Dui ffffuuuuuuu

[IceBergSLiM]

In my opinion they would be better off going to zero tolerance and installing a ignition lock into all vehicles. They will never do this though because this isn't about saving lives its about a solid revenue stream for cities and states, lawyers, etc...hence why I am so adamantly against the current demonization and enforcement measures. We have had the technical "permanent fix" for many years now.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Obviously you can't.

Sorry you got caught for so little over the limit, but you were taking a chance to be drinking any amount and driving on St. Patty's day.

Hope it doesn't play out too bad for you.

Again obviously your assuming the breathalyzer was perfectly accurate.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

At least you don't have the built in breathalyzer in your car.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Absolutely. All forms of impairment compound on each other. Again...the point is that everyone here attacking him has done something that has impaired their driving, yet they still sit up on that high horse, looking down and pointing fingers. Hypocrites.

What you don't seem to get is that doing those things while sober is dangerous for a few moments at a time. Driving drunk is dangerous for the entire time you are driving. I don't condone either situation, but would much rather have the reaction time of the sober driver over the reaction time of the drunk.

 

[yh125d]

In smaller towns the cabs don't just drive around looking for people to pick up, you have to call them.

Yeah I know you can call them, but even so, I've been driving in the city for10 years and only noticed a cab a handful of times. Maybe they're unmarked...

 

[alkemyst]

Yep, it's going to cost a lot more than that $500 fine. A$20 Cab ride would have been the smart decision.

people are SERIOUSLY clueless on DUI's.

Without any injury/property damage almost all the carriers do not really care on a 1st time DUI. Your rates will not change.

It's seems all business/government knows DUI is not really a problem but a great revenue maker, plus a great lobby to get unrelated bills passed.

It makes no sense to defend it in court if you have blown already. 9times out of 10 you will lose. You cannot testify for yourself as an expert witness even if you are qualified and most that do this for a living want big bucks.

In most courts you have to have them present at all hearings. Chances are you will have about 3. You will have to cover their expenses each time. An attorney will want a minimum of about $10k to defend this as well.

Pay the $4-5k if you have to to fast track it. You will be driving for work within a few weeks and for everything else after a few months.

If you fight it you cannot drive at all until your verdict. Work or not.

To put it in perspective it seems everyone personally knows someone in a DUI that resulted in a death...however, there are almost exactly the same murders per year and no one seems to know those.

It's a mob influenced belief that people are dying left and right from DUI's.

If they pulled over every driver between 10pm and 4am within 5 miles of hot spots, chances are most would be over the limit on alcohol or another substance (or overly tired).

They aren't killing people left and right.

Add this to the fact that many DUI deaths involved another person that was inebriated (unfortuately usually a pedestrian crossing improperly).

 

[IceBergSLiM]

What you don't seem to get is that doing those things while sober is dangerous for a few moments at a time. Driving drunk is dangerous for the entire time you are driving. I don't condone either situation, but would much rather have the reaction time of the sober driver over the reaction time of the drunk.

It shouldn't matter. you are just debating probabilities at this point. If you admit it only takes impairment or distraction for 1 second to cause a driving incident then the duration or frequency of impairment or distraction is irrelevant.

 

[yh125d]

What you don't seem to get is that doing those things while sober is dangerous for a few moments at a time. Driving drunk is dangerous for the entire time you are driving. I don't condone either situation, but would much rather have the reaction time of the sober driver over the reaction time of the drunk.

I am fully confident that I am more impaired driving to work in the morning tired as crap cause I only got 3 hours of sleep than I am after 4 beers in a few hours. While you're right that cell phone/radio/etc are temporary, thousands of people drive to work everyday still half asleep.

 

[Deeko]

What you don't seem to get is that doing those things while sober is dangerous for a few moments at a time. Driving drunk is dangerous for the entire time you are driving. I don't condone either situation, but would much rather have the reaction time of the sober driver over the reaction time of the drunk.

A few moments? Unless you're drinking coffee (which, coincidentally, would be distracting in itself), you aren't really increasing your awareness if you're driving on too little sleep. If you've had a stressful day and your mind is elsewhere, again, that's going to last your whole drive too. Many people talk on the phone for most or all of the trip. Some of those - like changing songs - are indeed short, but they are still distracting enough to not see that pedestrian, or to drift into the wrong lane.

Why is it ok to accept the sliding scale of impairment for other distractions, but not for drinking? People here are lashing out at driving under the legal limit, too. The only solution for those attacking the op is to either man up and say ALL of these people are irresponsible killing machines (including themselves, most likely), or lay off the OP. Its the only way to avoid being a complete hypocrite.

For useless anecdotal evidence, a friend of mine was just killed last month by a perfectly sober, but tired driver, so don't tell me its not as impairing as a .081.

 

[alphatarget1]

Find a lawyer OP. I'm sure the breathlyzer reading has a lot of variability built into it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Nope, just that the amount it is villanized - particularly here - is just incorrect.

