There's a woman that a friend of mine works with who is a raging alcoholic and a habitual drunk driver. She has a total disregard for the danger in which she puts innocent people who happen to be crossing her path. Numerous times, she has hit other people's cars and just driven off. If the other driver is there and she has to stop, she acts as if it's the other person's fault and accepts no responsibility for the accident even though it's always 100% her fault.
We've always said that it's only a matter of time before she seriously injures or kills somebody. So last Saturday, she was driving drunk as always, and hit a 24-year-old pedestrian and knocked her right out of her shoes and 30 feet into the air. She kept going and was caught about a mile from the accident scene only because the other cars on the road boxed her in and kept her from leaving until the police arrived.
The woman she hit was taken to a local hospital but her injuries were serious enough that she had to be airlifted to a different hospital for treatment. She could possibly have longer term damage from the accident.
This drunken bitch is now charged with a few things like vehicular assault, drunk driving, leaving the scene of an accident, etc. She is not taking it seriously at all. She came back to her job after being in jail, and many of the people there were supportive of her. They act as if she is going through an ordeal equivalent to the innocent person that she hit. I just can't fathom this way of thinking at all. This woman is degenerate drunk with no regard for the safety of others, and she's already laughing and joking about the whole thing, saying that she thought she had hit a rock.
I wonder whether she will get the penalty that she really deserves, which is a lengthy prison term. She has no interest in alcohol treatment and doesn't think she has a problem. It seems our legal system caters to people like this. It's really outrageous. Of course her license is suspended, for whatever that is worth, but I'm sure she'll drive anyway if she can get her hands on a car. Her car is impounded for evidence because the flesh of the woman she hit is on her headlight.
This case is so outrageous, and I don't think people like this get treated with the harshness that they deserve. The system doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between people who may occasionally have a drink too many at a party, and people who drive rip-roaring drunk on a regular basis like this scumbag woman.
That's the thing with drunks - if they would feel guilt about causing wrecks they wouldn't be drunks. It's a "disease" after all.
Also, as shown, people can't be drunks without enabling if not support from family and friends, and societal complications that come from calling out (like an employer) drunks. Now that it's a BS "disease" makes it all the worse.
The DUI defense industry is also big $$$, which is basically just another example of American entitlement masked as "freedom" and "rights."
Sadly, this is about what it takes to get drunks off the road. They basically have to maim or kill someone. From the sounds of it she's in for major jail time and hopefully a big fat lawsuit.
Wow. I don't know who is worse, the woman or the people giving her support.
What someone puts into their body or does with their life is their business and theirs alone, but drunk driving is a an extraordinarily selfish act. One can only hope that she serves a very long prison sentence and loses her job (and license).
Sounds like she's a sociopath first and a drunk second. I have no use for these people. They're a blight on society.
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 05, 2014, 11:10:41 AM
Sounds like she's a sociopath first and a drunk second. I have no use for these people. They're a blight on society.
Yeah, even if you hit someone and they were 100% at fault, I'm not sure how you could go around joking about it.
Quote from: dazzleman on October 05, 2014, 10:03:37 AM
This drunken bitch is now charged with a few things like vehicular assault, drunk driving, leaving the scene of an accident, etc. She is not taking it seriously at all. She came back to her job after being in jail, and many of the people there were supportive of her. They act as if she is going through an ordeal equivalent to the innocent person that she hit. I just can't fathom this way of thinking at all. This woman is degenerate drunk with no regard for the safety of others, and she's already laughing and joking about the whole thing, saying that she thought she had hit a rock.
I wonder whether she will get the penalty that she really deserves, which is a lengthy prison term. She has no interest in alcohol treatment and doesn't think she has a problem. It seems our legal system caters to people like this. It's really outrageous. Of course her license is suspended, for whatever that is worth, but I'm sure she'll drive anyway if she can get her hands on a car. Her car is impounded for evidence because the flesh of the woman she hit is on her headlight.
This case is so outrageous, and I don't think people like this get treated with the harshness that they deserve. The system doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between people who may occasionally have a drink too many at a party, and people who drive rip-roaring drunk on a regular basis like this scumbag woman.
She's got
rights, man.
Rights. Matter of fact, she's the real victim here. (Don't worry about the person who actually got hurt.)
More than once I've had to remind judges that there is actually someone whose life has been significantly disrupted by the defendant's actions...and (surprise) it's not the defendant. I've come back to my office ready to punch the walls before after hearing judges buy some of the crap defense attorneys and defendants spew at sentencing.
Could you go to the prosecuting DA as a character witness or something of that sort?
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 05, 2014, 11:10:41 AM
Sounds like she's a sociopath first and a drunk second. I have no use for these people. They're a blight on society.
Absolutely. She's pure trash.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on October 05, 2014, 06:13:31 PM
Could you go to the prosecuting DA as a character witness or something of that sort?
I don't actually know her. She's a friend's coworker.
Quote from: MaxPower on October 05, 2014, 06:01:16 PM
She's got rights, man. Rights. Matter of fact, she's the real victim here. (Don't worry about the person who actually got hurt.)
More than once I've had to remind judges that there is actually someone whose life has been significantly disrupted by the defendant's actions...and (surprise) it's not the defendant. I've come back to my office ready to punch the walls before after hearing judges buy some of the crap defense attorneys and defendants spew at sentencing.
I don't understand judges like that. I doubt she'll get any real jail time.
Quote from: Submariner on October 05, 2014, 11:06:32 AM
Wow. I don't know who is worse, the woman or the people giving her support.
What someone puts into their body or does with their life is their business and theirs alone, but drunk driving is a an extraordinarily selfish act. One can only hope that she serves a very long prison sentence and loses her job (and license).
The people giving her support are mostly (but not all) stupid low-level ghetto trash. People who are completely morally bankrupt and have no sense of right or wrong. Then there are the "it's a tragedy for both people" types, who can't acknowledge that there isn't equivalency between the perpetrator of the incident and the innocent victim. Moral equivalency is a big part of why our society is fucked up.
Come on, no it's not.
These people disgust me.
Quote from: dazzleman on October 05, 2014, 07:10:26 PM
I don't actually know her.
Then maybe you shouldn't pass judgement :nono:
Quote from: SVT_Power on October 05, 2014, 08:43:25 PM
Then maybe you shouldn't pass judgement :nono:
Nah - there is no excuse for drunk driving and even less of an excuse for making jokes about hitting someone due to your intoxication. Passing judgement is perfectly acceptable here.
Quote from: dazzleman on October 05, 2014, 07:14:38 PM
The people giving her support are mostly (but not all) stupid low-level ghetto trash. People who are completely morally bankrupt and have no sense of right or wrong. Then there are the "it's a tragedy for both people" types, who can't acknowledge that there isn't equivalency between the perpetrator of the incident and the innocent victim. Moral equivalency is a big part of why our society is fucked up.
They have no sense of right or wrong, until it happens to them.
Greg's use of "animals" feels right, but then again my pets show empathy when I'm feeling sick, so perhaps the use of "animals" is being too generous.
Too bad someone didn't take the trash out sooner, now it's sat around so long it's really starting to stink the place up.
I really don't understand how this shit is allowed to happen. Everyone knows about these types of people, friends, coworkers and even the police.
But we can't do anything, we have to wait until she finally kills someone. Maybe it will just be a biker or a jogger and not a minivan full of kids.
Edit:
I'm sorry, but this persons life(a person who CHOOSES to endanger everyone, selfishly) is NOT in any way shape or form more valuable than any of the people she will eventually kill. We should never have to wait until something this bad happens.
Sounds like you didn't see Minority Report.
Quote from: Submariner on October 05, 2014, 09:30:57 PM
Nah - there is no excuse for drunk driving and even less of an excuse for making jokes about hitting someone due to your intoxication. Passing judgement is perfectly acceptable here.
You might want to check your batteries
"We" choose to wait. We all know family, coworkers, friends, etc., who are drunks, and by and large we let them get away with. Drunks are by definition sociopaths who don't own up to their behaviors and will wreak havoc, esp. in the workplace what with the worthless HR departments and general fear of litigation, when called out.
Quote from: MaxPower on October 05, 2014, 06:01:16 PMShe's got rights, man. Rights. Matter of fact, she's the real victim here. (Don't worry about the person who actually got hurt.)
More than once I've had to remind judges that there is actually someone whose life has been significantly disrupted by the defendant's actions...and (surprise) it's not the defendant. I've come back to my office ready to punch the walls before after hearing judges buy some of the crap defense attorneys and defendants spew at sentencing.
We have a very naive, kind-hearted judge in my county (as well as a spineless law director who prosecutes misdemeanor cases). There are many, many multiple offense DUI offenders who have maybe one or two DUI's on their records when they should have a half dozen or more. They're always pleaing down DUI's to things like reckless op or (more commonly) failure to control. These are people who should be facing felony DUI charges when they get arrested because of past convictions, who are instead looking at the equivalent of a first offense DUI because of plea bargaining and an enabling judicial system. All the while, these people are being "taught" by the judicial system that there's no consequences to their actions. From a LE perspective, it's quite frustrating.
Quote from: SVT_Power on October 05, 2014, 08:43:25 PM
Then maybe you shouldn't pass judgement :nono:
I know well more than enough to pass judgment on this scum.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 05, 2014, 11:04:29 PM
We have a very naive, kind-hearted judge in my county (as well as a spineless law director who prosecutes misdemeanor cases). There are many, many multiple offense DUI offenders who have maybe one or two DUI's on their records when they should have a half dozen or more. They're always pleaing down DUI's to things like reckless op or (more commonly) failure to control. These are people who should be facing felony DUI charges when they get arrested because of past convictions, who are instead looking at the equivalent of a first offense DUI because of plea bargaining and an enabling judicial system. All the while, these people are being "taught" by the judicial system that there's no consequences to their actions. From a LE perspective, it's quite frustrating.
Could it be that too many in these positions either relate to this behaviour or have someone close to them who are much the same. I don't know how many here have driven after drinking but I can say that many of the people I have known, over the years, have driven when they shouldn't have. The attitudes are changing now, but drunk driving is still not accepted as the crime that it is.
There are too many politicians (including judges) who drive toasted so it will take a lot to change any of it...
Quote from: bing_oh on October 05, 2014, 11:04:29 PM
We have a very naive, kind-hearted judge in my county (as well as a spineless law director who prosecutes misdemeanor cases). There are many, many multiple offense DUI offenders who have maybe one or two DUI's on their records when they should have a half dozen or more. They're always pleaing down DUI's to things like reckless op or (more commonly) failure to control. These are people who should be facing felony DUI charges when they get arrested because of past convictions, who are instead looking at the equivalent of a first offense DUI because of plea bargaining and an enabling judicial system. All the while, these people are being "taught" by the judicial system that there's no consequences to their actions. From a LE perspective, it's quite frustrating.
We don't do that. A nearby county does. I actually got a lot of credit a local pd recently because I took an under the limit case to a trial. I lost, but it sends the message that we're not fucking around.
We have checkpoints here on Thursday-Saturday nights that get set up around the city in random busy streers. One of the few things in Mexico where if you get caught you will not be able to pay your way out of trouble. Several friends/family members have been caught. Unavoidable immediate 20-36 hr arrest in a crappy place. Will definitely ruin your night. I am all for it.
Quote from: MaxPower on October 06, 2014, 05:18:06 PM
We don't do that. A nearby county does. I actually got a lot of credit a local pd recently because I took an under the limit case to a trial. I lost, but it sends the message that we're not fucking around.
No, it sends the message that you're wasting resources.
The problem with DUI are drunks/habitual offenders - snaring people at 0.05 - 0.08% BAC does nothing but get people who mostly don't deserve to be got.
Quote from: MaxPower on October 06, 2014, 05:18:06 PMWe don't do that. A nearby county does. I actually got a lot of credit a local pd recently because I took an under the limit case to a trial. I lost, but it sends the message that we're not fucking around.
Out law director doesn't understand that sometimes you have to roll the dice and go to trial...the judicial system isn't supposed to be a perpetual episode of Let's Make a Deal. Sometimes, the deal simply isn't correct for the crime and you have to do things the hard way.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 06, 2014, 09:46:50 PMNo, it sends the message that you're wasting resources.
The problem with DUI are drunks/habitual offenders - snaring people at 0.05 - 0.08% BAC does nothing but get people who mostly don't deserve to be got.
Have you ever tested a .08 to see what it really feels like? I'll bet you havn't. Most people think that .08 is two beers...which is, for the average person, flat out bullshit. Unless you're a very regular drinker, .08 is pretty toasty....I've done the tests at .08 and can testify from first-hand experience.
According to the charts, 0.08 for someone my size is well more than I would generally drink before driving.
On the other hand, DUI checkpoints are unethical, immoral, and probably unconstitutional.
Quote from: Rupert on October 06, 2014, 11:42:36 PMAccording to the charts, 0.08 for someone my size is well more than I would generally drink before driving.
On the other hand, DUI checkpoints are unethical, immoral, and probably unconstitutional.
You can have whatever opinions you like about the ethical or moral "rightness" of DUI checkpoints...multiple courts of various levels disagree with you about their Constitutionality.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 06, 2014, 11:58:59 PM
You can have whatever opinions you like about the ethical or moral "rightness" of DUI checkpoints...multiple courts of various levels disagree with you about their Constitutionality.
They've been found unconstitutional several times as well; which is why they aren't in use in many states.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 07, 2014, 12:47:27 AMThey've been found unconstitutional several times as well; which is why they aren't in use in many states.
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 US 444 - Supreme Court 1990
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz)
When the SCOTUS says it's Constitutional, the opinions of lower courts don't count.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 07, 2014, 01:50:46 AM
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 US 444 - Supreme Court 1990
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz)
When the SCOTUS says it's Constitutional, the opinions of lower courts don't count.
There are also about fifty state constitutions in the country. The point being, the argument that it is unconstitutional is not without merit, and definitely more than his opinion.
Quote from: Rupert on October 06, 2014, 11:42:36 PM
According to the charts, 0.08 for someone my size is well more than I would generally drink before driving.
On the other hand, DUI checkpoints are unethical, immoral, and probably unconstitutional.
So is ruining peoples' lives by running them over or hitting their car with yours. :huh:
Which has the worst consequences?????
Quote from: Rupert on October 06, 2014, 11:42:36 PM
According to the charts, 0.08 for someone my size is well more than I would generally drink before driving.
On the other hand, DUI checkpoints are unethical, immoral, and probably unconstitutional.
Unethical? Maybe if targeting a certain type of driver
Immoral? Can't be - government property = government rules
Unconstitutional? It violates many state constitutions (like my state) so we do not have them
I'm on the fence WRT checkpoints. If conducted in an ethical manner I theoretically don't have a problem as DUI is a ginormous problem on our roads. Practically I would not like being stopped and having my time wasted, and in general the solution to DUI is on the penalty side not the detection side.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 07, 2014, 01:50:46 AM
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 US 444 - Supreme Court 1990
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz)
When the SCOTUS says it's Constitutional, the opinions of lower courts don't count.
They can count - it's called (state) nullification, which happens all the time (and I hope it happens more and more).
Quote from: bing_oh on October 06, 2014, 11:36:35 PM
Have you ever tested a .08 to see what it really feels like? I'll bet you havn't. Most people think that .08 is two beers...which is, for the average person, flat out bullshit. Unless you're a very regular drinker, .08 is pretty toasty....I've done the tests at .08 and can testify from first-hand experience.
