Jump to content


Photo

It should be legal to drive with any BAC.

water yeast malt hops drinking

  • Please log in to reply
288 replies to this topic

#241 davobrew

davobrew

    Comptroller of Triple Posts

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1029 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted 09 January 2012 - 07:59 PM

OK, just testing some boundaries here. Both Speeding and high BAC is illegal. You can detect speeding remotely, and without your consent to get caught. You cannot detect high BAC remotely so this cannot be enforced until another offence is committed.Is everyone OK with that. What if the likelihood of an accident was to occur with a high BAC was significantly higher that by speeding?
  • 0

#242 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 94472 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:02 PM

Isn't the whole point of our justice system that they have to prove that you committed the crime? BAC limits make it so they don't have to prove that you've committed a crime. They've made a law to make it illegal to potentially commit a crime.

This is the exact opposite of true. Driving while violating the BAC limit *is* the crime. In a way they've made impairment irrelevant and just said "people with this much alcohol in their blood aren't allowed to drive." And they have a nice, reliable and consistent way to measure that, so that people who don't have that much alcohol in their blood don't go to jail and people who do have that much do go to jail. This sounds great to me. I totally can figure out if I'm breaking the law or not, and no matter how much of an asshole some cop wants to be, if I blow under the limit, he can suck it.
  • 0

#243 miccullen

miccullen

    Cheap Blue Meanie

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 66862 posts
  • LocationSpokane, WA

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:03 PM

so you are a mutant unaffected by alcohol?
  • 0

#244 miccullen

miccullen

    Cheap Blue Meanie

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 66862 posts
  • LocationSpokane, WA

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:10 PM

The breathalyzer is a flawed device. As to your second statement, I'd like to see your proof.

https://www.nhtsa.go.../809-050pdf.pdf
  • 0

#245 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:11 PM

This is the exact opposite of true. Driving while violating the BAC limit *is* the crime. In a way they've made impairment irrelevant and just said "people with this much alcohol in their blood aren't allowed to drive." And they have a nice, reliable and consistent way to measure that, so that people who don't have that much alcohol in their blood don't go to jail and people who do have that much do go to jail. This sounds great to me. I totally can figure out if I'm breaking the law or not, and no matter how much of an asshole some cop wants to be, if I blow under the limit, he can suck it.

That's why I said "They've made a law to make it illegal to potentially commit a crime." Yes, I know it's illegal to drive with a BAC above .08. In my opinion that law is wrong because I don't think that's a crime.The breathalyzer is also not a device that measures alcohol in your blood. It measures trace amounts in your breath and extrapolates that to a BAC number. It's not reliable either. Any amount of food or drink (booze or not) in your mouth can screw it up. Eat a cracker and sip some fruit juice then take a test.

so you are a mutant unaffected by alcohol?

Yes. That's exactly what I've been saying.
  • 0

#246 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 94472 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:11 PM

Expanding further on my last post it's like speeding. The speed limit is 55, or 75 whatever. If you go faster than that you can get a ticket. It doesn't matter if you're a better driver than everyone else or you have a car built to go faster or there was no traffic or the air was super clear blah blah blah. The limit is posted, you violated it, end of story. Well, the BAC Limit is 0.08.
  • 0

#247 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:13 PM

https://www.nhtsa.gov.../809-050pdf.pdf

I'll look that over if I can tolerate it.
  • 0

#248 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:14 PM

Expanding further on my last post it's like speeding. The speed limit is 55, or 75 whatever. If you go faster than that you can get a ticket. It doesn't matter if you're a better driver than everyone else or you have a car built to go faster or there was no traffic or the air was super clear blah blah blah. The limit is posted, you violated it, end of story. Well, the BAC Limit is 0.08.

Would you feel the same way if the speed limit was 15 mph on I-25 between Denver and Ft Collins?
  • 0

#249 miccullen

miccullen

    Cheap Blue Meanie

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 66862 posts
  • LocationSpokane, WA

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:14 PM

if you are a mutant what's your super hero name Drunkerine?
  • 0

#250 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 94472 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:15 PM

Would you feel the same way if the speed limit was 15 mph on I-25 between Denver and Ft Collins?

Well, that's an interesting point. Do you know what the speed limit is between Denver and Ft Collins on I-25, and furthermore do you know what it was 15 years ago, and furthermore do you know why it is what it is now as opposed to what it was 15 years ago? :)....in other words what I am getting at is, that no I would not feel the same way, and neither would the vast, vast majority of people and there would be a lot of complaining and a lot of voting the bums out and ta-da! the speed limit gets raised.

Edited by the_stain, 09 January 2012 - 08:15 PM.

  • 0

#251 porter

porter

    Comptroller of Affairs with Potatoes

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14715 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:17 PM

To put it another way, I really don't like the idea of having to guess whether I've broken a law or not, or the idea that a police officer having a bad night might decide whether I've broken the law or not. Maybe it's my tech-geek nature but I am slightly more comfortable with the idea of a machine telling me if I broke the law or not. Then I can get the same machine and know for myself in advance whether I broke the law or not and not have to be worried about it.

I agree with this. Having something objective to determine whether you've broken the law is preferable. The current limit might be a shade on the cautious side for most of the population, but at least it is not capricious and haphazard. Not as capricious and haphazard as a law enforcement officer attempting to make a medical judgment, anyway.
  • 0

#252 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:17 PM

Well, that's an interesting point. Do you know what the speed limit is between Denver and Ft Collins on I-25, and furthermore do you know what it was 15 years ago, and furthermore do you know why it is what it is now as opposed to what it was 15 years ago? :)....in other words what I am getting at is, that no I would not feel the same way, and neither would the vast, vast majority of people and there would be a lot of complaining and a lot of voting the bums out and ta-da! the speed limit gets raised.

Well my barometer of what's right and what's wrong has nothing to do with what the majority of voters think. :P
  • 0

#253 miccullen

miccullen

    Cheap Blue Meanie

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 66862 posts
  • LocationSpokane, WA

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:20 PM

Well my barometer of what's right and what's wrong has nothing to do with what the majority of voters think. :P

really? nah!!
  • 0

#254 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:35 PM

I'll look that over if I can tolerate it.

Holy crap that's a rough read. It may take me weeks.
  • 0

#255 miccullen

miccullen

    Cheap Blue Meanie

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 66862 posts
  • LocationSpokane, WA

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:36 PM

Holy crap that's a rough read. It may take me weeks.

bureaucrats wrote itthere is a graph on page 8
  • 0

#256 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:39 PM

bureaucrats wrote itthere is a graph on page 8

What seems fishy to me is that they have to use so many equations to show what they're showing. Not that it's necessarily not legit, it just makes me want to dig a little deeper.
  • 0

#257 porter

porter

    Comptroller of Affairs with Potatoes

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14715 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:47 PM

What seems fishy to me is that they have to use so many equations to show what they're showing. Not that it's necessarily not legit, it just makes me want to dig a little deeper.

Figure 1 is for fatality rate in single vehicle crashes. This falls into the whether the state should protect people from themselves category. If so, 0.08; if not, ignore.Figure 2 is the relevant one. The inflection point for the legal drinking population is at 0.11-0.12, suggesting the current number is a bit conservative, as I opined earlier. If you are not going to pick the inflection point, you are left taking an infinite regress towards the origin: 0.
  • 0

#258 miccullen

miccullen

    Cheap Blue Meanie

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 66862 posts
  • LocationSpokane, WA

Posted 09 January 2012 - 08:56 PM

Figure 1 is for fatality rate in single vehicle crashes. This falls into the whether the state should protect people from themselves category. If so, 0.08; if not, ignore.Figure 2 is the relevant one. The inflection point for the legal drinking population is at 0.11-0.12, suggesting the current number is a bit conservative, as I opined earlier. If you are not going to pick the inflection point, you are left taking an infinite regress towards the origin: 0.

it goes from approximately 9% fatality at .09 to a very steep curve upward @ about .11, I am not OK with 9%
  • 0

#259 porter

porter

    Comptroller of Affairs with Potatoes

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14715 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs, CO

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:00 PM

it goes from approximately 9% fatality at .09 to a very steep curve upward @ about .11, I am not OK with 9%

Yes, that is why it's the inflection point. :) Also, it's not a 9% fatality rate; it's relative risk. Between 0.08 and 0.11, the RR barely rises at all. So, little justification for a BAC limit of 0.08 over 0.11.If no fatalities due to alcohol are acceptable to you (and I remember your story, so I am empathetic), then advocate for zero tolerance. But the current, prevalent policy makes little sense based on the government's data.
  • 0

#260 miccullen

miccullen

    Cheap Blue Meanie

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 66862 posts
  • LocationSpokane, WA

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:05 PM

Yes, that is why it's the inflection point. :) Also, it's not a 9% fatality rate; it's relative risk. Between 0.08 and 0.11, the RR barely rises at all. So, little justification for a BAC limit of 0.08 over 0.11.If no fatalities due to alcohol are acceptable to you (and I remember your story, so I am empathetic), then advocate for zero tolerance. But the current, prevalent policy makes little sense based on the government's data.

I sometimes think the .08 limit was brought down to increase revenue, which I really hate, the original MADD numbers IIRC was .10 which is more realistic however I still posit that anyone who thinks they are fine and dandy @ .08 should try a timed reaction test
  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: water, yeast, malt, hops, drinking

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users