backtop


Print 87 comment(s) - last by sorry dog.. on Dec 24 at 5:56 PM


  (Source: Kalamazoo Gazette)
Taxpayers will be left on the hook for up to $10M USD or more in states with low-income protections

Under proposed and pending federal guidelines, just one beer with your midday work lunch could cost you your freedom.  Under the new rules that drink could not only land you in the slammer, but with a "Scartlet Letter" of sorts branded to your car -- an ignition interlock.

I. What's Legal and Illegal Today

While drunk driving is universally condemended, society has spent the last century debating what defines being "drunk" legally, and that debate is ongoing. 

Much of the peer-reviewed data suggests that so-called "mild" intoxication (e.g. BAC 0.09) can increase the risk of fatal crashes and nightime crashes (while seeming to have minimal impact on daytime rates).  However, peer reviewed research in the 1970s and 1980s largely did not differentiate between people with 0.080-0.99 BAC range versus those in the 0.050-0.079 BAS range.

Don't Mix 'em 1937
In 1937 (the year this poster was printed) a BAC of 0.14 was not considered "drunk".  Today it is.  Now the debate has shifted as to whether BACs as low as 0.061 should be considered "drunk".
[Image Source: Wikimedia Commons]

The reason why is that in the 1980s the debate revolved around whether the legal limit should remain at -- 0.15 BAC -- the threshold in many states.  Peer-reviewed evidenced seemed to back a lower legal threshold, particularly considering drivers in the 0.10-0.15 range "drunk".   This data coupled with s a push by advocacy groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) led to states in the 1980s embracing a stricter limit of 0.08, while adopting "zero-tolerance" limits of 0.01 or 0.02 percent blood alcohol for teenage drivers.  The public largely supported this move, which again, was backed by relatively conclusive statistics.

Now the debate has shifted.


II. "Non-Drunk" Drivers by Today's Laws Could be Considered "Drunk" by Tomorrow's Laws

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) -- a quasi autonomous federal organization which suggests changes that should be made to make traffic safer and more efficient -- suggested in May 2013 that the drunk driving limit should be lowered across the U.S. from 0.08 (the current level) to 0.05 BAC (blood alcohol content).

As for adult drivers in this range currently the law considers these people safe to drive.  Studies have suggested that at as little as 0.015 -- a virtually imperceptible amount of blood alcohol, people's ability to "mult-task" attention wise begins to decrease.  As you approach 0.05 (a level where mental intoxication generally still isn't felt) you're capacity to track objects, to react to sudden emergency situations, and overall coordinations begins to decrease.

But such issues start of mild and gradually worsen with increasing BAC.  At low levels, critics have pointed out they may be no more distracting then a passenger talking with you (which also diminishes multi-tasking and tracking abilities, etc.), looking at a GPS, or eating.

This may explain the divide between physiological research (which suggests impairment in this range) and epidemiology research (which does not conclusively show higher crashes in this range).

Peer-reviewed research from the 1970s and 1980s is largely not useful to give insight into the affects of alcohol at these levels, as these numbers lumped in the range (0.080-0.099), which has been illegal since the 1980s.  It is known from physiology studies that affects are not constant and increase gradually with increasing BAC.  Thus much of the higher rates seen in the 0.000-0.099 range studied in these decades is thought to have occured in the high end (0.080-0.099)
.

Only recently has research began to look at the lower end (0.060-0.079), which is not currently considered "drunk" in any U.S. state.  Studies have shown that inexperienced drivers low amounts of alcohol can lead to higher crash rates than in season drivers.  But there's already a zero-tolerance policy for young drivers.  When it comes adults the picture is murkier -- people in this range may be no more of a threat than the average driver with no alcohol in their system.  From a research standpoint the question of whether this level raises risks for adult drivers remains inconclusive, at best.

However, lawmakers feel that it's better to be safe than sorry, lowering the threshold further, even thought there's no clear scientific evidence that will keep Americans safer on the roads.

Under the new law, an average size male would be considered "impaired" once they had consumed one 16 oz. craft beer and the alcohol entered their bloodstream.

Sandwich beer
That lunchtime beer could soon cost you your freedom. [Image Source: Moerlein Lager House]

The change would force Americans to significantly alter their behaviors -- particular when it comes to "lunchtime beer" some enjoy.  While body chemistry varies, a 180-pound (81.6 kg) male will typically hit 0.08 after four "drinks" (12 oz. domestic beers) over an hour, according to the University of Oklahoma.  Three drinks would be required to hit 0.06.

If you're drinking
a craft beer (typically double the alcohol by volume of a domestic beer), a single 16 oz. drink could put the average male over the legal limit.  This would force Americans to either alter their behavior or take a taxi to lunch.  Otherwise Americans could soon risk becoming one of the growing prison population, just another number to a nation that imprisons more of its people than any other country in the world (officially, at least).

The NTSB last December also suggested that first time offenders (including those under the lower "drunkness" threshold) have ignition interlocks put on their cars.

III. New Guidelines Would Require All First Time DUI Offenders to Have In-Car Interlocks Devices

Now the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)  -- a body that takes the NTSB's suggestions and Presidential input and formulates "guidance" for the states -- has embraced that suggestion, issuing in its latest whitepaper guidelines [PDF] for states a fresh federal guideline that makes in the policy of, if not the law of the land.


Drunk driver
The government and activist groups want to make sure a drunk driver can never get in a car and drive in the first place. [Image Source: CNN]

States would still have to agree to the proposal, but if put in place by state lawmakers it could more that quadruple the number of drivers forced to use ignition interlocks.

An ignition interlock is essentially an in-car breathalyzer, with logging capabilities.  The driver is supposed to blow into it each time they want to start the car.  If they blow and they're below the legal threshold the device removes the titular lock on the ignition.  Either way, in newer models the results are typically logged.  If drivers fail a specified number of tests (often three) the car is permanently locked, until you tow it to a service center, at which point your probations officer is notified of your attempt.

A typical ignition interlock
A typical ignition interlock is a noticeable addition to the offender's vehicle. [Image Source: U.S. DOT]

At present state laws have forced about 150,000 habitual DUI (driving under the influence) offenders to install and use in-car interlock systems [source].  The systems aren't perfect as they have no way of checking who is blowing into them -- if a sober passenger (or even companion riding separately) blows into them, a driver with the interlock can start the car, without the sobriety check.

While the NHTSA is pushing automakers to deploy more advanced passive sensors, which "sniff" alcohol while the vehicle was motion and hence prevent drivers from tricking the system, such devices remain expensive and not unready accuracy-wise for a nationwide rollout.  So instead, the NHTSA has decided to revise its guidelines to suggest expanding the scope of state ignition interlocks so that all motorists convicted of drunk driving are forced to use one.

