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.

Yeah that's a well thought out and reasoned plan...can't imagine your outrage if a local school proposed getting 16 and 17 year olds drunk.

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.

In a utopian society, we would not need alcohol to make us feel better either, we would just need and want water. In a utopian society, no one would drink and drive and put anyone including themselves at risk.

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

Here is info from link

APPENDIX A

Standardized Field Sobriety Testing

 

The Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) is a battery of three tests administered and evaluated in a standardized manner to obtain validated indicators of impairment and establish probable cause for arrest. These tests were developed as a result of research sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and conducted by the Southern California Research Institute. A formal program of training was developed and is available through NHTSA to help law enforcement officers become more skillful at detecting DWI suspects, describing the behavior of these suspects, and presenting effective testimony in court. Formal administration and accreditation of the program is provided through the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). The three tests of the SFST are:

 

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN),

Walk-and-Turn (WAT),

and One-Leg Stand (OLS).

 

These tests are administered systematically and are evaluated according to measured responses of the suspect.

HGN Testing

 

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus is an involuntary jerking of the eye that occurs naturally as the eyes gaze to the side. Under normal circumstances, nystagmus occurs when the eyes are rotated at high peripheral angles. However, when a person is impaired by alcohol, nystagmus is exaggerated and may occur at lesser angles. An alcohol-impaired person will also often have difficulty smoothly tracking a moving object. In the HGN test, the officer observes the eyes of a suspect as the suspect follows a slowly moving object such as a pen or small flashlight, horizontally with his or her eyes. The examiner looks for three indicators of impairment in each eye: if the eye cannot follow a moving object smoothly, if jerking is distinct when the eye is at maximum deviation, and if the angle of onset of jerking is within 45 degrees of center. If, between the two eyes, four or more clues appear, the suspect likely has a BAC of 0.08 or greater. NHTSA research found that this test allows proper classification of approximately 88 percent of suspects (Stuster and Burns, 1998). HGN may also indicate consumption of seizure medications, phencyclidine, a variety of inhalants, barbiturates, and other depressants.

Walk and Turn

 

The Walk-and-Turn test and One-Leg Stand test are "divided attention" tests that are easily performed by most unimpaired people. They require a suspect to listen to and follow instructions while performing simple physical movements. Impaired persons have difficulty with tasks requiring their attention to be divided between simple mental and physical exercises.

 

In the Walk-and-Turn test, the subject is directed to take nine steps, heel-to-toe, along a straight line. After taking the steps, the suspect must turn on one foot and return in the same manner in the opposite direction. The examiner looks for eight indicators of impairment: if the suspect cannot keep balance while listening to the instructions, begins before the instructions are finished, stops while walking to regain balance, does not touch heel-to-toe, steps off the line, uses arms to balance, makes an improper turn, or takes an incorrect number of steps. NHTSA research indicates that 79 percent of individuals who exhibit two or more indicators in the performance of the test will have a BAC of 0.08 or greater (Stuster and Burns, 1998).

 

One Leg Stand

 

In the One-Leg Stand test, the suspect is instructed to stand with one foot approximately six inches off the ground and count aloud by thousands (One thousand-one, one thousand-two, etc.) until told to put the foot down. The officer times the subject for 30 seconds. The officer looks for four indicators of impairment, including swaying while balancing, using arms to balance, hopping to maintain balance, and putting the foot down. NHTSA research indicates that 83 percent of individuals who exhibit two or more such indicators in the performance of the test will have a BAC of 0.08 of greater (Stuster and Burns, 1998).

Combined Measures

 

When the component tests of the SFST battery are combined, officers are accurate in 91 percent of cases, overall, and in 94 percent of cases if explanations for some of the false positives are accepted (Stuster and Burns, 1998).

 

The original NHTSA research found different accuracies for the SFST Battery than reported in the more recent study. Tharp, Burns, and Moskowitz (1981) reported accuracies of 77 percent for the HGN, 68 percent for the Walk and Turn, and 65 percent for the One Leg Stand components; 81 percent of officers' arrest decisions at 0.10 BAC were correct when all three measures were combined. In contrast, Stuster and Burns (1998) found greater accuracies in making arrest decisions on the basis of SFST results in their study at 0.08 percent BAC, as described previously and summarized in the following table.

 

Was sitting at a store parking lot and watched local police giving a sobriety test and they used the three test above and then PBT. Was sitting close enough to hear most of what was said, driver was not asked to recite backwards ABC's by the way.

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

Who would you accept raw data from, this is data put out by the State of Illinois. It's not MADD, it appears to be data gleaned from actual accident statistics.

 

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.

 

Alot has changed in 20 years.

Yeah that's a well thought out and reasoned plan...can't imagine your outrage if a local school proposed getting 16 and 17 year olds drunk.

 

Or worse, the local police.

 

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.

 

What issues do you have with the standardized field sobriety tests?

You have still failed to address the issue, it is one to one to one. Not two to one to one. And, they are taking the extreme side of the argument. In short, it is a scare tactic. Total bias.

 

It is a shame too, there is nothing wrong with stating the "facts" straight down the middle, it would still make a compelling case to lower the limit.

 

Just stating what I heard on the radio...and yes you are right that's usually the accepted model, 1 beer=1 wine=1shot, but again that's on average. Was at a conference last week and had a couple of pineapple juice and vodkas at a reception after meetings one night...let me tell you, just one of those drinks was WAAAY stronger than one beer. After two of them, just like Pink Floyd, I was feeling "comfortably numb". So in no way did that experience meet the usual "model". And sorry, forgot what you had put in your first post, got wrapped up in other aspects of our discussion.:isurrender:

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.

 

Then to that business man or woman, I say this: Either have someone else drive, or don't drink. It's not a hard concept for them to understand or follow through on. For those can't follow those simple rules, then maybe there are other issues going on that should be addressed.

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 been asked to do it twice. (For the record, in both cases I hadn't had anything to drink and passed the tests.)

 

Once was in '01...Highland Heights police. Had to recite the entire alphabet backwards. The next time was probable either '05 or '06...Fort Mitchell Police. I had to recite a select set of letters (like your example of J through U) backwards.

Just stating what I heard on the radio...and yes you are right that's usually the accepted model, 1 beer=1 wine=1shot, but again that's on average. Was at a conference last week and had a couple of pineapple juice and vodkas at a reception after meetings one night...let me tell you, just one of those drinks was WAAAY stronger than one beer. After two of them, just like Pink Floyd, I was feeling "comfortably numb". So in no way did that experience meet the usual "model". And sorry, forgot what you had put in your first post, got wrapped up in other aspects of our discussion.:isurrender:

 

Its all good Big Man.

In a utopian society, we would not need alcohol to make us feel better either, we would just need and want water. In a utopian society, no one would drink and drive and put anyone including themselves at risk.

 

I don't want to live in your utopian society without bourbon or beer no thanks.

Alot has changed in 20 years.

 

I'm guessing a lot has changed in two years because before I moved out of the state a couple years ago I can tell you a few police departments who had officers doing the backward test in NKY. May not be sanctioned but it still goes on. Which goes back to my point.

Yeah that's a well thought out and reasoned plan...can't imagine your outrage if a local school proposed getting 16 and 17 year olds drunk.

 

I didn't say anyone would go for it. But if you really want to do it correctly, that's the only way. Not those ridiculous beer goggles.

Or worse, the local police.

 

They're the ones who put on those demonstrations.