When will the MADDness end?

[BlancoNino]

Just heard that a family friend of ours got busted for a DUI. Costed him over $6,000 and a hell of a lot more...here's the story.

Drove home after having a couple drinks...made it to his house, and the police pulled him over for having a cracked tail light....not for driving poorly. They asked if he'd been drinking and he said "yeah, a couple" and he was asked to give a breathylizer...he does and he blows a .07...and police decide he shouldn't have been driving and decided to give him a DUI anyway.

There is no way that ANY ONE of you guys are going to convince me that the motivation behind DUI laws is to protect people. It's for money....this is proof.

 

[cubalis]

Drinking + Driving = breaking a law. There should not be any grey areas, and this guy got what was coming to him. No need to try to convince you of anything.

 

[yllus]

I'm not a big fan of conducting roadside trials like that, but he knew the law and broke it. Too bad, so sad.

You seem to defend drunk drivers way too often.

 

[pulse8]

What's the legal limit there? I thought most places were .08 and if that's the case, he should sue his lawyer for malpractice.

 

[tommywishbone]

His should consider himself lucky he didn't get maced & beaten. Oh, the penalty for DUI is only going to get worse. It generates huge revenue for the system. Cheers!


Edit In Cal, if you test under the .08, you can be charged with, driving while impared. There is no minimum BAC % for this charge.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Driving drunk: it's A-OK if you make it home without killing anyone this time! :thumbsup: :beer: :beer: :beer: . . . .

 

[PinmasterJay]

Originally posted by: pulse8
What's the legal limit there? I thought most places were .08 and if that's the case, he should sue his lawyer for malpractice.

It is .08, no where is it under that...

Link

 

[PrinceofWands]

I don't think the limits should be open to interpretation. If the law is .08, then nothing under that should earn the ticket. If the person has been exhibiting poor driving but they're under the limit, hit them with reckless driving or whatever else they can dream up.

Of course, I'd personally make sure the limit was .08 or lower and make it at least a class A felony for breaking that law.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: pulse8
What's the legal limit there? I thought most places were .08 and if that's the case, he should sue his lawyer for malpractice.

ALL places are .08. lmao, sue the lawyer.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: PinmasterJay

Originally posted by: pulse8
What's the legal limit there? I thought most places were .08 and if that's the case, he should sue his lawyer for malpractice.

It is .08, no where is it under that...

Link

time to sue

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: cubalis
Drinking + Driving = breaking a law. There should not be any grey areas, and this guy got what was coming to him. No need to try to convince you of anything.

Shut up, and stop being an idiot.

Some people have no sense, and only see things in black and white terms. I guess if you break any law, you deserve any penalty they can think of.

On top of that, as others have pointed out, it turns out that he didn't break a law, since .07 is less than .08.

 

[cubalis]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: cubalis
Drinking + Driving = breaking a law. There should not be any grey areas, and this guy got what was coming to him. No need to try to convince you of anything.

Shut up, and stop being an idiot.

Some people have no sense, and only see things in black and white terms. I guess if you break any law, you deserve any penalty they can think of.

On top of that, as others have pointed out, it turns out that he didn't break a law, since .07 is less than .08.

A friends wife was paralyzed because of the .06 level of the driver who jumped a sidewalk about 5 years ago. To me, their should be no tolerence for operating a 1000lb+ machine after any drinks/drugs that are proven to be impairing have been taken.

To each their own, and I am not a black/white, all/none kind of guy at all. Breathalizers are not perfect measurements, and some people like to sound better (by telling their friends they were .01 'under' but still got a ticket...), but still - I have no tolerance for impaired driving.

And no, I won't 'shut up and stop being an idiot'

cheers

 

[k1pp3r]

If you blow a .07 it is up to the police interpitation of you condition and they can and will write you for DUI in the state of GA

 

[Deeko]

Hey idiot-morons, the legal limit is .08, not .07. Plus, at .08 you are still very capable of driving, if you were completely unable to drive at .08, it wouldn't make sense, because a .075 would be legal, yet you wouldn't be any better at driving. Your ability to drive isn't really impaired until around the .1-.12 range.

Fight the hell out of that in court, if he drove home with no problems and just had a busted taillight, and was below the limit, no way in HELL he should be convicted of that. Straight bullsh!t.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: cubalis

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: cubalis
Drinking + Driving = breaking a law. There should not be any grey areas, and this guy got what was coming to him. No need to try to convince you of anything.

Shut up, and stop being an idiot.

Some people have no sense, and only see things in black and white terms. I guess if you break any law, you deserve any penalty they can think of.

On top of that, as others have pointed out, it turns out that he didn't break a law, since .07 is less than .08.

A friends wife was paralyzed because of the .06 level of the driver who jumped a sidewalk about 5 years ago. To me, their should be no tolerence for operating a 1000lb+ machine after any drinks/drugs that are proven to be impairing have been taken.

To each their own, and I am not a black/white, all/none kind of guy at all. Breathalizers are not perfect measurements, and some people like to sound better (by telling their friends they were .01 'under' but still got a ticket...), but still - I have no tolerance for impaired driving.

And no, I won't 'shut up and stop being an idiot'

cheers

:thumbsup:

 

[dotcom173]

A friends wife was paralyzed because of the .06 level of the driver who jumped a sidewalk about 5 years ago. To me, their should be no tolerence for operating a 1000lb+ machine after any drinks/drugs that are proven to be impairing have been taken.

To each their own, and I am not a black/white, all/none kind of guy at all. Breathalizers are not perfect measurements, and some people like to sound better (by telling their friends they were .01 'under' but still got a ticket...), but still - I have no tolerance for impaired driving.

And no, I won't 'shut up and stop being an idiot'

cheers

For shizzle

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: cubalis

A friends wife was paralyzed because of the .06 level of the driver who jumped a sidewalk about 5 years ago. To me, their should be no tolerence for operating a 1000lb+ machine after any drinks/drugs that are proven to be impairing have been taken.

To each their own, and I am not a black/white, all/none kind of guy at all. Breathalizers are not perfect measurements, and some people like to sound better (by telling their friends they were .01 'under' but still got a ticket...), but still - I have no tolerance for impaired driving.

And no, I won't 'shut up and stop being an idiot'

cheers

You're an idiot.

What about all the people out there who are killed by plain old BAD drivers? How come I don't get to strip away their licenses?

The fact is that legal limits have been set by people much smarter than you. If you're under the legal limit, it's legit. No laws have been broken here.

You're making a judgement off something that happenened. The sample size is 1. I'm sure people have been killed by old people, or people talking on the phone, or people driving blue cars. That doesn't necessarily mean that that's the cause of the accident.

 

[polypterus]

Originally posted by: Deeko
Your ability to drive isn't really impaired until around the .1-.12 range.
.

What medical journal is that from?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: cubalis

A friends wife was paralyzed because of the .06 level of the driver who jumped a sidewalk about 5 years ago. To me, their should be no tolerence for operating a 1000lb+ machine after any drinks/drugs that are proven to be impairing have been taken.

To each their own, and I am not a black/white, all/none kind of guy at all. Breathalizers are not perfect measurements, and some people like to sound better (by telling their friends they were .01 'under' but still got a ticket...), but still - I have no tolerance for impaired driving.

And no, I won't 'shut up and stop being an idiot'

cheers

You're an idiot.

The logic of your argument overwhelms me.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

The logic of your argument overwhelms me.

He's getting all emotional because something happened to someone close to him. I feel bad for the person affected, but unfortunately, he's not using his brain.

Where is the proof that the person got in an accident because of the alcohol? He left out a ton of information. What if he swerved avoiding a dump truck, or a deer ran out in the road? People have been paralysed by totally sober drivers who just made a mistake.

He attributed the accident to the alcohol without using any rationale. People do mindless things like this all the time, it's easy to throw blame around in a knee-jerk reaction. But the fact is that we don't know the cause of the accident. He only said that someone with a.06 BAC hit the person on the sidewalk. The person may have also been driving a purple car, or been putting on makeup, or changing the radio station, or been a diabetic, or been 70 years old, or any other reason. How can you blindly say that one factor caused it without knowing any details at all?

The fact is that he posed an emotional argument, not a logical argument, and you blindly agreed with him without knowing any of the facts.

 

[cubalis]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
You're an idiot.

What about all the people out there who are killed by plain old BAD drivers? How come I don't get to strip away their licenses?

The fact is that legal limits have been set by people much smarter than you. If you're under the legal limit, it's legit. No laws have been broken here.

You're making a judgement off something that happenened. The sample size is 1. I'm sure people have been killed by old people, or people talking on the phone, or people driving blue cars. That doesn't necessarily mean that that's the cause of the accident.

I completely agree - that impaired drivers are not the only ones that drive poorly and kill... but impaired driving is a preventable correlate to auto accidents. There is no debating that.
Would you care if the carny who was running the rollercoaster your kids were on was impaired? What about a pilot? Street cleaner? Garbage truck driver? If they blow a .07 should they be able to stay on the job? They have responsibilities to do their jobs while keeping safety in mind. Any driver has the job of keeping others safe on the road through their actions, both while driving and before making the choice to drive.


Does a single BA measurement of .08 cause everyone to have the same 'feeling' or level of impairment? Does anyone know the variance when using a breathalizer?

To me it seems like a needless risk, and I have seen close friends hurt by it. Yes it is an emotional reaction. I have seen friends devastated in an accident where the driver had a low BA level.

I am also all for more stringent driving tests, including yearly testing after a certain age, based on the results of some of the driving studies conducted at my university.

to each their own.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: cubalis

Would you care if the carny who was running the rollercoaster your kids were on was impaired? What about a pilot? Street cleaner? Garbage truck driver? If they blow a .07 should they be able to stay on the job? They have responsibilities to do their jobs while keeping safety in mind. Any driver has the job of keeping others safe on the road through their actions, both while driving and before making the choice to drive.

To each their own.

It all depends. Not everyone is created equally. Some people just have no skills, while others are naturals.

Who do you think would be a better driver- a sober teenage girl, or Michael Schumacher after having 5 beers? I'd still put my money on Schumacher.

 

[Squisher]

Sounds like he had a bad lawyer.



And, Breathalyzers are poor judge of impairment.

 

[EyeMWing]

Well, first, was he under 21? Because ANY detectable level is illegal in some places for under 21 (as is the case here, I'll likely be guilty of DUI when I leave later tonight because I used mouthwash this morning)

Second, .07 never should've made it to trial, and you don't just "pay the ticket" on a DUI, because there is no ticket - it's a court summons.

Third, field breathalysers aren't admissible evidence, a much more accurate test needs to be given (either a blood test, or a thoroughly calibrated breath test); the field test can only be used as a means of establishing probable cause to drag your ass in for that test.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: cubalis

Would you care if the carny who was running the rollercoaster your kids were on was impaired? What about a pilot? Street cleaner? Garbage truck driver? If they blow a .07 should they be able to stay on the job? They have responsibilities to do their jobs while keeping safety in mind. Any driver has the job of keeping others safe on the road through their actions, both while driving and before making the choice to drive.

To each their own.

It all depends. Not everyone is created equally. Some people just have no skills, while others are naturals.

Who do you think would be a better driver- a sober teenage girl, or Michael Schumacher after having 5 beers? I'd still put my money on Schumacher.

In overall ability, I'd put my money on Schumacher.
In traffic violations, the teenage girl.