IV. Guidelines Could Dramatically Increase Interlock Adoption

Twenty states already require interlocks for all DUI offenders, even marginally intoxicated first time offenders.  One of the states in the narrow majority of those that doesn't is Michigan, home to the "automotive capital of the world" (Detroit),

The office of the Secretary of State in Michigan says that last year [PDF] ver 36,000 Michiganders were convicted of drunk driving -- or rough 1 in every 275 drivers on Michigan's roads.

Ignition interlock
As repeat offense rates are low among first-time offenders with lesser intoxication levels, Michigan currently saves ignition interlocks for repeat offenders, those who injure someone, or the extremely intoxicated.  That could soon change. [Image Source: Kalamazoo Gazette]

Given the harsh fines and potential jail time, most drivers in Michigan don't make that mistake twice.  Michigan requires that all repeat offenders and all first time offenders with a "very high" BAC (0.17 -- or twice the legal limit of 0.08 -- and up) to get one as well.  Together, though, only 8,000 (22.2 percent) of those convicted of DUI fell into that category.  That statistic suggests that extremely intoxicated drivers and repeat offenders are in the relative minority, with only about 1 in 5 DUI offenders falling into that category.

But under the new guidelines, if adopted, those other 4 out of 5 first-time offenders with BACs moderately over the limit would have to get the interlocks installed as well.

Drunk driving
Under the current U.S. system many higher wage earns get charged with a DUI on their first offense, but have it reduced to a traffic infraction or dropped altogether after they get a lawyer and challenge the charges. [Image Source: U.S. DOT]

An interlock system costs around $75 USD, which the driver must pay out of pocket.  The system also costs around $50-75 to monitor a month and is eligible for removal once you reach 1 year from when your license was suspended.  So the total monitoring cost are at least $600-900 USD over that first year.

V. Non-Offenders Will Pay Millions in Taxes for Poverty-Level DUI Offenders

And here comes the interesting and underreported twist.  An epidemiology study carried out by The Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) reveals insight into the correlation between poverty and DUI convictions.  Readers may recall that PIRE is the same institute leading the controversial current program that collects blood and breath samples from drivers at police roadblocks across the country

In its 1987 study PIRE researchers compiled data from California DUI arrests, concluding that almost a third of those convicted were unemployed/underemployed (part-time workers) (30 percent), while over a fifth (22 percent) were high school dropouts.  The median annual income for a drunk driver at the time was $16,500 USD ($33,000).  That suggests between a third and a half of the drivers convicted of DUIs may be poverty level.

This makes sense, as many upper-to-middle class income earners hire lawyers and find ways to make the charges go away or be reduced to other traffic violations if the defendant has a clean history.  Poverty level drunk drivers typically can't afford a top notch lawyer with the connections with local judges to pull these kind of favors, so they're left with the mark on their record.

Monopoly super tax
Drivers could soon be on the hook for paying impoverished drivers' breathalyzers, although most low-level offenders don't repeat their offense. [Image Source: Milton Bradley]

Many states -- including Michigan -- have laws on the books that soften the impact slightly on low income earners -- but at the cost of taxpayers.  Michigan's program only charges low income individuals $2 USD per month for monitoring.  Hence taxpayers are required to pick up the remaining $576-876 USD in monitoring costs.

Add in the epidemiology statistics, and the net cost to taxpayers not convicted of DUIs, as well as those convicted will likely be anywhere from $5.4M and $12.3M USD.

VI. The Scarlet Letter

Further, there will be other impacts as interlock devices are very visible.  While most states allow employers to perform background checks and reserve the option to exclude the with DUI arrests, the situation for thos ein stable jobs is somewhat less severe.

Assuming they don't get significant jail time, up to 80 percent of those convicted may be able to avoid having their employer find out (as their car won't have any visible sign of the arrest).

With the new interlocks, observant employers will be able to instantly spot those arrested.  The law offers no protection from termination from private business who find their employees were guilty of drunk driving.

scarlet letter
An ignition interlock has been reserved in some states for only repeat and extreme offenders as it's a "Scarlet Letter" of sorts marking the driver's guilt.  It can carry notable social and financial reprecussions for the driver. [Image Source: Amazon]

However, most employers likely will not take that road immediately for first time offenders.  What is more likely is that they will use that information to justify pay cuts or other measures to reduce the employee's earnings -- money which then flows back up the ranks.

Further, there's the social stigma first time offenders will face, as family and friends will be able to instantly see the mark of your conviction.

VII. States are Considering Expensive, Punitive Addition to Enforcement Program

Despite the millions extra in taxpayer money spent for "welfare monitoring" and potentially devastating impact to first time DUI offenders, many states including Michigan seem open to approving this costly expansion.

Rep. Nancy Jenkins (R-Mich.), a member of the dominant Republican majority in the state legislature, says Michigan's interlock program -- only in its third "pilot year" -- has done great so far.  She tells The Detroit News:

This program has been proven to help stop those with repeat DWI issues from committing further drunk driving offenses.  By making this a permanent program, we can help to keep all Michigan motorists safer.

State officials with the governor's office said the state was examining the NHTSA guidelines and might consider their adoption.

Such a decision would inevitably bring further criticism by those who argue all these punitive new punishments are unnecessary as traffic fatalities have fallen to their lowest levels since 1949 without a policy change.  But the NTSB and NHTSA seem to feel differently, believing that with new legislation they could force workers who wish to drink a beer at lunch to take taxis instead of drive.

Vehicle fatalities
Vehicle fatalities are at a record low per mile traveled. [Image Source: CDC.gov]

NTSB Chairman Debbie Hersman says there's "no silver bullet" for drunk driving, but she comments:

[New punishments are] critical because impaired driving remains one of the biggest killers in the United States.  In the last 30 years, more than 440,000 people have perished in this country due to alcohol-impaired driving. What will be our legacy 30 years from now?  If we don't tackle alcohol-impaired driving now, when will we find the will to do so?

The NHTSA is still finalizing its decision on a guideline that would push states to lower the legal threshold to 0.05 BAC.  With previous guidelines all states eventually came to comply with its edict, so if it follows the NTSB's suggestions in that measure -- as it has with interlocks -- most states will eventually drop the limit.

When it comes to cut crashes further from their record lows, studies suggest that distracted driving may be a far bigger culprit in fatal traffic accidents than low levels of drugs and alcohol.  These studies found that even while mildly intoxicated or high, drivers reacted better to dangers and were able to obey the laws of the road better than those who drove in simulators while texting or doing other distracting actions (holding a phone, eating, etc.)

