is allowed to drive off into the sunset.


Just some thoughts.