"Drunk Driving" Laws: The First Step Towards an American Tyranny

On Mar 19, 11:41 am, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article >, richard wrote:
>
> >It has been proven many times that a BAC of 0.08% is enough to
> >"impair" your driving risks.
>
> There are many ways to drive impaired that are quite legal. Why is blood
> alcohol content singled out?
Because it is easy to prove.

Note that there are very few DUI trials resulting in acquittal.


Michael

In article >, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>On Mar 19, 11:41 am, (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article >, richard wrote:
>>
>> >It has been proven many times that a BAC of 0.08% is enough to
>> >"impair" your driving risks.
>>
>> There are many ways to drive impaired that are quite legal. Why is blood
>> alcohol content singled out?

> Because it is easy to prove.

Actually since they usually do not use a blood test it's not.

> Note that there are very few DUI trials resulting in acquittal.

That was true of witch trials too, what's your point?

On Mar 19, 8:45 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article >, Michael Ejercito wrote:
> >On Mar 19, 11:41 am, (Brent P)
> >wrote:
> >> In article >, richard wrote:
>
> >> >It has been proven many times that a BAC of 0.08% is enough to
> >> >"impair" your driving risks.
>
> >> There are many ways to drive impaired that are quite legal. Why is blood
> >> alcohol content singled out?
> > Because it is easy to prove.
>
> Actually since they usually do not use a blood test it's not.
Have breath tests been shown to be unreliable?


Michael

Michael Ejercito wrote:
> On Mar 19, 8:45 pm, (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>>In article >, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 19, 11:41 am, (Brent P)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >, richard wrote:
>>
>>>>>It has been proven many times that a BAC of 0.08% is enough to
>>>>>"impair" your driving risks.
>>
>>>>There are many ways to drive impaired that are quite legal. Why is blood
>>>>alcohol content singled out?
>>>
>>> Because it is easy to prove.
>>
>>Actually since they usually do not use a blood test it's not.
>
> Have breath tests been shown to be unreliable?

Since you ask, yes. First of all the tests themselves only approximate
the actualy BAC; and secondly, BAC is only an approximate indicator of
actual impairment.

Again, if a driver is truly impaired he should be easy to spot; I'm
willing to take the "risk" of sharing the road with a driver at
0.080000001% BAC if that means not having to put up with checkpoints.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article >, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>On Mar 19, 8:45 pm, (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article >, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>> >On Mar 19, 11:41 am, (Brent P)
>> >wrote:
>> >> In article >, richard wrote:
>>
>> >> >It has been proven many times that a BAC of 0.08% is enough to
>> >> >"impair" your driving risks.
>>
>> >> There are many ways to drive impaired that are quite legal. Why is blood
>> >> alcohol content singled out?
>> > Because it is easy to prove.
>>
>> Actually since they usually do not use a blood test it's not.
> Have breath tests been shown to be unreliable?

Yes.

On Mar 20, 12:27*pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> Michael Ejercito wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 8:45 pm, (Brent P)
> > wrote:
>
> >>In article >, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
> >>>On Mar 19, 11:41 am, (Brent P)
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>In article >, richard wrote:
>
> >>>>>It has been proven many times that a BAC of 0.08% is enough to
> >>>>>"impair" your driving risks.
>
> >>>>There are many ways to drive impaired that are quite legal. Why is blood
> >>>>alcohol content singled out?
>
> >>> *Because it is easy to prove.
>
> >>Actually since they usually do not use a blood test it's not.
>
> > * *Have breath tests been shown to be unreliable?
>
> Since you ask, yes. *First of all the tests themselves only approximate
> the actualy BAC; and secondly, BAC is only an approximate indicator of
> actual impairment.
>
> Again, if a driver is truly impaired he should be easy to spot; I'm
> willing to take the "risk" of sharing the road with a driver at
> 0.080000001% BAC if that means not having to put up with checkpoints.
>

Not easy to spot. Sure, if someone is all over the place, that's easy
to spot - one day in downtown LA I had 4 close calls in evening rush
hour, one was blasting the wrong way down a one-way street. But more
often, you can't really spot them until they do something stupid.
There are paradoxical effects with alchohol, as some of what it is
depressing is the control of emotion, and some is the ability to
evaluate whether you are drunk. So you get people suddenly switching
from LLB to roadrageaholics. And there are quite different effects on
habitual drunks versus newbies. The habitual can maintain better,
even if blotto. And some people are just plain stupid and need to be
caught before they actually hurt someone else. There's simply too
many, and I've seen too many people hurt by them.

I do have a problem with checkpoints, but I have to say, they do more
good than harm, even if they **** me off. One time I was caught in
one on the way back from lunch in my then-new ZR1. I burned rubber
for 1/4 mile coming out of there, I'm sure they just laughed.

As far as the OP, check this out (I don't know if it is still true,
but given the way the law changes...):
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.tr...a79288022d19ab

This one set off my spidey-sense, too:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...20jenkins.html

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
"Authorities said they think alchohol may have been involved":
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...eaponssuv.html

jgar the jorrible wrote:
> On Mar 20, 12:27 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>>Michael Ejercito wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 19, 8:45 pm, (Brent P)
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>In article >, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Mar 19, 11:41 am, (Brent P)
>>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>In article >, richard wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>It has been proven many times that a BAC of 0.08% is enough to
>>>>>>>"impair" your driving risks.
>>
>>>>>>There are many ways to drive impaired that are quite legal. Why is blood
>>>>>>alcohol content singled out?
>>
>>>>> Because it is easy to prove.
>>
>>>>Actually since they usually do not use a blood test it's not.
>>
>>> Have breath tests been shown to be unreliable?
>>
>>Since you ask, yes. First of all the tests themselves only approximate
>>the actualy BAC; and secondly, BAC is only an approximate indicator of
>>actual impairment.
>>
>>Again, if a driver is truly impaired he should be easy to spot; I'm
>>willing to take the "risk" of sharing the road with a driver at
>>0.080000001% BAC if that means not having to put up with checkpoints.
>>
>
>
> Not easy to spot. Sure, if someone is all over the place, that's easy
> to spot - one day in downtown LA I had 4 close calls in evening rush
> hour, one was blasting the wrong way down a one-way street. But more
> often, you can't really spot them until they do something stupid.
> There are paradoxical effects with alchohol, as some of what it is
> depressing is the control of emotion, and some is the ability to
> evaluate whether you are drunk. So you get people suddenly switching
> from LLB to roadrageaholics. And there are quite different effects on
> habitual drunks versus newbies. The habitual can maintain better,
> even if blotto. And some people are just plain stupid and need to be
> caught before they actually hurt someone else. There's simply too
> many, and I've seen too many people hurt by them.

Your second to last sentence nails it. How many stupid people are
caught by checkpoints and breathalyzers?

> I do have a problem with checkpoints, but I have to say, they do more
> good than harm, even if they **** me off.

I've yet to see one credible cite that supports that assertion. Most
sources agree that the same number of officers doing roving patrols is
FAR more effective at actually getting drunk drivers and other dangerous
drivers off the road than checkpoints. They're just a feel-good measure
designed to let the public know that they're Doing Something About The
Problem.

nate

> One time I was caught in
> one on the way back from lunch in my then-new ZR1. I burned rubber
> for 1/4 mile coming out of there, I'm sure they just laughed.
>
> As far as the OP, check this out (I don't know if it is still true,
> but given the way the law changes...):
> http://groups.google.com/group/ba.tr...a79288022d19ab
>
> This one set off my spidey-sense, too:
> http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...20jenkins.html
>
> jg
> --
> @home.com is bogus.
> "Authorities said they think alchohol may have been involved":
> http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...eaponssuv.html


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Mar 20, 12:27 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> Michael Ejercito wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 8:45 pm, (Brent P)
> > wrote:
>
> >>In article >, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
> >>>On Mar 19, 11:41 am, (Brent P)
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>In article >, richard wrote:
>
> >>>>>It has been proven many times that a BAC of 0.08% is enough to
> >>>>>"impair" your driving risks.
>
> >>>>There are many ways to drive impaired that are quite legal. Why is blood
> >>>>alcohol content singled out?
>
> >>> Because it is easy to prove.
>
> >>Actually since they usually do not use a blood test it's not.
>
> > Have breath tests been shown to be unreliable?
>
> Since you ask, yes. First of all the tests themselves only approximate
> the actualy BAC; and secondly, BAC is only an approximate indicator of
> actual impairment.
Is there any evidence of this?

Has any defense lawyer representing a wealthy celebrity who was
accused of drunk driving ever tried this as a defense?


Michael

On Mar 20, 5:12 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> jgar the jorrible wrote:
> > On Mar 20, 12:27 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
> >>Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
> >>>On Mar 19, 8:45 pm, (Brent P)
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>In article >, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Mar 19, 11:41 am, (Brent P)
> >>>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>In article >, richard wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>It has been proven many times that a BAC of 0.08% is enough to
> >>>>>>>"impair" your driving risks.
>
> >>>>>>There are many ways to drive impaired that are quite legal. Why is blood
> >>>>>>alcohol content singled out?
>
> >>>>> Because it is easy to prove.
>
> >>>>Actually since they usually do not use a blood test it's not.
>
> >>> Have breath tests been shown to be unreliable?
>
> >>Since you ask, yes. First of all the tests themselves only approximate
> >>the actualy BAC; and secondly, BAC is only an approximate indicator of
> >>actual impairment.
>
> >>Again, if a driver is truly impaired he should be easy to spot; I'm
> >>willing to take the "risk" of sharing the road with a driver at
> >>0.080000001% BAC if that means not having to put up with checkpoints.
>
> > Not easy to spot. Sure, if someone is all over the place, that's easy
> > to spot - one day in downtown LA I had 4 close calls in evening rush
> > hour, one was blasting the wrong way down a one-way street. But more
> > often, you can't really spot them until they do something stupid.
> > There are paradoxical effects with alchohol, as some of what it is
> > depressing is the control of emotion, and some is the ability to
> > evaluate whether you are drunk. So you get people suddenly switching
> > from LLB to roadrageaholics. And there are quite different effects on
> > habitual drunks versus newbies. The habitual can maintain better,
> > even if blotto. And some people are just plain stupid and need to be
> > caught before they actually hurt someone else. There's simply too
> > many, and I've seen too many people hurt by them.
>
> Your second to last sentence nails it. How many stupid people are
> caught by checkpoints and breathalyzers?
>
> > I do have a problem with checkpoints, but I have to say, they do more
> > good than harm, even if they **** me off.
>
> I've yet to see one credible cite that supports that assertion. Most
> sources agree that the same number of officers doing roving patrols is
> FAR more effective at actually getting drunk drivers and other dangerous
> drivers off the road than checkpoints. They're just a feel-good measure
> designed to let the public know that they're Doing Something About The
> Problem.
>
Anyone who had a little to drink would avoid the checkpoints, even
going so far as to use residential streets.


Michael

In article >, jgar the jorrible wrote:

>Not easy to spot. Sure, if someone is all over the place, that's easy
>to spot - one day in downtown LA I had 4 close calls in evening rush
>hour, one was blasting the wrong way down a one-way street.

How do you know the driver was drunk and not just a MFFY arsehole? Most
wrong ways (driving and bicycling) are just idiots or MFFY.

> But more
>often, you can't really spot them until they do something stupid.

And having had to take 30mph surface streets because the cops had the
route to the expressway blocked with a checkpoint (no I didn't feel
like going a few miles out of my way to another ramp and I didn't
know the side streets of the area well enough to do an end run
around the checkpoint) last weekend was bad enough. More so that I hit a
pothole while I was watching something more hazardous (another driver)
made it even worse. Thankfully no damage but I had to pull the car on to
a side street and stop to see if a rim was bent or something... it
sounded and felt like a ball joint had busted...

I wasn't in the mood for police state comedy routine so I decided to
just avoid it.

>There are paradoxical effects with alchohol, as some of what it is
>depressing is the control of emotion, and some is the ability to
>evaluate whether you are drunk. So you get people suddenly switching
>from LLB to roadrageaholics. And there are quite different effects on
>habitual drunks versus newbies. The habitual can maintain better,
>even if blotto. And some people are just plain stupid and need to be
>caught before they actually hurt someone else. There's simply too
>many, and I've seen too many people hurt by them.

I don't feel like living in a place that feels like a soviet republic
because some people think they need to stop all the drunk drivers.

>I do have a problem with checkpoints, but I have to say, they do more
>good than harm, even if they **** me off. One time I was caught in
>one on the way back from lunch in my then-new ZR1. I burned rubber
>for 1/4 mile coming out of there, I'm sure they just laughed.

You're lucky they just laughed. If I did something like that I would be
arrested. I've had cops want to arrest me just for asserting my right to
use the road with a bicycle.