Josh Rose
Studies have shown that texting while driving -- still legal in some states -- may be far more dangerous that mild intoxication. [Image Source: Sony]

The agency is also suggesting that states that have not yet outlawed texting while driving to ban it.  There's also preliminary work both on the state level and at the NHTSA looking to ban other forms of distracting driving.  A new law in Calif. could ban GPS units, forcing drivers to use paper maps.  Other states and counties are considering bans on eating and drinking soft drinks while driving.

And at least one federal court has ruled that if someone texts you, and then gets in an accident, that you may be legally liable for the texter's actions.  That ruling could clears the way for those who receive texts to face massive millions in damages and prison time, if they're aware the person behind the wheel is driving and that person commits a fatal auto accident.

Sources: NHTSA [guidelines white paper], The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why don't we just make alcohol illegal?
By Cerin218 on 12/19/2013 6:00:55 PM , Rating: 4
If people CAN'T have a beer or mixed drink then no one will drive drunk and viola a bunch of people saved.

I'm seriously tired of the people in the world that believe they can legislate all negative actions and discomfort away. As long as there are people in the world, people will die from a multitude of reasons. It isn't realistic to believe that all negative actions can be minimized by writing oppressive laws. There are laws against EVERYTHING negative you could possibly do. And yet those laws keep getting broken. There has to be a happy medium between deterrence and allowance. If you make the BAC .05% all that will do is put more people through the legal system and make more money for the lawyers and government. You won't stop EVERYONE and there becomes a point of diminishing return if you create and enforce harsh laws.
If you REALLY want to stop massive deaths, 1 in 6 Americans will die this year from heart disease. Maybe we should be banning forks and spoons.




RE: Why don't we just make alcohol illegal?
By Jeffk464 on 12/19/2013 6:21:44 PM , Rating: 3
eh, 1 in 6 americans die from heart disease every year? Doesn't this mean in 6 years we will have no more americans?


By dgingerich on 12/19/2013 6:55:39 PM , Rating: 3
I believe he meant that one in six American that will die this year will have it be from heart disease. It's not that hard to use context in that statement and know what it meant.


RE: Why don't we just make alcohol illegal?
By dgingerich on 12/19/2013 6:56:18 PM , Rating: 3
You can have my steak knife when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

:)


By dgingerich on 12/19/2013 6:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
...or maybe I should have said pizza cutter.


RE: Why don't we just make alcohol illegal?
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/19/13, Rating: 0
RE: Why don't we just make alcohol illegal?
By ipay on 12/19/13, Rating: 0
RE: Why don't we just make alcohol illegal?
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/20/2013 12:46:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mild DUI? Um...what? Is that like being 'a little bit pregnant'?
"Fairly bad" would probably be better term I'll admit, if I rephrased it.

But your example is silly. There's not levels of pregnancy. Pregnancy happens or it doesn't.

Impairment is a sliding scale, not binary. There are levels of intoxication and impairment. It's not black and white. Some impairment is minor enough it's not illegal.

Other impairment is "mild" in terms of statistical increase in risks, but arguably should be punished as it carries a clear increase in accident rates.

And yes plenty of legal things impair you to a minor extent as well. The question are what kinds of things are more than "mild" impairments, by which I explicitly mean impairments that will not significant increase the danger for a seasoned driver.

Perhaps the term "fairly bad" would be more appropriate, but the point is there's "mildly bad" "very, very bad". Having over 0.16 BAC is "very, very bad". Having 0.08-0.15 is "fairly bad" for most.

If you're going to argue semantics, that's fine, but at least give a reasonable analogy.

Make sense?


By M'n'M on 12/20/2013 8:56:45 PM , Rating: 2
Moreover impairment varies from person to person with the same BAC. No one argues that everyone isn't severely impaired at 0.2. The degree of impairment does vary, much more, at 0.05, which is why some states have separate DWI and DUI laws.


By woody1 on 12/22/2013 11:45:54 AM , Rating: 1
Mild DUI is like being a little bit pregnant? I assume you didn't think much before writing that nonsensical post. Note DUI stands for "driving under the influence of alcohol". Note that that "influence" is determined by measured blood levels of alcohol, not by measurable impairment.

Thus, a person could have measurable alcohol levels and not have enough impairment to influence their ability to drive. Plus, a vast range exists between minor impairment and blind drunkenness. The "influence" of alcohol at the low end could be equivalent to being distracted by a passenger or GPS.

Pregnancy, on the other hand, is an all or nothing condition. All of this seems so obvious that I can only assume that you were impaired when you wrote your post.


By lostdummy on 12/24/2013 7:14:01 AM , Rating: 2
Seems like Jason is trying to promote "do not lower to 0.05" idea.

Keep in mind that in many world countries 0.05 (or lower) is already limit, and I assume they also like their lunch beers.

What really could be argued here is that limit for "lock" device should maybe remain same as it is now, even if DUI limit is lowered to 0.05


RE: Why don't we just make alcohol illegal?
By marvdmartian on 12/20/2013 7:55:01 AM , Rating: 3
Heard of prohibition? Didn't work out too well back then, no reason to believe it would work any better now, especially with the stellar success of the war against drugs.

I had a co-worker once, who was actually a safer driver after 2 drinks. When he was sober, I really didn't like riding with him, since he was so hyper/spastic. After a couple beers, he'd calm down, and be more like a normal driver!

Back then, it took 2 beers. Someone with the same symptoms nowadays would probably just be considered ADHD, and doped up with Rytalin. Six of one, half a dozen of the other!


By ERROR666 on 12/20/2013 9:59:09 AM , Rating: 2
It will work just fine. They'll keep throwing people in jail until there's nobody left. We are already a prison state with over 3% of population in prisons. Prepare for this number to go up significantly.


By Duncan_Macdonald on 12/19/2013 4:39:18 PM , Rating: 4
If the figures for the US are anything like the figures for the UK then preventing 1000 deaths per year would pay for the program in simple money terms. By the time that you include the anguish of injured victims and or relatives of killed victims then this seems to be a very sensible idea.

My own view - first DUI - banned from driving for 12 months - second DUI (or driving while banned) - banned from driving for life. (The photographic driving license may be kept as proof of identity but it would be stamped "BANNED".)




By valkator on 12/19/2013 5:27:56 PM , Rating: 1
Why stop at drunk driving? We should do this for any distracted driving too. Adjusting your radio, same penalty, Not using your visor while the sun is harshly in your eyes, same penalty, Driving fast in poor weather conditions, same penalty, Not maintaining your vehicle so it has the proper stopping power, same penalty. Cell phones, even if you happen to touch it, same penalty. These are just some examples of the statistics of vehicular fatalities that are right up there with drunk driving.


By brshoemak on 12/20/2013 2:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
No one at a party ever said, "hey man, why don't you leave your keys with me and take a taxi home - I don't trust you to adjust your radio safely."

Accidents happen, that's life and unavoidable at times - but when you involve a decent amount of alcohol you're greatly increasing the chance of something happening.

I don't really have a firm stance one way or another on this, but I will say that if someone were to hit and kill my 5 year old daughter and I found out alcohol was involved, I would do everything possible to make sure that person spent as much time as humanly possible in jail. Call it pointless malice towards a possible first-time offender or whatever you want.


By Rukkian on 12/20/2013 3:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
To add to that, just because somebody drinks doesn't mean they will also not play with the radio, adjust the heat, eat a burger, or answer their phone.

When you combine the alcohol with the distractions already there, it escalates quickly. While buzz driving may not be worse than texting, what about doing both simultaneously?


BAC tests are BS
By corduroygt on 12/20/2013 11:26:32 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter how much you've had to drink, since that is different for each person, as long as you can safely operate a motor vehicle, you should be able to drive.
So Field Sobriety Tests should be performed to measure your capacity of operating a motor vehicle, and DUI if you fail.




RE: BAC tests are BS
By Rukkian on 12/20/2013 2:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
Field sobriety tests are easy for some to get around, and do not really determine whether you are okay to drive. While you may not be stumbling around, you will not be able to process issues ahead of you as fast, and could still be a danger to others.

Field sobriety tests really only show if somebody is a long ways over the limit.


RE: BAC tests are BS
By corduroygt on 12/20/2013 11:44:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well, then change the tests around so they accurately reflect driving ability.


RE: BAC tests are BS
By Rukkian on 12/23/2013 4:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
What exactly would you propose? Anything subjective (ie requiring judgement by the officer) would not be consistent and would not stand up in court.


Kidding me
By SlyNine on 12/20/2013 3:12:27 AM , Rating: 2
I blew a .005 for preemployment and all I did was brush my teeth 3 hours before hand. Have not had a drink months before that. Are they saying that 3 times the alcohol consumption of brushing your teeth (which is almost none) is to much?




RE: Kidding me
By Rukkian on 12/20/2013 11:19:15 AM , Rating: 2
No, the proposal would be 10 times that (0.005 vs .05). The number you were going off (0.015) was said as the place where it could be detected, but nobody that I have heard is recommending this to be the limit.


RE: Kidding me
By ven1ger on 12/23/2013 3:11:42 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, but I think its 100 times.


RE: Kidding me
By Rukkian on 12/23/2013 4:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
Can you elaborate? I know it has been awhile since I was in school, but:

10 X 0.005 = 0.05


So...does this mean?
By RocketChild on 12/19/2013 4:41:22 PM , Rating: 3
If they start putting tools in everyone's cars to keep people that have less than a beer with a full lunch/dinner from driving, will their be less police needed to keep communities safe after pot becomes more legal?

As I see it, that has been the mantra for the last few decades with MADD going around crying for more police at night and white parents screaming about their kids risk of drugs: More Cops now!

Seems like the reduced sentencing, changes in drug policy and this tie a nice bow on the need for less police on the streets.

But, I can totally see a battle cry coming from Unions and the under-informed deniers saying that less police would mean greater dangers...when stats and anecdotal information suggests police are mostly there to just write up the paperwork "after" something happens. They really don't prevent crime. Good jobs and good education seems to keep crime down.




RE: So...does this mean?
By SlyNine on 12/20/2013 3:15:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
White Parents
? are you saying black parents don't care about their kids?

MADD has a lot of crazy ideas, but I'm not sure why race was brought in to this?


By ipay on 12/19/2013 4:42:41 PM , Rating: 5
Drinking and driving are bad mmkay. You don't get to put everyone else at risk just because you decide you want to have a drink with your sandwich.

Driving bans should be a given and the least of your worries if caught drinking and driving.




Going about this the wrong way
By pandemonium on 12/20/2013 4:18:27 AM , Rating: 2
I think we should concentrate on how we give out licenses more than trying to fix the after effects of the lacking system.

I know this may lead to me advocating an Orwellian society, but more succinctly, I'm advocating stopping things preemptively based on the individual instead of classifying each person after the fact and costing the public based on that.

Of all of the poor drivers I see on a daily basis, alcohol is responsible for a small percentage of them. I generally see more people that just don't care than people that are drunk. What's the difference? They're both dangerous. This is what I'm getting at: get rid of crappy drivers in general from the start!

I think we make a big deal out of people that are intoxicated while driving, but what about the people that aren't ? What's their excuse? Being dumb? Being incapable? Why are they driving in the first place? They're still a danger!




RE: Going about this the wrong way
By Rukkian on 12/20/2013 11:28:36 AM , Rating: 2
While it sounds good in principle, how exactly do you propose deciding who gets a license and who doesn't?

Are you saying it would be by IQ? I know several people that are poor drivers that would score well above average on an IQ test. As far as I know there are no accurate common sense tests.

I honestly would like to know what you propose, on how to know ahead of time if somebody will be stupid behind the wheel and text, watch movies, put on makeup, read a book, or even drink before they do it. Most people would not check the box "I will text my BFF while cruising down the highway in bumper to bumper traffic".


By degobah77 on 12/20/2013 9:42:57 AM , Rating: 2
How about I just pass a State test under the influence and have a code stamped on my license showing that I can drive safely and legally just fine with a BAC up to a certain level? The course would consist of a battery of reaction and decision making tests with increased alcohol consumption while behind the wheel on a closed course. So now that you've proven you can drive just fine after drinking 6, 7, 10 beers, it's now your privilege to do so.

There's a massive difference between drunk driving and drinking and driving. Actually, now that I think about it, everyone should be forced to drink before they drive, then we'd all be on the same level. And people wouldn't get as injured during an accident if we were all drunk! Sober driving should be outlawed.

No more laws and restrictions trying to save us from ourselves, can we get some freedoms back please?




By Rukkian on 12/20/2013 2:00:46 PM , Rating: 2
There is no way anybody would ever give out a stamp like that, as then when you do get into an accident while over the limit, they would be held liable for many lawsuits that would happen.


Why is there no consistency?
By sgestwicki on 12/21/2013 11:44:14 AM , Rating: 2
Why is common sense and consistency so hard to come by nowadays? Both political parties have lowered my expectations so much that I just expect them to do the dumbest thing possible at all times but I am still trying to hold out hope for the rest of the population.

The US seems to be more and more OK with smoking weed but now they want to come down hard on any drinking when there is no evidence that being under the current limit causes a problem. Why?




RE: Why is there no consistency?
By sgestwicki on 12/21/2013 11:47:27 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry about the double post. I only clicked once on the Post Comment button and it put two of them up. I'm new to the forums and cannot find a way to edit or delete the comment. Can someone tell me how to clean up the duplicate?


