Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    20

    Question 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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: DUI With .07 BAC in California

    Quote Quoting MADDLIES
    View Post
    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.

    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    20

    Default Re: DUI With .07 BAC in California

    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: DUI With .07 BAC in California

    Quote Quoting MADDLIES
    View Post
    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.

    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.

    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.

  5. #5

    Default Re: DUI With .07 BAC in California

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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: DUI With .07 BAC in California

    Quote Quoting Buddy Hinton
    View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    832

    Default Re: DUI With .07 BAC in California

    Going back to your first post in this thread.

    Quote Quoting MADDLIES
    View Post
    I am confused about the .1 and .09 and .07 readings. Sounds like DUI to me. Probable cause to stop, plus you took the tests, and probably admitted that you were drinking.

    I think the only good thing about your case is the fact that you are an officer. If the prosecutor thinks he should take it easy on one of the good ol boys, and sees a .07 you might luck out and get a bargain.

    Either way they could charge you with per se DUI even if your BAC is under. Troopers are generally dicks with nothing better to do.
    You simply state "Sounds like DUI to me."

    Then,
    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.
    Where do a lot of people gather to consume alcohol? Do you fish? If so, do you go where there is a possibility of more fish or less? There was a lady who crashed head on into another car (killing herself) no kidding, 300 yards from the bar she was drinking at 2:05am.

    If people arent getting into wrecks, which is a troopers/govt main goal, then why would they be arrested?
    To try to prevent horrible wrecks from taking place if they were to continue driving. Wrecks in which if they were in a sober condition, probably wouldn't happen.

    Then you get off topic
    Here's one for your interest: Drinking versus Cell Phones.
    The OP wasn't on his cell phone, he was speeding and ended up being arrested for DUI by a rookie officer who seems to have signifigently more knowledge of DUI enforcement than the OP does.

    However, most drunken driving accidents occur late at night when drivers are fatigued and their average blood alcohol content (BAC) levels are also twice the legal .08 level used in the research.
    Alcohol is a depressant so yeah, it's compounded by fatigued drivers. Remove the alcohol from the equation and you probably eliminate most of the collisions.

    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.
    Allthough you don't say it outright, it sounds like you were the DD because you drank the least. It seems like you were or were not charged for DUI. (DUI in a collision is presumed if it is over .05 BAC.) Even if you are not charged with DUI, the officer has to put in the report that you had alcohol in your system but he did not determine you were DUI at the time of the collision. If not, the fatal victim's (I'm assuming you ment "killed another person in a car" rather then "killed another car") family sues the department for a shoddy report which wasn't thouroughly investigated.





    The whole point I'm trying to get across is the fact you are comparing apples to oranges and saying they are the same thing. Alcohol has been a problem for a long time. Then they invented cars. DUI investigation and science has come a long way since the investigations of the 30's. The DMV sends out a ton of DUI literature in their registration and license's they issue. Everyone who does one of those two KNOW that DUI is dangerous. It's been dangerous for what, the past 90ish years. Cell phones are a still a new and constantly evolving technology. Laws take time to be written and are often outdated when they come into effect with technology.

    Eventually, there will be advancements in cell phone technology which will prohibit the driver to utilize his/her phone while driving. Wait, should I use your logic and say this,
    If people arent getting into wrecks, which is a troopers/govt main goal...
    . Not everyone who text's or uses a cell phone gets in a wreck while driving (again, using your logic). Anytime you divert your attention from the specific task of driving, it is unsafe...period

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    20

    Default Re: DUI With .07 BAC in California

    CYjeff- Again you need help with basic logic. My point is that ANYTHING that causes a potential risk needs to be made illegal, IF, people in charge are truly committed to "saving lives"

    Your point about drugs and alcohol causing many..... Again cell phones have not been around as long as alcohol or drugs. That would be like saying Scottie Pippen was a better scorer than LeBron James becuase he has more points. No kidding. Hes played longer.

    Tests show that these two distractions are just as likely (cell more likely) to cause accidents or driving impairment. So why would you try to chose which should be illegal if your MO was to make things safe rather than to wage "war" against drinking?

    Sniper- Again the point is if SAVING LIVES is the main objective, why wouldnt you do things to ELIMINATE THE RISK? Again your "logic" makes no sense. To prevent accidents from happening. That sums the whole argument up there. SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE DRINKS or TEXTS or TALKS ON THE PHONE, doesnt mean that they WILL DEFINATELY wreck. Thats your problem; tricked into thinking they will.

    You are twisting my argument into unfounded hypotheticals. But yes the last item is my point. So why is there a difference between CITATIONS for cell phone use and ARREST for consumption of drugs or alcohol when they are both proven to be unsafe.

    Also my DD comment was in reference to how shady the govt claims "alcohol related accidents. It was a hypothetical. If I had nothing to drink, and my passengers did, and I wrecked govt still would assess it as alcohol related which is why your Trooper/govt stats are not valid.

    Tidbit. EVERY ONE HAS ALCOHOL IN THEIR BODY AT ALL TIMES. IT IS HUMAN PRODUCTION.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington comma the Great State of.
    Posts
    1,211

    Default Re: DUI With .07 BAC in California

    Quote Quoting MADDLIES
    View Post
    CYjeff- Again you need help with basic logic. My point is that ANYTHING that causes a potential risk needs to be made illegal, IF, people in charge are truly committed to "saving lives"
    I think I can safely sum up the entirety of your posting history rather elegantly: I'm a moron; thanks for talking to me!

    The argument isn't that if something has a potential risk it must be illegal to protect the public. Eating has a small potential of being fatal via choking. However, it has a very low rate of actually killing people engaged in its delight.

