quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Uh-oh..cliffw hasn't replied..has wifey locked him up,

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: And so... ...everybody knows alcohol impairs ability to do anything 100%,on a sliding scale dependant upon how much they drink.They are not being punished for NOT killing somebody..they are being punished for each step nearer to that possibility that they voluntarily take.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Zero tolerance..

What can I say. I love this man.
Do know Nick that you are guiding me too. Say hi to Ellie and a hi from Cindi.

Love given, and taken. Cliff, take care. You are a good friend, one of the best. Love to Cindi too.
Nick and Ellie

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Wheres the Kaboom, there is supposed to be an earth shattering Kaboom!

It may not have been Earth shattering but it was my world shattering.
Still, no public pity party! I just wanted to share another forum thread which was forwarded to me.
Something to think about.
Threads as such, and mine, should be mentioned more often.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-05-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: All that could be heard, was the sound of crickets churping in the distance.

Somewhere, somehow, this quote will come in handy. Do I hear the sound track of Deliverence in the background?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Somewhere, somehow, this quote will come in handy. Do I hear the sound track of Deliverence in the background?

All it needs is a Banjo.

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: It may not have been Earth shattering but it was my world shattering. Still, no public pity party! I just wanted to share another forum thread which was forwarded to me. Something to think about. Threads as such, and mine, should be mentioned more often.

so, is this implying if the person was NOT drunk, and killed the other person, it would be OK?
or, is it implying that sober people DO NOT kill people? or, is it saying if you drink and drive you WILL kill people?

no - none of that. one person killed another person. that sucks. the person should be punished.

anyways ... I accept your laws...just griping.....I'll wear my seatbelt....tho I still refuse to wear a helmet when I ride my bicycle....but....I suppose only untill they fine me for that too....

tho, I can't wait untill they find a way to fine fat people. $10 for every pound over. get pulled over, they pull out a scale - and write you a flubby ticket. for being such a hazard to yourself and others. YOU may think you are doing nothing wrong - but results matter not - our mass determination is what counts. if insurance companies find a way to link it - thats it. after all, THEY are who makes the road rules. start a group called MAFF Mothers Against Fat F^%$s. a Fat F%$& killed my sister. stop overweight driving.

damn....sorry - sarcasm carrying me away....I gotta get a grip...damn...

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Do I hear the sound track of Deliverence in the background?

How prophetic.
I had said this because I have been asking around in Live Oak county where I was arrested. It does not smell good. I still need proof but I hear Live Oak county is gonna get a new justice center. To be built on land donated by a rancher with X number of DWIs. It is suggested that this land donation has kept him from going to prison. I am looking for proof, not that it will mitigate my alledged offense.
And now I hear this.
On Dec. 21, Enrique Mayoral was driving his family to Mexico for the holidays when police say their van was hit from behind by a drunk driver. The van rolled three and half times. Four family members were ejected. When it was over, Enrique's mother, his wife and his son were all dead.
According to DPS reports, the other driver, behind the wheel of a company car, was Horace Ryman, 38. Ryman was never booked or formally charged, even though DPS troopers recommended three charges of intoxicated manslaughter, three charges of intoxicated assault and a second DWI charge for him.
Live Oak District Attorney Martha Warner was presented with the report on Feb. 12. She declined an interview, and released a statement that read, in part, "Before I can present this case as intoxication manslaughter with multiple victims, we will require additional evidence."
WTF? The Trooper who arrested me did not need to recomend charges against me. He arrested me. Horace Ryman should have at least have been arrested for DWI second offense. Why was he not arrested? My arrest gets presented to the District Attorney who then can present the case to a grand jury or drop it. What additional evidence does she need? With the death or an injury during a suspected DWI offense, a blood sample is analyzed for a true blood alcohol content.
I have been hearing more interesting things. All so far unsubstantiated. One being that Live Oak county is one of the richest counties in terms of generating money from traffic stops of all kinds.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: It's absurd, most likely motivated entirely by the generation of funds through fines assessed on people who may have blown above the "legal limit" but in reality, aren't impaired in any way shape or form.

Also on those that do not blow.

This is a hard one for me because I don't drink alcohol and never have. So I have no general idea of how impaired the average person is at .08 or .1.

AND I don't want to come across as soft on drunk driving. I want some attempt at being protected, and having my family being protected.

But I also don't want to unreasonably restrict people, nor have them be entered into the criminal system for little benefit.

How safe am I if the number is .04?

How much safety do I give up if the number is .08 instead of .04?

How much safety do I gain if it is .08 instead of .1?

I was under the impression that most of the bad accidents were caused by people with > .2 But maybe that is wrong. I thought I had heard that. But instead of focusing on that group and hammering on them, the focus seems to be on ratcheting the blood alcohol level down. The numbers of dwi's goes up, but if you are just catching a bunch of people that aren't causing the accidents, it creates a lot of work and a lot of fall-out for how much benefit?


