Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/12/2006 3:01:05 PM EDT
this is in its own thread because the other thread deals with the intoxilizer and this one is about the B.A.C.

in the beginning of D.U.I. laws the legal B.A.C. was something like .2 percent it now has dropped to .08 percent...why because of revenue.....nothing else....

about ten percent of the Population can not drive at .08 percent the other ninety percent can....I know you'll have Cops on here screaming about how they had sum stumbling mumbling drunk that only blew a .06 or other small number....but remember something of the order of 6-8 out of 10 drivers on a Friday or Saturday night will be legally intoxicated....why are there not more wrecks...because they can still drive.....

I a an L.E.O. I do enforce D.U.I. laws but I am looking to help change them.....



Link Posted: 3/12/2006 3:04:03 PM EDT
If this thread doesn't work out, feel free to include you comments in "the other thread"
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=445133
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 3:08:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BURN:


in the beginning of D.U.I. laws the legal B.A.C. was something like .2 percent it now has dropped to .08 percent...why because of revenue.....nothing else....




That and the "Holier than thou" set is using it as a modern day form of prohibition.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 3:09:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BURN:
this is in its own thread because the other thread deals with the intoxilizer and this one is about the B.A.C.

in the beginning of D.U.I. laws the legal B.A.C. was something like .2 percent it now has dropped to .08 percent...why because of revenue.....nothing else....

about ten percent of the Population can not drive at .08 percent the other ninety percent can....I know you'll have Cops on here screaming about how they had sum stumbling mumbling drunk that only blew a .06 or other small number....but remember something of the order of 6-8 out of 10 drivers on a Friday or Saturday night will be legally intoxicated....why are there not more wrecks...because they can still drive.....

I a an L.E.O. I do enforce D.U.I. laws but I am looking to help change them.....






Right there with ya brother.

DUI/DWI in and of itself should NOT be an arrestable offense.

I am awaiting to the torrent of folks storming in to say they've had a loved one killed by a drunk driver.

How is this different than having a loved one killed with a firearm and wating guns banned?



BC
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 3:10:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ar-wrench:

Originally Posted By BURN:


in the beginning of D.U.I. laws the legal B.A.C. was something like .2 percent it now has dropped to .08 percent...why because of revenue.....nothing else....




That and the "Holier than thou" set is using it as a modern day form of prohibition.



I am fighting about that with officers everyday......right now im trying to get promoted to the traing Dept...If I can get them as they come in I can work on getting rid of that.....Its a down hill battle but I have my Principle and pride....
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 3:12:50 PM EDT
Just remember, you're not a LEO till you're an LEO!
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 3:15:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By falaholic1:
Just remember, you're not a LEO till you're an LEO!



HUH! not sure what you mean by that but Ive been a full time LEO 1999.....explain for us slow ones please...
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 3:15:45 PM EDT
The BAC were lowered because of MADD. Not revenue.

From personal expierence I say the .10 was a good standard.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 3:19:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/12/2006 3:21:20 PM EDT by npd233]

Originally Posted By BURN:
this is in its own thread because the other thread deals with the intoxilizer and this one is about the B.A.C.

in the beginning of D.U.I. laws the legal B.A.C. was something like .2 percent it now has dropped to .08 percent...why because of revenue.....nothing else....

about ten percent of the Population can not drive at .08 percent the other ninety percent can....I know you'll have Cops on here screaming about how they had sum stumbling mumbling drunk that only blew a .06 or other small number....but remember something of the order of 6-8 out of 10 drivers on a Friday or Saturday night will be legally intoxicated....why are there not more wrecks...because they can still drive.....

I a an L.E.O. I do enforce D.U.I. laws but I am looking to help change them.....






Haven't ever heard or read that it was ever as high as .20. New York was the first state to pass a Drunk driving law and it didn't specify a particular BAC. The first generally accepted level was a .15. Over the years, through accident statistics and other research studies, the legal level was lowered to the point it is now. You may think most people can still drive at a .08 but you don't realize how slowed their reactions become. They hit the brake a second too slow, or start their turns a moment too late. The reason most don't end up in crashes are that there is nothing in their way to hit. You've seen enough stories of a seemingly sober person, according to your standards, that's been at-fault in a serious accident. Don't pretend it's not criminal to put yourself behind the wheel and on the road with everyone else out there after you've got yourself to a .08 or worse. Taxis, friends and family are plentiful. If you don't have any of those, there's always bicycles or your feet.

