Drunk Driving Laws...

[Cryozombie]

Well, I can't say I know the law here exactly, but on the river they have dock-up bars, and I know a lot of people who sit out on the river and drink... Heck, we have been out drinking in my friend's jetboat and the river cops pulled up and chatted with us about the boat while we sat onb the water drinking.

Its common to see people anchored around the "racetrack" on the lake here, watching the races and drinking as well. Based on that I have to assume it either is not illegal, or not enforced.

 

[loki09789]

Well, I can't say I know the law here exactly, but on the river they have dock-up bars, and I know a lot of people who sit out on the river and drink... Heck, we have been out drinking in my friend's jetboat and the river cops pulled up and chatted with us about the boat while we sat onb the water drinking.

Its common to see people anchored around the "racetrack" on the lake here, watching the races and drinking as well. Based on that I have to assume it either is not illegal, or not enforced.

So what is really the problem, the enforcement of a law or the responsibility of the operator? Come on, can you really be critical of the LEO when you are party to the act, either immoral or illegal.... personal accountability enough to spread all around here.

 

[OULobo]

Well, I can't say I know the law here exactly, but on the river they have dock-up bars, and I know a lot of people who sit out on the river and drink... Heck, we have been out drinking in my friend's jetboat and the river cops pulled up and chatted with us about the boat while we sat onb the water drinking.

Its common to see people anchored around the "racetrack" on the lake here, watching the races and drinking as well. Based on that I have to assume it either is not illegal, or not enforced.

We have the same thing here in the Flats of the Cuyahoga. The main differance is that in a car there is the issue of open container laws, while on a boat you are more subject to maritime (sp) law, which, to my knowledge has no open container laws and the only laws for drinking involve the driver/operator, not the passengers. Good point though.

 

[Cryozombie]

So what is really the problem, the enforcement of a law or the responsibility of the operator? Come on, can you really be critical of the LEO when you are party to the act, either immoral or illegal.... personal accountability enough to spread all around here.

No no, you missed my point...

I said before, that to the best of my knowlage that drinking while operating a boat wasnt illegal here, and that I was not at all sure of the law, but those circumstances led me to believe it is in fact ok.

Wasnt blaming anyone there.

 

[loki09789]

Im just curious why you can operate a boat, Jetski, or other watercraft while intoxicated, but not a car?

This line from your first post hinted that you were affirming a knowledge. But there are laws covering all the things.

As far as 'arbitrary', everything that human beings do except dieing and birth is arbitrary. Customs, rituals, language, laws.... is arbitrary. We give it meaning that doesn't always bet backed up by a direct natural signifiance. The point is whether what we arbitrarily decide in the line between acceptable and unacceptable has to be drawn somewhere. The luck for us is to exist in a society where complaining doesn't automatically lead to being dragged behind said cars or watercraft

 

[bdparsons]

Bottom Line... be responsible for your own actions. Remember that the first portion of the brain to be affected by alcohol is the portion that controls self-assessment. When you make a decision to drive after drinking the hardware has already working at a diminished capacity. Wake up and smell the roses. Drunk driving is not victimless until you pull in driveway safely, and you have NO gaurantees of that happening.

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute

 

[dearnis.com]

Sorry, "accidents" dont just happen. Motor vehicle crashes happen because someone made poor decisions, or was too casual about operating a multi-ton piece of machinery. The most common primary factors I see are speed and alcohol/drug intoxication.
Nothing, but nothing, is more irritating to me than the at-fault operator whining that it wasn't their fault because of weather, rain, ice, the tree jumping in front of them, the building jumping in front of them, whatever. There is a legal and moral obligation to drive in a manner that one can control one's vehicle under the weather and road conditions then existing. . As to those who choose to drink and drive, yes it is America, and yes you can do as you like; UNTIL YOU ENDANGER OTHERS.

As a footnote, don't assume that the .08 (or the .10 in my state...still) means all that much. If the officer can articulate a case that your driving was impaired, and bolster that with chemical evidence, you can still be convicted.

Off soapbox now.... :soapbox:

 

[Cruentus]

Chad brings up an interesting point: "If an officer can articulate a case that your driving was impaired, and bolster that with chemical evidence, you can still be convicted."

I think this is as it should be. If your driving in a manner that endangers others, then you should be penalized for it, period. So what, then, is the point of having a limit at all?

The point is as I had said before (from the link I provided on page one):

"The function of a BAC limit may be to inform the public that the consumption of alcohol beyond a certain point is considered illegal and dangerous when combined with driving. The specific point at which driving after drinking crosses the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour may be of relatively little consequence. This is because the general public has only a very superficial understanding of the relationship between alcohol consumption and BAC particularly in terms of their own behaviour. Most do not have access to facilities to measure their own BAC and, hence, must make the decision about driving based on their own subjective assessment of the extent to which alcohol has adversely affected their ability to operate a vehicle safely. Merely knowing a limit exists and that the limit is reasonable may be sufficient to ensure that responsible citizens will attempt to comply with the law by drinking moderately and/or making alternative transportation arrangements." Bold type for emphasis

So, people are deterred from "drunk driving" simply because a reasonable limit exists; it has little to do with whether or not the limit is 0.08, 0.1, or 0.12.

