Another reason to not drink and drive....

Wrong. I have read two different studies that both concluded the rate of accidents for cell phone users was exactly the same as that of drunk drivers.
I have also read the accident rate for those drinking, especially for fatal accidents has a very large component of "problem drinkers," those with alcoholism and numerous drunk driving convictions. Don't remember the percentage, and yes, I know social drinkers can also have bad wrecks.
The point is the punishment for moderate drinking and driving is extreme for those who don't cause an accident, low for those speeding, tailgating, or weaving in and out erratically, and zero for cell phone talkers (who don't cause accidents).
Is this fair punishment?
 
I concede the point about the .3, as the number did come straight from my ***, however I still don't think .08 is a huge factor. Maybe that's because I don't really know what my BAC is when I'm having fun, and that could be the direction MADD should be going: educating them on exactly how drunk they are before they leave the bar?
 
Well this interesting:

99-R-0154-17.gif


Link
 
And I did find out that some states do impose higher penalties for BAC's. Wash over .15 imposes heavier penalties, and for Florida it's .20.
 
99-R-0154-19.gif


look at the chart. obv the worst is at the .16 range. but you can't deny a steep steep increase from .05-.10

and again, speeding and cell use are IMMEDIATELY rectifiable in dangerous situations. I am for laws regualting them to protect other drivers. But you can't immediately become "un-drunk", like you can slow down or stop talking. the only recourse is to keep them off the road in the first place.
 
Just by doing some crappy math in Excel since it's hard to get the exact numbers off the chart, it appears that the standard deviation is about 662. (my hand entries came up to around 38,800, so I'm about 2000 entries out of 40,000 (.05) short) So that puts .09 BAC and below under one standard deviation of the peak of roughly 1875 at .17 BAC.
 
You know what the fallacy of all this is? You assume the alcohol use caused all those accidents. How many of them would have happened anyway? Maybe the driver reached down to change the radio, and a car pulls out in front and he was .08. But if he did the same thing and was .00, would the same accident have happened? It's not as black and white as the chart makes it appear.
But, damn, there are some with levels of .4 and above? That is potentially fatal if you aren't driving.
I'd just like the penalties to be more harsh if you hit someone, and less harsh if you don't cause an accident, but that'll never happen.
 
If they take the person off to get the forced blood draw and the cops turn out to be wrong and the dude IS sober, I'd like to see some retribution on the cops. Like maybe the dude gets to slug the cop in the face three times for wasting his time.
 
Why is it a waste of time to not give your breath or blood?

And what's probable cause? Beer on breath? Is that enough? Now, if you're beligerent and swerving all over the place, yeah, that's probable cause.
 
it's a waste of time because you have legally agreed to by driving and now you are denying your agreement.

and no, i mentioned earlier, 'alcohol beverage on breath' is not enough, though it can be an ELEMENT of probable cause.

you realize you don't have to be belligerent and swerving to be much more dangerous than a sober person on the road, right?

beer on breath would be enough to ask you to do field sobriety tests, especially compounded with driving errors, slurred speech, glassy eyes, bloodshot eyes, confusion, belligerence, open container, disheveled appearance, etc. you don't need all of these obv, it is the totality of the circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top