If someone passes the standardized FST's they get sent on their way, and I'll never know what their BAC was. If they can't pass those, they shouldn't be driving a car.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 3:23:22 PM EDT
there should be no BAC cutoff at all, because the BAC where someone is safe to drive varies from person to person. FSTs should be given and videotaped. if you pass the FSTs you're let go, no matter what your BAC is. if you fail the FSTs for any reason, including drug/alcohol intoxication, lack of sleep, etc then you should be arrested for DWAI.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 3:25:51 PM EDT
PA just recently dropped theirs to .08. I get a newsletter from my insurance company, and they interviewed the guy who was in charge of the push to drop it from .10 (whatever organization he was from). He flat out said that they were using the incrementalism approach, they will be trying for .06 next, and will keep pursuing it until any detectable amount is illegal. That's not paranoid guys out for a drink Friday night talking, that's coming straight from the organizations that are pushing for the lower limits.

The other part I DON'T agree with is the lowered limit for CDL holders while not on the job. Although I am not one, it is completely unfair to have a CDL holder (i.e. professional driver) subject to a .04 limit while non-CDL holders can get away with up to .08. And that's not just when they're driving a truck or bus; that goes for their personal automobiles on private time, too. Just not right, especially when they could lose their livelyhood if they blow a .041 while the guy in the next car blows a .079 and walks.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 3:26:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By BURN:
this is in its own thread because the other thread deals with the intoxilizer and this one is about the B.A.C.

in the beginning of D.U.I. laws the legal B.A.C. was something like .2 percent it now has dropped to .08 percent...why because of revenue.....nothing else....

about ten percent of the Population can not drive at .08 percent the other ninety percent can....I know you'll have Cops on here screaming about how they had sum stumbling mumbling drunk that only blew a .06 or other small number....but remember something of the order of 6-8 out of 10 drivers on a Friday or Saturday night will be legally intoxicated....why are there not more wrecks...because they can still drive.....

I a an L.E.O. I do enforce D.U.I. laws but I am looking to help change them.....






Haven't ever heard or read that it was ever as high as .20. New York was the first state to pass a Drunk driving law and it didn't specify a particular BAC. The first generally accepted level was a .15. Over the years, through accident statistics and other research studies, the legal level was lowered to the point it is now. You may think most people can still drive at a .08 but you don't realize how slowed their reactions become. They hit the brake a second too slow, or start their turns a moment too late. The reason most don't end up in crashes are that there is nothing in their way to hit. You've seen enough stories of a seemingly sober person, according to your standards, that's been at-fault in a serious accident. Don't pretend it's not criminal to put yourself behind the wheel and on the road with everyone else out there after you've got yourself to a .08 or worse. Taxis, friends and family are plentiful. If you don't have any of those, there's always bicycles or your feet.



First...I never drink and drive...i get a ride period even if its one beer.....I dont cut drunk drivers "A BREAK" either....

Second..do a little case review for case laws on D.U.I. for older cases it was higher than .15
something of the order of .23 I.I.R.C.

Third...while some people have slow reaction times with alcohol a lot of people have slow reaction times completely SOBER.

Fourth...MADD was the means or excuse for the politicians to listen....REVENUE...dont be blinded by it....

Fifth....if a person who is drunk gets in an accident it is always there fault cause they were drunk.....Now im not saying thats how you ivestigate your DUI's but Ive seen many a LEO do it here...Person driving drunk getting hit by someone coming out of a parking lot instead or yielsding...yup hes drunk its his fault....
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 3:28:26 PM EDT
The founder of MADD left the organization because they had accomplished their goals but now want more draconian laws and eventually zero tolerance. They will probably after guns after that.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 3:32:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By BURN:
this is in its own thread because the other thread deals with the intoxilizer and this one is about the B.A.C.

in the beginning of D.U.I. laws the legal B.A.C. was something like .2 percent it now has dropped to .08 percent...why because of revenue.....nothing else....

about ten percent of the Population can not drive at .08 percent the other ninety percent can....I know you'll have Cops on here screaming about how they had sum stumbling mumbling drunk that only blew a .06 or other small number....but remember something of the order of 6-8 out of 10 drivers on a Friday or Saturday night will be legally intoxicated....why are there not more wrecks...because they can still drive.....

