Is there a stat that can be shown what number of deaths are due to people with .05% bac? I just don't like stricter laws without proof the penalties put forth are worth it . I know this is study says it would decrease deaths by 500-800 but the calculation is flawed. I want raw data that shows x number of accident were caused by people with bac between .02% -.08%.

 

I personally agree if your going out for the night cab it don't be a moron. But I worry about the business man or woman who has 2-3 drinks for happy hour after work. .05% drivers aren't the problem. The problem is with people who drink a 12 pack and drive.

 

Every person is different, and circumstances can be different for people in different situations....how much you eat, medicines you may be on, hydration levels. You never know when the perfect storm is set up. Why wait to be a statistic?

Every person is different, and circumstances can be different for people in different situations....how much you eat, medicines you may be on, hydration levels. You never know when the perfect storm is set up. Why wait to be a statistic?

 

Very simple the system set up now is flawed and I don't think law enforcement needs more rope to hang us with. Almost all fatal accidents if not all that I have read is drivers well above .08%. How is lowering it stopping those morons.

 

Again a huge beef of mine is the breathalyzers in the field. They are a flawed tool.

We also aren't addressing how unreliable field breathalyzers are. There is a reason they can't be used in court . Lowering the bar on those scares me.

 

I was addressing why .02 works better than .00 because it eliminates the cough medicine defense.

 

And field breathalyzers are extremely accurate if used properly. Furthermore, the Intoxilyzer (which is the evidence used in court, not the field testers) utilizes a much superior technology and it still provides an accurate result no matter how it is used. In other words, in the field you really have to know what you are doing, but a monkey could get an accurate result with an Intoxilyzer.

Again a huge beef of mine is the breathalyzers in the field. They are a flawed tool.

 

Assuming they are used properly please explain how they are flawed?

I'm kind of with Lipton here. I tend to think that if someone is driving recklessly then they should be arrested or lose their license temporarily, no matter what reason they are doing it.

I'm kind of with Lipton here. I tend to think that if someone is driving recklessly then they should be arrested or lose their license temporarily, no matter what reason they are doing it.

 

I am missing where Lipton is suggesting that?

I am missing where Lipton is suggesting that?

 

No, that's just my take, but I'm with him on the resistance to widening the DUI law in that it just seems like more laws for the sake of laws.

I was addressing why .02 works better than .00 because it eliminates the cough medicine defense.

 

And field breathalyzers are extremely accurate if used properly. Furthermore, the Intoxilyzer (which is the evidence used in court, not the field testers) utilizes a much superior technology and it still provides an accurate result no matter how it is used. In other words, in the field you really have to know what you are doing, but a monkey could get an accurate result with an Intoxilyzer.

But aren't those just used along with field sobriety test to determine PC and actual charges would be based off of Intoxilyzer or blood test.

Assuming they are used properly please explain how they are flawed?

 

You mean besides the dozens of studies that show them to be inaccurate. If they were reliable then they could be used in court . Not to mention the laughable field soberity tests cops use . We do not need to lower it to .05 because cops can arrest people now who blow below .08 in the field if they fail those tests.

 

I never questioned the machines used back at the station. But you can argue until your blue in the face field breathalyzers are flawed . I know we won't agree I know your former profession. But even if you don't agree with the studies you have to ask why they can't be used in court.

No, that's just my take, but I'm with him on the resistance to widening the DUI law in that it just seems like more laws for the sake of laws.

 

Exactly. There is no epidemic this law would solve.

You mean besides the dozens of studies that show them to be inaccurate. If they were reliable then they could be used in court . Not to mention the laughable field soberity tests cops use . We do not need to lower it to .05 because cops can arrest people now who blow below .08 in the field if they fail those tests.

 

I never questioned the machines used back at the station. But you can argue until your blue in the face field breathalyzers are flawed . I know we won't agree I know your former profession. But even if you don't agree with the studies you have to ask why they can't be used in court.

 

The readings can be inaccurate because many officers don't understand how they work, how to use them correctly, and their departments don't always keep them calibrated correctly. In my 20 years of using PBTs (Portable Breath Testers) in the field I found them to be extremely accurate. It is not the instrument, it is the users.

 

As far as why they can't be used in court, it is because too many officers have their head you know where. I will say this, I have heard several judges quietly ask what the PBT reading was.

 

PBTs are a lot like polygraphs, the results are subject to the quality of the administrator. Polygraphs are not able to be used in court either but with the proper polygraph examiner I believe they are very accurate.

 

I agree some of the field sobriety tests need some work too. There has been a push for a long time to standardize the field tests.

But aren't those just used along with field sobriety test to determine PC and actual charges would be based off of Intoxilyzer or blood test.

 

Yes but any officer worth his salt never relies on a PBT to make an arrest. And like I have mentioned, it is the users not the instrument.

 

And to echo Lipton, if an officer makes a "Bad" arrest based on a PBT it could still cost the arrested thousands of dollars and even then they may get stuck with a lower charge on their record.

The readings can be inaccurate because many officers don't understand how they work, how to use them correctly, and their departments don't always keep them calibrated correctly. In my 20 years of using PBTs (Portable Breath Testers) in the field I found them to be extremely accurate. It is not the instrument, it is the users.

 

As far as why they can't be used in court, it is because too many officers have their head you know where. I will say this, I have heard several judges quietly ask what the PBT reading was.

 

PBTs are a lot like polygraphs, the results are subject to the quality of the administrator. Polygraphs are not able to be used in court either but with the proper polygraph examiner I believe they are very accurate.

 

I agree some of the field sobriety tests need some work too. There has been a push for a long time to standardize the field tests.

 

The alphabet test I hear about is questionable at best. But guru we will agree to disagree . They are not allowed in court because their results are no where close to being in scientific accuarcy range needed.

 

But even if you were right and we could just blame user error that alone is enough for me not to lower the limit.

Yes but any officer worth his salt never relies on a PBT to make an arrest. And like I have mentioned, it is the users not the instrument.

 

And to echo Lipton, if an officer makes a "Bad" arrest based on a PBT it could still cost the arrested thousands of dollars and even then then may get stuck with a lower charge on their record.

 

Which is why I don't want to make it easier for a mistake to happen and cost someone thousands of dollars.

The alphabet test I hear about is questionable at best. But guru we will agree to disagree .

 

I thought we agreed on this point?