http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/pe...Hs809028/Results.htm

There are plenty of graphs showing drowsiness, reaction time, perception, etc etc all related to BAC of all levels, and lots of stuff in this one.

based on 109 studies, shows the number of studies reporting impairment by the lowest BAC at which impairment appeared. Note that the BAC categories used here are slightly different than those in the Moskowitz and Robinson study. Here each BAC category ends with a 9 (e.g., 0.020-0.029 g/dl) whereas Moskowitz and Robinson used BAC categories ending in zero(e.g., 0.021-0.030 g/dl). Twenty-seven percent of the studies reported impairment by 0.039 g/dl, 47% by 0.049 g/dl and 92% by 0.079 g/dl

( 92% by .079 which is just below .08 for those wondering, The graphs do not show up well)

The impairment appeared in one or more of the response variables examined in the study. As shown in Tables B1 and B2 in Appendix B, impairment was reported by more studies and for lower BAC than in the 1988 review by Moskowitz and Robinson. The difference may be accounted for in two ways. First, pre-1988 studies included very few which examined more than one BAC. If impairment is reported only for a single selected BAC, no inference can be drawn about alcohol effects at lower BACs. In this review of more recent literature, the majority of studies have examined multiple BACs, which permits the identification of lower BAC at which impairment appears. Second, the methods and instruments used by researchers in this past decade have improved.

Maybe the reason for the change was more (quantity and accuracy) studies proving that .08 was a lower risk level, than .1

I was honestly figuring someone was going to post a link to a study done by some private group that skewed their results to show that people don't get drunk until .15 or more and the government is only trying to generate income to replace their Taurus fleet with Cobra Mustangs. Or something like that.

More later.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.
I noticed that the article still mentions .08 to .15. I would still like to see how .08 compares to .10, in the grand scheme of things.

Once again, I do thank you for your efforts, and will wait for any more info that you can provide.

Edit - didn't see the second post until just now. Reading...

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

quote Originally posted by Raydar: Thank you for taking the time to respond. I noticed that the article still mentions .08 to .15. I would still like to see how .08 compares to .10, in the grand scheme of things. Once again, I do thank you for your efforts, and will wait for any more info that you can provide.

You are welcome, I like a good debate.

I am just checking the "normal" places for the quick answers. The problem with the differance between the .08 and .10 may be because of comparing how some older studies were done and comparing fatality rates of the above and below .10 groups than a % of impairment between the .08 and .10. As time permits I will keep looking.

Before anyone jumps to conclusions you need to understand how some of these studies are conducted. There is no way I will explain that in a reasonable amount of typing.

To simplify it grossly, maybe, it is the differance between running your newly modified car with a g tech vs a drag strip vs a seat of the pants meter. They generate the same basic data, but there can be some significant differances between them. The better our testing methods become, the better information we have to make changes to the system. Since some of these studies go back a long time ago accross the world they are reviewed for accuracy as more come along. Speaking in generalities.

Interesting. Quite interesting.
Especially so, considering that some impairment is shown at quite lower levels (relative to .08) while none is shown until much higher, depending upon what the test/measurement parameters were.

quote Originally posted by SCCAFiero: I was honestly figuring someone was going to post a link to a study done by some private group that skewed their results to show that people don't get drunk until .15 or more...

Naaaah. I know better than that. Since I have been driving, .10 was always the accepted standard.
I also saw a few people get arrested for DUI, and heard what they blew on the scale. The people that were tested, but blew "under" .10 really weren't drunk, to the casual observer. Those that exceeded .10 were. And even they knew they were. And so did everybody else who saw them.

Totally off on a tangent...
I would like to see an actual "impairment" measured, instead of an arbitrary ".08" (or whatever number) applied across the board as it is now.

Why?
I've seen some "amateur" drinkers that would be absolutely plastered after one drink. I've also seen some people who "held their alcohol" quite well, and could still carry on an intelligent conversation, and appear dead sober, after half a dozen. (I am probably one of the 'lightweights" in this regard. I don't drink much. When I do, I feel it.)

Other drugs can build a tolerance in the user. I'm not sure that alcohol isn't the same.