I a an L.E.O. I do enforce D.U.I. laws but I am looking to help change them.....






Haven't ever heard or read that it was ever as high as .20. New York was the first state to pass a Drunk driving law and it didn't specify a particular BAC. The first generally accepted level was a .15. Over the years, through accident statistics and other research studies, the legal level was lowered to the point it is now. You may think most people can still drive at a .08 but you don't realize how slowed their reactions become. They hit the brake a second too slow, or start their turns a moment too late. The reason most don't end up in crashes are that there is nothing in their way to hit. You've seen enough stories of a seemingly sober person, according to your standards, that's been at-fault in a serious accident. Don't pretend it's not criminal to put yourself behind the wheel and on the road with everyone else out there after you've got yourself to a .08 or worse. Taxis, friends and family are plentiful. If you don't have any of those, there's always bicycles or your feet.

If someone passes the standardized FST's they get sent on their way, and I'll never know what their BAC was. If they can't pass those, they shouldn't be driving a car.



isn't a bicycle considered a vehicle, and you can get a DWI for operating it while intoxicated?

i know there was someone recently who got in trouble for riding a horse while drunk.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 3:37:16 PM EDT
I will be .04 eventually, and when it gets to that point, you won't dare have a couple of drinks with dinner. The hospitality industry will suffer dearly.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 3:38:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:



isn't a bicycle considered a vehicle, and you can get a DWI for operating it while intoxicated?

i know there was someone recently who got in trouble for riding a horse while drunk.



DUI's involve MOTOR VEHICLES. Not bikes, not horses, etc. Other laws may address those, but not DUI. In Illinois, one cannot be charged with DUI for drunk-bicycling. They can get a citation for being an intoxicated person in a roadway, but it's only a regular traffic ticket.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 3:40:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mattja:
I will be .04 eventually, and when it gets to that point, you won't dare have a couple of drinks with dinner. The hospitality industry will suffer dearly.



Studies have shown that Asprin, smoking, and a few other things will give you a Higher reading on B.A.C. test but I think most of thoose are for blood test not the intoxilizer....

I belive that if you drink You shouldnt drive because no one studies themseleves enough to know what their personnal B.A.C. for imparment is...but then again some laws are about revenue and I hate that.....

Dont get me started on officers who writes tickets for no seat belts....
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 3:59:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/12/2006 4:00:00 PM EDT by npd233]

Originally Posted By BURN:

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By BURN:
this is in its own thread because the other thread deals with the intoxilizer and this one is about the B.A.C.

in the beginning of D.U.I. laws the legal B.A.C. was something like .2 percent it now has dropped to .08 percent...why because of revenue.....nothing else....

about ten percent of the Population can not drive at .08 percent the other ninety percent can....I know you'll have Cops on here screaming about how they had sum stumbling mumbling drunk that only blew a .06 or other small number....but remember something of the order of 6-8 out of 10 drivers on a Friday or Saturday night will be legally intoxicated....why are there not more wrecks...because they can still drive.....

I a an L.E.O. I do enforce D.U.I. laws but I am looking to help change them.....






Haven't ever heard or read that it was ever as high as .20. New York was the first state to pass a Drunk driving law and it didn't specify a particular BAC. The first generally accepted level was a .15. Over the years, through accident statistics and other research studies, the legal level was lowered to the point it is now. You may think most people can still drive at a .08 but you don't realize how slowed their reactions become. They hit the brake a second too slow, or start their turns a moment too late. The reason most don't end up in crashes are that there is nothing in their way to hit. You've seen enough stories of a seemingly sober person, according to your standards, that's been at-fault in a serious accident. Don't pretend it's not criminal to put yourself behind the wheel and on the road with everyone else out there after you've got yourself to a .08 or worse. Taxis, friends and family are plentiful. If you don't have any of those, there's always bicycles or your feet.



First...I never drink and drive...i get a ride period even if its one beer.....I dont cut drunk drivers "A BREAK" either.... never said you did - but by trying to get into the training division so you can tell the new officers YOUR point of view rather than training them about the existing laws they're paid to enforce, you'd be doing both them and you a disservice.

