Dui ffffuuuuuuu

[alkemyst]

It's not hard. You can have two drinks with a meal and drive. Any more and you're playing with fire in my opinion.

sadly you are right. Most could do this EVERYDAY and never have an alcohol related incident.

However, they'd probably blow .08 or more and then if they did have an incident it would automatically be the alcohol's fault.

I am telling you all, this is one of the greatest shams we have been put in. It's all about the money it makes not the lives. If there wasn't so much success in the fines and not much costs we wouldn't have these laws.

There are just as many murders in the US as there are DUI's...out of fatalities on the roadway only about 1/3 were drinking and I doubt that they all were the cause. It also counts if the victim/other vehicle had been drinking to further screw up the data. And many of them are driver only deaths.

So out of less than 15000 people he have a country-wide daily manhunt for drinkers.

Statistically it hasn't really helped....much like air bags.

 

[alkemyst]

I love how YOU think you are the answer to everything.

And I believe you are FOS most of the time. This being one of them.

You would, because how could anyone ever know anything that actually went through the process.

Sorry if I live life and don't rely on google to show me it.

If I show my court sheet how about a full nude on ATOT with your face...I already had to post my acceptance letter to Pharmacy school for some tool here.

 

[alkemyst]

Never ask an alchoholic anything about alchohol related matters. < lesson. :awe:

lolz...you told me tiger.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Ok, here's the formula: http://www.ctduiattorney.com/dui_information/calculating_bac.html

&#37;BAC = (A x 5.14/W x r) - .015 x H

Using the numbers he provided:

A=6 beers = 12oz*.05=.6; 6*.6=3.6
W=170
r=.73 (male)
H=4 hours

I worked this out with a calculator to be 0.089. This is over the limit. It's probably within the range of error for the breathalyzer, since the OP didn't give more specific numbers.

I agree, it's not a particularly difficult formula, but I'd argue it's more difficult to do in your head, even sober.

How accurate is this formula? If I calculated this correctly, a 170 pound male can pound 3 12oz 6% beers in an hour and be at .074. I'm fine with that. I'd never drive over 3 beers anyway and to be honest I'd never drink 3 6% alc beers in an hour these days either.

My concern has always been that I'd end up eating dinner, have a couple of beers, and then get pulled over and given a DUI.

 

[onza]

everyone that posted in here is an alcoholic.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

2 different issues:

I suggested he has a drinking problem. Not because he wanted to have a few drinks, or get drunk on a holiday. He was charged with a DUI, and as I said, most people would not want to touch alcohol so soon after a bad experience with alcohol.

I already expressed my opinion on drinking and driving: one drink and you're done. If he knows in advance that he'll be consuming more than that at the bar, he should not drive. I used his own numbers to back up the assertion that he was drunk and therefore should not be driving.

And yes, I feel your personal experience with this issue colours your perception of it. I'm sure I can find your thread if you really want.

find it, so I can be up for pwnage of the year.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I believe they are passing a law here that would make it very unwise to not take a breathalyzer if asked to. Also I believe that they won't need to suspect that you are drinking, that is that could ask anyone. Similar to this I think:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/n...-aims-to-force-more-to-take-Breathalyzer-test

Also people who drink and drive will be forced to have a breathalyzer starter installed in their cars and their car won't start if they blow over. This is probably only for repeat offenders.

I mentioned already in this thread and no one has challenged me on it. I am all about zero tolerance versus the way they enforce today. I think they should install the breathalyzer starter for all vehicles, period. If you have any booze on your breath the car won't start or at the least go into gear. If this really is about public safety and not $$$$ this would have been implemented years ago. In fact if this really was about safety and not about $$$$ if you blew the breathalyzer and the car recognized you as being well above a threshold it would offer to dispatch a taxi out to your location and liquor sales could be taxed in order to subsidize such service. Such a basic win win solution readily available yet here they are preferring to arrest people and fine them.

Problem solved before its started.

 

[BudAshes]

sadly you are right. Most could do this EVERYDAY and never have an alcohol related incident.

However, they'd probably blow .08 or more and then if they did have an incident it would automatically be the alcohol's fault.

I am telling you all, this is one of the greatest shams we have been put in. It's all about the money it makes not the lives. If there wasn't so much success in the fines and not much costs we wouldn't have these laws.

There are just as many murders in the US as there are DUI's...out of fatalities on the roadway only about 1/3 were drinking and I doubt that they all were the cause. It also counts if the victim/other vehicle had been drinking to further screw up the data. And many of them are driver only deaths.

So out of less than 15000 people he have a country-wide daily manhunt for drinkers.

Statistically it hasn't really helped....much like air bags.

I'm usually one for a good conspiracy, but I think you are off on this one. I'm not saying cops won't take advantage of this for added revenue, of course they will. But, a lot of good laws are taken advantage of by cops. Cops are a necessary evil. I slightly agree that the OP got screwed, but then again this isn't 1950. The roads are packed, everyone is driving 70-80mph on the highway on the road with 20 ton semi's and one small mistake can spell doom for a lot of people.

When I was a kid my dad drove me off a small cliff, luckily no one was hurt. But being a kid I was totally oblivious to what was going on. When the cops came and we got pulled out they asked me if my dad had been drinking. I was shocked that they would ask me, and told them there was no way he had. Turned out he was wasted. He proceeded to tell the cops that we were fine because the crash had been in slow motion, woops. He should have just smoked pot, we would have gotten to the video store extremely slow, but at least the car wouldn't have gone off a cliff.

He could have easily killed someone, and should not have been driving(we didn't realize he was dying rapidly from liver failure at the time and was incapable of making good decisions) but this goes for a lot of people out there. Their brains are messed up from prescription drugs, disease, illegal drugs or mental illness and just a few drinks can completely scramble their brains. This may suck for the rest of us, but we have to keep these people off the road at all costs. Huge DUI consequences are really the only way to make people think twice. Although installing breathalyzers in all cars might be a decent backup step.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Although installing breathalyzers in all cars might be a decent backup step.

Why shouldn't this be a top priority step 1 as I said above?

 

[RoloMather]

You should have hyperventilated before blowing.

 

[BudAshes]

Why shouldn't this be a top priority step 1 as I said above?

It doesn't really do anything for other drugs, plus people would easily disable it/get around it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Are you still beating your wife?

You still buggering your dog?

 

[Legendary]

Why shouldn't this be a top priority step 1 as I said above?

Civil rights ring a bell? Innocent until proven guilty? Accidental misreads due to mouthwash? etc.

 

[Felisity]

OP made a stupid mistake. Hope he learned his lesson. It's extremely entertaining to watch everyone argue their opinions on the matter, though.

/yawn/

Is it quitting time yet? Can't wait to get home and share a bottle of wine with my hubby.

 

[Number1]

When you play with fire sometime you get burned.
It's so politically correct to get tough on drinking and driving here in NS, Canada, all 3 provincial political parties are tripping over each others to crack down on any amount of drinking and driving.

They recently passed a law where if you blow over .05, you car gets impounded immediately, you lose several points on your driver license, you lose your driver license for a week and your insurance rate will sky rocket. A second offense results in even more sanction.

It is retarded and you can all thank MADD for this insanity.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

It doesn't really do anything for other drugs, plus people would easily disable it/get around it.

moot point. DUI checkpoints and laws do nothing either. We are talking about drinking and driving lets stay on task. As far as tampering with it, If you are pulled over and found to have tampered with it you lose your license permanently. zero tolerance is zero tolerance.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Civil rights ring a bell? Innocent until proven guilty? Accidental misreads due to mouthwash? etc.

We all just agreed that driving isn't a right....unless you agree that dui checkpoints are similar civil rights breech....make up your minds??

 

[DivideBYZero]

When you play with fire sometime you get burned.
It's so politically correct to get tough on drinking and driving here in NS, Canada, all 3 provincial political parties are tripping over each others to crack down on any amount of drinking and driving.

They recently passed a law where if you blow over .05, you car gets impounded immediately, you lose several points on your driver license, you lose your driver license for a week and your insurance rate will sky rocket. A second offense results in even more sanction.

It is retarded and you can all thank MADD for this insanity.

No, it's fucking awesome.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

DRINKING IS MANLY!!! Don't be a pussy, drive after 12 beers, YOU GIRL.




Is that better? :hmm:

Stop being a dumbass. The people who are impaired after 1 beer damn well know it. Most people can drink 2 without feeling any real effects.

 

[mugs]

I mentioned already in this thread and no one has challenged me on it. I am all about zero tolerance versus the way they enforce today. I think they should install the breathalyzer starter for all vehicles, period. If you have any booze on your breath the car won't start or at the least go into gear. If this really is about public safety and not $$$$ this would have been implemented years ago. In fact if this really was about safety and not about $$$$ if you blew the breathalyzer and the car recognized you as being well above a threshold it would offer to dispatch a taxi out to your location and liquor sales could be taxed in order to subsidize such service. Such a basic win win solution readily available yet here they are preferring to arrest people and fine them.

Problem solved before its started.

No one challenged you on it because it's such a stupid idea. I actually clicked the reply button the first time you posted it, then realized it was a waste of my time. It's still a waste of my time, but someone has to set you straight.

Mandating a breathalyzer to start your car would add expense to everyone's car and inconvenience every driver. It is not necessary to punish everyone when we can target the people who are actually dangerous.

Any politician who tried to mandate breathalyzers in cars would be out of a job after the next election.

You think it's because of the revenue that would be lost from DUIs, but the government entities that would need to mandate breathalyzers in cars don't even benefit from that revenue.

 

[KMFJD]

No, it's fucking awesome.

Fucking awesome would be moving to 0.02%

 

[IceBergSLiM]

No one challenged you on it because it's such a stupid idea. I actually clicked the reply button the first time you posted it, then realized it was a waste of my time. It's still a waste of my time, but someone has to set you straight.

Mandating a breathalyzer to start your car would add expense to everyone's car and inconvenience every driver. It is not necessary to punish everyone when we can target the people who are actually dangerous.

Any politician who tried to mandate breathalyzers in cars would be out of a job after the next election.

You think it's because of the revenue that would be lost from DUIs, but the government entities that would need to mandate breathalyzers in cars don't even benefit from that revenue.

I'm sure similar arguments existed when seat belts, airbags and every single safety feature ever in the history of the automobile. Sounds like noise and excuses to me. If the states pushed for the federal mandate it would happen. States won't push for it because THEY ARE the ones profiting. How much could it possibly cost? you can buy key chain versions for $4.99 . GPS was cost prohibitive once. now its mainstream. Like any new regulation the full integration would be done gradually with years notice.

 

[skull]

Ok, here's the formula: http://www.ctduiattorney.com/dui_information/calculating_bac.html

%BAC = (A x 5.14/W x r) - .015 x H

Using the numbers he provided:

A=6 beers = 12oz*.05=.6; 6*.6=3.6
W=170
r=.73 (male)
H=4 hours

I worked this out with a calculator to be 0.089. This is over the limit. It's probably within the range of error for the breathalyzer, since the OP didn't give more specific numbers.

I agree, it's not a particularly difficult formula, but I'd argue it's more difficult to do in your head, even sober.

You didn't use the numbers OP provided. He said he had 6 coors lights. Thats 4.2% alcohol not 5%.

So if you do the equation with the right numbers it comes out to 0.06524867

Which means the OP is lying or the breathalyzer test is that inaccurate.

Either way who cares that he blew a 0.081 I just think its funny that the same douche in one of those other threads arguing that you can't get a DUI if your under 0.08. Is the same douche that got one.

If someone else got one the same way he did. He would probably be on here calling shens. Saying theres no way they gave you a dui without giving you a blood test. They can't just give you a DUI without the cop doing anything. I know the law blah blah I'm a douche.

I guess you got your first reality check. Cops can do whatever they want doesn't mean it wil stick but they can still send you through the court system.

 

[mugs]

I'm sure similar arguments existed when seat belts, airbags and every single safety feature ever in the history of the automobile. Sounds like noise and excuses to me. If the states pushed for the federal mandate it would happen. States won't push for it because THEY ARE the ones profiting. How much could it possibly cost? you can buy key chain versions for $4.99 . GPS was cost prohibitive once. now its mainstream. Like any new regulation the full integration would be done gradually with years notice.

Logic fail, seatbelts and airbags both protect the person who bears the cost.

This whole line of thinking is a non-starter for you, it only makes you look foolish. You know that installing breathalyzers in every car would be a stupid idea, so arguing that the government's unwillingness to do exactly that as evidence of anything is not going to prove anything.

 

[OCGuy]

Welcome to the 502 club buddy!