If I could use speed as an analogy instead of alcohol. SPEED KILLS. That is what I hear all the time. So theoretically for every reduction in speed, we are safer. OK. Let's all drive 5 mph. I'm sure the accident rates and deaths will plummet. Your answer would be, "Be reasonable.".

OK. At what mph over the speed limit do most of the bad accidents happen? 40 over? 30 over? 20 over? Then why are we nitpicking on the people going between 5-10mph over the speed limit? We really aren't any safer, but we create a lot of grief for those people. Target the LARGE speeders and hammer them.


Who is more dangerous? Someone that has 3 DWI's, all at .08 to .1? Or someone that has one DWI and blew a .2? I can tell you that I would be much more leery of the guy that got caught once with a .2


Perhaps there should be a "driving under the INFLUENCE" and a "driving while INTOXICATED". Maybe the "dui's" should have a lighter penalty and the "dwi's" should have a more severe penalty. Maybe it should take two "dui's" to equal one "dwi". Maybe we should have a system that targets the SEVERE threats.

Now as I said, I don't drink alcohol. So maybe I SHOULD be afraid of people with .08's. Maybe the ones that are caught with .08's are frequently driving at .2 and just never got caught at that level. I would love to get feedback from other people on the forum on this.

well, as a former drinker.....
alcohol affects everyone differently - or, maybe more accuratly - everyone reacts differently - it affects everyone....
the 2 people I know who has gotten a DUI 100% deserved it.
the guys I know with DUI's are problem drinkers. The one is the "...I love you, man...." kinda drunk, the other is a mean, yelling drunk. and both are bad enough drivers when sober. and both of them, once they have a drink - they cannot stop drinking until they fall down.
once caught & sent thru the system, they quickly lost their jobs. one got divorced. the other - his wife is bigger than him, and drinks as much as him, and basicly makes for a very Jerry Springer atmosphere. unfortunatly, my daughter is freinds with their daughter.

Granted. But on both counts, when they are the level you are discussing, what is their blood alcohol level and are they trying to drive at that level.

What is a guy like that has 1 beer on an empty stomach at a bar, and then goes to drive home? TYPICALLY, what is someone like? And what is he going to "blow"?

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Granted. But on both counts, when they are the level you are discussing, what is their blood alcohol level and are they trying to drive at that level. What is a guy like that has 1 beer on an empty stomach at a bar, and then goes to drive home? TYPICALLY, what is someone like? And what is he going to "blow"?

ah yes, the liquid lunch. not sure on the numbers, but 1 beer, empty stomach is NOT gonna turn you into a menace on the road, I'll guess 0.03. but, again - everyone reacts differently. I knew a girl once who would be stupid giddy on less than 1 beer. but, most poeple can function just fine at 0.10

and, I really DONT know the numbers....but, I would guess well over 0.15 - probably into the 0.20's

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: 1 beer, empty stomach is NOT gonna turn you into a menace on the road,

unless they've had gastric bypass surgury

Around here MADD gets a cut from the fines. They need to justify their funding,.....................
The easier it becomes to secure a conviction.....................................
Won't become happy till DWI becomes.....................................

------------------
Ol' Paint, 88 Base coupe auto.
Turning white on top, like owner.
Leaks a little, like owner.
Doesn't smoke, unlike owner

quote Originally posted by Butter: unless they've had gastric bypass surgury

everyone with gastric bypass surgery, raise your hand -
now, of those who raised hands - who knows the restrictions regarding alcohol?

I too do not drink anymore due to medical reasons.
we've already established there are exceptions, and we were looking for generalities.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: How safe am I if the number is .04? How much safety do I give up if the number is .08 instead of .04? How much safety do I gain if it is .08 instead of .1? I was under the impression that most of the bad accidents were caused by people with > .2 But maybe that is wrong.

Good questions.
I have always wondered how many bad accidents were caused by those with the old legal limit of .10 and what kind of accidents were caused by the new legal limit of .08. I would think that in any accident where one smelled like beer, they would have been tested.
Here is a better question. Do they even keep such statistics?

heres a few more questions:
how many drunk drivers have been killed by sober drivers?
or, would the drunk driver be blamed regardless? even if it was 100% the sober drivers fault?

it just seems there is so much emphasis on "drunk drivers" it makes it seem like all the accidents will go away, if only we could get these drunk drivers off the road. and this just isnt true. I think we would be MUCH better off just getting bad drivers off the road. but, we have yet to develop a breathalyzer that reacts to stupidity.

we have a barrel full of accidents, but only a cup of drunk drivers at fault. there are many ways to make the roads safer - but few of them raise revenue.

of course, the best answer would of course be prohibition. many would say "we tried that - didnt work" - but, back when we tried it - we did not have the DEA. but, this is just the selffish me - I cant drink anymore, so screw all y'all

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: ....or, would the drunk driver be blamed regardless? even if it was 100% the sober drivers fault?