Second..do a little case review for case laws on D.U.I. for older cases it was higher than .15
something of the order of .23 I.I.R.C. I don't think you're remembering correctly, then. Never has a law been on the books in the US with a BAC that high. In the 1950's .15 was the level that states were beginning to use to define a legal level of intoxication. Prior to that there really hadn't been an enumerated standard.

Third...while some people have slow reaction times with alcohol a lot of people have slow reaction times completely SOBER. and if they got drunk, it'd be even slower.

Fourth...MADD was the means or excuse for the politicians to listen....REVENUE...dont be blinded by it.... It was lowered to .08 because of studies proved significant levels of impairment at that level. NHTSA did these studies and worked with USDOT to cut off federal highway funds to states that refused to comply. So was it about money? If you want to look at it that way, go ahead. Maybe they just used a convincing argument.

Fifth....if a person who is drunk gets in an accident it is always there fault cause they were drunk.....Now im not saying thats how you ivestigate your DUI's but Ive seen many a LEO do it here...Person driving drunk getting hit by someone coming out of a parking lot instead or yielsding...yup hes drunk its his fault....If they get rear ended while sitting at a red light the person who hit them's at fault, they get a ticket for failing to reduce speed. If I find out #2 driver is drunk behind the wheel, he gets arrested for DUI. Outside of any other evidence to the contrary, if a drunk driver's involved in a crash with a sober driver, 99 times out of 100 it's a safe bet he's at fault.



If you don't think the .08 level helps reduce crashes and injuries, read this report. If you don't feel like reading all 30 something pages, just start at the "observed effect" section at the bottom of pg. 34. www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/pub/composite.pdf
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 4:01:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BURN:
Studies have shown that Asprin, smoking, and a few other things will give you a Higher reading on B.A.C. test but I think most of thoose are for blood test not the intoxilizer....





What are you smoking?

You need to start supplying some links or articles to back up your supposed studies.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 4:04:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BlueCrusader:
I am awaiting to the torrent of folks storming in to say they've had a loved one killed by a drunk driver.

How is this different than having a loved one killed with a firearm and wating guns banned?



BC



I would say a better analogy is having restrictions on carrying a gun while intoxicated, not just having the gun.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 4:11:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BlueCrusader:

Originally Posted By BURN:
this is in its own thread because the other thread deals with the intoxilizer and this one is about the B.A.C.

in the beginning of D.U.I. laws the legal B.A.C. was something like .2 percent it now has dropped to .08 percent...why because of revenue.....nothing else....

about ten percent of the Population can not drive at .08 percent the other ninety percent can....I know you'll have Cops on here screaming about how they had sum stumbling mumbling drunk that only blew a .06 or other small number....but remember something of the order of 6-8 out of 10 drivers on a Friday or Saturday night will be legally intoxicated....why are there not more wrecks...because they can still drive.....

I a an L.E.O. I do enforce D.U.I. laws but I am looking to help change them.....






Right there with ya brother.

DUI/DWI in and of itself should NOT be an arrestable offense.

I am awaiting to the torrent of folks storming in to say they've had a loved one killed by a drunk driver.

How is this different than having a loved one killed with a firearm and wating guns banned?



BC



....the right of the people to drink and drive shall not be infringed.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 4:21:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BlueCrusader:

Right there with ya brother.

DUI/DWI in and of itself should NOT be an arrestable offense.

I am awaiting to the torrent of folks storming in to say they've had a loved one killed by a drunk driver.

How is this different than having a loved one killed with a firearm and wating guns banned?
BC



No one should be behind the wheel in an impaired condition.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 4:30:39 PM EDT
It would be nice if the judicial system would punish people for committing real crimes, you know the kinds that infringe on the rights of others.

Instead we are stuck with a fucked up judical system that tries to find a reason to punish anyone, dabbles in "pre-crime," and violates the rights of individuals.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 4:34:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:
DUI's involve MOTOR VEHICLES. Not bikes, not horses, etc. Other laws may address those, but not DUI. In Illinois, one cannot be charged with DUI for drunk-bicycling. They can get a citation for being an intoxicated person in a roadway, but it's only a regular traffic ticket.