Interlocks do check
By ElFenix on 12/19/2013 5:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The systems aren't perfect as they have no way of checking who is blowing into them -- if a sober passenger (or even companion riding separately) blows into them, a driver with the interlock can start the car, without the sobriety check.

this isn't quite correct, the new ones take pictures of who is blowing and sends the picture to authorities.




Defend drinking and driving...
By croc on 12/21/2013 1:53:44 AM , Rating: 2
And in my opinion that makes the defender the person most likely to be an alcoholic. Alcohol impairs your abilities, period. Much like being a little pregnant, a person can't be a little impaired. Impaired is impaired, full stop. If you can't avoid drinking, then don't drive. And also check yourself into a good program for learning how to cope with your alcoholism.

Now cue the deniers.




Why is there no consistency?
By sgestwicki on 12/21/2013 11:44:13 AM , Rating: 2
Why is common sense and consistency so hard to come by nowadays? Both political parties have lowered my expectations so much that I just expect them to do the dumbest thing possible at all times but I am still trying to hold out hope for the rest of the population.

The US seems to be more and more OK with smoking weed but now they want to come down hard on any drinking when there is no evidence that being under the current limit causes a problem. Why?




interesting laws
By purerice on 12/21/2013 1:36:24 PM , Rating: 2
In some places closer to home for me the legal limit is essentially 0.00 and if you get caught above that, you lose your license for a long time. DWI/DUI fatalities are near zero. I've taken the bus/taxi home before and the times I did I was not the only one.

When I do drive in the evening I feel much safer than I did back in the US because I know the chance of a drunk driver being on the road is much, much lower.




Good enough for everyone?
By eagle470 on 12/23/2013 10:46:38 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe we should just require all cars come with these things built in? Or we should do a pilot and require them to be implemented in all government own vehicles and the vehicles of elected officials!

I'd be all for that.




So Will...
By mmatis on 12/24/2013 8:13:09 AM , Rating: 2
they require these interlocks for DUI "Law Enforcement" as well? And for Our Betters who drive while drunk? Or is this only for Mere Citizens?

You know the answer to those questions.




Mick WTF?
By Samus on 12/19/13, Rating: -1
RE: Mick WTF?
By 91TTZ on 12/19/2013 4:31:52 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Damn it Mick you're article is written as if you're advocating driving after a beer is acceptable. For many people, it isn't


Wrong.

According to the guidelines, drinking after a beer is acceptable. It's only after you've taken down 4 beers that you'd be over the limit. With the new, stricter rules, you could still drink a beer and be well under the limit.

You're imposing your own beliefs on Mick and claiming that you're the voice of reason. You're not. You represent nobody but yourself. I'll let better minds make the decisions, thanks.


RE: Mick WTF?
By NotSureIfTech on 12/19/2013 4:37:00 PM , Rating: 4
Seriously, lol @ Samus.

I actually pictured Sheila Brovloski from South Park reading the post.

WE HAVE TO SAVE OWWWWWAHHHH CHILDRENNNNN


RE: Mick WTF?
By Jeffk464 on 12/19/2013 6:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
It all depends on the person, body weight, percentage of muscle vs fat, etc. Hulk Hogan in his prime could have had quite a few beers before being over the limit.


RE: Mick WTF?
By Samus on 12/19/2013 9:48:11 PM , Rating: 2
You're all right. I am not the voice of reason.

Just the voice of somebody who has been living in chronic pain for the last decade because somebody thought they could drink and drive and it changed my life when they ran a red light.


RE: Mick WTF?
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/20/2013 1:07:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're all right. I am not the voice of reason.

Just the voice of somebody who has been living in chronic pain for the last decade because somebody thought they could drink and drive and it changed my life when they ran a red light.
Samus, I know none of us can really say the right thing to a comment like this, but I think most of us would sincerely say we are sorry for what you went through .

And the person who did that to you should absolutely have been prosecuted and held accountable in civil court .

The point some readers were pointing out was not to say drinking and driving should be legal. It's already illegal to reach levels of impairment.

By contrast, having one beer has not been statistically shown to increase the crash rate in adult drivers.

I don't know the details of your situation, but I'm guessing they didn't have just one beer. The law already outlaws people doing what the person who put you through that did.

I'm sincerely sorry you had to go through that and I wish you the best.

But, if we're talking reform, wouldn't it be smarter to crack down on the people who buy expensve lawyers and nullify the current law because they have the resources to buy their way out?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-a...

I mean society has all agreed that is unacceptable. Laws have been passed. Yet people still do what happened to you to others.

Some accidents are unavoidable. But when it comes to avoidable ones, I'd be willing to bet it's often from people who drink large amounts (i.e. more than one beer) and have blood alcohol well north of 0.10 BAC, yet got off because, well, basically because they're rich.

To give cops arbitrary authority to put someone in jail who wasn't driving erratically or committing any other violation, yet gets "randomly" pulled over and give a breathalyzer because it was around lunch time and lo and behold they have a 0.061 BAC because they had a beer -- to put that person in jail seems somewhat wrong. Someone who can drink one beer and STOP at one -- and who can drive without commiting other offenses -- that doesn't seem to me to be the person who hurt you.

I think the person who hurt you sounds more like the kind of person who didn't (or perhaps didn't because of addiction) stop at one.

As long as that kind of person gets let off easy so often, bad things will happen.

Again, I'm really sorry to hear your story and wish you the best.


RE: Mick WTF?
By drycrust3 on 12/21/2013 1:50:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some accidents are unavoidable.

I disagree, all accidents are avoidable. Accidents are caused by people not following the law, or if you do have accidents that are happening and both drivers were clearly following the law (and not just because some lawyer says his client wasn't breaking the law) then the law needs to be changed.
As a driver you are the one responsible for what your vehicle does.
Just as the Japanese showed you can improve the reliability of a car by tightening the acceptable manufacturing tolerances of each individual component within the car, so the same applies to road safety: by looking for loose tolerances that are associated with crashes and then tightening those tolerances, and then picking on those that are outside of the statistical norm you improve road safety. Driving too fast? Ticket! Driving too slow? Ticket! Taking off too fast at the traffic lights? Ticket! Taking off to slowly on a green light? Ticket! Etc.
This is where driving influenced by alcohol or drugs or using a mobile phone or excessively tired or driving a poorly maintained vehicle or inexperienced with the power to weight ratio of a vehicle, etc, those things cause people to drive outside of the statistical norm, and that is why there are crashes associated with them.
If you are going to police people driving with even a small amount of alcohol in their breath, then you also need to pick on the other things that cause people to drive with a similar deviation from the statistical norm. For example, reading a text message, driving immediately leaving the office and not having a break first, changing radio stations while moving, accidentally breathed in to many petrol vapours while filling the tank, using a manual transmission (yes, I know, but we have to be fair: if it causes you to drive with a similar amount of deviation as one beer at lunch time, then its got to go), etc.
I think a much better idea than ignition locks is that since GPS units are now so common placed, and not too expensive, why not require all vehicles to have one fitted to each vehicle that knows the local speed limit of that bit of road you're on, and that if the driver exceeds the speed limit by a small amount e.g. 5 km/hr, they are alerted. Yes, I know people can ignore them, but the point is people may not realise they are driving outside of the statistical norm, and one of the first indications that they are is something alerting them that they are above the local speed limit (we have them on our buses ... except ours tell the boss as well). Say a person has been drinking and thinks they are still safe but they aren't, it won't be long before the GPS unit will tell them, at which point they can weigh up their options, e.g. have a rest, take the bus, etc. Sure, it won't stop a recidivist driver, but then maybe a GPS unit that talks to the police is what they need.


