Right they are so accurate they don't use them in courtOriginally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Skoorb
That may be too harsh but DUI laws are a mother-f**king joke. How many people get MULTIPLE DUIs? License lost a bunch of times and they're still out there legally driving? This is a big damn deal. People die from drunk asshole drivers all the time and nobody seems to give a sh*t unless they just lost their wife in a crash. You get a single DUI maybe it's time to consider only drinking when at home on Christmas day. It's not like you'll die without it. The come-down should be exceedingly harsh for two DUIs. I think the thing blackangst mentioned about in Arizona is just fine. People suck enough at driving as it is and .08 has been shown to markedly affect driving ability. If anything it should be lowered. I would also consider some kind of a way to punish cops for giving warnings on DUI, like if they have somebody run a .08 on the breathalizer they better have a good excuse why that person didn't get thrown in the back.Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
No they aren't. In fact those who are convicted of driving under the influence should have their license suspended for 5 years for the first time and for life if convicted a second time.Originally posted by: Farang
DUI laws are too strict. Make the BAC higher, lower the drinking age.
Lowering the drinking age will not help.
And what would that accomplish other then creating alot more unlicensed drivers. There is no public transportation in the US outside of 3 or 4 cites. You have a law in which it is impossible to know if you have broken it.
Because breathalizer are not that accurate and if they don't have anything else to back it up the results will get tossed out of court.
Just about every activity you can do in your car has been shown to have about the same effect as have .08 BAC if not worse. Weather the limit is to high or to low really doesn't mater because people have no way of know if they are over the limit. It would be the same as trying to enforce a 60 MPH speed limit with out speedometers in the car.
As for people with multiple DUI and still driving. Unless you are going to pay for their food, housing, ect or provided public transportation then people will keep driving. we live in a society based around cars to expect people to stop driving is just stupid.
Modern breathalizers ARE accurate. In almost every law enforcement district, if you are pulled over and blow a .08 or higher, you are arrested and IMMEDIATELY taken for a blood test. It is THAT that is used in court. The science behind impairment and BAC is pretty accurate.
Go buy one of those breathalizers guess what it says on the side for novelty purposes only. Yes in your little happy land maybe every follows 12 hours bottle to throttle. Here in the real world however there is no way short of a blood test to know if you are over or under the limit. And even if you did go with the blood test the results could easily change by the time you get to your destination.Sure, lots of activities are dangerous while driving. But alcohol contributes to such a large number of accidents, it is given the harshest penalties. As far as people not knowing if they are drunk or not...are you kidding me? Thats your argument? First of all, if people actually CARED (which most people dont), they could buy a home tester to carry in their car. Many bars I go to actually have a breathalizer in them (for a quarter). And as the ad on TV says, driving buzzed is driving drunk. Naivity is no excuse.
Im not sure what you mean when you say "Unless you are going to pay for their food, housing, ect or provided public transportation"...are you suggesting that either 1. we dont punish DUI offenders, or 2. if we do, tax money should pay for their inconvenience? Can you clarify? How about if a person is convicted of child molestation and happens to live across the street from a school. He must therefore move. Do you think maybe tax payer money should be used to fund his inconvenience? Do you not believe in punishment for your actions? People arent going to starve if they cant drive.
But hasn't the SCOTUS already decided that LE checkpoints, done in the name of public safety, are, in fact, Constitutional?Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: palehorse74
The paulbots around here probably don't think that drunk driving checkpoints are a good idea...
Not everyone is entirely comfortable with having a police state with the power to stop each and every law-abiding citizen for whatever reason they want all in the name of looking for "potential" criminals.
Silly Constitution and all, I guess.
Yes, thank you. I agree, and I'm about as far from a "paulbot" as you can get. I think libertarians are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to economic policies, but they're on to something with that whole "civil rights" thing. Too many Americans are too eager to give up their rights in the name of fighting some evil.
Sure, they're accurate, but there is still uncertainty in any chemical sensor. If the limit is 0.080 and someone blows 0.080, it's trivial for me to argue that there is a 50% chance that their BAC is actually lower than indicated by this test. This is a simple statistics argument that I can make without even knowing the details of how a breathalyzer works. Same goes for the blood test if the BAC is on the borderline. Unless someone blows fairly high above the limit (say, 3.2 standard deviations above the limit, corresponding to only a 5% chance that the person is below the limit - the test used for most scientific journals regarding statistical significance), there is no way it would hold up in court.Originally posted by: blackangst1
Modern breathalizers ARE accurate. In almost every law enforcement district, if you are pulled over and blow a .08 or higher, you are arrested and IMMEDIATELY taken for a blood test. It is THAT that is used in court. The science behind impairment and BAC is pretty accurate.
Not everyone can afford a breathalyzer. They're still not cheap, at least not last time I checked. I know everyone on AT is a gazillionaire, but off of these forums, there are people who don't have that kind of money to blow. Like I said before, if we want to make this a policy, have a cop (or bartender) give one to their customer before they leave. This is one instance where we could actually prevent the crime rather than simply clean up after the mess, though it would cost us some cash.Sure, lots of activities are dangerous while driving. But alcohol contributes to such a large number of accidents, it is given the harshest penalties. As far as people not knowing if they are drunk or not...are you kidding me? Thats your argument? First of all, if people actually CARED (which most people dont), they could buy a home tester to carry in their car. Many bars I go to actually have a breathalizer in them (for a quarter). And as the ad on TV says, driving buzzed is driving drunk. Naivity is no excuse.
Originally posted by: smack Down
Looks like your back to your happy land. Where if the state says something people are going to listen. If you live in 99% of this country you can't get a job, go to school, or get groceries, go to your AA meets, or court dates without a car. You can take away peoples licinces until your blue in the face it isn't going to stop people from driving.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Sure, they're accurate, but there is still uncertainty in any chemical sensor. If the limit is 0.080 and someone blows 0.080, it's trivial for me to argue that there is a 50% chance that their BAC is actually lower than indicated by this test. This is a simple statistics argument that I can make without even knowing the details of how a breathalyzer works. Same goes for the blood test if the BAC is on the borderline. Unless someone blows fairly high above the limit (say, 3.2 standard deviations above the limit, corresponding to only a 5% chance that the person is below the limit - the test used for most scientific journals regarding statistical significance), there is no way it would hold up in court.Originally posted by: blackangst1
Modern breathalizers ARE accurate. In almost every law enforcement district, if you are pulled over and blow a .08 or higher, you are arrested and IMMEDIATELY taken for a blood test. It is THAT that is used in court. The science behind impairment and BAC is pretty accurate.
Not everyone can afford a breathalyzer. They're still not cheap, at least not last time I checked. I know everyone on AT is a gazillionaire, but off of these forums, there are people who don't have that kind of money to blow. Like I said before, if we want to make this a policy, have a cop (or bartender) give one to their customer before they leave. This is one instance where we could actually prevent the crime rather than simply clean up after the mess, though it would cost us some cash.Sure, lots of activities are dangerous while driving. But alcohol contributes to such a large number of accidents, it is given the harshest penalties. As far as people not knowing if they are drunk or not...are you kidding me? Thats your argument? First of all, if people actually CARED (which most people dont), they could buy a home tester to carry in their car. Many bars I go to actually have a breathalizer in them (for a quarter). And as the ad on TV says, driving buzzed is driving drunk. Naivity is no excuse.
But hasn't the SCOTUS already decided that LE checkpoints, done in the name of public safety, are, in fact, Constitutional?
Nothing is 100% accurate. All measurements have an associated probability distribution whose range depends on the uncertainty of the instrument used to make the observations. It is often assumed that every measurement is the true mean of the distribution, but this is absolutely false unless there is zero uncertainty in the system. There is never zero uncertainty in the system. Therefore, there is always some possibility that the measurement is significantly higher or lower than the true value. Even if I blew a 0.100, I could still argue that there is a 15% chance that my BAC was actually below the legal limit if this is what the uncertainty of the device indicated. This would not pass for a statistically significant difference in any scientific circle.Originally posted by: blackangst1
As far as percentages of error, using your argument almost no court case should stand as almost nothing is 100% accurate. Including DNA.
Originally posted by: rpkelly
But hasn't the SCOTUS already decided that LE checkpoints, done in the name of public safety, are, in fact, Constitutional?
No, according to the decision, the justices acknowledged that it was an infringement of the 4th amendment, but they felt that the interest in reducing drunk driving overrode our Constitutional rights. Any more arguments?
Originally posted by: rpkelly
But hasn't the SCOTUS already decided that LE checkpoints, done in the name of public safety, are, in fact, Constitutional?
No, according to the decision, the justices acknowledged that it was an infringement of the 4th amendment, but they felt that the interest in reducing drunk driving overrode our Constitutional rights. Any more arguments?
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: rpkelly
But hasn't the SCOTUS already decided that LE checkpoints, done in the name of public safety, are, in fact, Constitutional?
No, according to the decision, the justices acknowledged that it was an infringement of the 4th amendment, but they felt that the interest in reducing drunk driving overrode our Constitutional rights. Any more arguments?
uhh, so they deemed such checkpoints legal, correct?
Originally posted by: blackangst1
NO ONE gets locked up and sent to detox for .048.How many more kids do we need to see locked up and sent to detox when their blood alchohol is at 0.048
Yes they do. I've been myself, and I can provide all the evidence if needed. I refused to pay for that service and now I have a "medical bill" on my credit report that I owe $1500.
No, it's not.but they get an "alchohol related reckless driving." Its the exact same penalty (from any perspective) as a DUI
Yes, it is. Its the same on the insurance, you can't rent a rental car, and you can't get a driving position at a company like UPS. All the same as a DUI. The only difference is you don't have to pay $50 to the MADD panel and cry to them about you being an alchoholic.
Depends on the court's original decision. It's not automatic. And so what if it is? GOOD.In fact, if you get another DUI later, that reckless automatically turns into a DUI.
You are really ignorant of the laws. Most state laws have this on the law books. It has nothing to do with the court's original decision. Its forced because of MADD and people like you and wrtten into the law books that this happens. GOOD? What is wrong with you? If they were under the legal limit and paid the price, why should it turn into a more serious crime later on because of the actions of the person? It's like someone who has an assault charge and later murders someone should have that assault turn into a murder. I'm sorry to say, it doesn't work that way, no matter how much you might want it to be. But really, thats cruel and unusual punishment, and that is in violation of the United States constitution (8th Amendment)
Why are you talking about legal limits? Thats not what the thread is about. Youre creating your own drama here.How likely is it someone will get into an acciden at 0.048
What is this thread about? Bashing drunk drivers? Sorry for raining on your parade. Please continue.
No, its not. .079 is legal, .08 isnt. Wheres the slope?However, that line has been washed out, and now its a slipperly slope
No, .079 is NOT LEGAL...
http://www.fischerandfischerlaw.com/DUIDWAI.shtml
In Colorado, the blood-alcohol content (BAC) threshold for DUI is .08, whereas the DWAI legal limit falls into the .05-.08 range. Penalties for a conviction of either charge are severe.
Ok. I was 0.048, but in court they said "If the police man got me to the police station sooner, I would have been over the 0.05 and maybe even higher than 0.08 for a DUI. So let's give him a DWAI and an option to "plea" it down to alchohol related reckless driving." Isn't that bullshit? Of course it is, but since I'm an evil drunk driver, thats what happens.
That cop also sent me to detox which its illegal to have them send me there unless I'm over 0.10... How does this happen? Well, look no further than the people who started this witch hunt.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: rpkelly
But hasn't the SCOTUS already decided that LE checkpoints, done in the name of public safety, are, in fact, Constitutional?
No, according to the decision, the justices acknowledged that it was an infringement of the 4th amendment, but they felt that the interest in reducing drunk driving overrode our Constitutional rights. Any more arguments?
uhh, so they deemed such checkpoints legal, correct?
Originally posted by: blackangst1
As far as checkpints are concerned...the supreme court has already ruled on them. I personally dont have a problem with it. Youre on a public raod, and are expected to be following the law (i.e. driving licensed and sober). Verifying that isnt an invasion of ANY privacy AFA Im concerned. Its no different than going through customs on international flights.
But we all have our opinions
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
How many of those 3141 are drunk drivers deaths and how many of those are ones killed by drunk drivers? I have no problem with drunk driver dying. It was his choice to get behind the wheel while intoxicated. The soldiers who died in a war didn't have that choice. So if you really want to make the comparison fair, compare number of soldier deaths to the number of of innocent people killed by drunk drivers.
It does. A person who chose to drive drunk did so on his own accord. It was his choice. He exercised his free will. It's no different from suicide or doctor assisted death (or whatever those are called).Originally posted by: blackangst1
It doesnt matter. A death due to someone drinking and driving is still a death. The person drinking under the influence isnt "less" or more deserving my any means. We can agree to disagree I guess.
True. But I would imagine all those who enlisted prior to 2003 imagined that if they ever went into action, it would be a justifiable war used as a last resort to resolve otherwise irresolvable differences. Iraq war was not used as a last resort.Originally posted by: blackangst1
AFA your military comment goes...what a crappy argument. We have a voluntary military. The threat of getting called up for war is clear when you sign up. since many of the guys killed are on the front lines, probably most are new enlistees. How many people in the last 6 years do you think signed up thinking they wouldnt have to go to Iraq? Please. Our military is trained for war. It was their choice to sign up.
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
It does. A person who chose to drive drunk did so on his own accord. It was his choice. He exercised his free will. It's no different from suicide or doctor assisted death (or whatever those are called).Originally posted by: blackangst1
It doesnt matter. A death due to someone drinking and driving is still a death. The person drinking under the influence isnt "less" or more deserving my any means. We can agree to disagree I guess.
True. But I would imagine all those who enlisted prior to 2003 imagined that if they ever went into action, it would be a justifiable war used as a last resort to resolve otherwise irresolvable differences. Iraq war was not used as a last resort.Originally posted by: blackangst1
AFA your military comment goes...what a crappy argument. We have a voluntary military. The threat of getting called up for war is clear when you sign up. since many of the guys killed are on the front lines, probably most are new enlistees. How many people in the last 6 years do you think signed up thinking they wouldnt have to go to Iraq? Please. Our military is trained for war. It was their choice to sign up.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
How could you possibly determine that? That's an absolutely ridiculous (and specious) statistic if ever there was one.Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord
The odds of being in an accident double at 0.03. DUI laws are far too lenient.
I have many family members and friends who have received DUIs (several of them have received multiple). None of them has spent more than a night in jail and none has received more than a $1000 fine. Only one had a license suspension, and it was only 90 days IIRC after the third DUI in a year. Part of the reason is that my home town has no taxi infrastructure. Another is that it has one of the highest alcohol use rates in the nation. Another is that the justice system there is very corrupt and favors are used to make deals. Bottom line: there is no punishment for these people and, therefore, no motivation to not drive drunk.
I would like to think that a big part of it is that people simply don't know when they're impaired. Bars should make a breathalizer available to their customers and call a cab for the people who can't drive home as a matter of policy (if not law). This doesn't help every situation, but it would help a lot of them. Another method that could help is to sell cheap breathalizers, even disposable ones. I have seen these, but they are too expensive for anyone to actually use, especially consistently.
Originally posted by: maluckey
I agree with blackangst1.........
that DUI enforcement is a joke. I don't drink very much, or very often and when I do...I NEVER drive if I've had even one drink. I weigh 225 lbs, so I likely could drive legally with one drink, but that doesn't matter.
What matters is that my "right" to drink then drive may well cost someone else their "right" to life and / or happiness. In a lawful and responsible soceity your rights are absolute so long as they do not affect the rights of others. DWI/DUI affects everyone near you while you operate the ton and a half (or larger) lethal weapon.
Of course many on this forum would verbally bash/assault the cop arresting them for infringing their "right" to do as they please. Same ignorant and arrogant snots will likely get their own panties in a bunch when some drunk kills thier mommy while driving his date home from the bar. then they'll try to sue the police department for not doing enough to stop DUI.
Forget it! No change is near when Ignorance and self serving behavior are the norm.
Actually Muncie, Indiana. St. Louis also has a long tradition of DUI, though I don't know a single person here who has actually been arrested for it, which might actually make it worse than Muncie.Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Crosses St. Louis off places to live list.