I believe in some states DUI can encompass bikes and horses.

I also think its kind of fucked up if someone tries to be responsible and walks home instead of driving that they could get charged with "public intoxication."
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 4:44:39 PM EDT
.20 is a wee bit too high IMO. People are all over the road when pushing .10 around here unless they are functional alcoholics.

And why not arrest for DWI? Do you need to wait until they've had a wreck with someone/something or put their car into a building before deeming them worthy enough to arrest?
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 4:57:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OFFascist:

Originally Posted By npd233:
DUI's involve MOTOR VEHICLES. Not bikes, not horses, etc. Other laws may address those, but not DUI. In Illinois, one cannot be charged with DUI for drunk-bicycling. They can get a citation for being an intoxicated person in a roadway, but it's only a regular traffic ticket.



I believe in some states DUI can encompass bikes and horses.

I also think its kind of fucked up if someone tries to be responsible and walks home instead of driving that they could get charged with "public intoxication."



Being on the back of a horse makes you a pedestrian. A horse by itself, is not a vehicle. If it has wheels, it is a vehicle. If you are riding in a wagon being pulled by a horse, you are in a vehicle.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 5:04:31 PM EDT
The .04% BAC for CDL drivers only applies when they are actually driving a commercial vehicle. If they are driving a non-commercial vehicle, their BAC limit is the same as other drivers.

(f) Commercial or school vehicles.—An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a commercial vehicle, school bus or school vehicle in any of the following circumstances:
(1) After the individual has imbibed a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the alcohol concentration in the individual’s blood or breath is:
(i) .04% or greater within two hours after the individual has driven, operated or been in actual physical control of the movement of a commercial vehicle other than a school bus or a school vehicle.
(ii) .02% or greater within two hours after the individual has driven, operated or been in actual physical control of the movement of a school bus or a school vehicle.
(2) After the individual has imbibed a sufficient amount of alcohol such that the individual is rendered incapable of safely driving, operating or being in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.
(3) While the individual is under the influence of a controlled substance or combination of controlled substances, as defined in section 1603 (relating to definitions).
(4) While the individual is under the combined influence of alcohol and a controlled substance or combination of controlled substances, as defined in section 1603.

(g) Exception to two-hour rule.—Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), (b), (c), (e) or (f), where alcohol or controlled substance concentration in an individual’s blood or breath is an element of the offense, evidence of such alcohol or controlled substance concentration more than two hours after the individual has driven, operated or been in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle is sufficient to establish that element of the offense under the following circumstances:
(1) where the Commonwealth shows good cause explaining why the chemical test could not be performed within two hours; and
(2) where the Commonwealth establishes that the individual did not imbibe any alcohol or utilize a controlled substance between the time the individual was arrested and the time the sample was obtained. (Added by L.2003, Act 24(16), eff. 2/1/2004.)
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 5:14:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 338winmag:

Originally Posted By OFFascist:

Originally Posted By npd233:
DUI's involve MOTOR VEHICLES. Not bikes, not horses, etc. Other laws may address those, but not DUI. In Illinois, one cannot be charged with DUI for drunk-bicycling. They can get a citation for being an intoxicated person in a roadway, but it's only a regular traffic ticket.



I believe in some states DUI can encompass bikes and horses.

I also think its kind of fucked up if someone tries to be responsible and walks home instead of driving that they could get charged with "public intoxication."



Being on the back of a horse makes you a pedestrian. A horse by itself, is not a vehicle. If it has wheels, it is a vehicle. If you are riding in a wagon being pulled by a horse, you are in a vehicle.



I'm still not sure that is really that much of a problem, unless the horse is drunk too.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 5:16:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OFFascist:
It would be nice if the judicial system would punish people for committing real crimes, you know the kinds that infringe on the rights of others.

Instead we are stuck with a fucked up judical system that tries to find a reason to punish anyone, dabbles in "pre-crime," and violates the rights of individuals.



DUI is the motor vehicle equivelant of "brandishing". It's not permissible to wave a gun around where there are other people.

