Comments on: Driving while not in fact drunk

By: No Name Guy

No Name Guy — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:56:41 +0000

What John said about subjective.

The problem with so much of what passes for law today is that it IS subjective (the whole theft of honest services, for example, or the classic one of the dip congressman saying something to the effect that some BS law was deliberately ambigious so they wouldn’t give a road map for how to evade the law).

What ever else the problem with 0.10, 0.08, 0.05, etc there may be, at least its a clear, unambigious, digital definition of what is impermissable. If your BAC is at or over the threshold, then you’re impaired. If it’s not, then you’re not, at least in the legal definition.

Narrow, bright lines are what makes for understandable law. Of course, lawyers don’t like them….they can’t make big bucks if everyone understands the rules.

By: Dal

Dal — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 05:17:57 +0000

It was reduced in Australia in stages, it was .08 when I was a kid, then other states went to .05, then we followed. Of course they are now pushing for .02.

The problem with it that low is that it is easily possible to be over the legal limit without feeling impaired (or actually being impaired) and not something you can reliably self-test for before getting into the car.

By: Nezuji

Nezuji — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 04:47:57 +0000

A 0.05 BAC limit for driving has been the law in Australia for as long as I can remember (over 15 years); possibly even since chemical testing was introduced.

By: Ps

Ps — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 03:22:14 +0000

It will only be a matter of time before the police chief and state senator are caught driving with a BAC more than 0.05 at which point the argument will be dropped.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:10:40 +0000

The problem with physical tests is that they’re subjectively scored. One cop’s ‘wobbly’ could be another’s ‘solid’, especially if the other’s assessment was of his brother-in-law, fellow cop, or judge.

Of course, requiring that all tests be taped and shown to judges/juries might help resolve the problem. We’d have a ‘community standard’ (‘community’ being defined as ‘this jury’) of what would constitute ‘impaired’.

By: Samson Isberg

Samson Isberg — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:41:29 +0000

Agree with David – physical test should be the norm. My uncle had Huntington’s chorea and kept his driver’s license for years. Fortunately we lived in a rural environment and could jump in to the fields when we saw him coming. Cold sober he was, but fit for driving – no.

By: David

David — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:32:06 +0000

This is why I favor actual physical tests for impairment regardless of source of the impairment. We can argue all day about the meanings of various levels of various substances, but the rationale is to make driving safer and that need not be limited to a particular substance at a particular level but to a performance.

By: KDP

KDP — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:58:59 +0000

“.08 whole blood is the equivalent to .10 blood serum level bringing the law in line with the research done in the 1930’s in Germany.”

I’d reconsider using that type of statistic considering who was in charge of Germany for most of the ’30’s.

By: Platy

Platy — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:22:06 +0000

“Hospital BAC testing is done on serum and has to be converted for legal purposes.”

When I do blood warrants the police provide the tubes which they take with them for processing at their own lab. Our own lab reports carry a disclaimer that tox levels are not to be used for legal purposes because of chain of custody issues.

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:37:44 +0000

MADD’s original mission is complete. Only 12,000 families lost someone they love last year in a drunk driving accident. Why have they not pulled out a “Million Accomplished” banner and called it a day?