If that is true (as I believe it is) then the only reason I see for lowering the limit to 0.08 or lower is political pressure and manufactured ideas. The exception would be those who believe in 0 tolerance, for they have a different arguement altogether, which is basically, "If your not allowed to drive under ANY influence, then there will be less of a chance of you driving impaired." Although this is a sound arguement, with 0 tolerance we are facing a "rights vs. safety" issue. A 0 tolerance person argues that in this case, a right should be given up for the safety of others, where as I disagree and think that is unreasonable.

But, for most people who believe that 0.08 is great, or that some limit even below that is nessicary, I believe that they are adhering to unsound manufactured ideas. Part of the illogic that people use is that with a 0.08 limit, more people are being convicted of "drunk driving," so it is assumed that this new limit must be doing more to "stop crime." This is untrue. If someone is going to drive above 0.12, where they are blowing a 0.15, or 0.18, and they are clearly impaired, then they are going to do so regardless of whether or not the legal limit is 0, 0.05, 0.08, or 0.12. So it has done nothing, in my opinion, to deter "drunk driving." It has only done plenty to convict people who aren't actually drunk.

Now, This may not be a problem in cases where Tom or Chad pull you over; in that it seems that they would use good judgement to decide if someone should have to "blow" at all. But I have seen it in detroit where they set up a baracade, and they wave cars through one by one, making random people pull over to blow into a breathilizer. I am sure they convicted a lot of the unimpaired that way. There also many cities and counties (like in Rochester, MI) where AS POLICY, you blow into a breathilizer if your pulled over on the weekend. In these areas, these cops no longer have to show reasonable cause. If you blow 0.08 and above, even if you had done nothing to warrent being pulled over, the cop can vaguely argue something like "he was drving erratically," and because you blew over the legal limit and its your word against his, your screwed. If you don't blow over the legal limit, then he lets you go...yet it would be a hard case and a waste of everyones $$ to sue the city for being pulled over w/o reasonable cause. So, with lower and lower limits, police no longer have to show reasonable cause to pull you over, or to make you blow into a tube, and more and more innocent people are facing convictions because of it. Once again, as the founder of MADD, Candy Lightner, said, “I worry that the movement I helped create has lost direction. The .08 legislation ignores the real core of the problem. If we really want to save lives, let’s go after the most dangerous drivers on the road.”

So, I see the counter arguements, but I maintain my belief that the limit should be raised to 0.12.

:asian:

 

[Nightingale]

The point of having a legal limit is this:

if you are above the limit, you are considered "impaired" and MUST be charged.

If you are below the limit, but driving like you are impaired, you MAY be charged.

Basically, it takes into account someone like me, who is quite buzzed after one beer. I'm nowhere near the limit, but there's no way in hell I should be driving, and if I was stupid enough to get behind the wheel, the law needs a way to deal with it.

 

[Cruentus]

The most common primary factors I see are speed and alcohol/drug intoxication.

This brings up another point of discussion: speed.

How many of you think that speed is a killer?

Unless we're talking about residential areas, I don't think that it is per say.

Speed is a force multiplier. Crashing into something at 120 mph is a lot more deadly then 20 mph.

Hwever, I think that accidents are CAUSED by poor judgement rather then excessive speed. Tailgating, not using turn signals, aggressive driving, not looking before changing lanes, not paying attention and tunring in front of people, etc., etc. etc.; all examples of poor judgement.

I understand that speed makes it more difficult to react when someone else does something stupid, however, who cause the accident, the stupid person who changed lanes in front of you while going 20 mph when you clearly were moving at a faster rate, or you because you were moving at a faster rate? I'd say, the stupid person.

So, I would vote that we crack down on stupid driving, and ease up on speed violations.. You don't use a turn signal: ticket. You ride someones @$$ to close: ticket. You drive erratically, the cop gets you on his camera for court purposes, then ticket. Once the crack down is in full effect, then we gradually move to no speed limit on highways, and looser limits on non-highways, and tight limits in residential and downtown areas.

I just don't feel that speed causes accidents. I feel the cause is poor decision making. I think that traffic laws are aimed at the wrong thing as they are designed today, and are instead (once again) restrictive over our rights while failing to prevent accidents.

What do you think...

I posted a poll here, so we can keep this thread on subject. :uhyeah: :http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14135

 

[Nightingale]

Well...

like we say in skydiving: its not the speed that kills you, its the sudden stop at the end.

 

[Cruentus]

The point of having a legal limit is this:

if you are above the limit, you are considered "impaired" and MUST be charged.

If you are below the limit, but driving like you are impaired, you MAY be charged.

Basically, it takes into account someone like me, who is quite buzzed after one beer. I'm nowhere near the limit, but there's no way in hell I should be driving, and if I was stupid enough to get behind the wheel, the law needs a way to deal with it.

Right, but they do have a way to deal with it, in that you could be charged even though your below the limit.

Having a low limit only means that someone who isn't impaired @ 0.08 and above MUST be charged, which I feel is an infringement on our rights.