Plus, since 47,000 people die in car crahses each year, appx 50% of those alcohol related, waiting until after the crash is like closing the barn door after the bull has gotten out, and gored 2 people.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 5:24:34 PM EDT
That 50% statistic is about as phony as real tax cuts. That number includes people who were not driving and also a person under the limit that was not at fault. Obviously it is highly inflated. You really can't trust anything the govt. says or does anymore.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 5:51:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 10mmFan:
That 50% statistic is about as phony as real tax cuts. That number includes people who were not driving and also a person under the limit that was not at fault. Obviously it is highly inflated. You really can't trust anything the govt. says or does anymore.



Yeah, I hear that all the time here. Tell me what firsthand knowledge you have about how cras statistics are tabulated. Not rumor on the internet.

Funny in doing crash reports, there isn't a space to note whether or not passengers are under the influence.............................
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 8:14:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BURN:


Studies have shown that Asprin, smoking, and a few other things will give you a Higher reading on B.A.C. test but I think most of thoose are for blood test not the intoxilizer....
..



As the guy that actually performs these tests on blood samples day after day, I can tell you that this is complete bull.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 8:17:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 10mmFan:
That 50% statistic is about as phony as real tax cuts. That number includes people who were not driving and also a person under the limit that was not at fault. Obviously it is highly inflated. You really can't trust anything the govt. says or does anymore.



Nope, not inflated, I could make the argument that they are UNDER REPORTED. As to whether the fatality is driving drunk or just the passenger, they are STILL dead. Killed by some jackass under the influence.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 8:40:58 PM EDT

Studies have shown that Asprin, smoking, and a few other things will give you a Higher reading on B.A.C. test but I think most of thoose are for blood test not the intoxilizer....

I don't know anything about the blood test, but lot's of things will also give you a very incorrect high reading on the breathing test. I've never drank, but the one of the two times I was arrested for DUI I did not blow a zero. Those tests aren't much better than flipping a coin.z
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 9:17:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Polydude:

Originally Posted By BURN:


Studies have shown that Asprin, smoking, and a few other things will give you a Higher reading on B.A.C. test but I think most of thoose are for blood test not the intoxilizer....
..



As the guy that actually performs these tests on blood samples day after day, I can tell you that this is complete bull.



+1 I'd love to know where people come up with this information????
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 9:37:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By zoom:

Studies have shown that Asprin, smoking, and a few other things will give you a Higher reading on B.A.C. test but I think most of thoose are for blood test not the intoxilizer....

I don't know anything about the blood test, but lot's of things will also give you a very incorrect high reading on the breathing test. I've never drank, but the one of the two times I was arrested for DUI I did not blow a zero. Those tests aren't much better than flipping a coin.z



The only thing that affects intoxilizer results is alcohol.
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 3:54:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By BURN:

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By BURN:
this is in its own thread because the other thread deals with the intoxilizer and this one is about the B.A.C.

in the beginning of D.U.I. laws the legal B.A.C. was something like .2 percent it now has dropped to .08 percent...why because of revenue.....nothing else....

about ten percent of the Population can not drive at .08 percent the other ninety percent can....I know you'll have Cops on here screaming about how they had sum stumbling mumbling drunk that only blew a .06 or other small number....but remember something of the order of 6-8 out of 10 drivers on a Friday or Saturday night will be legally intoxicated....why are there not more wrecks...because they can still drive.....

I a an L.E.O. I do enforce D.U.I. laws but I am looking to help change them.....






Haven't ever heard or read that it was ever as high as .20. New York was the first state to pass a Drunk driving law and it didn't specify a particular BAC. The first generally accepted level was a .15. Over the years, through accident statistics and other research studies, the legal level was lowered to the point it is now. You may think most people can still drive at a .08 but you don't realize how slowed their reactions become. They hit the brake a second too slow, or start their turns a moment too late. The reason most don't end up in crashes are that there is nothing in their way to hit. You've seen enough stories of a seemingly sober person, according to your standards, that's been at-fault in a serious accident. Don't pretend it's not criminal to put yourself behind the wheel and on the road with everyone else out there after you've got yourself to a .08 or worse. Taxis, friends and family are plentiful. If you don't have any of those, there's always bicycles or your feet.



First...I never drink and drive...i get a ride period even if its one beer.....I dont cut drunk drivers "A BREAK" either.... never said you did - but by trying to get into the training division so you can tell the new officers YOUR point of view rather than training them about the existing laws they're paid to enforce, you'd be doing both them and you a disservice.

