Bill 26 passes today, breathalyzer challenge #2

[Guillermo]

Originally posted by rage2

I dunno how he got that from the article. Here's how many drinks it took (estimated) to hit 0.05. Did some extrapolation from the data, since we only measured every once in a while.

Subject 1 - Around 2 drinks in 30 minutes
Subject 2 - Around 2 drinks in 30 minutes
Subject 3 - Around 4 drinks in 1 hour
Subject 4 - Around 6 drinks in 1 hour
Subject 5 - Around 5 drinks in 1 hour
Subject 6 - Around 8 drinks in 1.5 hours
Subject 7 - Never hit 0.05 (stopped at 8 drinks in 1.5 hours)
Subject 8 - Never hit 0.05 after 12 drinks in 2 hours

oh, i see what R-Audi was saying then. nevermind, i thought he meant something different.;

[Maxt]

Originally posted by bourge73
Nobody should ever Drink and Dive its just plain dangerous.

The mask and snorkel get in the way.

[Merritt]

Or just don't drink at all.

[chkolny541]

^i like your avatar

[SKR]

Originally posted by lasimmon


I totally agree with you. Which is why I dont dive after more then 1 drink. I would just like to see someone get more then 2 years in jail for killing someone while driving drunk

Why stop there? Treat all unsafe drivers the same.

I'll never understand why if someone fucks up, it matters if they're drunk or not. Everybody wants the drunk guy to go to jail. Nobody gives a fuck about the guy who's just a shitty driver.

[J-D]

Thought this was interesting. (From Transport Canada)

[SKR]

Should that be "Relative Likelihood of a Crash Being Fatal", instead of "Relative Likelihood of Fatal Crash"?

[JVR1]

What unit of measure is the " relative likelihood of fatal crash"?

[Guillermo]

^^it's relative so is dimensionless (no units), but the real question is "relative to what?" i assume they mean sober vs. impared drivers, but I would be interested in seeing how they collect data on how many times drunks drive without getting in accidents - esp fatal ones.

EDIT: that is a terrible figure and was obviously made to deceive people into thinking they are giong to die if they drive with a BAC over 0.1. you would think the people putting this crap out would at least try to make it look less like propaganda and more like real science.

[JVR1]

Originally posted by Guillermo
EDIT: that is a terrible figure and was obviously made to deceive people into thinking they are giong to die if they drive with a BAC over 0.1. you would think the people putting this crap out would at least try to make it look less like propaganda and more like real science.

pretty much my point but i thought i would ask first.

[Sugarphreak]

..

[Guillermo]

^^yea it looks like the one the skeptics use, which shows temperatures since 1998 only, and that temperatures are declining... however if you look at a longer record, you'll notice that 1998 was the highest year on record ever, AND a regression from earlier in time shows that temps are still increasing. to the Big Oil propaganda machine.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[googe]

According to a study from Yale University, your ability to drive improves at 0.04.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Dri...103072231.html

I think the big problem with this test was that it didn't test anything. Asking people if they feel like they should drive is pretty meaningless. Try the test with a placebo next time too

I think the limit is 0.08 because BAC is not an indicator of impairment. It may be the case that 0.05 is too high for some people, but with penalties as harsh as they are, it has to be high enough to make damn sure that anybody over the limit is in fact impaired.

It is refreshing to see a cop agree that worrying about "two drinks over dinner" is ridiculous though. Certain people on this forum used to imply that those of us who do that are evil murderers.

Personally I am fine with changing laws as long as it is done based on science, not politics or knee-jerk reaction laws named after some MADD woman's daughter. The fact is there are things far more dangerous than drinking and driving (such as texting and driving, for example) and we don't have a witch hunt going after that.

Do you think that there exists any human who can drive better at 0.05, than a sober 70 year old woman with poor eyesight, weak reflexes, and slow reaction time? If so, you can't reasonably call the drunk dude a criminal and a murderer and the old lady not.

I have personally endangered far more lives by driving tired than I ever have by driving after a few drinks. Has anyone ever nodded off and hit the rumble strips? Congratulations, you're a worse human than anyone who ever drives at 0.05, and therefore you should go to jail.

(I am not proud of having driven tired, but trying to make a point that I think many drivers can probably relate to)

Kind of funny, anyone who has ever driven through Utah will be aware that they have no billboards about drunk drivers - they have an anti-tired-driving campaign instead. Rather than saying drunk driving kills, their signs say fatigued driving kills

[krazykhoja]

I wouldn't mind trying this experiment with my friends. Rage where did you buys yours from? I'm assuming there isn't a place you can rent these from haha.

Would be eye-opening to see what you actually blow compared to how you feel. I would say I can handle my alcohol very well, and would like to see where the BAC hits 0.05 in terms of drink #'s

[Kobe]

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/BACtrack-S75-...ht_4352wt_1163

Just bought this becuase of you Rage2..

FUUUUUUUU


Can't wait to try it out!