Actually, and it surprised me, a few months ago there was a bad accident. Someone pulled out in front of an alledged drunk driver. There was either a death or a serious injury. They arrested the alledged drunk driver for only DWI. The newscasters explained that it was clearly the fault of the person pulling out, that he could not be charged with Intoxication Manslaughter or Intoxication assault, what ever the case was.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Here is a better question. Do they even keep such statistics?

Probably not, but that won't stop some one from saying ' It's suspected that........"
After that "it" becomes quotable, next stop "it" becomes a recognised fact.
Happens all the time, look at how they banned 'Freon'.

listewn I normally stick to myself but please do not drive drunk.. it's just stupid walk if you have to but for heaven sake don't put someone elses life in danger. I have lost far to many people to either them being drunk and driving or someone else hitting them while drinking and driving.

quote Originally posted by FieroAurora:

You're comments are taken to heart. Thank You.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well, as a former drinker..... alcohol affects everyone differently - or, maybe more accuratly - everyone reacts differently - it affects everyone.... the 2 people I know who has gotten a DUI 100% deserved it. the guys I know with DUI's are problem drinkers. The one is the "...I love you, man...." kinda drunk, the other is a mean, yelling drunk. and both are bad enough drivers when sober. and both of them, once they have a drink - they cannot stop drinking until they fall down. once caught & sent thru the system, they quickly lost their jobs. one got divorced. the other - his wife is bigger than him, and drinks as much as him, and basicly makes for a very Jerry Springer atmosphere. unfortunatly, my daughter is freinds with their daughter.

Therefore there is only one fair answer..no alcohol AT ALL if you are going to drive..then nobody has to CARE who can and who can´t handle their drinking.I have yet to meet anybody who will admit their ability is impaired by drinking before driving..NOBODY. And so...Nobody will have to wonder, take a chance, or run the risk of killing somebody.I make no bones about it...there is no reason to drink and drive, except selfishness. And before anybody starts in at me for this opinon..the only thing that care about is stopping death and injury...not peoples´pleasure.
Nick

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Actually, and it surprised me, a few months ago there was a bad accident. Someone pulled out in front of an alledged drunk driver. There was either a death or a serious injury. They arrested the alledged drunk driver for only DWI. The newscasters explained that it was clearly the fault of the person pulling out, that he could not be charged with Intoxication Manslaughter or Intoxication assault, what ever the case was.

I suppose it just depends on whether the person being intoxicated contributed to the accident or not. I don't know what the percentage is, but I'm sure it's high for the intoxicated drivers being at fault in accidents. Here's a good one though. Just thought of this. What happens if both parties are intoxicated? I suppose both could be sited for DUI, but what if both ended up contributing to the accident because of being intoxicated?

------------------
Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck
'87 GT Auto
'88 Ferrario
'84 Indy

Serious Question: Are you guys really Serious about not knowing where these numbers come from and who (or what) decides where to draw the line in the sand?

In case you are. Do not post any crap about revenue generating programs for the government until you at least read the following.

http://www.iihs.org/researc...y_facts/alcohol.html

There is so much documentation, research and data (yes there are huge databases of this stuff) that warrants the .08 level that I am surprised you have to ask. That is one of many articles relating to DUI. There has to be a line somewhere otherwise it would be even easier to bend.

Unfortunately we live in a society that tolerates stupidity like this. One of the last wrecks I reconstructed was a drunk with 21 points on his record with several DUIs that were all hand slapped until the bastard killed 2 people and walked away himself.

It is all based on percentages. It should be based on the fact that drinking and driving are incompatible. Period.

quote Originally posted by SCCAFiero: Hopefully my grammer is not too bad when I re-read this when I am more awake. Maybe I should go for a drive to wake up. Oh yeah, thousands of people die falling asleep at the wheel as well. Other than professional drivers who violate "over the road" hours regulations, there are not too many ways to stop people from thinking they can drive all night. Well unless you make some money to spend on educationg new drivers what happens when other people tried.

I saw some show somewhere on that. They did a study where they got one group of people smashed and the other sleep deprived. They both performed just as bad. kinda scary.

quote Originally posted by SCCAFiero: Serious Question: Are you guys really Serious about not knowing where these numbers come from and who (or what) decides where to draw the line in the sand? In case you are. Do not post any crap about revenue generating programs for the government until you at least read the following. http://www.iihs.org/researc...y_facts/alcohol.html There is so much documentation, research and data (yes there are huge databases of this stuff) that warrants the .08 level that I am surprised you have to ask. That is one of many articles relating to DUI. There has to be a line somewhere otherwise it would be even easier to bend. Unfortunately we live in a society that tolerates stupidity like this. One of the last wrecks I reconstructed was a drunk with 21 points on his record with several DUIs that were all hand slapped until the bastard killed 2 people and walked away himself. It is all based on percentages. It should be based on the fact that drinking and driving are incompatible. Period.

Published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Nope. No ulterior financial motives associated with the insurance industry.

Nowhere does it make any differentiation between BACs of .08 and .10.
I wonder how many of those drivers over .08 were, in fact, also over .10.

I believe that .08 is a draconian level, imposed to satisfy the MADD lobbyists, and has done nothing more than allow police departments to arrest people who are not "otherwise" impaired. Not only are they arresting people who are not impaired, the penalties for these arrests are becoming much more severe.

Aside from that, one of the technical folks with one of the police departments I used to associate with --I fixed cop radios for ten years-- hinted to me that the calibration on the particular breathalyzer that they used (I believe that it was used in their mobile test facility, used for sobriety checkpoints. --NOT a portable unit) could be tweaked to provide the "desired" reading, for people that they really needed to keep in custody for whatever reason, or perhaps to "give a pass" to someone who they wanted to be able to send on their way.
It's all about who you know, or who you piss off, or how much money they can get out of you.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: Published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Nope. No ulterior financial motives associated with the insurance industry. Nowhere does it make any differentiation between BACs of .08 and .10. I wonder how many of those drivers over .08 were, in fact, also over .10. I believe that .08 is a draconian level, imposed to satisfy the MADD lobbyists, and has done nothing more than allow police departments to arrest people who are not "otherwise" impaired. Not only are they arresting people who are not impaired, the penalties for these arrests are becoming much more severe. Aside from that, one of the technical folks with one of the police departments I used to associate with --I fixed cop radios for ten years-- hinted to me that the calibration on the particular breathalyzer that they used (I believe that it was used in their mobile test facility, used for sobriety checkpoints. --NOT a portable unit) could be tweaked to provide the "desired" reading, for people that they really needed to keep in custody for whatever reason, or perhaps to "give a pass" to someone who they wanted to be able to send on their way. It's all about who you know, or who you piss off, or how much money they can get out of you.

Obviously you missed the point. That was the first one of many databases that I chose to look up. There are enough research entities at NHTSA, Universities, and other legitimate organizations to add credibility to the the number. What you believe ???? from what perspective?

Ask yourself this. Would you prefer the level to go back to .10 and have a friend or family member be in the % differance between the two ranges. More people die with higher levels. Are you volunteering for that risk so drunks can party more? It is all about %. Drunks will still drive, the differance is whether they can get them off the road before they kill someone you know.

Ulterior financial motives??? Insurance industry ??? DUH. THINK ABOUT IT. they are the ones writing the checks because of people who are too stupid to realize that drinking and driving do not mix. They do not have ulterior motives. It is called RISK MANAGEMENT. If you know a certain group has a higher percentage than other groups than DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. You have to have a line to cross otherwise drunks may as well stumble away from a murder scene with no consequences. Maybe you would prefer that the insurance companies just charge you whatever they want to based on their mood that day. Do you know how insurance rates are determined? Who runs the risk management databases that would make you feel like a 1st grader? Do some research.

Yes, "Technical folks" can "tweak" breathalizers. How do you think they are calibrated in the first place. Now maybe you realize why lawyers get their rap for the few idiots like that, who do not take their job seriously. Amazing people get away with murder because the calibration sticker on the machine was a week out of date. Maybe it was. Even if what you said actually happens, think about how those cases screw up the big picture for everyone else. Databases are huge and the error factor is normally stated for cases like that.

I did warn anyone to at least read the article before posting retarded "financial motives" comments.

It happens several times a day, every day https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/048305.html who's next.

What should we do about it? Let the drunks walk away because you do not want to draw the line somewhere.

I await your answer(s).

so, where's the link for how much $$$ is raked in by municipalities for DUI/DWI?
and the estimated savings to the insurance companies?
and how much our insurance rates should have dropped because of all this increased safety?
and how much our local taxes should have dropped because of all this increased revenue?

this is for both seatbelts & drinking/driving. even the officers call the "random seatbelt checks" fundraisers.

of course saftey has increased. no doubt about it. with the numbers of cars on the road, and if things was left as-is from the 70's - the roads would be a scary place. most people now feel funny getting in car & NOT buckling in. and people DO put thought into how they are gonna get home.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: so, where's the link for how much $$$ is raked in by municipalities for DUI/DWI? and the estimated savings to the insurance companies? and how much our insurance rates should have dropped because of all this increased safety? and how much our local taxes should have dropped because of all this increased revenue? this is for both seatbelts & drinking/driving. even the officers call the "random seatbelt checks" fundraisers. of course saftey has increased. no doubt about it. with the numbers of cars on the road, and if things was left as-is from the 70's - the roads would be a scary place. most people now feel funny getting in car & NOT buckling in. and people DO put thought into how they are gonna get home.

Your answers call for some serious speculation. Think about it.

You are asking the same question as: How much would my insurance be if municipalities did not charge offenders for their crimes, whatever they may be?
What would my taxes be if I had to foot the entire bill for these criminals?

Insurance companies do not necessarily get savings. They have to pay out regardless. However, they do not have to charge you overinflated rates to cover additional expenses that you are not incurring.

You would have to look at your municipality budget to see what they "rake" in. Divide that by your taxpaying households and then see your savings. In theory at least, it is more complex than that.

Safety does not come free. We have a long way to go with what we can do something about. Are you ok with 44,000 deaths last year in the US, 18,000 tow away crashes a day, countless injuries, etc.

Still looking for ideas to discuss.

twist all ya like -
insurance companies push for these laws to save themselves monies.
look in any "helmet" law discussion. people saying how they dont want to pay for some stupid guys hospital bill because he wouldnt wear a helmet. they took the insurance company right out the equation, and directly assumed the cost. there are less drunk driving accidents now than before. drunk driving accidents are expensive payouts. just like any accidents. so, there are fewer insurance payouts. easy enough.
and, for the fines - it boggles the mind how much $$$ gets consumed here. havent gotten one myself, and havent gotten actual straight answers from the 2 guys I know who got them. but, from what I can tell, it cost one of them OVER $10,000 total - overall.

but, maybe you are right. maybe government folk who never actually held a paying productive job in their lives arent just trying to crowbar a few for pennies out my pocket.....
maybe they really do care about us public peoples.....

quote Originally posted by SCCAFiero: Obviously you missed the point. That was the first one of many databases that I chose to look up. There are enough research entities at NHTSA, Universities, and other legitimate organizations to add credibility to the the number. What you believe ???? from what perspective?

Fine. Or maybe you missed mine. All I want is some clear concise documentation that people are actually too impaired to drive at .08, written by someone other than the government or the insurance industry, or anyone else who has a financial stake in the situation. (They're both crooks, IMHO. More on that below.) Based on accident data, please. Not how many people were arrested.
If anything, the number of arrests would have to go up, of course. The bar has been lowered.

quote Ask yourself this. Would you prefer the level to go back to .10 and have a friend or family member be in the % differance between the two ranges. More people die with higher levels. Are you volunteering for that risk so drunks can party more? It is all about %. Drunks will still drive, the differance is whether they can get them off the road before they kill someone you know.

Tug at the heartstrings all you want. It's still a valid question.

quote Ulterior financial motives??? Insurance industry ??? DUH. THINK ABOUT IT. they are the ones writing the checks because of people who are too stupid to realize that drinking and driving do not mix. They do not have ulterior motives. It is called RISK MANAGEMENT. If you know a certain group has a higher percentage than other groups than DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. You have to have a line to cross otherwise drunks may as well stumble away from a murder scene with no consequences. Maybe you would prefer that the insurance companies just charge you whatever they want to based on their mood that day. Do you know how insurance rates are determined? Who runs the risk management databases that would make you feel like a 1st grader? Do some research.

Baloney. As soon as a guy gets busted for DUI (even at .08) because he chose to have that second Margarita with dinner, his insurance rates will skyrocket. It's all about the money. The government gets to impose all the fines. They get to collect all the fees for the "drivers schools" they sponsor, and the insurance industry gets to milk these people for years to come. When they weren't drunk, in the first place.

quote Yes, "Technical folks" can "tweak" breathalizers. How do you think they are calibrated in the first place. Now maybe you realize why lawyers get their rap for the few idiots like that, who do not take their job seriously. Amazing people get away with murder because the calibration sticker on the machine was a week out of date. Maybe it was. Even if what you said actually happens, think about how those cases screw up the big picture for everyone else. Databases are huge and the error factor is normally stated for cases like that.

And MY case was about ulterior motives. I think I made it pretty well.

quote I did warn anyone to at least read the article before posting retarded "financial motives" comments.

I read your article. It didn't answer my question or address my allegations. Neither have you.

quote It happens several times a day, every day https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/048305.html who's next. What should we do about it? Let the drunks walk away because you do not want to draw the line somewhere. I await your answer(s).

I agree that there needs to be a line. I just question that the line is unreastically low, AND motivated by the almighty dollar.

I should add that I don't drive drunk. And I have never had a DUI. I'm 50 years old, BTW.
I speak from a position of quite a bit of experience, and a healthy dose of learned (and I think, justified) cynicism.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 03-20-2007).]

Since it is impossible to read emotions I am just trying to learn and teach at the same time. It really bothers me when people are such conspiracy addicts that they start making accusations the government is out to get them.

I have never been arrested nor has anyone in my extended family. Maybe it is genetic to be arrested and therefore we should start coding people at birth and eliminating those who we think will not contribute to the corrupt system. Kidding (except for the not being arrested part).

Since you do not want to do research to get your own answer (and you will not be happy with the answer anyway due to the source) and I only have a few miniutes at a time. Ponder this.

What kind of entity is responsible for highway safety? Your local church, supermarket, Walmart, I think not. Of course the research has to be done at government run / affiliated facilities, or the insurance industry. There is no law that says you can not do your own research. Try it. Just figure you will need years of data and thousands of participants to have any type of validity. The more we learn the better off we are to determine if we are right or wrong. The government is not an it, it is made up of thousands of people, some are misguided, some are lost, some are currupt. For some reason it still works. The rest of them are trying to solve serious problems of society.

Why do people drink alcohol in the first place. The taste?? A few but I doubt very many. People drink alcohol because of the effect it has on them. It effects people differantly. Inhibitions, attitudes, pain, whatever. Alcohol has an effect and people drink until they feel "it". If it effects one thing it definitly effects judgement.

There are higher authorities than the local corrupt cops / governments people seem to have a problem with. Why are people so resistant to have them checked out.

lol - no - not a conspiracy. not even close.
this isnt the Kennedy assasination or a some UFO coverup.

the Police themselves call the seatbelt checks a "Fundraiser".

there are TONS of other ways to make the roads safe - but they dont pay.
I dont have a problem with it as it stands. I am not trying to "make it go away". the job they are doing is working.

quote Originally posted by SCCAFiero: Since it is impossible to read emotions I am just trying to learn and teach at the same time. It really bothers me when people are such conspiracy addicts that they start making accusations the government is out to get them. I have never been arrested nor has anyone in my extended family. Maybe it is genetic to be arrested and therefore we should start coding people at birth and eliminating those who we think will not contribute to the corrupt system. Kidding (except for the not being arrested part). Since you do not want to do research to get your own answer (and you will not be happy with the answer anyway due to the source) and I only have a few miniutes at a time...

No. YOU made the assertion that there was tons of information out there to support the .08 level. Since you are obviously very well educated regarding the subject, I'd appreciate it if you'd take the time to actually provide a link.

quote Originally posted by SCCAFiero: Serious Question: Are you guys really Serious about not knowing where these numbers come from and who (or what) decides where to draw the line in the sand? In case you are. Do not post any crap about revenue generating programs for the government until you at least read the following. http://www.iihs.org/researc...y_facts/alcohol.html There is so much documentation, research and data (yes there are huge databases of this stuff) that warrants the .08 level that I am surprised you have to ask.

You keep alluding to this supposed "tons of documentation" out there.
The link you you posted mentions nothing about the justification for .08 as opposed to .10. Period.
Then you threw in the line about "revenue generating programs" when, it seems to me, that that is exactly what it's about.
You have done nothing to prove that it's anything other than that.
Truthfully, I probably would have left your post alone, if it hadn't been for that line.

quote ...One of the last wrecks I reconstructed...

This leads me to believe that you work for either a law enforcement agency or (more likely) an insurance company.

If that's the case, of course you are going to be in favor of the lower limits, for the reasons I mentioned above. Did I hit a nerve?

Edit - I'm not denying that you've seen your fair share of blood and gore. I don't envy you for that. I *am*, however, going to go out on a limb and say that I'd wager that very few if any of those crashes were caused by drivers between .08 and .10.

quote There are higher authorities than the local corrupt cops / governments people seem to have a problem with. Why are people so resistant to have them checked out.

Have what checked out..? The local police departments?
Suuuuure. That'll work. Let me see just how many local shitlists I can get my name on.

Even if I were able to prove that the local departments were fudging breathalyzer calibrations, and get a few hands slapped (it was a different agency then my local one, BTW), it doesn't do anything about the insurance cartel. I don't have that kind of money or legal power at my disposal. Maybe if I were Bill Gates or Warren Buffett...

It is all about the $$$.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 03-20-2007).]

quote Originally posted by SCCAFiero: It is all based on percentages. It should be based on the fact that drinking and driving are incompatible. Period.

Well, that would be great. That would be my preference. I don't drink alcohol and never have.

HOWEVER, that isn't what our society has decided. So since they have completely rejected that, then I am stuck trying to figure out a system that includes it in the equation.

"ANY level of alcohol impairs driving performance." Say I grant that? So what? So does not sleeping well. So does some otc cough medicines. So does having the flu. So does someone with a cell phone stuck to their ear.

Driving is not THAT difficult. Almost every american of multiple intelligence and skill levels can safely do it. You do not HAVE to be at 100% efficiency (whatever that is individually) to do it.

So the question is really, at what level of impairment is it now not acceptible performance?

I don't drink alcohol so I can't say. I HAVE driven TIRED many times. And my performance was reduced during those times. But I have NEVER been in an accident nor caused one nor come close to one when driving tired.

So my question remains, for the AVERAGE american, what is the blood alcohol level that results in impairment that accidents start to happen at a rate much above the baseline NON-ALCOHOL accident rate? .08? .10? .06? .04? .12? I am not finding statistics for that.

And I don't really care what it is. Whatever. I don't drink. But SINCE society has decided to drink and drive, then I don't want to unnecessarily harrass people with DUI's if they aren't at a level that really endangers society.

THAT was my question. I appreciate the statistics posted. But they didn't come close to answering my question.

^^^
I wish I could put it together that well.....

especially: "And I don't really care what it is. Whatever. I don't drink. But SINCE society has decided to drink and drive, then I don't want to unnecessarily harrass people with DUI's if they aren't at a level that really endangers society."

now, I will say, back when I was drinking - I have been pulled over & have blown over the limits. officer still let me slide. I am not a sloppy drunk. but, I dont like the idea of leaving up to the officer at the time. one bad day, and that'll be it. I expect officer's know the power they are wielding & apply as needed. like I mentioned above - the only 2 people I know with DUI's really deserved it. so, I expect there is MUCH discretion going on.

but, by my guess - 0.10 is where things get stupid

Let's put it this way
If you saw somebody operating a dangerous piece of equipment, swigging a couple of bottles of beer beside it..what would you say?
Or getting under a car supported on cinderblocks, what would you say?
Or somebody fixing an electric fire with a screwdriver, with the fire turned on..what would you say?
If you saw somebody walking down the road with a baby in one arm, drinking out of a beer bottle with the other, what would you say?
" Look at that idiot"...and yet, we see people coming out of bars at night,or during the day, and getting into a car and driving away..and people condone it!! It suddenly isn't stupid!! WHY? They won't die if they DON"T have a drink..but somebody might if they do.MIGHT...isn't that enough? Sure , it would be, if that MIGHT applied to somebody you love and cherish. Or even YOU!!
Then it would be Lawyers and Solicitors, Court cases, litigation..etc etc..out for Justice.
How many times have I heard :I can handle my drink..no problem.Doesn't affect ME..I know when to stop.." and unfortunately they aren't here any more to repeat it.Really I can think of 12 people over the years who have laughed at me, when I say they are
being irresponsible, and they aren't around any more. Alcohol can be an escalating problem..it never stays at one or two. And the more that is drunk, the louder they proclaim their prowess at handling alcohol.
Nobody wants to defend people who drive without insurance, do they?
We don't allow Police to drink and drive..or ambulance drivers, bus drivers, train drivers, oil rig workers, doctors, dentists,pilots, ship's captains..why is it ok for Joe Public? Is Joe Public so much better at driving, so much more responsible? Needs a drink more than them?I very much doubt it.
No, I don't drink. I think it is:
Dangerous
Unhealthy
Expensive
and DANGEROUS!!

I'm also glad I don't have to make the decision to drink and drive..one less worry
Nick

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: we see people coming out of bars at night,or during the day, and getting into a car and driving away..and people condone it!!

Well I certainly don't condone it (and I don't think you think that I do).

But not condoning it doesn't mean I want EVERYONE arrested and given a DUI. In the U.S., that has a SIGNIFICANT impact financially and socially.

And maybe .08 is the PERFECT place to draw the line. But I don't know. Because I don't drink alcohol. So I have no frame of reference to know how impaired that makes the average person. That's what I have been asking but no one has wanted to answer. How DOES someone feel when they are .08? How impaired are they? Is it WORTH it to put someone through what a DUI results in for that level?

I'm NOT saying it isn't a great level. I just don't know.

I tried to go through the statistics to see the accident rates at different levels. I didn't find that kind of information. I found "above .08" rates, and I found "above .15" rates.

BTW. I have made medical decisions on critically ill patients after going over 30 hours without sleep. No accidents or fatalities related to that, though.

1. What is drunk driving? This term is an inaccurate characterization of the problems caused by motorists who are impaired by alcohol. The first criminal laws targeting this problem prohibited "drunk driving," encouraging the notion that the problem was restricted to drivers who were visibly drunk. In fact, many alcohol-impaired drivers do not appear drunk in the traditional way. Research has shown that even small amounts of alcohol can impair the skills involved in driving, but the persistent notion that the problem is predominantly one of drunk drivers has allowed many drinking drivers to decide they are not part of the problem. For these reasons, the term "alcohol-impaired driving" is a more accurate and precise description of what is commonly referred to as drunk driving.
2. What does blood alcohol concentration (BAC) measure? A BAC describes the amount of alcohol in a person's blood, expressed as weight of alcohol per unit of volume of blood. For example, 0.08 percent BAC indicates 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood. For most legal purposes, however, a blood sample is not necessary to determine a person's BAC. It can be measured more simply by analyzing exhaled breath.
3. What BAC is considered illegal? All 50 states and the District of Columbia have per se laws defining it as a crime to drive with a BAC at or above a proscribed level, 0.08 percent.
4. What is the effect of alcohol on driving skills and crash risk? Studies have shown that at BACs as low as 0.02 percent, alcohol affects driving ability and crash likelihood.1,2 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ...........................................................................................The probability of a crash begins to increase significantly at 0.05 percent BAC and climbs rapidly after about 0.08 percent.............................................................................................................................................................................................. For drivers 35 and older with BACs at or above 0.15 percent on weekend nights, the likelihood of being killed in a single-vehicle crash is more than 380 times higher than for nondrinking drivers.1
5. How many drinks does it take to reach significantly impairing BACs? The effects of alcoholic drinks vary greatly because the rate of absorption and BACs attained vary from person to person due to factors such as weight, amount of fat tissue, and stomach contents. Nevertheless, various organizations have developed charts intended to help people estimate their BACs based on the number of drinks consumed. These tables can be used to estimate BACs, but they are subject to error.

8. How has the incidence of alcohol-impaired driving changed over time? The incidence of alcohol-impaired driving has been reduced but remains a major problem. NHTSA and the Institute undertook a national roadside breath survey in 1996, patterned after 1986 and 1973 surveys, and found that 83 percent of drivers had no measurable alcohol, a significant increase in nondrinking drivers above the rates of 74 percent in 1986 and 64 percent in 1973.8 In 1996, 7.7 percent of drivers had BACs at or above 0.05 percent, compared with 8.4 percent in 1986 and 13.7 percent in 1973. The proportion of drivers with BACs at or above 0.10 percent was 2.8 percent in 1996, 3.2 percent in 1986, and 5 percent in 1973.

13. Is the problem of alcohol-impaired driving limited to people with very high BACs? No. Among passenger vehicle drivers with illegal BACs (0.08 percent or higher) who died in crashes in 2005, 28 percent had BACs lower than 0.15 percent.

14. Have hard-core drinking drivers been unaffected by countermeasures directed at all drivers? No. It often is suggested that alcohol-impaired driving crashes are increasingly caused by people with very high BACs and repeat offenders. However, between 1982 and 2002, all categories of illegal BACs declined among fatally injured passenger vehicle drivers. Percentage point declines were similar across BACs of 0.08-0.14 percent, 0.15-0.19 percent, 0.20-0.24 percent, and 0.25 percent and higher.12 Similarly, among drivers in fatal crashes with BACs at or above 0.08 percent, the proportion with alcohol convictions during the previous 3 years declined during the past decade from 11 percent in 1994 to 9 percent in 2005. These statistics do not support the claims that hard-core drinking drivers have become a larger part of the problem or that they have been unaffected by countermeasures directed at all drivers.


References

1Zador, P.L.; Krawchuk, S.A.; and Voas, R.B. 2000. Alcohol-related relative risk of driver fatalities and driver involvement in fatal crashes in relation to driver age and gender: an update using 1996 data. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 61:387-95.

2Compton, R.P.; Blomberg, R.D.; Moskowitz, H.; Burns, M.; Peck, R.C. and Fiorentino, D. 2002. Crash risk of alcohol impaired driving. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety (CD-ROM). Montreal, Canada.

3Smart, R.G. 1996. Behavioral and social consequences related to the consumption of different beverage types. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 57:77-84.

4National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2006. Traffic safety facts, 2005: alcohol. Report no. DOT HS-810-616. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.

5Borkenstein, R.F.; Crowther, R.F.; Shumate, R.P.; Ziel, W.B.; and Zylman, R. 1964. The role of the drinking driver in traffic accidents. Bloomington, Indiana: Department of Police Administration, Indiana University.

6Farris, R.; Malone, T.B.; and Kirkpatrick, M. 1977. A comparison of alcohol involvement in exposed and injured drivers. Report no. DOT HS-400-954. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

7Jones, R.K. and Lacey, J.H. Alcohol and highway safety 2001: a review of the state of knowledge. Report no. DOT HS-809-383. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

8Voas, R.B.; Wells, J.K.; Lestina, D.; Williams, A.F.; and Greene, M. 1998. Drinking and driving in the United States: the 1996 national roadside survey. Accident Analysis and Prevention 30:267-75.

9Simpson, H.M. and Mayhew, D.R. 1991. The hard core drinking driver. Ottawa, Ontario: Traffic Injury Research Foundation.

10Williams, A.F., McCartt, A.T. and Ferguson, S.A. 2006. Hardcore drinking drivers and other contributors to the alcohol-impaired driving problem: Need for a comprehensive approach. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

11Fell, J.C. 1991. Repeat DWI offenders: their involvement in fatal crashes. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

12McCartt, A.T. and Williams, A.F. 2004. Characteristics of fatally injured drivers with high blood alcohol concentrations (BACs). Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety (CD-ROM). Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Executive.


4. What is the effect of alcohol on driving skills and crash risk? Studies have shown that at BACs as low as 0.02 percent, alcohol affects driving ability and crash likelihood.1,2 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ...........................................................................................The probability of a crash begins to increase significantly at 0.05 percent BAC and climbs rapidly after about 0.08 percent.............................................................................................................................................................................................. For drivers 35 and older with BACs at or above 0.15 percent on weekend nights, the likelihood of being killed in a single-vehicle crash is more than 380 times higher than for nondrinking drivers.1
I figured I would repeat this one as the number people are stressing over is not necessarily a differance that can be calculatable, however the probability climbs rapidly.

I only spent a few minutes looking, I am curious as well to find the graphs that show the probability scales.

No I am not in Law enforcement, although I have lots of time cruising with the boys in blue. I am a self employed reconstructionist. I am hired by attorneys and insurance companies to find out what happened. I have proved officers wrong and I have told insurance companies to fight and or pay claims. I also do vehicle fire inspections and tech inspections as well. I have participated in a few research projects through a university and I would encourage others to do the same.

More later.