Second..do a little case review for case laws on D.U.I. for older cases it was higher than .15
something of the order of .23 I.I.R.C. I don't think you're remembering correctly, then. Never has a law been on the books in the US with a BAC that high. In the 1950's .15 was the level that states were beginning to use to define a legal level of intoxication. Prior to that there really hadn't been an enumerated standard.

Third...while some people have slow reaction times with alcohol a lot of people have slow reaction times completely SOBER. and if they got drunk, it'd be even slower.

Fourth...MADD was the means or excuse for the politicians to listen....REVENUE...dont be blinded by it.... It was lowered to .08 because of studies proved significant levels of impairment at that level. NHTSA did these studies and worked with USDOT to cut off federal highway funds to states that refused to comply. So was it about money? If you want to look at it that way, go ahead. Maybe they just used a convincing argument.

Fifth....if a person who is drunk gets in an accident it is always there fault cause they were drunk.....Now im not saying thats how you ivestigate your DUI's but Ive seen many a LEO do it here...Person driving drunk getting hit by someone coming out of a parking lot instead or yielsding...yup hes drunk its his fault....If they get rear ended while sitting at a red light the person who hit them's at fault, they get a ticket for failing to reduce speed. If I find out #2 driver is drunk behind the wheel, he gets arrested for DUI. Outside of any other evidence to the contrary, if a drunk driver's involved in a crash with a sober driver, 99 times out of 100 it's a safe bet he's at fault.



If you don't think the .08 level helps reduce crashes and injuries, read this report. If you don't feel like reading all 30 something pages, just start at the "observed effect" section at the bottom of pg. 34. www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/pub/composite.pdf



first i might tell them my point of view but I will teach them the law....

second I didnt say on the books I said case law....

third true it would but who defines whats too slow.....

fourth do you belive "every" GOV studie that comes out I bet there are some interesting ones on firearm owner ship

Fifth we agrre on this problem is not all officers are doing this thats why I want to get into training so that they will.....

I guess we will just not see eye to eye on this....but I didnt expect different
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 3:58:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/13/2006 3:59:55 AM EDT by BURN]

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By BURN:
Studies have shown that Asprin, smoking, and a few other things will give you a Higher reading on B.A.C. test but I think most of thoose are for blood test not the intoxilizer....





What are you smoking?

You need to start supplying some links or articles to back up your supposed studies.



dont expect nothing but nay sayingbut youll belive what the gov wants cause it researched it....hell the government also came up with the AWB and some states have banned the .50 cause we know what they say about it is true.....I never said I studied I just stated my opinion...just like a cop putting word in a suspects mouth J/K
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 4:26:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BURN:

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By BURN:
Studies have shown that Asprin, smoking, and a few other things will give you a Higher reading on B.A.C. test but I think most of thoose are for blood test not the intoxilizer....





What are you smoking?

You need to start supplying some links or articles to back up your supposed studies.



dont expect nothing but nay sayingbut youll belive what the gov wants cause it researched it....hell the government also came up with the AWB and some states have banned the .50 cause we know what they say about it is true.....I never said I studied I just stated my opinion...just like a cop putting word in a suspects mouth J/K



You're referencing a blog maintained by a defense attorney? ROFLMAO...
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 6:51:06 AM EDT
I can't beleive some of you guys have no problems with drunks driving on the same roads our famalies use. It's stupid to say they should not be arrested unless they actually hit someone.

I would suggest for those of you who feel that way should spend some time volunteering to work rescue or in an ER to see what actually goes on out in the real world. When you actually have to work a scene where a family has to be cut out of a car you might change your mind.


Link Posted: 3/13/2006 7:06:19 AM EDT
Car and Driver wrote a fairly well researched article on this subject several years ago. I remember several readers letters that confirmed as much. I find it hard to believe that inattention, distraction, carelessness, sleep deprivation and many other factors including car safety issues, don't play a much larger role in wrecks.

DUI laws wreak of zero tolerance. In most cases particular circumstances are not considered and there is no leeway and/or common sense applied.
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 7:07:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/13/2006 7:08:40 AM EDT by 10mmFan]
dupe.....is this site hanging up or is it my pooter?
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 7:30:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 10mmFan:
In most cases particular circumstances are not considered and there is no leeway and/or common sense applied.

