LB what method would you prefer for to be used to get drunks off of the road? Or would just as soon leave them out there and take your chances with them.

They are not allowed in court because their results are no where close to being in scientific accuarcy range needed.

 

At my department (back in the day) we put a lot of effort into making sure the PBTs were giving us accurate readings based off constant comparisons to Intoxilyzer results and our own testing at home when we drank which was often. This may seem funny or even silly to some of you but I am telling you we were very serious about the accuracy of the PBT. Maybe we had the best/most accurate brand of PBT.

 

I can tell you this, give me my old PBT and I could almost nail your Intoxilyzer reading every time. The only wildcard was if you were still on your way up or on your way down.

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

 

I agree we are on a slippery slope.

 

I also agree we don't need any studies produced by MADD or the Alcohol Industry. We need the politics out of any studies.

LB what method would you prefer for to be used to get drunks off of the road? Or would just as soon leave them out there and take your chances with them.

 

I feel soberity test need to be uniform and more accurate. We need better technology in the field. Until the current laws and enforcement are much closer to perfection I do not feel comfortable giving the government a broader net.

I thought we agreed on this point?

 

We did. Poor sentence structure on my behalf.

I agree we are on a slippery slope.

 

I also agree we don't need any studies produced by MADD or the Alcohol Industry. We need the politics out of any studies.

 

I agree. Biased studies lead to hysteria . The study being used here is silly. I don't think we are far apart on this .

 

To throw another wrench in this argument , I also believe the legal limit should be set by each state without the federal government bribing state governments with federal highway money. Its insane to me the federal government continues to force local laws holding hostage citizens tax money.

We did. Poor sentence structure on my behalf.

 

I think we actually agree on most points. Your above point to Jumper Dad is a good one too. In other words, we need better testing in the field (and better laws) before we cast a wider net.

 

My saying this is a good thing is premature. I need to rephrase it to say in a perfect world I think it is a good idea to lower the limit.

 

Hopefully one day in the not too distant future you will have police cars on the street with actual Intoxilyzers in them and the law will change from Implied Consent to Forced Testing on the spot during the traffic stop.

LB what method would you prefer for to be used to get drunks off of the road? Or would just as soon leave them out there and take your chances with them.

 

Do you think the 0.04, 0.05 or 0.06 drivers are the problem? 0.08 isn't stopping Lindsay Lohan...neither is 0.05.

I agree. Biased studies lead to hysteria . The study being used here is silly. I don't think we are far apart on this .

 

To throw another wrench in this argument , I also believe the legal limit should be set by each state without the federal government bribing state governments with federal highway money. Its insane to me the federal government continues to force local laws holding hostage citizens tax money.

 

Agree on all points.

Do you think the 0.04, 0.05 or 0.06 drivers are the problem? 0.08 isn't stopping Lindsay Lohan...neither is 0.05.

 

I guess the real question is at what point is the average person impaired? But the problem with that is we are talking in general terms about specific cases.

I guess the real question is at what point is the average person impaired? But the problem with that is we are talking in general terms about specific cases.

 

What is an "average person"?

What is an "average person"?

 

Like I said in the next sentence, there really is no such thing because everything is case/person specific.

I think we actually agree on most points. Your above point to Jumper Dad is a good one too. In other words, we need better testing in the field (and better laws) before we cast a wider net.

 

My saying this is a good thing is premature. I need to rephrase it to say in a perfect world I think it is a good idea to lower the limit.

 

Hopefully one day in the not too distant future you will have police cars on the street with actual Intoxilyzers in them and the law will change from Implied Consent to Forced Testing on the spot during the traffic stop.

 

The one area I struggle with is forced testing. Outside of instances where the driver caused harm to property or another person I don't know if they should self incriminate.

Like I said in the next sentence, there really is no such thing because everything is case/person specific.

 

Gotcha.

Do you think the 0.04, 0.05 or 0.06 drivers are the problem? 0.08 isn't stopping Lindsay Lohan...neither is 0.05.

 

And murder being against the law doesn't stop that either...maybe we should rescind murder laws as well.

 

Seriously though, the question should be what is a safe level not what is an inconvenience. Any level of impaired driving is unsafe for those that drive that way and those they share the road with. I don't know what that level is, it could be .04 or .06 but whenever impairment starts the driving should be stopped.

 

BTW there are plenty of people that want to follow the law and if the threshold was lowered many would make adjustment to their drinking/driving habits to be legal.