RE: Mick WTF?
By NesuD on 12/20/2013 5:18:28 AM , Rating: 1
I can say the right thing to that Mick because I am in the same situation and he is still full of crap. Accidents happen even when people aren't drinking. You cannot fairly view someone who has barely tipped the legal BAC (.008) in the same light as someone who has a BAC of say .013 or higher. It is an apples and oranges comparison. I was rearended at a stop light by a drunk who was clearly well over the legal limit. later tested to be .017. He was clearly slurring and walking erratically. Someone at .008 doesn't normally show any visible signs of intoxication because that isn't truly intoxication. It is arguably impairment but calling it intoxication is just an artificial construct. I was rear ended by a clearly intoxicated drunk driver. That is the second rear end collision I was involved in in my 53 years. The other one the driver causing it was as sober as a preacher. I know that is anecdotal but Samus wants to put a tail and horns on anyone that has a BAC of .008 or less in the misguided belief that they are somehow a danger when in fact there is no evidence to prove they are anymore dangerous than a non drinker. Don't play the I am a victim card Samus. You have no special claim on that less than exclusive bit of territory.


RE: Mick WTF?
By drycrust3 on 12/21/2013 12:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't play the I am a victim card Samus. You have no special claim on that less than exclusive bit of territory.

You are right in that it isn't exclusive territory, but that is because we are all victims of drunk drivers, I am, everyone is. Samus happens to be more a victim than maybe you or I, but he is still a victim.
You may not realise it, but there are a ton of effects that drunk drivers have had that you cannot see. Looked around the office? Where is that young guy that you used to work with years ago ... oh, you've changed jobs since then ... well there was a young guy that I used to work with ... now he's dead ... killed driving home drunk ... been drinking, fell asleeep driving home ... road turned, car didn't, hit a tree, dead.
Somewhere out there is a mum and a dad for whom Christmas will never be the same ... a person for whom they don't buy presents, but they so wish they could.
Here in New Zealand, where I live, we are heading for our lowest death toll in 50 years this year, and that is because of police picking on people with alcohol in their breath. Sure, we have lots of other improvements, like safer cars, better roads, better road rules, etc, but the fact remains: policing lowers the road toll. Sure, none of us like being ticketed, but here we have 500 odd people that are alive now this Christmas that would otherwise be dead.
Maybe you are one of those that are alive today that would otherwise be dead if it wasn't for the police.
"Accidents happen even when people aren't drinking", yes, and all accidents are avoidable too. If you don't believe that then you will never get the road death toll to zero.


RE: Mick WTF?
By dgingerich on 12/19/2013 4:40:28 PM , Rating: 1
I certainly advocate most of the things you say. We certainly need to protect the majority from the stupid, and drunk driving is one such case. However, I disagree with the absolutely not alcohol policy you mention. Personally, my system handles alcohol much better than most, and my decision making skills, coordination, and reaction times are not affected at all after 3 ounces of scotch. That would likely only put 230lb me at about 0.05 BAC. Even after two such glasses, putting me at 0.07 or 0.08, I'd be just fine. The third would put me over the legal limit, and I could certainly see why that would be. At three, it does affect me, and my reactions are diminished. However, I almost never drink that much.

On New Years even, I do have two, one before midnight and another just after in honor of an old friend that died back in 2000. I'm fine to drive at that point. I don't even feel any deleterious effects with that little alcohol. It would be nice to be able to drive home at that point.

There are some people who handle less, and some more. We have to pick a point where most would be affected, and while I don't think 0.08 is quite fair, it is the point where our lawmakers drew the line, and I can live with that. Pushing that down to 0.05 just because some non-elected bunch of bureaucrats says so isn't what this country is about.

Also, putting these interlocks on first time offenders is a good idea in my opinion, if they have been caught with a BAC above 0.15. Too many people have died to the stupidity of others. People not caring to think about what they do to others because of their actions is far to frequent in this country, and something pushed by our mass media. It needs to be actively discouraged. At a 0.15% BAC, even the stupidest person would know they are too drink to drive. The old method of having a minor charge for 0.08 and a major charge for 0.15 worked a whole lot better, and didn't ruin lives of people who had just misjudged a little, or people who handle alcohol better than most and would be fine to drive.

The biggest truth here is, in fact, that we don't need alcohol. People can certainly go without it if they bother to restrain themselves. (Our mass media certainly pushes the idea of letting go of such restraint, especially many idiot musicians, and we all pay for that.) Having a beer with lunch and heading back to work is certainly a bad idea, and anyone with any sense would know that. Having one with friends on a Saturday or a holiday is certainly understandable. Just sit on the chair for an hour longer and let it work through your system before going out to drive. People need to stop and think before they do things, and those who don't need to be put in line for the sake of all of us.

I've lost friends to drunk drivers, and I've lost friends who were driving drunk. (Single car accident that basically smeared the both of them down I-25 at >120mph.) It certainly understand that drink driving needs to be stopped, but we don't need to be going around ruining people lives over something when it doesn't hurt anyone. There's a point where it is harmless, and a point where it harms. That needs to be distinguished.


RE: Mick WTF?
By DanNeely on 12/19/13, Rating: 0
RE: Mick WTF?
By bitterman0 on 12/19/2013 5:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
Could you point to a relevant source that provides the said statistic?


RE: Mick WTF?
By dgingerich on 12/19/2013 5:04:38 PM , Rating: 1
Studies back in the 90s proved differently, at least for most. Even MADD agrees with that.

http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/advocacy/mad...

http://www.drivinguniversity.com/traffic-safety-tr...

A driver operating a radio is more likely to be in an accident than a driver at 0.05 BAC, and one operating a cell phone is even worse.

I say get the stupid people off the road first. They're the biggest danger.


RE: Mick WTF?
By DanNeely on 12/20/2013 12:13:13 AM , Rating: 2
Did you either intend to reply to someone else, or not actually bother to read what you linked to? Both support what I said.

While the first article does say that MADD wants to focus its efforts on changes that it thinks will have bigger short term impacts, it also puts a .05 BAC as giving a 38% higher chance of causing a crash. The second on spends most of it's length demolishing "going from .10 to .08 is bad" arguments and finishes with by citing other countries seeing significant drops when they went to .05 and that that level results in "significant impairment" compared to being sober.


RE: Mick WTF?
By bitterman0 on 12/20/2013 2:15:16 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, my, what passes for statistics these days. FYI, the linked article provides a plain statement, simply referencing NTSB as the source. So, I must assume one has to dig deeper on their own to get to the grain of truth (if there's one). As usual, when you find that something is buried very deep, it is generally of very questionable quality.

It turns out NTSB is also not in a hurry to reveal its sources. http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2013/eliminate_imp...

quote:
Regarding crash risk, one study found that the risk of fatal crash involvement at BACs between 0.050 and 0.079 ranged from 3 to 17 times greater, depending on the age of the driver and fatal crash. Another study found that at a BAC of 0.05, drivers are 38 percent more likely to be in a crash than are sober drivers. The crash risk is doubled at 0.07 and 2.69 times higher at 0.08.


What about links to the referenced "studies"? Relative numbers are deceiving and in case of these studies are plainly incomprehensible. Unless you know how the data was collected, there's little sense in relying on results.


RE: Mick WTF?
By sorry dog on 12/22/2013 1:33:13 AM , Rating: 2
The all important fine print will be churned up and covered up from all the mud throwing throwing this campaign will have.

But really, whether there is a significant different in safety at a respectable 99% level or a dubious 85% level doesn't really matter. In fact I dare the actual change in safety is a secondary issue here.

I don't see this push is anything other than interest in intoxicated driving corrections industry. You don't see any thing proposed about longer jail times or longer license suspension times. No, No, No... the NHTSA is proposing things that will cost more MONEY. Nevermind that we are talking about appointed federal administrators that are trying to legislate state laws for judicial penalties. I guess the highway safety folks are now legal corrections experts too... while we're at it the farm bureau should set the sentencing guidelines for pot convictions since it's a "crop."


RE: Mick WTF?
By JediJeb on 12/20/2013 5:56:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A driver operating a radio is more likely to be in an accident than a driver at 0.05 BAC, and one operating a cell phone is even worse.


But then there are the drivers with the 0.05BAC who are operating a cell phone or a radio, which only compounds the problems.

How can the law judge whether or not the person with the 0.05BAC is smart enough to not be operating a cell phone at the same time. It is sad but true that the law has to take into account the lowest common denominator for it to be mostly effective, set it to the highest common denominator(those who tolerate alcohol well) and a lot of the weaker people slip through and cause major problems.


RE: Mick WTF?
By valkator on 12/19/2013 5:18:59 PM , Rating: 2
I heard even .009 BAC while driving is practically reckless driving. >_>

Oh Wait, I just made that up just like your .05 claim. Idiot.


RE: Mick WTF?
By althaz on 12/20/13, Rating: 0
RE: Mick WTF?
By sorry dog on 12/24/2013 5:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
When you say "significant" do you mean statistically significant? If not, then you really can't say significant with any real meaning.

If you do mean that, then by what criteria did the "studies" use to determine significance?

I would also be extremely curious at study data in how it was obtained, sample size, control groups, population bias methodology, which means are being prepared, causality testing, etc. Any study striving to be independent will publish these facts. Study's that don't supply most of these facts are highly suspect and should NOT be used to base public policy on.


RE: Mick WTF?
By NesuD on 12/20/2013 5:21:10 AM , Rating: 2
In fact there are no studies since the 70's that show that and those are invalid for the reasons pointed out in this article.


RE: Mick WTF?
By degobah77 on 12/20/2013 10:04:28 AM , Rating: 3
I'm getting so tired of The United States Of Nazi Care Bears. Do we really have to save everyone from themselves?

How about I not only prove you wrong, but prove the state wrong and get the extra privilege of being able to drive with a BAC of up .10 before getting a tkt for it.

I'll take the extra tests and pay the extra cost to prove beyond a doubt that I can drive safely up to a certain BAC and have that information stamped on my license. Instead of blanket restrictions, how about we create OPTIONS.


RE: Mick WTF?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/20/2013 10:29:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm getting so tired of The United States Of Nazi Care Bears. Do we really have to save everyone from themselves?


Amen brother. Preach!

We're way past the tipping point. And we're just doubling down on stupid policies that aren't working.

People: "Drunk driving is illegal, but people are still doing it! What do we do?"

Lawmaker: "We'll make it more illegal!"


RE: Mick WTF?
By Rukkian on 12/20/2013 10:59:39 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'm getting so tired of The United States Of Nazi Care Bears. Do we really have to save everyone from themselves?


If it were only yourself, most people would not care, unfortunately, many times that is not the case, and other innocent bystanders pay the price.

quote:
How about I not only prove you wrong, but prove the state wrong and get the extra privilege of being able to drive with a BAC of up .10 before getting a tkt for it.


How exactly do you plan to prove that? Just because you thing you hold your liquor better than others, does not mean that your concentration and reflexes are not effected. In reality, it has been proven that you are affected whether you believe it or not. Your "tolerance" that you have built up from your addiction does not change that fact, it only makes you think it is fine, which imo is actually worse.


RE: Mick WTF?
By ClownPuncher on 12/20/2013 11:56:53 AM , Rating: 1
"Your addiction"? Yea, you assume everyone who drinks is an alcoholic, we assume you're an asshole.


RE: Mick WTF?
By Rukkian on 12/20/2013 1:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
I am not sure it is that much of a stretch when somebody claims they have a higher tolerance than everybody else, and can handle their liquor even over the current legal limit. IMO, that would indicate somebody who drinks quite often, or just thinks very highly of themselves.


RE: Mick WTF?
By ClownPuncher on 12/20/2013 2:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
Either that, or you have no evidence to the contrary and you're offended by someone else's lifestyle.

The legal limit where I am is .08, which is about 3 beers.


RE: Mick WTF?
By Rukkian on 12/20/2013 3:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get offended by anybody else's lifestyle, I really don't what others do, as long as it doesn't endanger me or my family.

While I may be jumping to assumptions, have you ever met somebody that claims they have a much higher tolerance than everybody else and does not drink fairly frequently? I think it pretty much says they do.

As for 3 drinks putting you at the limit, you would have to be on the small side, as most studies have shown that a 180 lb man would take 4 drinks in one hour to hit .08.


RE: Mick WTF?
By degobah77 on 12/23/2013 1:45:10 PM , Rating: 2
Standardized state run tests involving reaction times and decision making skills while behind the wheel. Give me 8 beers and I bet I'll score as high if not higher than the average idiot driver.

The problem is not alcohol, the problem is that stupid people are doing it.


RE: Mick WTF?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/19/2013 5:07:41 PM , Rating: 4
Dude how is one beer with a meal going to impair your driving? Come on, don't take it to extremes.


RE: Mick WTF?
By Rukkian on 12/20/2013 11:02:13 AM , Rating: 2
It really depends on what that one drink is - 1 12 oz domestic, no it will not make you legally drunk. Drink a triple shot of whiskey, and yes you may be over the limit. Drink a 22oz tallboy of a craft beer, you will be intoxicated.


RE: Mick WTF?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/20/2013 11:30:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Drink a 22oz tallboy of a craft beer, you will be intoxicated.


From ONE, with a meal? Intoxicated?

And for the record, I'm not even a "beer drinker" per-say. But I feel nothing from one craft beer, especially with food.


RE: Mick WTF?
By ClownPuncher on 12/20/2013 11:54:18 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe if you're a 90lb anemic.


RE: Mick WTF?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/20/2013 1:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
I like how he said a triple whiskey "may" put you over the limit, but one beer WILL intoxicate you lol.

I'm not a huge drinker but uhhh, something about that seems backwards.


RE: Mick WTF?
By Rukkian on 12/20/2013 1:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
A glass of white or red wine, a bottle of beer, and a shot of whiskey or other distilled spirits all contain equivalent amounts of alcohol and are they same to a Breathalyzer. A standard drink is:

A 12-ounce bottle or can of regular beer
A 5-ounce glass of wine
A one and 1/2 ounce of 80 proof distilled spirits (either straight or in a mixed drink)

This shows that a 12oz beer (~4%) is equivalent to a 1.5 shot of whiskey. A 22oz tallboy of ~7% would be equivalent to more than 3 shots.

What exactly is your problem with the statement - that I said maybe on one that is less alcohol than the one I said will? Are you really just arguing semantics? That is getting pretty petty.


RE: Mick WTF?
By ClownPuncher on 12/20/2013 2:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
Your math is ... wrong.

First, a 1.5 oz shot is not 1.5 shots. It's one.

Second, a 3% increase in alcohol content and a 183% increase in volume does not equal a 300% increase in intoxicating effects.


RE: Mick WTF?
By Rukkian on 12/20/2013 3:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
1 shot equals the equivalent of a 12oz beer with 4%.

12oz X .04 = 0.48
22oz X .07 = 1.54
.48 X 3 = 1.44

According to my math, a 22oz 7% craft beer does equal more than 3 times the amount of a 12 oz 4% beer. From this, it does seem that a 22oz 7% beer is more than 3 shots.

Maybe the math is wrong, but if it is, please point out where I went wrong.


RE: Mick WTF?
By SAN-Man on 12/19/2013 5:20:57 PM , Rating: 3
And this is why religious fundamentalists should be called out, ignored, shunned and have no ability to impact social policy. They're insane.

Game. Set. Match.


RE: Mick WTF?
By dgingerich on 12/19/2013 6:53:37 PM , Rating: 2
What does this have to do with religion?


RE: Mick WTF?
By Jeffk464 on 12/19/2013 6:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Debbie Hersman says there's "no silver bullet" for drunk driving


Sure there is its google's self driving cars, it also solves the problem of texting while driving, eating a hamburger while driving, driving hung over, driving drowsy, etc.


RE: Mick WTF?
By Jeffk464 on 12/19/2013 6:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
I also remember a story where Mercedes was talking about putting passive alcohol detectors in every car.


RE: Mick WTF?
By NesuD on 12/20/2013 5:00:19 AM , Rating: 2
Oh god such am idiot! There are no statistically valid studies that prove people under .08 bac pose a greater risk than those with 0 bac.


RE: Mick WTF?
By Fidget on 12/20/2013 9:33:59 AM , Rating: 2
"For many people, it isn't" And for many people it is. Just what we need, more blanket laws catering to the lowest common denominator so that all may suffer equally. Thanks!


RE: Mick WTF?
By FITCamaro on 12/20/2013 10:53:20 AM , Rating: 2
Uh no. After a single drink (and I drink liquor, not beer), I am not impaired or even buzzed. I shouldn't be put in jail and forced to have an ignition interlock forever because some idiot is opposed to me having a drink.

This would essentially eliminate all drinking outside the home. Since how would you be able to go out to dinner or to a bar and have even a single drink anymore.

I'm against drunk driving as much as anyone. But this will do nothing but turn a bunch of unimpaired people into criminals. Who's brother, sister, cousin, or other relative owns or is invested in a business that sells ignition lockouts and is pushing this crap.


RE: Mick WTF?
By tng on 12/20/2013 1:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, there are many countries that have a ZERO tolerance law and while that may come to pass here in the US I don't think it will pass for the reasons you think.

Despite what is said about the victims, the BAC will drop just for the extra revenue it will bring in.

DUI has become an industry for many municipalities in the US.

I see this from the other side. It is a tax on the poor. People who can't afford the best specialty lawyers to get out of a DUI often pay the equivalent of their yearly salary just in fines.


RE: Mick WTF?
By sorry dog on 12/22/2013 1:05:31 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you are going to drink on your lunch break, try to find a place to walk too. This isn't about freedom. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege granted at the state level, not a right. The use of roadways, interstates, etc, is a right because our tax dollars paid for it.


I beg to differ. Flying an airplane is a privilege or using your parents beach condo is a privilege, but car travel is the primary and sometimes the only means of getting to most places.

While it may be legally stated as a privilege, that is mainly to allow things like license fees and speeding tickets to collect revenue. Except in a few large cities, not having access to a car severely limits a person's way of life. This is now so firmly entrenched in American life that even you went Forrest Gump and ran everywhere, the police would be harassing you early and often. Cops know full well that running the ID of the bum who doesn't have a car or anybody to drive him will likely turn up a joint and few outstanding warrants.

Now I've lived in China and Europe for a few short stints and did just fine without driving, but I would not be able to do so here and still keep any of the jobs I've had in the last 20 years. No job = No Money. And no money = no freedom (or very little anyway except to beg for money)

This is really such a lopsided argument that when somebody actually takes the legal meaning of "privilege" at face value that strike at that troll bait everytime.


RE: Mick WTF?
By FITCamaro on 12/23/2013 7:14:32 AM , Rating: 2
No driving is a privilege just like anything else. We have no inherent right to drive in the US. No state has made that a right as far as I'm aware.

The issue here is whether or not we make having a single drink a crime.


"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki