Drunk Driving... Things we should know.

There didn't used to be a breathalyzer test - it was all subjective & the cop's call. Used to be, they'd follow you home in a small town - make sure you got there OK.

Then MADD started lobbying & pumping money into every two-bit politician's district so they could afford the new-fangled breathalyzers. A limit had to be determined - it was determined aribitrarily to be 0.12 initially - MADD lobbied to get it lower & a Federal statute was passed at 0.10 - states were forced to follow (do it or lose Federal Highway funding). MADD lobbied some more & many states have lowered it to 0.08 and many have different laws for different BACs all the way down to .04 now!

This really came of age w/cable TV (late 70s) if you think about it. The ability to reach the entire country 24hrs a day & the shock media frenzy, particularly in the last decade or so.

This is called precedent setting & is how our government bends us to its will. You establish a line in the sand & say "everything on this side of the line is bad" - you propagandize people until they accept it w/o question, then you move the line & start again, only this time it's easier because you've brain-washed people to believe the initial assumptions/concepts. The same concept has been used with speeding, drug testing, seatbelts, gun control etc. It is how our judicial system works - realize what the motivations are behind each of the players & you'll begin to understand the system a bit better.

For politicians & municipalities, it's a win-win situation - they can look good for cracking down on "dangerous drunk drivers" by lowering the BAC threshold AND raise revenues - all the while, our streets really are no safer. Do you see accident rates going down? Nope. Do you see deaths due to alcohol related (no matter how phony the state) going down? Nope. Be sure to compare crimes per population (usually 100K or 1K) to get apples to apples - total # means diddly squat. The FBI UCR has all of this info...

I'm not condoning anything. Just pointing out facts & more to ponder for those logical thinkers out there...

 

Joe,,,now your talkin' about the flu

This all started because you got stopped for drinkin'

Yeah,I think anybody talkin' on a cell phone while drivin' should be shot on sight!,,,,,and if they are drinkin',,,,shoot em twice!

I'm afraid you haven't learned from your mistake and are doomed to get busted again,,,,Joe,I hope I'm wrong.HRP

 

[ QUOTE ]
And I SERIOUSLY doubt someone who is "concentrating harder" on the drive home because they have been drinking is a safer driver!!

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think so? Maybe not in every case, to be sure...but I know for a fact that I watch my speed closer, leave more room between me and the car in front of me, and focus harder on driving straight after I've had a few...one who is consciously aware of the penalties tends to take the job more seriously!

(Stone sober, I tend to drive pretty close to the car in front of me, don't watch the speedometer much, and naturally tend to move around a little inside of my own lane when messing with the radio or something. I don't do any of those things after a few beers, though.)

You are right, of course, that different amounts affect different people in different ways. I had a cop buddy run me through a full field sobriety test (no breathalizer) after I'd been out drinking one night (he had just been drinking coffee) because he wanted to be sure I could drive home. After putting me through every test in the book, he declared "Shit, I couldn't even warrant probable cause to GIVE you a breathalizer test...you're good to go!". I wasn't drunk, as I had told him, but he wanted to be sure. I had drank maybe six beers or so over several hours, and we had gone out to breakfast afterwards.

(Don't know if the laws have changed since then, but at the time, a person could refuse a breathalizer as long as they agreed to take a field sobriety test, or series of test on the roadside. If they passed, the cop could not make them take the breathalizer, nor could they detain them further. And...let it be known that I'm no acrobat, I'm clumsy on my feet sober...physical dexterity is NOT what the field sobriety tests look for, contrary to popular belief!)

I know when I've had too much, and I've spent many nights on someone's sofa after a night of heavy drinking, but I feel okay driving home after a few...you just have to know YOUR personal limits, and not be too proud to admit when you're too plowed to drive...it's a responsibility thing.

 

[ QUOTE ]
You are taking a situation like drunk driving and relating it to things whos severity is nothing like drunk driving. Getting the flu? Are you kidding me???

[/ QUOTE ]

No...
Dead people is dead people is dead people...
100% quarantine would save MILLIONS of lives. (well.. maybe not millions, but alot)
I think it's a very valid arguement.

[ QUOTE ]
What happened to the poll post?

[/ QUOTE ]

RYAN said he had a bad day...

JOE

 

[ QUOTE ]
spent many nights on someone's sofa after a night of heavy drinking,

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not, most folks are still fairly impaired the morning after a night of heavy boozing. (Not picking on you Hack, just using your words cuz they're closest) Although you may not feel drunk (just in pain), your BAC can still be well over the legal limit. Here in the UK lots of drivers get done for drink driving the morning after...

All I'm saying here is, you are probably better off than if you had driven that night, but don't lull yourself into a false sense of security because you're awake!

Check out this link:
Drinkwheel

 

When I was in college, they installed breathalyzers in a lot of the bars. For $0.50, you could see if you were OK to drive - shit! They were inaccurate to begin with, but more importantly, they only created a contest!!

FWIW, most portable breathalyzers are not very accurate - even some of the ones the police use (not all, some are very accurate). Many can be fooled with a simple penny in your mouth - don't know why & even the experts swear it shouldn't work, but it does.

Another cool thing they used to do was have drunk driving days sponsored by the cops! They used to let you drink & drive a car around an orange cone obstacle course (in a wide open area!) to see the various effects of alcohol on you - sometimes it was done for studies, sometimes for education, but they used to have them about once a month (you had to provide a sober driver to get you home). It was interesting - some people did surprisingly well after large amounts of alcohol...

 

There's NO WAY that the company that supplies those 100,000 breathalyzers to law enforcement could be greasing the wheels of the legislative branch of our government... right?

By the way, for what I drank, when I got stopped, it tells me I should have been .006... WTF?
I kept trying (adding beers) and it says I can have 6 beers in three hours and be right at the line... BULLSHIT! If I do that I'm fucked.
That site will get you busted... which is the WHOLE idea.

JOE

 

Joe,the law is the law and all the bitchin' and cryin' by all of us don't change that fact!

We have all vented,,,,,,lets just let this subject die and get back to talkin' cars,,,,,O.K.? HRP

 

[ QUOTE ]
Right you are about driving tired, J-Dog! I know personally that I'm a terrible "tired driver"...why I don't like to drive at night if I can help it. (Unless there's someone in the car with me...I stay awake better if I'm talking to someone!).


[/ QUOTE ]

Right! Many times I've had a couple beers, I'll hang around an extra hour or two drinking water or eating some chips, then get in the car tired and drive like shit. I would have been a better driver 2 hours earlier with 2 beers in me.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll drive home after a few drinks, but I've had to pull my car over and sleep a while when trying to drive somewhere tired...it's just too big a risk. An hour or so spent sleeping in your car gives you enough rest to continue on your way, in my experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Greg, if the keys are in the ignition (or within your reach) when you stopped and slept, you could have gotten a ride in the back of a cop car, the law punishes you for being conscientious enough to know you shouldn't be driving.

'tard(dog, how about an intro?), data can be twisted to serve any purpose, like I said before, even using the data provided, 2/3rds of all traffic fatalities each year DO NOT involve alcohol. Somebody wants a silver bullet to solve the problem of people hitting and killing each other with cars.

I'm not advocationg drunk driving, but if M.A.D.D. was M.A.B.E. (Mothers against Blue Eyes) and they cried and pointed at drivers who got in accidents that had blue eyes, the amount of money they would raise would make sure there would never be anouther license issued with the eye color listed as "blue".

And, to answer your question, I've never gotten a DUI, I haven't even had a traffic ticket in 15 years.

 

The point that everyone should get from this story is not to go to court without a lawyer on anything. When I was 18 a friend wanted to follow him to a spot he was going to park his car so we could cruise togther in one car. While when he left the stoplight he took away a little fast to get in front of me. We drive 5 blocks having to stop at another stoplight and stoping again to make a left hand turn on a busy street (key word is busy, be very tough to race), park our cars and get out to talk a little when a state patrol car pulls up and turns on his lights. He is giving us both tickets for racing. I never got above 25 mph on this little drive but both our cars had tires, wheels, cams, headers & etc. so we must have been racing, hell he even called a back up. We weren't drinking, didn't have any beer nor were we getting any, but I think he thought we were drinkling and he was going to make a bust. Well I take this to court because his only eveidence is he heard us racing, no visual. We go to court and he tells the judge the same, no visual only heard and we were the only cars (it was a busy Saturday night) that could have made this noise. Well any way I asked the patrol man to descibe the noise, engine speed and so on. I also explaind that my car with 4.11 gears could sound like it was going faster than other cars but be going slower (although at the time in question it didn't even get above 25 mph). Any ways after all was said and done the judge asked me if my address was correct and that I would get the verdict in the mail. Well I have talked to several people that are involved with law since this has happened and I was told that the verdict should be told there and not received in the mail. Well the verdict was guilty, cost me points on the license, a big fine, high insurance rates and time off of a job. Should have had a lawyer. The thing is to get a fair verdict one should have a lawyer.

Again you should not drink and drive, or do others things to break the law, but sometimes you are innocent and if you don't have a lawyer you are assumed guilty. The other thing is even if you have made a mistake, to get a fair verdict that is in align with others who have made the same mistake, you should have a lawyer.

 

Sorry HRP, but this IS about cars.

We all KNOW the law, but do you know what the law can DO TO YOU, if you should happen to cross the line, regardless of where it's set or who set it or how you ended up straying from the path of righteousness and moral perpetuity?

No... I still want everyone to read this.
If it stops someone from making the same mistake(s), weather it's not to drink and drive at all, or just how to get through it without a blindfold, and be able to drive their HOT ROD to the HAMB Drags, then... hell yes... I want everyone to see it... and decide for themselves.

Both points of view are represented, here, and that's even better.

Yer, right, though...
I started this thread, last night, and have been here, defending my point and purpose since.
I don't think I can add much more, anyway.
So... I'll watch, and reply ONLY if I'm addressed.
Okay?


JOE

 

I never got a DUI back in my drinking days but my son did once. The court system here made him jump through hoops for 6 months. Random blood tests, weekly AA meetings, loss of license, classes etc etc.....all this while he was going to college and really needed a drivers license. He bought a 10 speed bike and while it was inconvenient as hell, he lived through the bullshit. But here's the kicker.......
He was busted when he was 18 and now he's 31....never drank again. He's never had to play the game since he quit drinking.
This is so simple. Don't drink.
If the horror stories posted here aren't enough to make you take a serious look at what can happen to you and your fellow motorists, maybe all these court-system inconveniences will...the system makes it very unpleasant for a good reason... a very, very good reason.
Not singling anybody out here because we've all drank and driven. I'm asking the guys that still do it to open their minds and take a really long honest look at yorself..HONEST LOOK!.........in private and while you're stone sober...
If you still drink and drive after reading this thread, maybe you got a problem with alcohol. I found I did and got help for it. Now, I don't have to worry about how to circumvent the system that's trying to keep drunk drivers off the road so I can drive my Pontiac coupe a little more safely. I don't have to worry about killing myself or fellow motorists because my judgement was impaired with alcohol [or drugs].
The roads are dangerous enough without impaired drivers adding to the danger.....

 

Not often a discussion like this lasts long enough (aka doesn't get deleted or locked) to wrap up. Thanks moderators...

 

I do have to say... No hard feelings K&R... (or anyone)

I'll buy you a beer and show you my scar, sometime...

Later Guys...

JOE

EDIT: Except you TerdDog... TMAN, I might want to borrow that cue, so I can do that hemorhoidectomy tech post, and I think I'd like to use our new friend for the purpose of demonstration..

 

The main point is this.....drinking and driving is illegal....opinions about the fairness are worthless...drink and drive...go to jail.....end of story.

 

Well said, Rocky.

[ QUOTE ]
If the horror stories posted here aren't enough to make you take a serious look at what can happen to you and your fellow motorists, maybe all these court-system inconveniences will...the system makes it very unpleasant for a good reason... a very, very good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll add this - the FBI UCR bears out the fact that DUIs are not affected by enforcement. You can't deter certain crimes no matter how draconian the punishment (DUI, drugs, murder are the 3 most unaffected by enforcement). One of the problems with DUI is, as we all know, alcohol affects your judgement & your ability to determine your level of impairment.

I think most people with a few brains understand that it is not a fair system. However, whether the system is fair or not is nearly irrelevant. You have to live/work within the system...

 

I'll pass on the scar, but let the beer flow

 

If you have lots of <font color="#00FF00"> MONEY </font> , the laws don't apply...good lawyers prove that everyday....just be sure to check your portfolio before drinking and driving

 

[ QUOTE ]
No... I still want everyone to read this.
If it stops someone from making the same mistake(s), weather it's not to drink and drive at all, or just how to get through it without a blindfold, and be able to drive their HOT ROD to the HAMB Drags, then... hell yes... I want everyone to see it... and decide for themselves.


[/ QUOTE ]
why make the mistake in the first place? everyone knows about drinking and driving. why risk it?

 

I too have been reading this all along. I have three points to make.

#1 Reguardless of what is right or wrong, I think the original post was intended as an informational post. Kind of a "What to expect if..." thing. I think its probably fair to believe all of us brake some law at some point. Sometimes we do it knowing we are wrong (anyone ever smoke the tires?) It is at least good know what to expect, and how to somewhat protect or lessen the impact to ourselves from our weak moments.

#2 We are all (nearly all?) old enough to know that some things simply are not fair. There are so many rules these days that were written with possible good intensions that miss their mark. We all have to live in this sociaty with all these stupid laws, even if we don't have the faintest idea why or who came up with some of them. Regardless of how we feel about these laws, we have to live and function within them, or pay what ever the price is for being disobeadent. It is and has always been a matter of following the rules or paying the price. If you get mad enough and get enough people behind you sometimes you can change the rules. Until then, accept the responsibility for crossing the line.

#3 At least with the DUI/DWI you know where the line is, even if it keeps moving. Whay bugs the hell out of me is when someone gets slammed for something without even knowing there was a line they crossed someplace.

It is not my job to judge anyone. Gene

 

The major motivation for lowering legal limits and raising fine amounts is the generation of more revenue for our government. Look at California in the late '70s, if you were pulled over while driving drunk you would probably be given a warning and told to walk or take a cab. If you were actually arrested, you would only face a few hours in the "tank", $300 - $500 fine and a couple of points on your drivers license. Basically a slap on the wrist.

Along come the early '80s and M.A.D.D., enforcement is boosted and penalties become comeserate (sp) with the crime.
If you are pulled over while driving drunk, you almost certainly will be arrested. If arrested, you will spend a few hours in the "tank" and face at least 3 days in jail and $1500 - $2000 in fines and have 2-3 points added to your driver's license. This, plus educational and media campaigns about the hazards of DUI had an effect. By the mid eighties, DUI convictions rates were actually coming down in California because fewer people were driving drunk. This was working.

However, there was another effect. DUI convictions have always been a good source of revenue for the state and local governments. Because the DUI conviction rate was down, the amount of revenue generated was now also down. The state and local governments did not like this effect. The state government saw an opprotunity to expliot the public sentiment against DUI that now existed. They proposed lowering the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) to .08, not because there was any new scientific evidence that showed that most people were impaired at that level, but soley beacause they wanted the ability convict more people of DUI and raise their conviction rate, thus increasing revenue. This is basically the equivalent of reducing a 55 mph speed limit to 50 mph for the sole reason that more people can be charged and convicted speeding. Not about safety, all about revenue.

Now days, DUI convictions are up, average BACs are down and fines are outrageous, as high as $10,000 - $20,000 for a first offense with no accident, no damage, no injury. High DUI penalties are much more about generating revenue than they are about safety.

I in no way condone DUI, however, I do belive that penalties should match the seriousness of the action and the seriousness of the results of that action. Arbitrarily lowering the legal BAC and Collecting $10,000 - $20,000 for an action that caused no injury or damage is in my opinion unfair and eccessive. This is an example of how our government veiws the public not as a body of people they serve, but as a resource to be harvested. They will continue to gouge us in the name of safety or anything else they can think of.

 

MIKE- That was beautifully put.

I know I said I wouldn't, but....

As I said in the first post. If you don't blow, they take your license and slap you with a hefty fine (But not DWI).
It's about the same as the penalty was 20 years ago when you actually were convicted of DWI.

If you DO blow, you subject yourself to a WHOLE new set of rules. Some of which affect your insurance rates more than others... But check the laws where you live...! It's their game, and you can win, but, it's up to you to learn the rules... As I learned the hard way.

----> HERE <----

This Appleton MADD office probably looks like Denise's basement on Calander Stuffing Day...

Okay... I'll shut-up now.


JOE

 

[ QUOTE ]
...This is an example of how our government veiws the public not as a body of people they serve, but as a resource to be harvested. ....

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because the so called government(s) are nothing but the biggest GANG in town. They can and do as they please, because they have the guns.

 

A bit of trivia, I heard the woman who started MADD got busted for DUI.!

 

People who think a DUI is an inconvenience really piss me off. I think they all should push the windshield out with their face &amp; bend the steering wheel over with their mouth, as a buddy if mine did, thanks to someone in a full-sized buick who "only had a couple".
People are that are some of the many reasons drinking does not appeal to me.

 

[ QUOTE ]
We have all been there...and those of us who say Oh no I've never drank and then got behind the wheel is a damn liar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never drank and got behind the wheel of a car. but then again, im only 23.........i drank (a lot) before i was allowed to drive...and when i was allowed to drive...by that time i realized i really liked the taste of soda/water/anything more than beer or alcohol. Honestly havent had a drink in god knows how long...nope not even on my 21st birthday. Still have beer sitting in the fridge from company 2 or 3 new years ago.

but then again......im no fun. i mean how many other people you know that dont drink just cuz they dont like the taste? haha.

now...heroin. thats somethign I can get into!

 

I quit drinking at 21. Because I found out I could act stupid sober, and still knew who to avoid the next day.

 

DrJ the woman who started MADD left MADD and has some bad things to say about the organization now. She started the organization to help reduce drunk driving, thus the slogan friends don't let friends drive drunk. What has happened is the organization has been taken over by a bunch of prohibitionists who want alcohol gone and the new slogan don't drink and drive was born. They would like nothing more then it to be even if you have a sip of a drink and get behind the wheel to be illegal. I don't agree with drunk driving but if you've had 2 or 3 drinks with dinner (really depends on the person here as to how it effects them) I don't think you are anymore a threat on the road then the soccor mom on her cell phone trying to drive.

 

There are varying degrees of drinking and driving.

Do I mind sharing the road with the guy who had 2 or 3 beers over 2 hours after getting off work (we'll call him "guy #1")?

Not really.

Do I want to share the road with the guy who's been chugging booze all night &amp; can barely stand up (guy #2)?

Of course not.

However, to put these 2 guys in the same category is unfair to the 1st. And I think that most would agree that it isn't guy #1 causing all of these alcohol-related mutliple-fatality accidents, it's guy #2.

I personally think the MAD mothers have gotten out of hand. They keep lobbying, and the legal limit keeps shrinking. When it gets to the point where you can't have A BEER without worrying about getting a DUI, and police officers are being given incentives for handing them out, I think that we've just exchanged one set of victims for another (DUI victims vs. the govt's victims). 4t6ford's friend is an example of this.

Anything can be taken too far.

And don't think that the government is playing along for any other reason other than money. More people arrested = more people paying them every month to be members of the mickey mouse club (probation). And Joe is right about them doing things in such a way as to trip you up, because the more you screw up, the more they can milk you for cash. And if you really screw up, they get to extend you membership &amp; keep you paying even longer!

I am by no means saying that truly irresponsible drinkers should be given free reign, but there are 2 sides to everything. I'm just saying that it isn't a black &amp; white issue like so many make it out to be.

 

Thanks Junkyard for the heads up advice. If I were one who drank and drove I would not let anyone on here know about it.