:asian:

 

[Tgace]

http://www.health.org/newsroom/rep/33.aspx


DRIVING ABILITY

Driving Skills

The ability to drive is a complex skill, but it is so familiar to most people that its complexity is often overlooked. Driving, and more specifically safe driving, involves subtle interaction of obvious things like coordination skills, reaction time, and perceptual ability and less obvious, but equally important factors like risk-taking behavior, emotional state, and personality type. Other variables like fatigue, physical and mental health, physiological factors related to hunger, and driver distraction levels are believed by many to be of great influence, but are difficult to define in functional terms. While many studies have been done on driving, it is not understood all that well, especially in terms of what particular skills or characteristics should be considered critical to driving ability.

Driving Behaviors and Accident Causation

NHTSA asserts that much of the research conducted on the behavioral causes of motor vehicle accidents finds that judgment and attention factors predominate over vehicle control maneuvers that may be considered inappropriate. Inattention, excessive speed, and improper observational practices are more frequently associated with accidents than are actions resulting from environmental or situational variables. In other words, small problems in maintaining lane position, cornering, judging gaps in traffic, or closing speed are not typically the things that occur prior to accidents. Failure to notice and respond to events or to anticipate events precedes accidents more frequently.

It is also important to differentiate between events or behaviors that are associated with accidents and causation or responsibility...

"...Tracking a simple moving object is not significantly impaired in most people at BACs as high as 0.10, but more complicated tracking tasks (for example, tracking more than one object or if attention must be divided with another task) can be affected in some at BACs below 0.10. Effects on “pursuit tracking” (maintaining a fix on a moving target) may occur with BACs in the range of 0.05 to 0.10. Some studies have shown that deterioration in the ability to divide attention between two tasks is “detectable” in some people at BACs between 0.05 and 0.08."

 

[Tgace]

I can arrest you for 1192-4 (driving while ability impaird by drugs) and all I have to do is field test for impairment and get a blood/urine sample that shows ANY ammount of drug in your system to get ya. If you get into an accident and say "must have been that Nyquil I was taking for my cold....." I dont need any sort of level cut off.

The problem you run into is that Officers testimony as to impairment dosent hold as much weight (IMHO) as the breath/blood test in Judges opinions. So when I say "this defendant was wasted" and the BAC comes out .08 (before the change) the charge gets dropped to impaired even though the guy was DWI. We go through the cricus of 3-5 physical tests, alcosensors, questioning, reports etc. on the road and the only thing most judges seem to care about is the BAC. In a "perfect world" the only thing needed should be the officers observations of impairment and a +/- test for alcohol.

 

[dearnis.com]

Legal limits- IF I get a test into evidence that shows you above the limit (.10 in my jurisdiction) the judge or jury MUST convict. End of story. If you are below, but there is other evidence, I must convince beyond a reasonable doubt that you were impaired. Behavior, coordination tests, attitude, etc. Harder, but it can be done.

As to speed.....
Speed, often combined with poor driving or impairment, in the primary killer I see. Relax speeding laws?? Nope. When I run radar I run strictly in communities, NOT out on the highway. It is nothing for my partner and I to issue 50-60 citations on a good day....and we don't start stopping for less than 18-20 over the limit.
Tomorrow when I am a bit fresher I will throw up some numbers on speed and reaction time. In terms of stopping a car remember that energy is based on the mass of the object times the square of its velocity....radical speed increases lead to even more radical increases in kinetic energy.
As to nightingale's points... unrestrained deceleration in the 20-25 mph range is entering the lethal zone.

 

[Tgace]

Legal limits- IF I get a test into evidence that shows you above the limit (.10 in my jurisdiction) the judge or jury MUST convict. End of story. If you are below, but there is other evidence, I must convince beyond a reasonable doubt that you were impaired. Behavior, coordination tests, attitude, etc. Harder, but it can be done.

As to speed.....
Speed, often combined with poor driving or impairment, in the primary killer I see. Relax speeding laws?? Nope. When I run radar I run strictly in communities, NOT out on the highway. It is nothing for my partner and I to issue 50-60 citations on a good day....and we don't start stopping for less than 18-20 over the limit.
Tomorrow when I am a bit fresher I will throw up some numbers on speed and reaction time. In terms of stopping a car remember that energy is based on the mass of the object times the square of its velocity....radical speed increases lead to even more radical increases in kinetic energy.
As to nightingale's points... unrestrained deceleration in the 20-25 mph range is entering the lethal zone.

Do your cars have cameras? Ours dont....they make great courtroom viewing for DWI's though.

 

[OULobo]

Do your cars have cameras? Ours dont....they make great courtroom viewing for DWI's though.

Some of our officers carry audio tape recorders to record the person they pulled over doing something as simple as reciting the alphabet. It seems to help them in court.

 

[dearnis.com]

We now have cameras....in the past I would use audio as well.Video is also great for stop sign violations....

 

[Cruentus]

Oakland County Michigan has audio and video as well!

 

[dearnis.com]

Well, Delaware has come into step with the rest of the nation; we sign .08 into law Monday.