- What circumstances do you want considered? The fact the person is drunk and posing a threat to other drivers on the road isn't enough?
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 12:36:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I can't beleive some of you guys have no problems with drunks driving on the same roads our famalies use. It's stupid to say they should not be arrested unless they actually hit someone.

I would suggest for those of you who feel that way should spend some time volunteering to work rescue or in an ER to see what actually goes on out in the real world. When you actually have to work a scene where a family has to be cut out of a car you might change your mind.





I agree with you here "DRUNK" drivers have no business on the road...Its how/why they set the standards that gets me...But I follow the law...fail an SFST and blow .02/.06/.08 Underage/D.W.I. with other traffic/D.U.I. (this is for Oklahoma) they go to jail....doesnt mean I have to like hte standards...
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 12:37:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:

Originally Posted By 10mmFan:
In most cases particular circumstances are not considered and there is no leeway and/or common sense applied.

- What circumstances do you want considered? The fact the person is drunk and posing a threat to other drivers on the road isn't enough?



Because I can show you people that are .15 but can drive safely pass a SFST and have a great reaction time....Not that I expect you to take my word for it this is the internet.....
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 1:13:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BURN:

Because I can show you people that are .15 but can drive safely pass a SFST and have a great reaction time....Not that I expect you to take my word for it this is the internet.....



They may have "great reaction time", but I am willing to bet that it is impaired compared to what it normally is.
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 1:16:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By BURN:

Because I can show you people that are .15 but can drive safely pass a SFST and have a great reaction time....Not that I expect you to take my word for it this is the internet.....



They may have "great reaction time", but I am willing to bet that it is impaired compared to what it normally is.



You are right to what it normally is but what if thier reaction time is faster when they are at .15 then someone who is .02.....thats my biggest problem not that I belive drunk driving isnt a problem but how they choose to messure it and to me it comes down to revenue....
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 1:17:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By BURN:

Because I can show you people that are .15 but can drive safely pass a SFST and have a great reaction time....Not that I expect you to take my word for it this is the internet.....



They may have "great reaction time", but I am willing to bet that it is impaired compared to what it normally is.



At .15 you are drunk. Maybe not blitzed but drunk and should not be operating a vehicle.
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 2:13:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By BlueCrusader:

Right there with ya brother.

DUI/DWI in and of itself should NOT be an arrestable offense.

I am awaiting to the torrent of folks storming in to say they've had a loved one killed by a drunk driver.

How is this different than having a loved one killed with a firearm and wating guns banned?
BC



No one should be behind the wheel in an impaired condition.




damn right ......driving while sleep deprived.....no different....driving while multitasking (talking on the phone, listening to radio, plucking eyebrows, putting on makeup....shaving....) throw them in the fucking slammer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1



these yuppies are ruining my life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 2:26:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By zoom:

I don't know anything about the blood test, but lot's of things will also give you a very incorrect high reading on the breathing test. I've never drank, but the one of the two times I was arrested for DUI I did not blow a zero. Those tests aren't much better than flipping a coin.z



That is a fact. I just read that on another forum site. If you eat an onion, chew Dentyne Ice gum and throw salt over your left shoulder as you are given the test, it will skew the results.
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 5:05:16 PM EDT
Here's the problem with zero tolerance type laws. Two examples: A driver under the age of 25 from out of state is pulled over for driving recklessly and 30+ MPH over the speed limit. He or she might register only a fraction over the legal limit but due to other factors, such as inexperience, poor judgement and irresponsibility endangered the lives of many people.

#2 - A middle aged man and his wife go to a local restaurant not far from home to celebrate their 30th wedding anniversary. He chooses to stay close to home because they plan to share a bottle of wine with dinner. He, the driver, is stopped less than a quarter of a mile from home by a road block. He has a spotless driving record and is clearly a responsible man who knows his limit. He registers slightly higher than the young person above.

Do you see the inequity in treating these two people with the same zero tolerance law? The extremist around here would have both scrubbing garbage trucks on weekends, driver's license suspended for one year, fined in the thousands and picture in the paper.

If you want a third example just think of the knee-walking drunk, chronic drunk driver who actually causes a bad wreck. And BTW these are drivers that are the real danger.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top