The Police Shouldn't Seek Out Drunk Drivers

No their job isnt to "seek out" anyone. They should be monitoring the highways keeping them safe from dangerous drivers and debris. Pulling people over just because the bars have closed is not their job.

By the way Im glad you think that BAC is a logical method to determine how well someone drives. I find it unfortunate that the government can trick people so easily.

Quote:

---

Quoting MADDLIES

---

No their job isnt to "seek out" anyone. They should be monitoring the highways keeping them safe from dangerous drivers and debris. Pulling people over just because the bars have closed is not their job.

---

Pulling over vehicles that have committed traffic offense and arresting DUI driver IS their job. Doing those two things DOES help keep the motoring public safe.

Quote:

---

By the way Im glad you think that BAC is a logical method to determine how well someone drives. I find it unfortunate that the government can trick people so easily.

---

Please cite where I ever said that BAC is a "logical method to determine how well someone drives." I have never said anything of the sort. It IS, however, a good indicator of impairment for alcohol. It is not perfect because one can be impaired on drugs either alone or in conjunction with alcohol and have a BAC of significantly less than .08. The unfortunate result is that many officers tend to ignore this polydrug use and release people with low BACs as many officers are not as comfortable doing an evaluation for the less-than-easily-measurable drug DUI.

A BAC of .08 has been determined to be the per se level at which impairment is presumed under the law. And, yes, I tend to adhere to the research which indicates that a BAC of .08 is pretty much a guarantee of impairment. Personally, I would drop it lower as many other nations have done, but .08 is satisfactory if not perfect.

Please explain how .08 is a "good indicator" of driving impairment. Why would you drop it lower? Real statistics back up the claim that fatal accidents occur most over .12 not .08.

That doesnt make sense.

Quote:

---

Quoting MADDLIES

---

Please explain how .08 is a "good indicator" of driving impairment.

---

You can read the research as well as I can. This is not the place to discuss the voluminous works, and I suspect that you will not be convinced in any case.

Quote:

---

Why would you drop it lower?

---

Because impairment can be measured through physiological tests at as low as .03. In my opinion, even at .05 one is not safe to drive. Lucky for you I am not in charge of writing the Vehicle Code.

Quote:

---

Real statistics back up the claim that fatal accidents occur most over .12 not .08.

---

Because many people that go over .08 tend to go way over. All because people at or slightly above .08 don't tend to be AS dangerous as those over .15 is certainly no argument to make it okay to drive .08.

Yes, I know the stats and have been an instructor in DUI for some years. I have also witnessed the carnage that has resulted from DUI drivers, and the repeat offenders. I can relate a great many horror stories that some on this site have read from time to time, but if you'd care to read them I'd be happy to post a few.

If you believe that people can safely drive at .08 or higher, well, nothing I say and no information I can provide will convince you otherwise. So, we will have to agree to disagree, and I will only hope that if you imbibe you do so in a very distant and rural place and tend to drive by yourself on abandoned roads so that the rest of us are less likely to be impacted by the results of your drinking. If you do not drink and drive, good for you. If you do, may God watch over you and the people on the road with you.

This is the kind of BS that causes ppl 2 disrespect drunk driving laws.

Quote:

---

Quoting Buddy Hinton

---

This is the kind of BS that causes ppl 2 disrespect drunk driving laws.

---

What "BS" would that be?

I suspect people disobey DUI laws for much the same reason they disobey any laws - they do not think they will get caught. Couple that with the impaired judgment that is inherent with the effects of alcohol, and you have a recipe for disaster. The assumption that if a person feels okay and is not falling down or puking they are okay to drive is dangerous. Sadly, I have seen far to many people use such subjective evaluative measures to decide whether or not they can drive.

It is real easy to avoid a DUI ... don't drink or do drugs and then drive.

Heres why you're foolish cd:

not only the fact that you think these BAC tests encompass everyone (duh) but also the fact that you want to lower the BAC without educating the general public.

In reference to stats: there are none that back up your claim. The USDT lies about what is considered an alcohol related accident. I I was the DD for my friend who was drunk and I hit and killed another car, brainwashed people like yourself, chalk that up as alcohol related.

And keep typing because you prove my point every time you do.
"Because many people that go over .08 tend to go way over. All because people at or slightly above .08 don't tend to be AS dangerous as those over .15 is certainly no argument to make it okay to drive .08."

Well actually it does. If people arent getting into wrecks, which is a troopers/govt main goal, then why would they be arrested?

This is why I wish government officials and state patrol had to take college courses in statistical measurement.

Quote:

---

Quoting MADDLIES

---

Heres why you're foolish cd:

not only the fact that you think these BAC tests encompass everyone (duh) but also the fact that you want to lower the BAC without educating the general public.

---

First, I never said they encompass anyone, but there are few conditions or situations that they cannot be used as a reasonable indicator under the law. Since absolute certainty s not the standard we set for law enforcement in the field for ANY situation, it is not reasonable to set such a standard for DUI.

Second, I do not have to educate anyone about why the per se limit should be lowered, I am not engaging in a political campaign. Besides, it is pretty clear that you would not agree with the research on the subject anyway ... not to mention that this is not the forum to engage in such banter.

Quote:

---

In reference to stats: there are none that back up your claim. The USDT lies about what is considered an alcohol related accident. I I was the DD for my friend who was drunk and I hit and killed another car, brainwashed people like yourself, chalk that up as alcohol related.

---

Ya gotta read the stats other than the one's provided by NHTSA. My state does not utilize the same terminology yet the results are similar. In my state roughly one third of fatal collisions involve drivers that are impaired - most are above .08. Something like 11% of non-fatal collisions involve DUI drivers. I am hardly "brainwashed," friend, I did the research. But, again, this is not the place to discuss this. I suspect this will be moved to the Banter folder soon enough.

Quote:

---

And keep typing because you prove my point every time you do.
"Because many people that go over .08 tend to go way over. All because people at or slightly above .08 don't tend to be AS dangerous as those over .15 is certainly no argument to make it okay to drive .08."

Well actually it does. If people arent getting into wrecks, which is a troopers/govt main goal, then why would they be arrested?

---

Because, statistically, they are more dangerous. Are you advocating that impaired drivers should be let go and the rest of us should just cross our fingers and pray?

Fortunately, it is your side that has to try and change the law to be more relaxed on DUI ... good luck with that. It's not a real strong political platform to be easy on DUI.

Quote:

---

This is why I wish government officials and state patrol had to take college courses in statistical measurement.

---

Been there and done that, friend.

But, the job of the cops is to enforce the laws as they stand. As of right now the law of the land is that one cannot drive impaired, and that .08 is the per se standard by which impairment is presumed. Anything less than .08 must be shown by objective evaluation. If you have a better method, please, contact the legislature. In the meantime whether you like it or not, we will continue to try and make the roads safer by arresting the impaired drivers.

I think the laws were made very well. We get kind of caught up in a dream that safety and citizens well being is really of any importance to law makers, but it all comes down to what will be the most profitable. DUI is a revenue generator. Im sure there are several graphs that point out that .08 BAC creates highest points of revenue. It's kind of a point that shows a law exists and at the same time encourages driving drunk.

CD: Why do you keep erasing my posts every time I prove you wrong?