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.

So outside of those parameters you don't think anyone should be field tested?

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.

 

You can't have it both ways. The only way this will ever work is go to .00 (.02 for arguments sake). Or, force the testing.

 

For everyone that doesn't know, in KY when you sign for your license you give your implied consent that you will consent to alcohol testing if you get arrested for DUI and what I am suggesting is that the state should force everyone to be tested like they agreed to.

But with that said we agree . In a utopian society we could also afford better public transportation which would limit DUIs much more than lowering the limit . My main concern is the reaction of some to solve all issues with more laws. If in the private sector people put pressure on car companies to put the test in cars that would solve the problem much more than lowering the limit. Is it full proof ? Nope. But I guarantee a lot less people sleep through cracks . The idea that punishment is always the best answer annoys me.

You can't have it both ways. The only way this will ever work is go to .00 (.02) for arguments sake. Or, force the testing.

 

For everyone that doesn't know, in KY when you sign for your license you give your implied consent that you will consent to alcohol testing if you get arrested for DUI and what I am suggesting is that the state should force everyone to be tested like they agreed to.

 

 

 

Im not fully convinced it should be below .08 yet because I don't see risk/reward analysis as fruitful. I'm fine with current system of those who refuse lose license. I think a fella can have a couple pops after work and go home just fine .

 

I'll add another wrench because its what I do best . If we would enact a zero tolerance policy what would be the economic impact to our bar/restaurant industry.

So outside of those parameters you don't think anyone should be field tested?

 

I don't think you should be forced to incriminate yourself but if you refuse you should be arrested.

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.

How many murders have people between .04-.06 committed in a given year.

How many murders have people between .04-.06 committed in a given year.

Don't know what that stat is or if is even kept.

Don't know what that stat is or if is even kept.

 

I think it would be a good one to have before we restrict citizens even further. My main point to you basically is the burden of proof is on the government regardless the crime.

How many murders have people between .04-.06 committed in a given year.

Found this from Illinois

From the first drink, alcohol affects coordination and judgment. Even with a BAC well below .08, a person’s reaction time slows. The risk of

being in a crash begins to climb with a BAC between .04 and .05 and increases rapidly thereafter. By the time a driver reaches a BAC of .06, he/she is twice as likely to be involved in a fatal crash as a non-drinking driver. By the time a driver reaches a BAC of .08, he/she

is 11 times more likely to be killed in a single-vehicle crash than a non-drinking driver.

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a118.pdf

Found this from Illinois

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a118.pdf

 

Who was study done by and still doesn't answer my question . I like raw data not influenced studies as Guru stated earlier.

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.

 

PBT's are simply used to show the presence of alcohol. Like guru said, any police officer who knows what he/she is doing wouldn't really need one anyways.

 

What alphabet test have you heard about?

 

The current testing mainly consists of three tests.

 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/sfst/appendix_a.htm

PBT's are simply used to show the presence of alcohol. Like guru said, any police officer who knows what he/she is doing wouldn't really need one anyways.

 

What alphabet test have you heard about?

 

The current testing mainly consists of three tests.

 

U.S. Department of Transportation - NHTSA - Development of a Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) Training Management System - Appendix A - DOT HS 809 400 - November 2001

 

Can't pull link. But I feel we all know the legendary backward alphabet test.

Can't pull link. But I feel we all know the legendary backward alphabet test.

 

I'd struggle with that sober.

 

Can't pull link. But I feel we all know the legendary backward alphabet test.

 

I've never heard of any police officer giving the backwards alphabet test.

 

An example of an actual alphabet test would be to ask the person to recite the alphabet starting with the letter J and ending with the letter U.

I've never heard of any police officer giving the backwards alphabet test.

 

An example of an actual alphabet test would be to ask the person to recite the alphabet starting with the letter J and ending with the letter U.

 

It may be phased out now, but I had it happen to me about 20 years ago. Nailed it, amazingly enough, but I'm a words guy.

 

Otherwise, I have issues with the "one-size-fits-all" methods of determining drunkenness that come from BAC tests. I also have issues with the "driving test" that some police departments will do as a scare tactic with kids using "beer goggles" designed to replicate drunkenness. I find those to be flat-out garbage and wholly unreliable. If you want to do it right, get the kids drunk and cut them loose on a controlled course. Reason? Not everyone reacts to alcohol ingestion the same way.