    Skydiving also has a small risk of, well, killing its participants. However, that risk is mitigated by any number of several factors, not least of which is that it's not directly harmful to third parties. You see, we don't allow skydiving in populated areas so that when someone goes splat, it's just them.

    There are any number of things which carry some potential for harm. There are various ways these things are dealt with depending on the propensity to cause harm, and the degree of harm an instance of it might cause.

    There's a fairly moderate correlation between instance of impaired driving crashes, and the frequency with which they're severe. Moreover, there's a rather moderate correlation between the small proportion of drivers who are impaired at any given time, and the percentage of collisions which are attributable to them. Clearly, there is something intrinsically undesirable about the conduct considering that, say, .01% of the driving population at any given time is impaired, but that about, say, a third of all collisions are attributable to them.

    Your point about drugs and alcohol causing many..... Again cell phones have not been around as long as alcohol or drugs. That would be like saying Scottie Pippen was a better scorer than LeBron James becuase he has more points. No kidding. Hes played longer.
    The length of time that either has been around is immaterial to the claims against them. What we are concerned with is the rate at which they cause something, or the percentage of things they do cause. The total number isn't relevant.

    Tests show that these two distractions are just as likely (cell more likely) to cause accidents or driving impairment. So why would you try to chose which should be illegal if your MO was to make things safe rather than to wage "war" against drinking?
    As has been pointed out to your rather nimble mind: where Carl lives there has been no need to make the decision since both are abrogated.

    Sniper- Again the point is if SAVING LIVES is the main objective, why wouldnt you do things to ELIMINATE THE RISK?
    Because that's not the point. The point is reduce the likelihood of events we don't want to happen; not to eliminate them altogether. It is possible to limit it; it isn't possible eliminate it.

    SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE DRINKS or TEXTS or TALKS ON THE PHONE, doesnt mean that they WILL DEFINATELY wreck. Thats your problem; tricked into thinking they will.
    Yeah, you're a ****ing retard. No one is claiming that being impaired of necessity will cause a collision. But, if it makes you feel better, go ahead and argue against a point no one is making.

    You are twisting my argument into unfounded hypotheticals. But yes the last item is my point. So why is there a difference between CITATIONS for cell phone use and ARREST for consumption of drugs or alcohol when they are both proven to be unsafe.
    Why is there a distinction between consensual sex outdoors being a fine and raping someone outdoors being arrestable?

    Also my DD comment was in reference to how shady the govt claims "alcohol related accidents. It was a hypothetical. If I had nothing to drink, and my passengers did, and I wrecked govt still would assess it as alcohol related which is why your Trooper/govt stats are not valid.
    No.

    Tidbit. EVERY ONE HAS ALCOHOL IN THEIR BODY AT ALL TIMES. IT IS HUMAN PRODUCTION.
    No.

    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.
    I'm really surprised someone hasn't started a charity fund for the car you killed.

  10. #10

    Default Re: DUI With .07 BAC in California

    Quote Quoting MADDLIES
    View Post
    CYjeff- Again you need help with basic logic. My point is that ANYTHING that causes a potential risk needs to be made illegal, IF, people in charge are truly committed to "saving lives"

    Your point about drugs and alcohol causing many..... Again cell phones have not been around as long as alcohol or drugs. That would be like saying Scottie Pippen was a better scorer than LeBron James becuase he has more points. No kidding. Hes played longer.

    Tests show that these two distractions are just as likely (cell more likely) to cause accidents or driving impairment. So why would you try to chose which should be illegal if your MO was to make things safe rather than to wage "war" against drinking?

    Sniper- Again the point is if SAVING LIVES is the main objective, why wouldnt you do things to ELIMINATE THE RISK? Again your "logic" makes no sense. To prevent accidents from happening. That sums the whole argument up there. SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE DRINKS or TEXTS or TALKS ON THE PHONE, doesnt mean that they WILL DEFINATELY wreck. Thats your problem; tricked into thinking they will.

    You are twisting my argument into unfounded hypotheticals. But yes the last item is my point. So why is there a difference between CITATIONS for cell phone use and ARREST for consumption of drugs or alcohol when they are both proven to be unsafe.

    Also my DD comment was in reference to how shady the govt claims "alcohol related accidents. It was a hypothetical. If I had nothing to drink, and my passengers did, and I wrecked govt still would assess it as alcohol related which is why your Trooper/govt stats are not valid.

    Tidbit. EVERY ONE HAS ALCOHOL IN THEIR BODY AT ALL TIMES. IT IS HUMAN PRODUCTION.
    Huh? Since when is an accident involving a DD who has had nothing to drink assessed as 'alcohol related'? By this way of thinking, no one would be a DD, just in case some other drunk driver happened to hit them on the way home. If you're implying that it's 'alcohol related' because the designated driver was driving home someone who had been drinking, then the statement would be correct and factual, but not chargeable to the non drinking driver.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Drunk and Impaired Driving: Drunk Driving and Assault on a Police Officer
    By stone5454 in forum Drunk and Impaired Driving Charges
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-09-2011, 06:04 AM
  2. Reckless Driving: Charged with Reckless Driving for Passing Possible Drunk Drivers
    By dave89 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-22-2011, 07:31 PM
  3. Assault & Battery: Battery on a Police Officer While Drunk
    By questionsaboutcourt in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-18-2010, 03:48 PM
  4. Auto Insurance: Rear Ended - Police State It's the Other Drivers Fault - No Insurance
    By curiously in forum Insurance Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-08-2009, 10:59 PM
  5. Assault & Battery: Assault on a Police Officer While Drunk
    By newyorker2023 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-20-2008, 09:01 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources