I would use time elapsed from the last drink...
So that would put you at 0.089...
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.
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.
The breathalyzer is a retarded test. In reality if a scientist were to use it to try and prove the concept, they'd be laughed at.
Most really don't know how it works. What it's doing is measuring how much alcohol is in the blood that you respire. It relies on the average person, having an average amount of blood in their breath and being affected by it in an average way.
1) One thing in science that has been proven is many people are very very different in reactions to chemicals and even sometimes immune/other times overly affected.
2) Many things can affect the amount of blood in your breath. Ulcers, lacerations of the mouth, recent dental work. A natural propensity to have more blood in your respiration, etc.
In my case, my bottom lip was bust open. There was active blood in my mouth. This caused me to blow a .168 with only about a half dozen beers all night long. I was able to perform my field sides well (which I was asked to do on the middle line of a road with cars driving by) and even said the alphabet BACKWARDS 3 times accurately. Problem with that was the cop was just looking for the alphabet. He was a good 15 feet away and I was in the middle of a road with cars so it was hard to make out the instructions he was even giving me. On my 'tape' you can hear me both ask for a safer place to do these tests and constantly ask him to repeat what he was saying because I couldn't hear. I had a good defense case, but it really wouldn't have saved me money nor time to defend.
3) Not everyone is affected by alcohol the same way at the same level.
The only true way to get an accurate BAL is direct measurement of the blood. If one has been drinking at all and honestly feel they are not inebriated, ask for a blood test if questioned why tell them you are not denying them their ability to test you, but that you feel the breath test is not accurate for you. Do not agree to field side tests, when asked do you have any impairment that may affect your ability to perform field side tests, answer yes and decline. You do not have to perform these, they are only gathered as evidence should the officer arrest you and unfortunately even sober people usually look drunk doing them. The lawyer I saw had an interesting video showing random drunk, not drunk and not drinking people doing these tests. The idea was to guess who was legally drunk and who was not. In the end it shows people choose sober people drunk many times.
Also the 'levels' are an insane way to rate a human. First, I am going to agree with all those that will say ANY alcohol has some affect on a person. However; whether that affect is functionally measurable or if a greater affect than others I disagree with.
Everyone here knows I drink. I go out a lot and to parties. I do avoid driving, especially anymore whether I had 1 drink or several. I never got in my car when I was smashed though...I really never had a rush to get home. I have sick days and I can go a few nights without sleep anyway. At .08 (and we all tested this one night in a driving game) I didn't score any less. I can't remember the games we played, there was a quarter toss, pool shot, dart throw, the butterknife and fingers stab game, and some others like memory lists. I didn't play any of these games regularly.
Once I got up to .12 though I was fucking up some of the time. Some were terrible after one drink. I was up at the top of those drinking and still functional.
We were using a sharper image breathalyzer so I am not sure how accurate that was.
Thank you. Saved me from digging through SEARCH returns.
Oh, and BAN, too!!!
The point of the numbers isn't to give people like the OP(et al) a number to shoot for, it's to give the rest of us a reference point for prosecution.
After ACEMCMAC, I've gone militant on drunks driving and impaired driving is part of that.
Anyone defending impaired driving sits next to his killer in hell.And when you see me coming up to you, you'll know why I'm there too.
Drink all you want, just don't fucking drive.
Statistically impaired != Feeling impaired
fuck son you can't even type right.
fail...so full of fail.
how do you figure that? Do you understand the meaning of the word?
An anecdote is a short, free-standing tale narrating an interesting biographical incident...
An anecdote is always presented as based on a real incident involving actual persons, whether famous or not, usually in an identifiable place
Huh I guess google > experience for you.
I was arrested in my parking spot. I had broke up with the chick I was living with and she had a cop friend waiting. I don't think either thought I was going to blow a .168.
I wasn't drunk, I should have been below .08...I was having 1 beer an hour and gave it a 2 hour break prior to driving home at around 2am.
Many in my class also were not affected on their insurance, a few were.
Part of the class/counseling is you have write down what DUI has cost you.
We didn't have anyone I can remember that hurt anyone...most were around $4k-6k. Some were much much higher that were trying to fight it.
You can believe what you want, it's really a brainwashing movement. There is no problem in reality, yet everyone seems to know someone that has died personally.
It's about 13,000 deaths a year...most people that know someone that died as a personal friend are just full of shit and simply know of the person.
A Simulation of the Effect of Blood in the Mouth on
Breath Alcohol Concentrations of Drinking Subjects
by
J.G. Wigmore and M.P. Wilkie
The blood alcohol concentrations of the subjects averaged 0.095 g/dL and
ranged between 0.044 to 0.168 g/dL. The untruncated Breathalyzer results were significantly lower after introducing blood into the mouth (p=0.017). When these Breathalyzer results were truncated to two decimal places, however, these slight differences were eliminated. In addition, when the initial Breathalyzer results were compared to the blood alcohol concentrations the apparent blood breath ratios averaged 2319, with a range of 1947:l to 2654:l. We conclude that blood in the mouth does not lead to an overestimation of the breath alcohol concentration of drinking subjects.
sorry I was too wordy for you. Sorry if there are some typos. I can't say I am spending a lot of time on this when I just get replies like yours and then ask me for more information in the next breath.
Correlation =! causation
Of all the "alcohol-related accidents" that occur under .08BAC, I'd bet a considerable number were not actually caused in any way by the alcohol
I know personally I am more impaired driving to work sleepy every morning than after a beer/hour and an hour break, but if I happened to get in an accident after those beers it would be contributed to alcohol and become a statistic.
Any good statistician will tell you that you can manipulate the stats to say almost anything you please while still being 100% accurate. They will also tell you that statistics never "prove" anything. I think alk is arguing that yeah, drunk drivers cause deaths, but that activists are using specific stats to exaggerate the problem.
So what we have is an interesting biographical incident involving Alky, who is not famous (except in ATOT), in a car park (which is an identifiable place to our audience).
Quite correct Alky, doesn't sound like an anecdote in the slightest...
I have a little anecdote for you alky...
Oh wait that's a peer reviewed study which suggests that you are talking out your hole...
Essentially the study took blood from the people who were drinking and put it in their mouths. Perhaps unsurprisingly the blood in their mouths had the same alcohol content as the blood perfusing their lungs, so it didn't magically make their BAC jump up to 0.168...
except I am also providing fact.
ancedotes here have been used to say that the person is only basing it on a personal experience.
So yes there is ancedotal evidence, plus evidence I have provided outside that.
One study...but I'd be curious how I blew a .168 on about one beer per hour and a two hour break between....
The two leading articles in this area are A Simulation of the Affect of Blood in the Mouth on Breath Alcohol Concentration of Drinking Subjects, by J.G. Wigmore and M. P. Wilke, published in Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, Volume 35, Number 1 (2002) pages 9-16. The other article is The Affect of Blood in the Oral Cavity on Breath Alcohol Analysis, by M. Chu, D. L. N. Wells, R. G. King, J. Farar and O. H. Drummer, published in the Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine (1998) Volume 5, pages 114-118.
These two leading articles on blood in the mouth are helpful. In the Wigmore and Wilke article, the subjects even held blood in their mouths, then spit the blood out, waited ten minutes, then took a breath test. Their conclusion was that there was no significant affect of blood in the mouth. This was based upon the blood being spit out and a minimum ten minute observation period. This is clearly different than the theory being proposed here, inasmuch as the gums are continuously bleeding and it stays in the mouth, you cannot get rid of it.
In the other article entitled, The Affect of Blood in the Oral Cavity on Breath Alcohol Analysis, the results were quite significant for the defense. The test was broken into four stages, Stage A, B, C, and D. Stage A was a breath test before solution was put in the mouth. Stage B was with solution in the mouth. Stage C was with solution in the mouth. And Stage D was a test after the mouth was rinsed.
In all of the groups tested, during Stages B and C, WITH SOLUTION IN THE MOUTH a statistically significant increase in BAC was found. This would confirm that blood in the mouth through Gingivitis and potentially through Periodontal Disease causes a continuous bleeding in the mouth and there is nothing that can be done to prevent the contamination of the test and of the test giving a false high reading of the subject’s Breath Alcohol Concentration.
It's weird...
In the UK the breath test means pretty much nothing - if you fail you get taken in for a blood test, if you refuse and the officer has suspicions you get taken in for a blood test. If you pass you are on your way.
The evidence required for court is a blood test, in fact they actually take two tests and use the lower reading.
So if one test is BAC 0.081 and the other is BAC 0.079 they don't take you to court.
not leaving me much to quote here! Unless something has changed recently, all they need to convict here is a breath test. Pretty sure a blood test is not required.
Not quite correct. For court the Evidential Breath Test machine is used in the Police station. The road side test is only used to arrest and allow for use of the EBT. The lower of two readings is used in court. Blood is only required if the suspect refuses to blow for the EBT machine or if the suspect requests it.
It's always EBT or Blood that is used in court.
What happens if it is close to the limit? If the lower of the two breath readings at the station is 39 micrograms or below, then you should be released either without charge or with a caution. If it is between 40 and 50 micrograms, then you MUST be offered the option of providing an alternative specimen of either blood or urine (if the police fail to offer you this option then you will have a defence to the charge). You should be asked which you would prefer, but it is up to the police to decide which one they offer you, unless, again, you have a medical condition which would preclude you from providing the necessary sample. The police cannot take a blood sample without your consent, but if this is the option offered and you refuse to consent then the police can rely on the breath sample they have taken.
If you are asked to provide urine they will ask you to provide two samples within an hour. If blood then this must be taken by a police surgeon, who will have to be called to the station.
You have a right to have the second sample taken and you should always avail yourself of this right.
Well Plasmabomb obviously withheld the rest of that info:
You lucky son of a bitch!hey sorry, i was on vacation last week for my spring break and hadn't had time to update this. So, I talked with the DA today after I plead not guilty to discuss potential deals, shit like that. I guess the CSP officer who issued me the ticket, got a DUI last week. Which I guess means that any DUI's he has handed out end up getting throw out. So the charges against me have been dropped.
And if you don't believe he was arrested the story is here http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=135189
It happened last week sometime, the DA said that they are going to have to dismiss all the charges handed out by him on St. Pattys day.
hey sorry, i was on vacation last week for my spring break and hadn't had time to update this. So, I talked with the DA today after I plead not guilty to discuss potential deals, shit like that. I guess the CSP officer who issued me the ticket, got a DUI last week. Which I guess means that any DUI's he has handed out end up getting throw out. So the charges against me have been dropped.
And if you don't believe he was arrested the story is here http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=135189
It happened last week sometime, the DA said that they are going to have to dismiss all the charges handed out by him on St. Pattys day.
You should probably go buy a lottery ticket or something