I am positive that every driver in this thread has done something in a car as dangerous or more than the OP. Maybe they were tired. Or had a stressful day at work/home and were distracted. Or possibly messing with a radio/ipod. On the phone. Yelling at a fussy kid in the back seat. Whatever it is, it was as impairing or worse than driving .081.

Yet the ATOT moral patrol isn't kicking and screaming at them.

Well if .80 wasn't a known factor I could have sympathy for this guy but 6 beers even after 8 hours is enough not to go out a drive. .080 is perfect for a limit. If it was higher how many beers might have this guy consumed?

 

[Red Dawn]

It shouldn't matter. you are just debating probabilities at this point. If you admit it only takes impairment or distraction for 1 second to cause a driving incident then the duration or frequency of impairment or distraction is irrelevant.

Well keeping a person impaired on alcohol off the road is one distraction we have to worry about. It won't get them all off the road (as the OP demonstrates) but it gets enough of them off the road.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Does Lakewood, CO even HAVE cabs? Tulsa is 2.5x the pop of lakewood and cabs are very rare here. If I had just had like 3-4 drinks in 3 hrs I'd probably drive home anyhow. 6 in 4.... probably would have left with a friend

Lakewood is a suburb of Denver - Different name - equivalent to the same area

 

[EagleKeeper]

Well keeping a person impaired on alcohol off the road is one distraction we have to worry about. It won't get them all off the road (as the OP demonstrates) but it gets enough of them off the road.

Everyone who has been drinking that gets off the road (voluntarily or forced by law) means a safer road for all. :tumbsup:

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Well keeping a person impaired on alcohol off the road is one distraction we have to worry about. It won't get them all off the road (as the OP demonstrates) but it gets enough of them off the road.

Address my point above regarding zero tolerance.

 

[nickbits]

Wow, diaf OP.

I don't approve of drinking and driving even if it is under the legal limit. :thumbsdown::thumbsdown:

this

 

[Deeko]

Well if .80 wasn't a known factor I could have sympathy for this guy but 6 beers even after 8 hours is enough not to go out a drive. .080 is perfect for a limit. If it was higher how many beers might have this guy consumed?

Probably more. Like I said earlier - the limit is artificially low for a reason. The actual amount of impairment between just under and just over the line is negligible. So if the line were higher - at a point of true intoxication - well, those legally driving just under the limit would still be intoxicated too.

It sucks for those that get caught just at the line, like the OP, but that's the gamble he played & lost. I'm not advocating for a higher limit, just saying a reason why its as low as it is.

 

[blinblue]

What I don't understand is how people don't understand how dangerous driving really is. Basically you are in control of a 1+ ton hunk of metal at high speeds. Basically you are in control of a dangerous weapon. At the best of times driving is unsafe (just look at how many people die each year on US roadways), so it boogles my mind that people would willingly drive while intoxicated. Sure you can argue that the limit is low (and perhaps it is), but seriously, I'd much prefer a slightly over-stringent law and a few lives saved than the other way around. And yes, we all know that other distractions are just as bad as being intoxicated, which is why you shouldn't be engaged in that either.
My wife's mom was killed by a drunk driver when she (my wife) was 16. While the driver was quite a bit higher than the legal limit the point remains. When you drive a car, you are controlling a deadly weapon. Don't do it while you are impaired

 

[D1gger]

Again obviously your assuming the breathalyzer was perfectly accurate.

No, but I am assuming that the breathalyzer is accurate enough to distinguish between the .07 that the OP calculated his number should be after 2 drinks per hour and the .081 that he actually blew.

I do agree that the cop should have the ability to show some leniency for .001 over the limit and I would question whether the device can be and is calibrated to that degree of accuracy.

 

[Matthiasa]

Thanks to the check point you didn't kill anyone.

Flawed logic is well flawed.

If it took a checkpoint his driving was most likely perfectly fine.

 

[Pantlegz]

I would have requested a blood test being that close, the portable machines they use are accurate +/- 0.002 or something like that I think it varies by model. I know this because my little brother got off a DUI because this he was pulled over and blew .080 which is the legal limit here too. requested a blood test and it came up .079, worst case it gives your body the time to metabolize just a little more alcohol and it's more accurate.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

if you have a few thousand dollars to blow I would fight it either way.

 

[zinfamous]

go here:

http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm

I was drinking green coors light, 6 over 4 hours. BAC of .05....I fucking ate some fish n chips too how the fuck.

it was St Patty's Day. You fucking KNOW they'll be after your ass, regardless of what you blow. This is why you plan ahead and don't be a brain-sucking douchenozzle.

 

[thegimp03]

Drinking and driving on St. Patrick's Day.

FAIL!

This, obviously, more police will be out and will be more likely to pull someone over for no reason, then go, "oh sir, have you been drinking tonight?"

 

[Juncar]

OP you were being stupid, holidays are always prime time for cops to watch for drunk drivers and speeders.

I love the entitlement mentality that people have here about driving. It is a privilege, like the internet, stfu and follow the law or walk. You're not entitled to drive on the public road that you don't own.