I'm not really arguing - and further don't know - what the threshold should be. My point is/was ever lowering/low BAC and by definition making more people "guilty" of DUI doesn't address the core problem.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 07, 2014, 09:38:20 AM
I'm not really arguing - and further don't know - what the threshold should be. My point is/was ever lowering/low BAC and by definition making more people "guilty" of DUI doesn't address the core problem.
Nope. Need to hammer those who do get caught at existing levels. No repercussions= no deterrent from not doing it again.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 07, 2014, 09:38:20 AM
I'm not really arguing - and further don't know - what the threshold should be. My point is/was ever lowering/low BAC and by definition making more people "guilty" of DUI doesn't address the core problem.
Lots of people here have changed their behaviour because of the checkpoints. Most of my friends don't drive anymore when going out at night if planning to drink. Will get an Uber/Taxi. Definitive safety benefit there.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 07, 2014, 03:04:11 AMThere are also about fifty state constitutions in the country. The point being, the argument that it is unconstitutional is not without merit, and definitely more than his opinion.
And state constitutions tend to mirror the US Constitution. If some states choose not to do DUI checkpoints, that's their decision, but the question of constitutionality has been answered by the highest court and they are constitutional.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 07, 2014, 12:47:27 AM
They've been found unconstitutional several times as well; which is why they aren't in use in many states.
I'm glad we don't get into such a tizzy over what is or isn't constitutional. There's right and wrong and getting drunks off the road is right.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 07, 2014, 09:38:20 AMI'm not really arguing - and further don't know - what the threshold should be. My point is/was ever lowering/low BAC and by definition making more people "guilty" of DUI doesn't address the core problem.
And the "core problem" is?
BAC levels were established in law so that there was a definitive, legal threshold and the DUI laws weren't totally subjective while being legally defensible. Let's say that we eliminate BAC's and just make the law that a person can't drive "while intoxicated" (and, yes, I know that most laws include such wording, but they are in there for very specific legal reasons and apply to people who show signs of severe impairment while remaining under the legal limit). What is "intoxicated?" Is it the same for every police officer in the country? Every prosecutor? Every judge? Every potential juror? It would be impossible to enforce such a law uniformly, opening up all kinds of potential for individual subjectivity. Under such a law, you could get a warning from one officer and get arrested a mile down the road by another because their opinion on what is "intoxicated" may differ. At the very least, there's some scientific backing to BAC levels.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 07, 2014, 09:20:00 AM
Unethical? Maybe if targeting a certain type of driver
Immoral? Can't be - government property = government rules
Unconstitutional? It violates many state constitutions (like my state) so we do not have them
I'm on the fence WRT checkpoints. If conducted in an ethical manner I theoretically don't have a problem as DUI is a ginormous problem on our roads. Practically I would not like being stopped and having my time wasted, and in general the solution to DUI is on the penalty side not the detection side.
The solution is to address factors that encourage/enable drunk driving. If you are punishing it you are too late. Someone with 4 DUIs is going to get more until they are in prison or dead.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 07, 2014, 11:32:43 AM
And the "core problem" is?
Habitual drunk drivers?
That said, .08 BAC which is like ground zero for legal drunkedness is pretty damn high. For a 200lb brah thats tossing back 3 beers and immediately getting behind the wheel. .15 BAC is 8-9 beers for me. I don't like driving after more than 2-3 beers even with recovery time. Constitutional aspect kind of goes out the window- driving a car on public roads comes with rules. Its not like cops are doing checkpoints on private property.
I'd say the core problem is that which is wrecking everything else-
No accountability for one's actions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_law_by_country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_law_by_country)
Some countries give automatic 6months jail for ANY DUI. We slap the wrist and say "don't do that again"....
Quote from: GoCougs on October 06, 2014, 09:46:50 PM
No, it sends the message that you're wasting resources.
Eh, pretty immune to that. That's usually the first argument put forward by anyone disagreeing with what we do.
IMO, repeated DUIs should be pretty harsh punishment. Everyone makes mistakes, though.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 07, 2014, 11:21:20 AM
And state constitutions tend to mirror the US Constitution. If some states choose not to do DUI checkpoints, that's their decision, but the question of constitutionality has been answered by the highest court and they are constitutional.
"Tend to."
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 07, 2014, 02:16:47 PMHabitual drunk drivers?
I dunno...it was an honest question, not my usual smartass remark. Assuming habitual drunk drivers would be the "core problem" he's referring to, I'm not sure how BAC levels don't have any effect.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 07, 2014, 08:18:14 PM"Tend to."
Would you prefer "pretty much all the damn time, many times word-for-word" instead? Because, realistically, that's not too far from the truth.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 07, 2014, 10:44:20 PM
Would you prefer "pretty much all the damn time, many times word-for-word" instead? Because, realistically, that's not too far from the truth.
Not only can minor word variances mean a lot in a court of law: but also the rulings of state supreme courts can drastically differ from state to state.
Which is exactly why in certain states they are unconstitutional. Just because the SCOTUS has ruled that sobriety checkpoints do not violate the federal fourth amendment, it does not make fourth amendment analogs in the various states abide by that ruling.
Which again: makes Rupert's statement more than just his opinion.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 06, 2014, 11:36:35 PM
Have you ever tested a .08 to see what it really feels like? I'll bet you havn't. Most people think that .08 is two beers...which is, for the average person, flat out bullshit. Unless you're a very regular drinker, .08 is pretty toasty....I've done the tests at .08 and can testify from first-hand experience.
Actually, I have. It's nothing
Quote from: CALL_911 on October 08, 2014, 06:19:33 AMActually, I have. It's nothing
http://www.aa.org/ (http://www.aa.org/)
Quote from: bing_oh on October 07, 2014, 11:32:43 AM
And the "core problem" is?
BAC levels were established in law so that there was a definitive, legal threshold and the DUI laws weren't totally subjective while being legally defensible. Let's say that we eliminate BAC's and just make the law that a person can't drive "while intoxicated" (and, yes, I know that most laws include such wording, but they are in there for very specific legal reasons and apply to people who show signs of severe impairment while remaining under the legal limit). What is "intoxicated?" Is it the same for every police officer in the country? Every prosecutor? Every judge? Every potential juror? It would be impossible to enforce such a law uniformly, opening up all kinds of potential for individual subjectivity. Under such a law, you could get a warning from one officer and get arrested a mile down the road by another because their opinion on what is "intoxicated" may differ. At the very least, there's some scientific backing to BAC levels.
The core problem are drunks and habitual offenders, who IME drive well above the minimum.
I don't have a strong opinion on the optimal BAC level but do agree it has to be objective as subjective law is the tool of tyrants.
Lowering it does nothing to address the core problem - they're usually way above 0.08 anyway - it just snares a lot of people who don't deserve it.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 07, 2014, 02:16:47 PM
The solution is to address factors that encourage/enable drunk driving. If you are punishing it you are too late. Someone with 4 DUIs is going to get more until they are in prison or dead.
Nah, that's social engineering and otherwise implicit calls for the increase in state power, which is never a good thing.
Someone with 4 DUIs gets there because punishments are laughably weak.
Quote from: MaxPower on October 07, 2014, 05:58:31 PM
Eh, pretty immune to that. That's usually the first argument put forward by anyone disagreeing with what we do.
Of course you're immune to that mindset - the state has virtually nothing to lose - not so much the prosecuted.
I understand it must be frustrating as hell but irrational prosecution is not a sufficient proxy for breakdowns elsewhere in the system - irresponsible judges, ineffectual law, and the myth of addiction as a disease.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 08, 2014, 08:56:19 AMThe core problem are drunks and habitual offenders, who IME drive well above the minimum.
I don't have a strong opinion on the optimal BAC level but do agree it has to be objective as subjective law is the tool of tyrants.
