I understand that. I'm still waiting to hear about why that is relevant to the NTSB ruling, which is nonbinding.
My basis is the data(alcohol related) is in inaccurate and subjective and have provided a link showing how the more vehicles LE impounds the more they benefit.
I am having a hard time finding solid facts and statistics on driving fatalities involving alcohol for other countries. I do know that Japan has very strict DWI laws though and I believe the number of DWI related fatalities has dropped quite a bit.
I still think that .05 BAC is too low and this is mainly just a cash grab.
That said I still cringe when I see people getting arrested and charged for a 6th DWI. How on earth these people are still driving around after 5 DWI convictions is mind boggling.
I understand that. I'm still waiting to hear about why that is relevant to the NTSB ruling, which is nonbinding.
I understand that. I'm still waiting to hear about why that is relevant to the NTSB ruling, which is nonbinding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol-related_traffic_crashes_in_the_United_StatesAs a note, having alcohol in the trunk does not trigger the criteria. It is only if you have a BAC above .01.
Before you have a ruling, you have to have an analysis/investigation. To have an analysis/investigation you have to have data. If the data is not "cooked" maybe there are more important things to looks at first to save lives.
WHY do you think it is a cash grab? The NTSB has stated that they saw fatalities in the EU drop when they lowered the legal limit and are making recommendations based on empirical evidence gathered from other industrialized, similar countries.
I had a bit of a hard time too... the strictest countries seem to have so few that they don't even keep statistics (e.g. Norway.) Most of the EU has gone to .05 or lower and saw a drop in fatalities by 50%. How do you account for that?
I think what will happen is breathalyzers will become mandatory as standard equipment in cars... like seat belts, and each breathalyzer will be able to be remotely programmed, so it can be set as low as the city/county/state wants, depending on how low on money the city/county/state is.
Maybe there are things to look at besides this, but that's also not relevant.
It's relevant - the NTSB was influenced by flawed data that includes passsenger BAC and subjectivity of police to just believe anyone was drinking.
As linked earlier police profit from impounding vehicles.
http://californiawatch.org/public-s...prove-profitable-cities-raise-legal-questions
No it really isn't relevant. You are now alleging that police departments across the country have exaggerated alcohol related incidents in order to get the NTSB to issue a non-binding recommendation. It just fails the basic logic test.
States don't need NTSB rulings to tighten alcohol restrictions.
Including passengers BAC numbers or alcohol in a trunk to save lives defies logic.
Including passengers BAC numbers or alcohol in a trunk to save lives defies logic.
Get used to it. Do your boozing at home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_law_by_country
Tell me which country is comparable to us. Australia? I would say we are most comparable to EU countries. Let's take a fucking minute to just look at what they have done.
Hmmm...they have drastically reduced drunk driving fatalities by lowering limits and increasing penalties. Holy fucking shit.
Spain - .05
Germany - 0.0 - 0.5
France - .05
Poland - .02
Greece - .05
Hungary - zero tolerance
I guess you can always find a fault. America is great. The land of the free. We also have one of the highest percentage of alcohol related driving deaths.
That's why there are people like me who are handy with electronics and computers.
Bypass the whole system and emulate it with a custom FPGA if need be...
I don't even drink, I'd do it out of principle, just because.
Naturally same goes without saying for spying, black box recording, GPS tracking, performance limits, counter-modding, etc. Tear that shit right out of there, and if the encryption is too involved, just eliminate and replace with a open source stand alone.
Having an arbitrary number assigned for fines makes very little sense to me. Either it is OK to drink and drive or it isn't. Just make it 0.1 and get it over. If they (the teetotalers) really want that, to be balanced, we need much better public transportation in the outlying areas so we can still go out, have some drinks with friends and not get hassled or arrested on the way home including if we decide to walk.
Like it or not drinking is legal at home or in public and having no legal way of getting around after having a few drinks is just prohibition.
http://www.dbw.ca.gov/Reports/Ar/99/chart19.html
Guess I am wrong.
Most deaths occur in california between Noon and 4 pm.
I wonder if these are from out of work habitual drinkers or what. Looks like get drunk one day then wake up about 10 and get drunk again. Get hungry or run out of booze and go to store and kill someone.
Originally Posted by Apple Of Sodom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_d...law_by_country
Tell me which country is comparable to us. Australia? I would say we are most comparable to EU countries. Let's take a fucking minute to just look at what they have done.
Hmmm...they have drastically reduced drunk driving fatalities by lowering limits and increasing penalties. Holy fucking shit.
Spain - .05
Germany - 0.0 - 0.5
France - .05
Poland - .02
Greece - .05
Hungary - zero tolerance
I guess you can always find a fault. America is great. The land of the free. We also have one of the highest percentage of alcohol related driving deaths.
[/I]
I would imagine that america also has the highest percentage of NON-alcohol related driving deaths, too. we're terrible!
Gosh, how dare you point the finger at the real problem (poor/inadequate driver education) instead of alarmists' favorite punching bag: alcohol.