But I am realistic. I know that it will never happen, and I understand why. I won't even ask anyone to discuss, as it's not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Dan, I understand the comment below entirely. I find it lamentable that your profession requires you to even HAVE to do that(Somewhat tangental thought: if there wasn't so much alcohol abuse going on in the World, perhaps you wouldn't HAVE to work for 30 hours without sleep? .
I also applaud your integrity which carries you through that process of working whilst exhausted. I think it is equally as wrong to expect you to perform your work under such circumstances, as it is to consume alcohol before driving.But, and here is the crux of the matter to me, drinking alcohol does nobody any service, and no good comes of it, to anybody.You carry on working out of neccesity due to work environment, and RESPONSIBILITY.Nobody can truthfully apply that criteria to drinking alcohol.It is a selfish indulgence, for personal pleasure.Nothing gained, but much lost.You are doing it through professional commitment
I did a quick search in Google for some statistics too, and found this site to have some interesting comments to read:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4056017.stm


Although not going very deeply into statistics, it does make some very interesting statements, regarding the initial success of the breathalyser in Europe, and the subsequent escalation of alcohol consumption in drivers, once the initial 'shock' had worn off.And don't forget that there are thousands of new drivers every day, who do not appreciate the dangers of driving whilst under the influence of alcohol.It is rather like the leaky old dam in Holland..you block one hole, and another appears soon after.I still say that I think the fairest way to deal with the problem is to have zero tolerance. If you want to drink, you can't get behind a wheel.Full stop.It is not as if there aren't enough vehicles available during a crisis, to be called upon to help.
And finally, I hardly think it sensible, or logical, to say we have to condone alcohol use whilst driving, because some people have to work under circumstances of sleep deprivation. It just isn't logical to raise the question.It just amplifies the potential dangers, by adding another source, rather than getting rid of one. I don't see any sense or reason in that.
Nick

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: 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.

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 03-21-2007).]

Interesting how different cultures have different outlooks on this.

From a UK perspective, we have a heavy drinking culture yet drink driving is seen as socially unacceptable. The limit has also been dropped recently.

I was amazed that Romania has a zero tolerance, as the waiter (who saw me arrive by motorbike) told me after he had just poured me a long cool glass of very strong beer. After a long days ride that beer was calling me, but I love my bike more, the ONLY beer I have ever had to leave.

Cliff do you recognise drinking and driving as not being socially acceptable and as a dangerous act? Do you feel you have the right to drink and drive? From what I undestand (which may not be much), your issue is with this being a criminal offence? If your issue is with it being a criminal offence and assuming you recognise it as being unacceptable, what solution would you propose to stop people from doing it?

Cheers
PK

quote Originally posted by PK: Interesting how different cultures have different outlooks on this. From a UK perspective, we have a heavy drinking culture yet drink driving is seen as socially unacceptable. The limit has also been dropped recently. I

When I was in Germany about 5 years ago I was discussing this wih a few business associates (crash related). They said in Germany you can drink when you are 18 but cannot drive until you are 21. If that is still accurate (it may have been related to heavy trucks, I do not remember 100%) it gives younger people the chance to see how screwed up they can get drinking, before learning how to drive. Instead of thinking they are already good drivers and it won't happen to them.

its all in what can be proved - I am still allowed to drive with my eyes closed.....

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: its all in what can be proved - I am still allowed to drive with my eyes closed.....

You must know somebody. Or know somebody who knows somebody.

As a friend of mine once shouted (slurred, and way too loudly), "I've got high friends in places!"

quote Originally posted by Raydar: Totally off on a tangent... I would like to see an actual "impairment" measured, instead of an arbitrary ".08" (or whatever number) applied across the board as it is now.

Actually it is already the case. Arizona (and most other states IMS) say that it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle "While under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances if the person is impaired to the slightest degree."

The issue is that proving impairment (especially before the dash camera) was difficult as impairment is a judgement call. So the .10 (now .08) limit was set as a provable number. So legally, you can blow a .01 and still be convicted of a DUI.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: ..... The issue is that proving impairment (especially before the dash camera) was difficult as impairment is a judgement call. So the .10 (now .08) limit was set as a provable number. So legally, you can blow a .01 and still be convicted of a DUI.

and this is where it all falls apart. the point of my "driving with my eyes closed". dont get much more impaired than that, eh? but just try and make that stick in court.
but, this is how the law should be - not focusing on alcohol - but on impairment. there are people with licenses who at their BEST are to impaired to drive. and, fortunatly, things are starting to get done in that direction also.
instead of a breathalyzer, maybe a reactions test.
but, just like you cant force me to open my eyes, you cant force others to pay attention. and, I tend to think that paying attention is WAY more important than reaction times. you pay attention, you often dont need to react. but - doesnt matter. neither one matters. just what ya blow. eyes closed, not paying attention, with zero reaction - but - if sober, all good.....

Well that's rather the point. There is no point in making illegal what you have no chance of proving. So "driving while inattentive" is legal because it can't be proven that you weren't attentive. This is why it is illegal to do things that are more likely to make you inattentive like watching TV or (in some places) using a hands-on cell phone.

And if you are driving with your eyes closed or inattentive, you are more likely do do something illegal that with either cause an accident or get you enough points to suspend your license. So while the actual cause isn't illegal, the likely results will eventually get you punished.

And even if you can't enforce attention, that doesn't mean that enforcing other things that are also likely to cause an accident should be allowed to. If nothing else, allowing other things means you have drunk and inattentive drivers instead of just inattentive drivers.

Edit: What exactly are you arguing for/against since you said you aren't for abolition of the DUI laws?

[This message has been edited by Steve Normington (edited 03-21-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: Well that's rather the point. There is no point in making illegal what you have no chance of proving. So "driving while inattentive" is legal because it can't be proven that you weren't attentive. This is why it is illegal to do things that are more likely to make you inattentive like watching TV or (in some places) using a hands-on cell phone. And if you are driving with your eyes closed or inattentive, you are more likely do do something illegal that with either cause an accident or get you enough points to suspend your license. So while the actual cause isn't illegal, the likely results will eventually get you punished. And even if you can't enforce attention, that doesn't mean that enforcing other things that are also likely to cause an accident should be allowed to. If nothing else, allowing other things means you have drunk and inattentive drivers instead of just inattentive drivers. Edit: What exactly are you arguing for/against since you said you aren't for abolition of the DUI laws?

you asked that in the beginning fo this -
I am argueing for NOT getting punished when nothing was done wrong.
like you said - all the bad things that CAN happen already have punishments attached.
and, you said "doing something wrong" is subjective, and up to the masses, and the masses have spoken.
just like I wont be punished for driving with my eyes closed - until I hit something - I dont want to be punished for driving drunk - until I hit something.
driving with my eyes closed is CLEARLY the worse of the 2. and, I have no problem with adding a little extra punishment if alcohol was involved when something was done wrong.
I know this is all over the top & silly - and with things the way they are - this is the best we can do. doesnt mean I am happy with it.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: you asked that in the beginning fo this - I am argueing for NOT getting punished when nothing was done wrong. like you said - all the bad things that CAN happen already have punishments attached. and, you said "doing something wrong" is subjective, and up to the masses, and the masses have spoken. just like I wont be punished for driving with my eyes closed - until I hit something - I dont want to be punished for driving drunk - until I hit something. driving with my eyes closed is CLEARLY the worse of the 2. and, I have no problem with adding a little extra punishment if alcohol was involved when something was done wrong. I know this is all over the top & silly - and with things the way they are - this is the best we can do. doesnt mean I am happy with it.

If you want to say that merely driving while drunk isn't wrong, then speeding, running red lights, driving on the left side of the street aren't wrong either. None of these activities have a direct negative affect on anyone else. They merely increase the chances of hitting someone. Many laws aren't based on actual causes, but on the potential to cause harm. Firing a gun into the air doesn't cause any direct harm until the bullet hits someone. Having a 6 foot pile of dried brush in your yard right next to your neighbor's house doesn't cause any direct harm until a fire starts.

So do we scrap all the laws that relate to potential harm or increasing risk factors and just punish when something bad actually occurs?

Also, your other examples of risky behaviour are correctable. If you are driving with your eyes closed and cross over the center lane, then you can decide that was stupid and drive with your eyes open. If you are inattentive and run a red light, you can decide to put down the food and pay better attention. If you drive too fast and nearly hit someone, you can decide to slow down. Even if you are tired, doing one of the above will spike your adrenaline and wake you up for a bit. But if you are drunk and do any of the above, you will still be just as drunk afterwords. So the only way that driving drunk can be fixed is to never have it start.

Relating to the above is the ability for law enforcement to stop the above behaviours. If you are speeding, driving over the center lane, or running red lights, then a cop can pull you over and suggest that you drive more carefully or slower from now on (in addition to the ticket). If you are sober, then there is a good chance that you'll listen to the cop and driver better (for a little bit anyway). But if you are drunk, then the cop's warning won't make you any sober. So when he lets you go (because he can't arrest you for what isn't a crime) you'll go right back to doing whatever it was that you were doing before. And if you are acting drunk, but don't actually violate any laws, he'll have to let you go and hope that you'll hit something inanimate.

Adding on punishments only in case of an accident will only work if the drunk driver thinks he'll get into an accident in the first place. And if he thought that, he'd not be driving in the first place. If he thinks that he can drive fine, then it won't matter about the additional punishment because he doesn't think it will ever apply because he won't get into an accident.

Finally, you're coming off a bit contradictory. You say that this is the best we can do, but then propose the way things should be. If the way things should be isn't better, then why propose it? And if the way things should be is better, then what we are currently doing isn't the best we can do. Or is this a kind of "in a perfect world with perfect people" kind of solution?

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: ............ Or is this a kind of "in a perfect world with perfect people" kind of solution?

yes.

I'm trying to recall some of the statistics I read in the links. I think it was 1.4 MILLION DUI's per year! And I think about 300,000 accidents in which alcohol was involved.

One could conclude--great. That means 1.1 million accidents that were going to happen were prevented because the people were caught in time.

One could conclude--man. 1.1 million arrests of people that didn't cause an accident and got arrested "unnecessarily".

I couldn't find anything with the 1.4 million dui's that said what number of people had what blood alcohol level. I wish they would have reported that.

And again, not being an alcohol drinker, and also not being a policeman/woman, I don't have a good idea of what driving behavior was going on with the ones arrested for dui that didn't cause an accident. Why were they pulled over? Was it erratic driving? Because if that was why, I would guess they WERE impaired enough to get a dui, no matter what the blood alcohol was.

Pyrthian, you mentioned you were let go long ago. Why were you pulled over in the first place?

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: .... Pyrthian, you mentioned you were let go long ago. Why were you pulled over in the first place?

driving left of center - on a side street
dead license plate light - yes - it was out....
swerving - avoided junk in road
improper lane usage - crossed a solid white line, going around a stopped car in a merge
improper parking lot use - not sure the technical name - turned around in a parking lot

most of these were while driving my Suburban. it was a beast of a vehicle, and had tinted windows. I think the tint is what made me a cop magnet. I have yet to speed or get in an accident. I have yet to get pulled over in my Fiero. My Mustang brought in the cops too - thats when I got the left of center & license plate light check - no tickets for any of the above, except the improper lane usage.


edit: oh yeah - I have yet to actually do the alphabet backwards.....usually the preliminary is counting while tapping your thumb with each succesive finger pointer to pinky & back. then arms outs & alternatly touch pointy finger to nose. havent had to "walk the line" either.

[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 03-21-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: oh yeah - with the speeding, running lights, etc - that all affects people directly. if you are driving next to me, you have NO IDEA whether I have been drinking or not. if I go whailing by speeding, I am directly affecting you and the traffic around you. if I go blasting a red light, if you're coming thru on the green side, you havta nail the brakes & avoid me.

Except speeding, driving on the left, and running red lights are crimes even when you are the only car on the road. The laws aren't based on direct affects, they are based on potential to cause harm. You may be more likely to be let off if you are the only car on the road, but you have still broken the law.

And that still doesn't answer the point about how you discourage drunk driving when the only penalty is added penalties if you hit someone. No one expects to have an accident, so everyone from cold sober to falling down-drunk wouldn't care about the additional penalty because they never expect it to happen to them.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: Except speeding, driving on the left, and running red lights are crimes even when you are the only car on the road. The laws aren't based on direct affects, they are based on potential to cause harm. You may be more likely to be let off if you are the only car on the road, but you have still broken the law. And that still doesn't answer the point about how you discourage drunk driving when the only penalty is added penalties if you hit someone. No one expects to have an accident, so everyone from cold sober to falling down-drunk wouldn't care about the additional penalty because they never expect it to happen to them.

if there were never other cars on the road, the laws would not have been made. (or the roads )
the laws were made for traffic control. trying to keep the city from becoming a parking lot every day as people fought their ways thru intersections. safety was barely a consideration. I type faster than them cars moved. heck - when did the speedo become required equipment?

and yes, I agree 100% that no one expects to have an accident - hence the name...

quote ]Originally posted by Pyrthian: and yes, I agree 100% that no one expects to have an accident - hence the name...

And since no one considers that they'll get in an accident, increased penalties for accidents involving alcohol won't deter anyone.

quote if there were never other cars on the road, the laws would not have been made. (or the roads )

On the road at that time, not ever.

quote the laws were made for traffic control. trying to keep the city from becoming a parking lot every day as people fought their ways thru intersections. safety was barely a consideration.

Actually, safety of others was always a consideration. That's why early cars were required to be preceeded by a man with a flag or red lantern, to warn horse riders and carriages of an impending motorcar. And how would speed limits have controled traffic?

[This message has been edited by Steve Normington (edited 03-21-2007).]

quote Originally posted by pokeyfiero: Drinking sounds expensive. Figure out how much that costs you per drink.

For those that choose to drive intoxicated or to the point of suspicion of intoxication, a good lawyer for a felony DWI charge will cost you $7,500.00.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I had time to kill before work and pulled down to the waters edge of the Nueces river for a look see. Being out of town and all. I used the boat ramp to get to the water's edge. When I get there I get out of my truck, wave at some fishermen on the opposite bank, and notice a boat banked on my side of the river with it's engine running. It being empty and I owning a boat, I realize someone wants to load up there boat and I might be blocking the ramp. I look behind me and a guy is walking towards me. I tell him I will move my truck but he comes down wanting to know what I threw away. He starts saying he saw me throw something away, and asking if it was a beer can. I assured him I did not. He says I smell like alcohol and have bloodshot eyes. He tells me that if I had been on the road I would be subject to a field sobriety test and told me to park it. Which I did. He gets his boat out and leaves. He returns to detain me saying a Texas trooper wants to talk to me. I get arrested after the trooper gets there. No one saw me on a roadway.

Well, I had lawyered up right away. Above is my initial account, the facts, the honest facts, regarding my arrest. I just had a meeting with my lawyer. He finally got some evidence on a motion of discovery. For a drivers license revocation hearing.

The Texas State Troopers report states, , that he was called to the scene by the Game Warden because I almost hit his...well...hit him as he was backing his truck/trailer/rig down to get his boat. Now why would I try to beat a boat trailer down the ramp? Maybe if I wanted to launch or retrieve my boat first. I saw his rig. It was parked. I do not know, he may have been ready to put it in reverse, I really paid his rig no attention. It looked parked. Also, a boat ramp is so wide, how could I almost hit him ? I would have to be falling down drunk to be in a brand new location and not paying attention to what was in front of me. Geeze ! Never during my interaction with the Game Warden did hey say I almost hit him. He never called the Trooper during my interaction with him. He left. He came back to detain me until the Trooper could get there. When the Trooper did get there, never did he mention that I almost hit the Game Warden's rig.
'Ya know, this really pisses me off. It is hard enough, and expensive, to defend yourself and find the truth. We are not supposed to prove we are innocent. Why must they lie?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: He starts saying he saw me throw something away, and asking if it was a beer can. I assured him I did not.

I did not lie. They found four empties from earlier in the day. I do not litter. Even evidence against me. Geeze, .
As bad as this sounds, I am glad this happened to me. I hate injustice. It is scary that they retroactively charged me with a felony. Never did they mention this being a felony case. The actual ?ticket? I recieved, documenting this ?stop? did say DWI Third Offense. Where I should have signed it...it did not say "refused". It said "jailed". Get this, the police report states I was cooperative.
Well, there you have it folks. The latest episode of "How cliffw's World Wobbles".

If you weren't launching or picking up a boat, you were in the way by simply being on the ramp. I hope your learned your lesson. There are some really big a-holes out there and if you piss them off, for any reason, there will be hell to pay.

Were the cans yours cliff? If not, demand they fingerprint them.Don´t have them anymore? can´t be allowed, surely? They HAVE to prove those cans were yours.If they didn´t collect and keep the cans, they can´t be used as evidence against you, if they don´t exist.They have to prove they were yours.
Nick

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Were the cans yours cliff? If not, demand they fingerprint them.Don´t have them anymore? can´t be allowed, surely? They HAVE to prove those cans were yours.If they didn´t collect and keep the cans, they can´t be used as evidence against you, if they don´t exist.They have to prove they were yours. Nick

I'd bet a steak dinner they were empty cans in a cooler in the back of his truck. JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER EMPTY CANS IN THE BACK OF TRUCKS ALL OVER TEXAS!

My boss just got a dui on the back of a 4 wheeler with his sober wife driving.

quote Originally posted by buddycraigg: ummm here in Missouri, about 3/4 of a can of beer within one hour will put you over the limit if you weigh aprx 200 pounds.

really? its 0.08 here and i can have 3 beers before i blow that high and im only 160lbs

quote Originally posted by Jermz238: really? its 0.08 here and i can have 3 beers before i blow that high and im only 160lbs

Yes, but over how long a time span?

Always hide a spare set of keys, lock your doors and close them "accidentally"

Step one, refuse jumping jacks exhibition.
Step two, refuse field blowage. arrest will ensue.
Step three, blow at the station turn, look at the camera and demand an independent test.
Step four, go to trial and have it all dismissed because you were refused your right to an independent breath test.
Step five, smile as you leave the courtroom.


Nazi occupied Texas residents.... I feel for you. Your state is mor likely to make you do jail time than any other state in the nazi occupied states.

No, Bill, the REAL Nazis haven't come to power in this country, yet---but if our idiots in Congress don't get busy securing our borders, and looking out for the good of the country, instead of the good of their pocketbooks, it might yet happen---and THOSE guys will make you long for the "good old days" of hiding in willow trees laughing at Officer Fife. Once they start up with "Endlosung," me and my kind will be the least of worries for you and your homies, because honest cops will be replaced by the SA troopers who weren't allowed to be cops because they couldn't pass the psych exam, but are blindly loyal to whoever the new Fuhrer is...and if things get that bad, you might find me standing between them and you and your homies, or maybe even next to ya. Because if it gets that bad, the ovens of Auschwitz will be burning again, for anyone who looks or thinks differently, without the law to restrain them.

[This message has been edited by Vonov (edited 06-15-2007).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: I hope your learned your lesson.

Rail against me all you want. Any of you. I do not care if you don't believe in the presumption of innocence. I have to live with myself.
Learn something? You bet I did. Alot. First and foremost, I got a lesson in being stupid. In hindsight I know now to trust foresight. I knew to stay out of Live Oak county, George West more specifically. My rig was in Live Oak county but on the first night I was looking for it I overshot a turn and ended up in George West. At about three in the morning. I saw three or four police/trooper cruisers with lights on, making stops. The next day, while getting groceries for a week in George West, at about seven in the evening, I see multiple tickets being given out. This turned into a daily sighting at any hour of the day. I knew then to stay away from George West. Which I started doing. I would go about ten miles further to Three Rivers for whatever.
During my time in Live Oak county I met many a nice local. Two that I met I still stop and visit when I am in the area. All the locals told...warned me... about George West. I hear that all the time as I travel through many and to many places in Texas. It's always "the cops are bad here". That is even said in my old hometown of Bandera. I always laugh it off because if you do right you should have no fright. Yet, I knew, I could feel, George West was different.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: 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.

Many communities in the USA are renowned for this sort of thing. Ask any trucker. There are famous hot spots.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: If you weren't launching or picking up a boat, you were in the way by simply being on the ramp.

I own a boat. I actually own two boats, both trailer towed motor boats. I have been to many a boat launch. It would not be because I have boats that I know etiquette. The boat launch was empty. There was one rig parked (guess who's). This was not a busy lake, nor a holiday crowd issue. I was not in the way and this is Texas not Connecticut. We do not live on top of each other. We have plenty of room and time. If someone was in my way I would just let him know I needed the boat launch. I'm sorry Avengador, what was the problem?

quote Originally posted by avengador1: There are some really big a-holes out there and if you piss them off, for any reason, there will be hell to pay.

Heh...you are right but how do you figure I pissed them off?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I get out of my truck, wave at some fishermen on the opposite bank, and notice a boat banked on my side of the river with it's engine running. It being empty and I owning a boat, I realize someone wants to load up there boat and I might be blocking the ramp. I look behind me and a guy is walking towards me. I tell him I will move my truck but he comes down wanting to know what I threw away. He starts saying he saw me throw something away, and asking if it was a beer can. I assured him I did not.

I assured him that I did not.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Being stopped by a cop, to me, is sort of like a chess game. It is also an exercise in psychology. Make the right moves, push the right buttons, you can get out of any ticket save a revenue ticket.

Now, any interaction with a cop, a store manager, a girlfriend, or anyone is not a game. I do know how to interact with people though. Some ways are better than others. I assured the Game Warden I did not. Later, when they found the empties, I mentioned, in a friendly manner, "see officer, I do not litter throwing out beer cans".

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Get this, the police report states I was cooperative.

I know I did not piss anyone off. I was thanked many times for being nice about the situation before that report was written.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Were the cans yours cliff?

Yes Nick, they were mine. Well maybe one belonged to a coworker I was having a beer with (earlier that day). It doesn't matter. Whenever, where ever, the chips fall, I will be able to hold my head high. Because I do the right thing although I am not always successful. When I am not, I try harder. For some people it is harder than others. We all have areas in life like that. As long as we keep trying. That is what is important.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: If they didn´t collect and keep the cans, they can´t be used as evidence against you, if they don´t exist.They have to prove they were yours.

I was not cited for an open container. They did not confiscate the cans. Maybe a police video shows them, I don't know. Maybe a police mike has me acknowledging them. I don't know. I will admit that they were there.
To tell you the truth Nick, I do not worry after the fact. That would be such a wasteful use of time, but thank you.

quote Originally posted by WBailey1041: I'd bet a steak dinner they were empty cans in a cooler in the back of his truck.

, mmmmm, when you get back to Texas you are taking me to the Little Red Barn.
No, they were under my seat. Earlier we were drinking on a ranch road because we can not drink on location. I am not gonna litter a man's property and they are not allowed at work. I can not put them in an ice chest because it is too easy to be searched. In fact, that would be the first place they looked, . I should have like I usually do, throwed them away when I got back to the rig.
You'll like the Little Red Barn, I promise,
By the way. The cooler was empty.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Step one, Step two, Step three, Step four, Step five,

Bill, heh, pretty close. Not bad advice. A lawyer would add a couple more I think.
This thread is not a tutorial on how to beat a DWI. It is to educate.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Nazi occupied Texas residents.... I feel for you. Your state is mor likely to make you do jail time than any other state in the nazi occupied states.

Really ? Do you have a source ? 'Ya know, there is nothing wrong with getting serious with DWIs. Rather than...:

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: This is the problem with the way drunk driving laws are set up right now. They keep lowering the limit more and more, but they don't actually enforce the law. They bust drunks, slap 'em on the wrist and cut them loose to do it over and over. 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. It would be a LOT better if they'd raise the limits back to something reasonable, and then set some "oh sh*t" mandatory sentences/fines/jail times, and then ENFORCE the laws AND the sentences. But there's not as much money in that process, so they never will....

quote Originally posted by fieroluv: How do you keep drunks off the road? I say lets start enforcing penalties like they do in South America. You get caught driving drunk, you get set up in front of a firing squad. That should put an end to it.

I sense a little too much animosity. Besides, it would never work. Beer, and drunkenness, has been around as long as the Bible. They have not been able to get rid of it (Bible) even by feeding to the lions. But you are right. Absolute penalties. Starting with awareness of what the penalties are. This might be my third DWI, the last in 94. To retroactively change the laws and make every one count since you were born towards a felony, WILL not stand up. I had no money then and pled guilty. With an absolute penalty. Either my earlier plea should be able to be withdrawn, since the penalty has increased, or, ...NO...there is no or.

quote Originally posted by fieroluv: You get caught driving drunk, you get set up in front of a firing squad.

? Caught driving drunk?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: It is hard enough, and expensive, to defend yourself and find the truth. We are not supposed to prove we are innocent. Why must they lie?

Maybe I should repeat myself.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: The Texas State Troopers report states, , that he was called to the scene by the Game Warden because I almost hit his...well...hit him as he was backing his truck/trailer/rig down to get his boat. Now why would I try to beat a boat trailer down the ramp? Maybe if I wanted to launch or retrieve my boat first. I saw his rig. It was parked. I do not know, he may have been ready to put it in reverse, I really paid his rig no attention. It looked parked. Also, a boat ramp is so wide, how could I almost hit him ? I would have to be falling down drunk to be in a brand new location and not paying attention to what was in front of me. Geeze ! Never during my interaction with the Game Warden did hey say I almost hit him. He never called the Trooper during my interaction with him. He left. He came back to detain me until the Trooper could get there. When the Trooper did get there, never did he mention that I almost hit the Game Warden's rig.

Gosh Vonov, I am trying to finish up my post. I see you posted. To be honest, you scare me. Not just you. We have other LEOs on our forum. I would not be the first internet dweeb to commit suicide by posting on the internet. You can choose to believe that I am playing a chess game with you but I am not. I type 40 minutes a word and want to end my post. I can not find the quote of mine in this thread where I thanked you for being involved with this thread. Which, I do really appreciate although I
also remember thinking I should keep my mouth shut. I would understand you forwarding any evidence I am disclosing because that is your duty. I guess...I have not learned anything after all.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: I hope your learned your lesson.

Learn something? You bet I did. Alot. First and foremost, I got a lesson in being stupid. In hindsight I know now to trust foresight.
Heh....I am sure my lawyer will not be happy. Whatever, I am not paying a lawyer to hide, to avoid the truth.
Anyway, it is a nice day out here. I have stuff I want to do. This whole situation has me pissed off. Even at me. Yesterday I was really pissed.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: It is hard enough, and expensive, to defend yourself and find the truth. We are not supposed to prove we are innocent. Why must they lie?

I think the Trooper's report did me a favor. , pheww, I was scared. It is hard to beat a cop's word. Then I realized "what a tangled web we weave, when at first we start to deceive.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: I hope your learned your lesson.

'Ya know, thankfully, I still learn every day. Also, I am thankful for every day that I can learn.

Sorry, cliffw, didn't mean to rain on your parade. And as for ratting you, or anyone else, out about something you posted on the internet, I have no proof that anything anyone posts here has ANY basis in reality.
Carry on, just wanted to advise you that you don't have anything to fear from me. Take care, hope your life takes a better turn.
Vonov out.

I hope you learned your lesson.
No cop no foul, but make sure there is no one else around to see you either.

Cliff trust me man... IF you get "busted" DUI
DO NOT submit because the system IS rigged to bust you. I bet in fact I can garen god damm T that you blew less than a .08!!!!

http://www.aclutx.org/projects/prisons.php
The Prison and Jail Accountability Project
The Prison and Jail Accountability Project (PJAP) is dedicated to making Texas prisons and jails safe and humane places to live and work.

During the 80th Legislative Session, PJAP will advocate for various initiatives and monitor any legislation that addresses prison/jail capacity and impacts the conditions of confinment in the state of Texas.

PJAP monitors prisons and jails by tracking the conditions of confinement. The Texas prison system has grown over the last ten years and as such, there is a need for increased oversight.

There are 738,000 adults under supervision (prisons, jails, probation, and parole) and the rate of supervision (number of offenders supervised per 100,000) is 34.87% higher than the national average. Currently, 106 prison units and state jail facilities comprise the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). Additionally,Texas has 254 counties and 268 jail facilities with a combined rated capacity of 71,962.
In June 2001, the ACLU of Texas organized the Prison & Jail Accountability Project (PJAP) to fill the enormous void left upon the conclusion of the 30-year-old Ruiz class action lawsuit on behalf of Texas prisoners.

PJAP monitors prison and jail conditions and fights to open the prison system to public scrutiny. The ACLU of Texas accepts cases with significant civil liberties issues where participation by the ACLU of Texas will benefit a large class of people, or will lead to a change in the law concerning the issue. Very few cases are accepted for direct litigation.
US #1 in percapita imprisonment

DEPARTMENT OF (IN)JUSTICE STATISTICS - On December 31, 2001, 1,962,220 prisoners were held in Federal or State prisons or in local jails -- the total increased 1.3% from yearend 2000, less than the average annual growth of 3.6% since yearend 1995. There were an estimated 470 prison inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents -- up from 292 at yearend 1990. The number of women under the jurisdiction of State or Federal prison authorities decreased -0.2% from December 31, 2000 to December 31, 2001, reaching 9"King's College, London, just out put their latest PDF report on rates
of imprisonment in the world.

The rates are given as the number of
prison inmates per 100,000 people in the population at large. It's
pretty staggering that by far the highest rates of imprisonment occur
in the U.S. The U.S. rate is 724 for every 100,000 people - up from
505 in 1992. Of major countries, the only close competitor is Russia
with 581, and Cuba at 487. Iran and Israel, to give examples of
countries with internal conflict, clock in at 206 and 209
respectively. Most major U.S. allies are in the 130 range or lower."
"I'm not sure what any of this proves. But this much we can say: the
land of the free is also the land of the unfree. Millions of them.
Texas, by the way, has an imprisonment rate of well over 1,000.
There's no country on the planet - no dictatorship on earth - as
confortable with locking people up as the state of Texas. The
detention policies of the current administration may be more
understandable in this context."3,031. The number of men rose 1.2%, totaling 1,313,000 at yearend

No news is good news, except I have paid a bundle. Law dog likes it.
Bump

I started to work for a company called The Designate. For less than a taxi ride to and from your house and back to the bar, we take you home in your car.

I year, two days, no indictment.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I year, two days, no indictment.

Time for a drink!