Lowering it does nothing to address the core problem - they're usually way above 0.08 anyway - it just snares a lot of people who don't deserve it.
It's a myth than habitual offenders automatically = high BAC's. Yes, there are the cases of the hardcore alcoholic who blows up the breath testing machine with a mega-BAC, but that's not always the case.
And, in reference to "habitual offenders," you should probably consider the fact that most first time DUI's are not necessarily first time offenders. Generally, a first-offense DUI offender has driven intoxicated multiple times before he is caught. In short, chances are very high that they have "gotten away with it" many times before they are finally arrested. The people with multiple DUI's on their records are beyond "habitual offenders."
Back in a different era, I often drove after far too many beers...as did a lot of my cohorts. Only one of us was ever caught. It was stupid then and is stupid now. I'm all for spot checks. They, usually, have them only on well known drinking holidays here but should have them on a more regular basis. I stopped doing it decades ago, but I know there's still a lot of it going on.
I get drunk and play Grand Theft Auto V. Does that count?
Quote from: bing_oh on October 08, 2014, 12:36:59 PM
It's a myth than habitual offenders automatically = high BAC's. Yes, there are the cases of the hardcore alcoholic who blows up the breath testing machine with a mega-BAC, but that's not always the case.
And, in reference to "habitual offenders," you should probably consider the fact that most first time DUI's are not necessarily first time offenders. Generally, a first-offense DUI offender has driven intoxicated multiple times before he is caught. In short, chances are very high that they have "gotten away with it" many times before they are finally arrested. The people with multiple DUI's on their records are beyond "habitual offenders."
I'd love to see that data.
Quote from: Rupert on October 08, 2014, 07:42:31 PMI'd love to see that data.
MADD quotes this CDC study when it estimates that the average DUI offender drives intoxicated 80 times before being arrested.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6039a4.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6039a4.htm)
http://www.madd.org/statistics/ (http://www.madd.org/statistics/)
I'm sure if you don't like MADD's estimate, you can crunch the numbers yourself. I'm not going to...I don't like statistics.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 08, 2014, 10:23:11 PM
MADD quotes this CDC study when it estimates that the average DUI offender drives intoxicated 80 times before being arrested.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6039a4.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6039a4.htm)
http://www.madd.org/statistics/ (http://www.madd.org/statistics/)
I'm sure if you don't like MADD's estimate, you can crunch the numbers yourself. I'm not going to...I don't like statistics.
I'm more of a DAMM man, myself. ;)
No, really, that claim isn't supported at all by the study they site. Maybe they used the cited stats in junction with some other uncited, unknown, obviously unsupported and unsupportable stats to calculate something, etc., but it's a bit more than suspect to cite that CDC study.
The stat I am actually more interested in would be the one to back up, "it's a myth than habitual offenders automatically = high BAC's." The study you did cite mentions that one of its weak points is that there is no BAC number associated with their self-reported drunk-driving number, but they do say, "4.5% of the adult population who reported binge drinking at least four times per month accounted for 55% of all alcohol-impaired driving episodes," which at least gestures to most drunk drivers having a high BAC. The numbers that would really be the best evidence, though, would be the BACs for all the DUIs issued. Couple that with the number of DUIs a certain person has had, and there are a number of possible statistical relationships that may or may not pop out.
Quote from: Rupert on October 09, 2014, 12:06:14 AMI'm more of a DAMM man, myself. ;)
No, really, that claim isn't supported at all by the study they site. Maybe they used the cited stats in junction with some other uncited, unknown, obviously unsupported and unsupportable stats to calculate something, etc., but it's a bit more than suspect to cite that CDC study.
Actually, if you were a "numbers person," figuring the stats wouldn't be that difficult. All you'd need is total driving population, number of DUI arrests, and the CDC stats (which are probably the weakest of the three numbers, as they're self-reported stats and rely upon someone's personal option whether they're intoxicated, and are therefore probably low). The first two numbers would be relatively easy to get...hell, you can now look at individual test results online for any Intoxilyzer-8000 in Ohio.
QuoteThe stat I am actually more interested in would be the one to back up, "it's a myth than habitual offenders automatically = high BAC's." The study you did cite mentions that one of its weak points is that there is no BAC number associated with their self-reported drunk-driving number, but they do say, "4.5% of the adult population who reported binge drinking at least four times per month accounted for 55% of all alcohol-impaired driving episodes," which at least gestures to most drunk drivers having a high BAC. The numbers that would really be the best evidence, though, would be the BACs for all the DUIs issued. Couple that with the number of DUIs a certain person has had, and there are a number of possible statistical relationships that may or may not pop out.
You'll never get those numbers for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that habitual offenders have been through the system before and are more likely to refuse testing. I can tell you from personal experience that habitual offenders
don't automatically = high BAC's. I have had habitual offenders test comparatively low as well as be super-high. I've also have first-time arrestees blow some amazingly high BAC numbers.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 08, 2014, 12:36:59 PM
It's a myth than habitual offenders automatically = high BAC's. Yes, there are the cases of the hardcore alcoholic who blows up the breath testing machine with a mega-BAC, but that's not always the case.
And, in reference to "habitual offenders," you should probably consider the fact that most first time DUI's are not necessarily first time offenders. Generally, a first-offense DUI offender has driven intoxicated multiple times before he is caught. In short, chances are very high that they have "gotten away with it" many times before they are finally arrested. The people with multiple DUI's on their records are beyond "habitual offenders."
I disagree - just by definition of being drunks they're not stopping at 3-4 drinks and more often than not they are drunk.
Lowering BAC, like unwarranted prosecution, is a reaction to the larger DUI problem - lawmakers/citizens see the problem but have little they can do to make an effect and hence the reaction is an overreaction.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 09, 2014, 09:40:17 AMI disagree - just by definition of being drunks they're not stopping at 3-4 drinks and more often than not they are drunk.
Who said that 3-4 drinks would get them to the legal limit?
Quote from: bing_oh on October 09, 2014, 08:54:27 AM
Actually, if you were a "numbers person," figuring the stats wouldn't be that difficult. All you'd need is total driving population, number of DUI arrests, and the CDC stats (which are probably the weakest of the three numbers, as they're self-reported stats and rely upon someone's personal option whether they're intoxicated, and are therefore probably low). The first two numbers would be relatively easy to get...hell, you can now look at individual test results online for any Intoxilyzer-8000 in Ohio.
You'll never get those numbers for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that habitual offenders have been through the system before and are more likely to refuse testing. I can tell you from personal experience that habitual offenders don't automatically = high BAC's. I have had habitual offenders test comparatively low as well as be super-high. I've also have first-time arrestees blow some amazingly high BAC numbers.
LOL, yeah, put it on me to prove your claim, good job. 1) MADD is a terrible source for anything but whiny won't somebody please think of the children! BS; 2) therefore, their stats are automatically suspect; 3) that they cited a source that didn't remotely back up their stat is actually enough to discount that stat without even being from MADD; and 4) no, I'm not going to do your legwork for you and track down a good source for all these statistics.
Your experience is great, I'm sure, but it's a tiny biased sample of the DUI population as a whole. Maybe the required statistics don't exist, but that's not a reason to believe whole hog whatever you want to believe.
Also, just as a point of debate, I'm not convinced that self-reporting based on someone's opinion of their intoxication level would yield a low number. Lots of people overestimate how drunk they are. They generally aren't the people who get DUIs, I should think. I would
guess that these people are outweighed by the people who underestimate their intoxication, but I would also guess that it's a closer balance than one would initially think.
Quote from: Rupert on October 09, 2014, 09:01:23 PMLOL, yeah, put it on me to prove your claim, good job. 1) MADD is a terrible source for anything but whiny won't somebody please think of the children! BS; 2) therefore, their stats are automatically suspect; 3) that they cited a source that didn't remotely back up their stat is actually enough to discount that stat without even being from MADD; and 4) no, I'm not going to do your legwork for you and track down a good source for all these statistics.
Your experience is great, I'm sure, but it's a tiny biased sample of the DUI population as a whole. Maybe the required statistics don't exist, but that's not a reason to believe whole hog whatever you want to believe.
Also, just as a point of debate, I'm not convinced that self-reporting based on someone's opinion of their intoxication level would yield a low number. Lots of people overestimate how drunk they are. They generally aren't the people who get DUIs, I should think. I would guess that these people are outweighed by the people who underestimate their intoxication, but I would also guess that it's a closer balance than one would initially think.
I didn't ask you to "prove my claim." I said that getting those percentages from the provided source wouldn't be particularly difficult if you wanted to re-crunch the numbers. You're the one who doubts it, so you can disprove it. I gave you a source (whether you think it's a "terrible source" or not really doesn't mean dick to me...I don't remember the part where I not only have to provide a source, but one that you liked), along with a reference to the source's original numbers from the CDC.
As for my "tiny, biased sample" of personal experience, once again I really don't care what you think of it. I know what I see, I know what other people of similar experiences see, and even without some kind of statistical sample that is "acceptable" to you, I'm smart enough to consider those experiences and draw what I consider is a legitimate conclusion from them. I'm sure you call me personally biased, along with a reference to some kind in institutional bias or another, and the only real appropriate response I can think of would be :wanker:.
If you want people to believe it, you have to prove it to their satisfaction. Sometimes that's impossible because sometimes nothing will convince someone they're wrong. However, believe it or not, I'm not all that invested in my opinion on this specific issue. It's just that the source you gave was so beyond the pale ridiculous... It's like if someone tried to disprove evolution by citing the Creation Museum for a bunch of biologists.
You do have bias, many kinds, and so do I and everyone. That's my point. You might be right, but you (and I and everyone) can't even judge your own experience objectively, let alone the separate small sample size and sampling biases.
Quote from: Rupert on October 09, 2014, 09:50:13 PMIf you want people to believe it, you have to prove it to their satisfaction. Sometimes that's impossible because sometimes nothing will convince someone they're wrong. However, believe it or not, I'm not all that invested in my opinion on this specific issue. It's just that the source you gave was so beyond the pale ridiculous... It's like if someone tried to disprove evolution by citing the Creation Museum for a bunch of biologists.
You do have bias, many kinds, and so do I and everyone. That's my point. You might be right, but you (and I and everyone) can't even judge your own experience objectively, let alone the separate small sample size and sampling biases.
Wait...you actually think I'm trying to convince anyone of anything around here? Seriously, I can't think of a single time I've ever seen someone change their mind about something on this board since I've been here...changing someone's mind on 'Spin is like talking the Pope into converting to scientology.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 09, 2014, 01:08:52 PM
Who said that 3-4 drinks would get them to the legal limit?
It come for some but I was more thinking of MaxPower's under limit example.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 10, 2014, 07:33:10 AMIt come for some but I was more thinking of MaxPower's under limit example.
Charging someone who is under the legal limit is relatively rare. It generally involves someone who shows signs of significant impairment despite being under the limit. Many times, it's a medication + alcohol issue.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 08, 2014, 08:58:05 AM
Nah, that's social engineering and otherwise implicit calls for the increase in state power, which is never a good thing.
Someone with 4 DUIs gets there because punishments are laughably weak.
Cool, I guess the move is to make DUIs a capital offense. 0% recidivism rate, and self-righteous teatotalers get their fill of infidel bloodlust. Real win win :rolleyes:
I believe it's "teetotaler."
Lets stop maligning tea. It's taken enough abuse recently anyways.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 10, 2014, 11:57:04 AM
Charging someone who is under the legal limit is relatively rare. It generally involves someone who shows signs of significant impairment despite being under the limit. Many times, it's a medication + alcohol issue.
We look at fst results and admissions they make about how drunk they are. Here the law is either over a .08 or impairment to any extent, however slight. Many officers ask people if they feel the effect of the alcohol they drank...when they say yes then the test result really doesn't matter anymore.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 10, 2014, 01:45:55 AM
Wait...you actually think I'm trying to convince anyone of anything around here? Seriously, I can't think of a single time I've ever seen someone change their mind about something on this board since I've been here...changing someone's mind on 'Spin is like talking the Pope into converting to scientology.
Then you're just here to jerk yourself off, or what?
Quote from: MaxPower on October 10, 2014, 05:04:02 PMWe look at fst results and admissions they make about how drunk they are. Here the law is either over a .08 or impairment to any extent, however slight. Many officers ask people if they feel the effect of the alcohol they drank...when they say yes then the test result really doesn't matter anymore.
There's wording for both here as well. Generally, the "under the influence" section is most commonly used for those who refuse BAC tests, though medication-related DUI's happen as well. It's unlikely that our local prosecutor would take an under the influence DUI on a low test without other factors unless the SFST's are abysmal (and maybe not even then).
Quote from: Rupert on October 10, 2014, 05:35:45 PMThen you're just here to jerk yourself off, or what?
Message boards wouldn't be the first place I'd go on the internet to jerk myself off...:huh:
The standard here for non-BAC cases is "appreciable impairment," I don't think "feel the effect" would quite get you there and seems like a bullshit line of thinking as well.
We have structured sentencing for DUIs and (almost?) every county has a no-drop policy. It's far harder to negotiate a plea on a DUI than it is for someone caught with a kilo of cocaine. Whether that makes our streets any safer is anyone's guess, but one thing we can say for certain is it creates an enormous amount of litigation.
I tend to think continually lowering the BAC limit and prosecuting borderline cases does nothing but make criminals out of an extremely large portion of the general populace.
Quote from: Tave on October 12, 2014, 07:51:01 AM
The standard here for non-BAC cases is "appreciable impairment," I don't think "feel the effect" would quite get you there and seems like a bullshit line of thinking as well.
We have structured sentencing for DUIs and (almost?) every county has a no-drop policy. It's far harder to negotiate a plea on a DUI than it is for someone caught with a kilo of cocaine. Whether that makes our streets any safer is anyone's guess, but one thing we can say for certain is it creates an enormous amount of litigation.
I tend to think continually lowering the BAC limit and prosecuting borderline cases does nothing but make criminals out of an extremely large portion of the general populace.
yeah, our case law says impairment to any extent, however slight. It's a really really low threshold. Sounds like the threshold is higher where you work.
Quote from: Tave on October 12, 2014, 07:51:01 AM
I tend to think continually lowering the BAC limit and prosecuting borderline cases does nothing but make criminals out of an extremely large portion of the general populace.
People shouldn't drink and drive. It's not that hard. :huh:
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 12, 2014, 05:39:00 PM
People shouldn't drink and drive. It's not that hard. :huh:
Yes yes, very easy when the hardest thing you drink is root beer with a little extra root.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 12, 2014, 05:39:00 PM
People shouldn't drink and drive. It's not that hard. :huh:
Tell that to someone who's drunk. :huh:
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 12, 2014, 06:21:42 PM
Tell that to someone who's drunk. :huh:
Don't drink if you don't know how you're getting home. Or if you drove there. :huh:
Quote from: Rupert on October 12, 2014, 06:05:14 PM
Yes yes, very easy when the hardest thing you drink is root beer with a little extra root.
*ahem* The root sassafras was found to be a carcinogen, all rootbeer is made with fake flavors. :(
Quote from: Tave on October 12, 2014, 07:51:01 AMI tend to think continually lowering the BAC limit and prosecuting borderline cases does nothing but make criminals out of an extremely large portion of the general populace.
Your beliefs don't seem to correspond with the statistics. If you refer back to the CDC study I linked, you'll find that, statistically, the number of intoxicated drivers is actually declining despite the lowering of per se limits across the country. The study shows the lowest numbers since 1993 when the records started being compiled.
Not trying to prove anything, my ass. ;)
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 12, 2014, 07:14:48 PM
Don't drink if you don't know how you're getting home. Or if you drove there. :huh:
Ha!
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 12, 2014, 07:15:25 PM
*ahem* The root sassafras was found to be a carcinogen, all rootbeer is made with fake flavors. :(
I thought rootbeer was made from anise?
Quote from: Rupert on October 12, 2014, 11:22:45 PMNot trying to prove anything, my ass. ;)
Not trying to prove anything...I just happen to always be right. :huh: :lol:
Quote from: bing_oh on October 12, 2014, 10:36:42 PM
Your beliefs don't seem to correspond with the statistics. If you refer back to the CDC study I linked, you'll find that, statistically, the number of intoxicated drivers is actually declining despite the lowering of per se limits across the country. The study shows the lowest numbers since 1993 when the records started being compiled.
It doesn't show that at all. It shows that the number of impaired drivers increased from 1993 to a peak in 2006.
Quote from: Tave on October 13, 2014, 10:23:05 AMIt doesn't show that at all. It shows that the number of impaired drivers increased from 1993 to a peak in 2006.
"In 2010, 1.8% of respondents reported at least one episode of alcohol-impaired driving in the past 30 days. These four million adults reported an estimated 112,116,000 episodes of alcohol-impaired driving in the United States for the year. This is the lowest percentage of drinking drivers and lowest number of episodes reported since 1993, the first year for which published national BRFSS estimates are available."
"Since the peak in 2006, alcohol-impaired driving episodes have declined 30%, from 161 million to 112 million (Figure 1)."
So, it went up to a peak in 2006, then dropped to the lowest numbers since 1993. That's not mentioning that, during that time, the per se limit nationwide was decreased from .10% to .08%.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 13, 2014, 10:54:25 AM
"In 2010, 1.8% of respondents reported at least one episode of alcohol-impaired driving in the past 30 days. These four million adults reported an estimated 112,116,000 episodes of alcohol-impaired driving in the United States for the year. This is the lowest percentage of drinking drivers and lowest number of episodes reported since 1993, the first year for which published national BRFSS estimates are available."
"Since the peak in 2006, alcohol-impaired driving episodes have declined 30%, from 161 million to 112 million (Figure 1)."
So, it went up to a peak in 2006, then dropped to the lowest numbers since 1993. That's not mentioning that, during that time, the per se limit nationwide was decreased from .10% to .08%.
No, the national .08 limit was adopted in 2000, with a compliance mandate of 2004, and the state limits were getting lowered throughout the 1990s, all the while the number of drunk driving instances were increasing. Again, that study doesn't say what you claimed it does.
Can we get a graph of average national limit vs. instances of alcohol impaired driving? Also vs. DUIs issued normalized by dollars spent on DUI enforcement?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 12, 2014, 11:41:06 PM
I thought rootbeer was made from anise?
maybe secondary ingredient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_beer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_beer)
FYI
-rootbeer ties with ginger ale as the oldest soft drink
-most Europeans and Asians hate it (a Korean college roommate said it tastes like medicine)
-according to Wikipedia it is produced in all 50states
-yours truly will one day have a rootbeer cellar
-rootbeer rocks
You can age root beer?
Quote from: Rupert on October 13, 2014, 04:34:10 PM
You can age root beer?
If it has tits, I can milk it.
If it has roots, you can root cellar it?
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 12, 2014, 07:14:48 PM
Don't drink if you don't know how you're getting home. Or if you drove there. :huh:
You can drink and still be OK to drive.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 13, 2014, 04:28:43 PM
maybe secondary ingredient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_beer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_beer)
FYI
-rootbeer ties with ginger ale as the oldest soft drink
-most Europeans and Asians hate it (a Korean college roommate said it tastes like medicine)
-according to Wikipedia it is produced in all 50states
-yours truly will one day have a rootbeer cellar
-rootbeer rocks
Imitation is the sincerest form of jealousy. :lol:
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 13, 2014, 06:13:39 PM
You can drink and still be OK to drive.
I'd say
we can drink some and still be OK. SHO, though...
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 13, 2014, 06:15:24 PM
Imitation is the sincerest form form of jealousy. :lol:
:clap:
Quote from: Tave on October 13, 2014, 11:36:58 AMNo, the national .08 limit was adopted in 2000, with a compliance mandate of 2004, and the state limits were getting lowered throughout the 1990s, all the while the number of drunk driving instances were increasing. Again, that study doesn't say what you claimed it does.
Let's do some more numbers...
Here's a BJS study published in 1998.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ac.pdf (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ac.pdf)
"In 1996, local law enforcement agencies nationwide made an estimated 1,467,300 arrests for driving under the influence (DUI). Arrests for DUI peaked in 1983 when there were 1.9 million arrests. Compared to 1983, the per capita rate of arrest for DUI in 1996 was 34% lower."
So, your 1996 numbers were 34% lower than the 1983 numbers.
In 2012, the Uniform Crime Reporting stats show 1,282,957 arrests nationwide for DUI. That's another decrease from the 1996 numbers (that were already lower than the 1983 numbers, let's not forget).
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/29tabledatadecpdf (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/29tabledatadecpdf)
Now, let's look at state per se BAC laws. As of 2001, 25 states (plus DC and Puerto Rico) had established .08 as per se illegal...Oregon and Utah were the first, establishing .08 in 1983. The remaining states still had per se limits set at .10. as of 2001. Delaware was the last state to enact a .08 limit in 2004.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/alcohol-laws/08history/1_introduction.htm (http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/alcohol-laws/08history/1_introduction.htm)
So, that establishes your timeline for the lowering of per se BAC levels across the country, as well as showing a decline in DUI arrests since 1983...all despite those lowered BAC limits. Dispute it all you like, but the numbers disagree with your assertion that lower per se BAC limits are "making criminals out of an extremely large portion of the populous."
There might be a correlation, but that's a different thing than "the numbers disagree", etc.
Quote from: Rupert on October 14, 2014, 01:26:23 AMThere might be a correlation, but that's a different thing than "the numbers disagree", etc.
Tave said that he believes that lower per se BAC limits lead to more DUI arrests. The statistical numbers for the last 30 years contradict that. :huh:
No, some numbers, I haven't seen much in the way of statistical numbers. R-squareds, p-values, distributions... Nor has anyone apparently explored the presumably many other possible reasons DUIs might decline in spite of lower BACs leading to relatively more arrests.
I don't even care about this specific argument, I'm pointing out that this stuff isn't simple and that no one apparently has a handle on it.
Also, to get at one of your earlier points, seems to me that if we are going to say that lower BAC limit leads to fewer DUI arrests, then we can say that there weren't relatively very many DUIs in the 0.08 - 0.10 BAC range, and that once again gestures at most DUI arrests being significantly over the limit.
Quote from: Rupert on October 14, 2014, 01:57:46 AMNo, some numbers, I haven't seen much in the way of statistical numbers. R-squareds, p-values, distributions... Nor has anyone apparently explored the presumably many other possible reasons DUIs might decline in spite of lower BACs leading to relatively more arrests.
I don't even care about this specific argument, I'm pointing out that this stuff isn't simple and that no one apparently has a handle on it.
Also, to get at one of your earlier points, seems to me that if we are going to say that lower BAC limit leads to fewer DUI arrests, then we can say that there weren't relatively very many DUIs in the 0.08 - 0.10 BAC range, and that once again gestures at most DUI arrests being significantly over the limit.
You're expanding my argument well beyond its intended scope. My argument was simple...that there is no statistical evidence that supports the idea that lowering the per se BAC limit from .10 to .08 has historically increased the number of arrests. I never said (nor will I ever say) that lowering the per se limit somehow automatically decreases DUI's...if that were true, then politicians should just make the per se limit .000 and make DUI magically disappear. The factors contributing to the decrease in DUI's are numerous. Does enforcement (including a lowering of per se limits) factor into this? Absolutely. As does social change, media attention, education, and a myriad of other factors. The lowering of per se limits is more a reflection of a change in social attitudes regarding the dangers of DUI and a decreasing acceptance of that particular behavior.
If there are so many factors, then why wouldn't a relative increase due to lower BAC limit get drowned out? There isn't really much statistical evidence to support much of anything WRT this topic, it would seem. Too many complicating factors and contradictory effects.
You did imply that you thought lower BAC limit = fewer DUIs, BTW.
I think harder overall penalties and an increasing social stigma about being a drunk driver are likely major contributing causes to the overall decline.
One might even make the argument that the lower BAC limit made asking for a ride more acceptable.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 13, 2014, 06:13:39 PM
You can drink and still be OK to drive.
That's pure crap. It's exactly what 100% of drunk drivers are thinking.
SOME people might be able to drink "a little" and be "okay" "sometimes"- how much do you want the guy in the lane next to you to have drunk before driving??? There are a billion variables, and people are particularly good at making bad decisions.
Quote from: Rupert on October 13, 2014, 04:34:10 PM
You can age root beer?
Doubt it makes any difference- I just want to be able to pick and choose any flavor/brand I want. :lol:
Quote from: Rupert on October 14, 2014, 02:24:08 AMIf there are so many factors, then why wouldn't a relative increase due to lower BAC limit get drowned out? There isn't really much statistical evidence to support much of anything WRT this topic, it would seem. Too many complicating factors and contradictory effects.
You did imply that you thought lower BAC limit = fewer DUIs, BTW.
Enforcement (including changes in the law regarding per se levels) will have an effect on DUI's. Yes, I said that. I never said or implied that it was the sole factor nor that the changing of the law itself automatically caused fewer DUI's. As with any social change (including changes in the laws of society), it takes time to effect behavioral changes in response.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 14, 2014, 07:31:05 AM
That's pure crap. It's exactly what 100% of drunk drivers are thinking.
SOME people might be able to drink "a little" and be "okay" "sometimes"- how much do you want the guy in the lane next to you to have drunk before driving??? There are a billion variables, and people are particularly good at making bad decisions.
It's not crap; its legal fact.
(Hint, that's why there's a limit which in fact allows some amount of drinking and driving)
Anyways, I'm sure youre fine. I've never had a sugar buzz bad enough to keep my from driving.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 14, 2014, 07:31:05 AM
That's pure crap. It's exactly what 100% of drunk drivers are thinking.
SOME people might be able to drink "a little" and be "okay" "sometimes"- how much do you want the guy in the lane next to you to have drunk before driving??? There are a billion variables, and people are particularly good at making bad decisions.
I limit myself to one beer with my meal if I'm on the road. I really don't think that amount would make any difference to the majority of people.
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 14, 2014, 04:50:52 PM
I limit myself to one beer with my meal if I'm on the road. I really don't think that amount would make any difference to the majority of people.
Agree, unless the beer is after the meal, right before driving, or if it turns into another, and another, and another
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 14, 2014, 07:31:05 AM
That's pure crap. It's exactly what 100% of drunk drivers are thinking.
SOME people might be able to drink "a little" and be "okay" "sometimes"- how much do you want the guy in the lane next to you to have drunk before driving??? There are a billion variables, and people are particularly good at making bad decisions.
You're out of your element.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 14, 2014, 07:34:59 PM
Agree, unless the beer is after the meal, right before driving, or if it turns into another, and another, and another
Most people don't just drink a beer and then suddenly OMG LETS FUCKIN PARTY GIMME SOME MORE until they can't see straight.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 14, 2014, 07:34:59 PM
Agree, unless the beer is after the meal, right before driving, or if it turns into another, and another, and another
You're one of those dudes that still thinks "Reefer Madness" was a legit public service announcement, aren't you?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 14, 2014, 10:43:55 PM
You're one of those dudes that still thinks "Reefer Madness" was a legit public service announcement, aren't you?
It seems that Mormon harassment is a favorite CarSPIN pastime. Good, harmless fun. :lol:
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 14, 2014, 11:00:14 PM
It seems that Mormon harassment is a favorite CarSPIN pastime. Good, harmless fun. :lol:
Not mormons per se (you won't for instance see me piling on about soaking and whatnot), just Will: whom I think has a good enough sense of humour to know that anything I say is just harmless fun.
Quote from: Rupert on October 14, 2014, 07:35:13 PMYou're out of your element.
Would I be "out of my element" if I agreed with him?
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 14, 2014, 04:50:52 PMI limit myself to one beer with my meal if I'm on the road. I really don't think that amount would make any difference to the majority of people.
My limit is two. I know for a fact that won't get me even within spitting distance of .08, but I personally feel it's irresponsible for a driver to have any level of impairment.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 15, 2014, 12:12:27 AM
Would I be "out of my element" if I agreed with him?
But you don't.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 14, 2014, 07:31:05 AM
That's pure crap. It's exactly what 100% of drunk drivers are thinking.
SOME people might be able to drink "a little" and be "okay" "sometimes"- how much do you want the guy in the lane next to you to have drunk before driving??? There are a billion variables, and people are particularly good at making bad decisions.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 15, 2014, 12:15:13 AM
My limit is two. I know for a fact that won't get me even within spitting distance of .08, but I personally feel it's irresponsible for a driver to have any level of impairment.
.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 15, 2014, 12:12:27 AM
Would I be "out of my element" if I agreed with him?
Well you clearly don't agree with him, so it's a bit of a moot point, but if you did, no, you would be idiot. :lol:
Quote from: bing_oh on October 15, 2014, 12:15:13 AM
My limit is two. I know for a fact that won't get me even within spitting distance of .08, but I personally feel it's irresponsible for a driver to have any level of impairment.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 15, 2014, 12:37:34 AMBut you don't.
Quote from: Rupert on October 15, 2014, 12:45:51 AMWell you clearly don't agree with him, so it's a bit of a moot point, but if you did, no, you would be idiot. :lol:
I do agree with him that many drunk drivers actually believe stupid things like they're "ok to drive" or "they drive better/are more careful when they've had a few beers." And I also agree with him that people are particularly good at making bad decisions. Quite a few drunk drivers actually do legitimately believe...or say that they believe...that they're not too drunk to drive.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 15, 2014, 12:15:13 AM
I personally feel it's irresponsible for a driver to have any level of impairment.
THIS.And the way people drive, I shudder and cringe to think that y'all think it's ok that those around you drive "somewhat" buzzed.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 15, 2014, 01:11:07 AM
Quite a few drunk drivers actually do legitimately believe...or say that they believe...that they're not too drunk to drive.
MOST of them think everything will turn out ok if they drive after drinking.
Quote from: Rupert on October 14, 2014, 07:35:13 PM
You're out of your element.
If everyone thought the same as me, no more drunk driving deaths/accidents. :huh:
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 15, 2014, 05:42:02 AM
If everyone thought the same as me...
Now there's an idea that will drive me to drinkin'
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 15, 2014, 08:14:14 AM
Now there's an idea that will drive me to drinkin'
how bout just this one issue??? :lol:
Quote from: bing_oh on October 14, 2014, 01:44:08 AM
Tave said that he believes that lower per se BAC limits lead to more DUI arrests. The statistical numbers for the last 30 years contradict that. :huh:
I never made a claim about arrest rates. To clear up any confusion, I was speaking more in terms of criminalizing the behavior.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 13, 2014, 11:28:42 PM
...
So, that establishes your timeline for the lowering of per se BAC levels across the country, as well as showing a decline in DUI arrests since 1983...all despite those lowered BAC limits. Dispute it all you like, but the numbers disagree with your assertion that lower per se BAC limits are "making criminals out of an extremely large portion of the populous."
Well at least those second set of numbers you quoted actually say what you think they do. It still doesn't move the ball in terms of causal factors, and interestingly enough contradicts your earlier statistics.
Even after just one stiff pint I feel it enough that I do not want to drive, and I'm nowhere near 0.08%. It doesn't take much - the thing I've noticed is that I can get a bit confused or not pay attention as much.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 15, 2014, 09:24:17 PMEven after just one stiff pint I feel it enough that I do not want to drive, and I'm nowhere near 0.08%. It doesn't take much - the thing I've noticed is that I can get a bit confused or not pay attention as much.
What the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests primarily check is what are called "divided attention skills"...the ability to do multiple simple tasks simultaneously. Basically, we're talking about the normal multitasking that we do pretty much without thinking while driving. Alcohol (and other central nervous system depressants) impair those abilities. Someone who is under the influence can (sometimes) concentrate on and do one task ok, but cannot do two or three simple tasks at the same time.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 15, 2014, 12:15:13 AM
My limit is two. I know for a fact that won't get me even within spitting distance of .08, but I personally feel it's irresponsible for a driver to have any level of impairment.
Various forms of impairment. Some eat so much it depletes the blood supply to their brain.
Or talking/texting on a phone, which is more dangerous than borderline BAC cases but treated as a civil infraction in a lot of jurisdictions.
Or driving while sleepy, driving with a car-full of screaming kids, driving while experiencing severe emotional distress, etc., etc., etc... (and those aren't even infractions).
Quote from: Tave on October 16, 2014, 09:51:33 AM
Or talking/texting on a phone, which is more dangerous than borderline BAC cases but treated as a civil infraction in a lot of jurisdictions.
Or driving while sleepy, driving with a car-full of screaming kids, driving while experiencing severe emotional distress, etc., etc., etc... (and those aren't even infractions).
Exactly- one should focus on driving when driving.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 15, 2014, 09:38:30 PM
What the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests primarily check is what are called "divided attention skills"...the ability to do multiple simple tasks simultaneously. Basically, we're talking about the normal multitasking that we do pretty much without thinking while driving. Alcohol (and other central nervous system depressants) impair those abilities. Someone who is under the influence can (sometimes) concentrate on and do one task ok, but cannot do two or three simple tasks at the same time.
Seems like flawed logic. When I drive- sober or not- I tend to drive with the radio off and focus 100% on the task of driving. Multitasking while driving is no bueno sober or not and the ability to multitask doesn't seem to be a relevant measure of how well one can drive....
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 16, 2014, 07:52:16 AM
Various forms of impairment. Some eat so much it depletes the blood supply to their brain.
Quote from: Tave on October 16, 2014, 09:51:33 AM
Or talking/texting on a phone, which is more dangerous than borderline BAC cases but treated as a civil infraction in a lot of jurisdictions.
Or driving while sleepy, driving with a car-full of screaming kids, driving while experiencing severe emotional distress, etc., etc., etc... (and those aren't even infractions).
The issues here are measurable/objective levels causation and detectability. Texting is sorta there but the others don't really qualify save for seeing the end result (poor driving, wreck).
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 16, 2014, 12:57:09 PMSeems like flawed logic. When I drive- sober or not- I tend to drive with the radio off and focus 100% on the task of driving. Multitasking while driving is no bueno sober or not and the ability to multitask doesn't seem to be a relevant measure of how well one can drive....
Really? You multitask every day when you drive...it's a requirement of the task. You steer with your hands, control gas and brake (and maybe clutch) with your feet, you have to think about navigation, operate various other required controls (turn signals, gear shift, cruise control, headlights, windshield wipers, etc), watch and react to your surroundings like weather conditions, road conditions, obstructions, pedestrians, wildlife, other drivers, etc. That's multitasking and it's what we do when we drive. If you can't multitask safely, you shouldn't be behind the wheel.
Just staying in the lane and keeping speed constant is beyond some people.
Sober.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 16, 2014, 07:22:42 PM
Really? You multitask every day when you drive...it's a requirement of the task. You steer with your hands, control gas and brake (and maybe clutch) with your feet, you have to think about navigation, operate various other required controls (turn signals, gear shift, cruise control, headlights, windshield wipers, etc), watch and react to your surroundings like weather conditions, road conditions, obstructions, pedestrians, wildlife, other drivers, etc. That's multitasking and it's what we do when we drive. If you can't multitask safely, you shouldn't be behind the wheel.
Do breathing and blinking count as tasks too?
All the things you listed are sub tasks under the single task of driving. By this logic, shit like texting should be no problem- just another task to manage, right?- as something like turning your windshield wipers on requires some high level of attention/concentration.
No, I think metrics measuring things like awareness, coordination & reaction times are a much better indicator of one's level of intoxication and ability to drive.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 17, 2014, 08:34:20 AMDo breathing and blinking count as tasks too?
All the things you listed are sub tasks under the single task of driving. By this logic, shit like texting should be no problem- just another task to manage, right?- as something like turning your windshield wipers on requires some high level of attention/concentration.
I never said they were particularly difficult or complex tasks...things that the human brain can multitask rarely are. Of course, the things that are asked from a person during the SFST's are also not complex tasks...comprehending and following directions, balance, and counting are all things that most of us have been doing since we were little kids. Yet, they are different tasks that different parts of the brain and different functional systems engage to accomplish them...as are the small tasks you do when you drive. Like it or not, you are multitasking when you drive.
QuoteNo, I think metrics measuring things like awareness, coordination & reaction times are a much better indicator of one's level of intoxication and ability to drive.
If you know so much about human physiology and intoxication, perhaps you should develop and approach the NHTSA with a new set of SFST's.
Quote from: bing_oh on October 17, 2014, 11:32:23 AM
I never said they were particularly difficult or complex tasks...things that the human brain can multitask rarely are. Of course, the things that are asked from a person during the SFST's are also not complex tasks...comprehending and following directions, balance, and counting are all things that most of us have been doing since we were little kids. Yet, they are different tasks that different parts of the brain and different functional systems engage to accomplish them...as are the small tasks you do when you drive. Like it or not, you are multitasking when you drive.
If you know so much about human physiology and intoxication, perhaps you should develop and approach the NHTSA with a new set of SFST's.
STRAWMAN ALERT :pullover: Questioning the value of assessing one's ability to "multitask" in the context of checking intoxication is hardly a claim of expertise in anything. Not surprised you take a question of authority as an ATTACK on authority though, thats your thing. Heres how silly that "multitasking" thing is though... A drunk college kid can mack on a doe eyed sorority pledge, play a game of beer pong and rap along with a song in the background without missing a beat... doesn't mean they should be behind the wheel of a car. Meanwhile there are folks who can barely walk and talk sober. So yea I question the value of that line of testing. Even with that, you still cant issue a DUI without breathalyzing which shows how much the NHTSA actually values SFSTs. But why would you ever question anything you are told to do thats not a threat to your power? :huh:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 17, 2014, 02:38:02 PMSTRAWMAN ALERT :pullover: Questioning the value of assessing one's ability to "multitask" in the context of checking intoxication is hardly a claim of expertise in anything. Not surprised you take a question of authority as an ATTACK on authority though, thats your thing. Heres how silly that "multitasking" thing is though... A drunk college kid can mack on a doe eyed sorority pledge, play a game of beer pong and rap along with a song in the background without missing a beat... doesn't mean they should be behind the wheel of a car. Meanwhile there are folks who can barely walk and talk sober. So yea I question the value of that line of testing. Even with that, you still cant issue a DUI without breathalyzing which shows how much the NHTSA actually values SFSTs. But why would you ever question anything you are told to do thats not a threat to your power? :huh:
Wtf are you talking about? :nutty: