Impaired Driving Laws too Far Reaching?

[Rat Fink]

.

[ShermanEF9]

Came here for discussions about a wildly expensive car lease program, now im reading about effects of alcohol on ones system, and what they would blow at a checkstop?

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Beautiful, whimsical nonsense of yours quoted for posterity so anyone who views this thread can bathe in some hilarious bullshit.

[Rat Fink]

.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Literally each point you made is incorrect. For someone who is a self claimed expert you really know jack shit about it.



Nope, 15 minutes




Nope, .05 is “Immediate Roadside Sanctioms”. First offence is a 3 day licence and vehicle seizure with subsequent offences being longer seizures.



Sorry, but you are the one lacking the basic understanding...

You think I have some alcohol metabolizing issue which is hilarious. The time I referenced where I drank 8 shots of vodka to get to 0.10... I was at a course where an alcohol extrapolation expert gave me a “prescription” to drink that much to get to the 0.10-0.12 range. She did that with a room of 20 people who all reacted the same. The smaller people were given less to drink, etc but we all ended up on target with our breath results. This person does this course dozens of times each year with hundreds of people who react the same.

You also fail to realize there is a charge strictly for impaired driving, and there is a separate charge based on the “per se” limit of being over 0.08. A person who is below the limit can still be charged for impaired driving based on driving evidence. Driving over .08 has been established based on decades of research that has determined that EVERYONE has impairment at that level. Alcohol is the most heavily researched drug in existence and there are multiple studies and thousands of court cases that have supported this beyond your seat of the pants “facts” you claim but don’t reference. Go to canlii.org and read up on case law. Someone driving impaired who also provides a breath sample over .08 is charged with both offences.

As for the comment about being impaired by age, even the elderly must follow the TSA, UHRR, and the Criminal Code. You saying that someone driving around at .08 alcohol level is more safe than a senior just shows your ignorance.

You have to be one of the most uneducated, ignorant, yet arrogant people on Beyond.

Sure it's 15 minutes........................... but legally needs to be 30 minutes for the police to use it.


Yup they changed the 0.05 to 3 day suspension. You got one gold star now!! Kudos for correcting that.


So I'm the one lacking basic understanding, but you're the one refuting study and statistics on the matter. Gotcha.


I realize there is a charge for impaired driving, what I question is why it is not used in favor of DUI, despite the fact that BAC is not a very concrete measure of impairment? I know you don't care about facts, studies, legal sources, etc, but even they state that lots of people can "appear sober and pass a field sobriety test" at 0.08 or that DUI accidents overwhelmingly are from drivers above 0.15

You're sitting here calling me ignorant, but you're the one who has yet to refute a single bit of the tangible data surrounding this, and trying to use your anecdotal personal experiences as some sort of rebuttal(despite that even your anecdotal nonsense still further supports everything I've said.)

Enjoy your glass house of inaccuracies. I'm going to go get drunk and sign up for high end ride sharing.

[Rat Fink]

.

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sure it's 15 minutes........................... but legally needs to be 30 minutes for the police to use it.


Yup they changed the 0.05 to 3 day suspension. You got one gold star now!! Kudos for correcting that.


So I'm the one lacking basic understanding, but you're the one refuting study and statistics on the matter. Gotcha.


I realize there is a charge for impaired driving, what I question is why it is not used in favor of DUI, despite the fact that BAC is not a very concrete measure of impairment? I know you don't care about facts, studies, legal sources, etc, but even they state that lots of people can "appear sober and pass a field sobriety test" at 0.08 or that DUI accidents overwhelmingly are from drivers above 0.15

You're sitting here calling me ignorant, but you're the one who has yet to refute a single bit of the tangible data surrounding this, and trying to use your anecdotal personal experiences as some sort of rebuttal(despite that even your anecdotal nonsense still further supports everything I've said.)

Enjoy your glass house of inaccuracies. I'm going to go get drunk and sign up for high end ride sharing.

Pretty sure they didn’t change the rules around 0.05 -0.08, this is an article from 2012 when the rules first came in and it states 3 day impound and 3 day licence suspension


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rticle4514150/

[Mitsu3000gt]

Why am I not surprised to come here to find Misterman vehemently arguing more demonstrably false info and dismissing all facts

Anyways on the (derailed) topic, I personally was surprised at how much it took before I blew a fail on a RCMP issued device while drinking/testing with friends. I would never have gone near a vehicle with the way I felt when I only blew a warning, and I was absolutely hammered when I blew a fail. The takeaway for me was that it was worrysome knowing other people might be legally driving around feeling that impaired, but I also understand the limits are set so that there is no doubt the average person shouldn't be driving at certain levels.

[Buster]

It's also the reason that the data support a move to 0.05 from 0.08.

[dirtsniffer]

Any studies you could share?

Anecdotally, it seems to me that whenever there is mention of an alcohol related fatality the driver was >2x the limit. Are many caused by people who were borderline .08? Honest question.

[ercchry]

Here is my question for all of you anecdotal evidence “drunk beyond belief at 0.08BAC” people.... being that the user base here is rather prone to being ALDH2 heterozygote... how many of you experience the “Asian glow” ... and having an issue with the metabolism of alcohol, do you think this skews the results of the BAC test?

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Any studies you could share?

Anecdotally, it seems to me that whenever there is mention of an alcohol related fatality the driver was >2x the limit. Are many caused by people who were borderline .08? Honest question.

I'm guessing because most of those people are likely habitual drunk drivers with high tolerances. Many are probably alcoholics that drink and drive all the time and we only find out about it when there is an incident. My cousin killed herself with alcohol and whenever we brought her to the hospital, the doctors told us she had a BAL that would without a doubt kill a non-alcoholic. She drove to work and back that drunk every day without issue. We told the police, they couldn't do anything about it unless she was caught in the act and they refused to wait for her to leave the house and check. Often times she didn't even seem that drunk either, it was crazy. Anyways that is my guess as to why most of the incidents you hear of have people 2X++ the limit but I don't know for sure.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's also the reason that the data support a move to 0.05 from 0.08.

The data does not support that though. That is a politically driven motive by MADD, whose eventual goal is zero limit.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Any studies you could share?

Anecdotally, it seems to me that whenever there is mention of an alcohol related fatality the driver was >2x the limit. Are many caused by people who were borderline .08? Honest question.

I'll try and google the one I read about this. It was pretty clear cut that 70-80% of fatal accidents involving alcohol, the driver was above 0.15.


I'm not going to go to the trouble of re-doing hours of research on this. This is the first link that pops up when googling. It claims a number of 68% of drivers in fatal accidents being above 0.15. I've read other studies quoting 70-80%. However I've never found a statistic with BAC readings of alcohol related accidents in general, which is actually a lot more important statistic. For some reason they always like to focus on fatalities as it has more shock factor, despite the fact that if we reduce accidents all together by 10%, it's fair to say that we would likely decrease fatalities by 10%.

Scroll to the 5th paragraph.
https://www.responsibility.org/get-t...ng-fatalities/


The other completely unknown statistic, is how many accidents where a driver was over 0.08BAC, was the alcohol influenced driver listed as 100% fault? It seems to be completely unthought of in any of this research. It's basically taken as an automatic assumption that if alcohol was involved, the influenced driver is automatically at fault. I honestly wonder how many drinking drivers have been t-boned by some texting idiot running a red light? We already know from accident statistics that distracted driving accounts for over 60% of accidents. Which is another reason I get a little testy about this subject. You are astronomically more likely to be killed by a distracted driver than a drunk, but it is still almost acceptable to do a little texting and driving. But if you have 5 drinks and drive home, you might as well have murdered the pope is how society sees it.

[Buster]

NTSB:

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-s...nts/SR1301.pdf

More recent studies have shown that risk is significantly higher when a driver’s BAC is
≥ 0.05, and that crash risk climbs rapidly at BAC levels that exceed 0.08. One study found that
the risk of fatal crash involvement at BACs between 0.050 and 0.079 ranged from about 3 to
17 times greater, depending on the age of the driver and the type of fatal crash (single-vehicle
versus all crashes) (Zador, Krawchuk, and Voas 2000, 387–95). Another study found that at a
BAC of 0.05, drivers are 1.38 times more likely to be in a crash than are sober drivers. At a BAC
of 0.08, crash risk is 2.69 times higher (Compton and others 2002; Blomberg and others 2005).
These elevated risks grow even higher as BACs increase, with the risk of being in a crash rising
to nearly 5 times higher by a BAC of 0.10. Figure 4 depicts relative crash risk by BAC level
from this study.

...

In sum, the NTSB concludes that BAC levels as low as 0.01 have been associated with
driving-related performance impairment, and BAC levels as low as 0.05 have been associated
with significantly increased risk of fatal crashes.
This finding indicates that a major shift in public perception with respect to alcohol
impairment is needed. Many people believe that if a driver’s BAC is under the legal limit of
0.08, the driver is safe to drive. In reality, by the time a driver’s BAC reaches 0.08, his or her
fatal crash risk has at least doubled, and some studies indicate it may be many times higher.

other peer reviewed data:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10807209

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

NTSB:

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-s...nts/SR1301.pdf





other peer reviewed data:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10807209

See there you go.

It's funny how they use words like SIGNIFICANT to help drive an opinion home, since they know most people won't actually read the graph which doesn't support their statements.

I'd be interested to know how exactly they arrive at these numbers listed on the graph though.

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

See there you go.

It's funny how they use words like SIGNIFICANT to help drive an opinion home, since they know most people won't actually read the graph which doesn't support their statements.

I'd be interested to know how exactly they arrive at these numbers listed on the graph though.

Why are you supporting drinking and driving?

If we let you have your points why do you want to push the limit closer to where you start seeing significant accident rates?

The whole fucking point is to give enough buffer to the legal limit that most people won’t be impaired below it.

Like I said earlier a DUI is the single easiest vehicle related charge to avoid. If people don’t have enough intelligence and self control to stay below the limit they don’t have enough intelligence and self control to be operating a vehicle and probably shouldn’t have s licence in the first place. End of story

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

See there you go.

It's funny how they use words like SIGNIFICANT to help drive an opinion home, since they know most people won't actually read the graph which doesn't support their statements.

I'd be interested to know how exactly they arrive at these numbers listed on the graph though.

https://towardsdatascience.com/stati...s-93274fa32687

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why are you supporting drinking and driving?

If we let you have your points why do you want to push the limit closer to where you start seeing significant accident rates?

The whole fucking point is to give enough buffer to the legal limit that most people won’t be impaired below it.

Like I said earlier a DUI is the single easiest vehicle related charge to avoid. If people don’t have enough intelligence and self control to stay below the limit they don’t have enough intelligence and self control to be operating a vehicle and probably shouldn’t have s licence in the first place. End of story

Don't twist my words. I don't support drinking and driving, but I vehemently oppose impaired driving. I have zero fucks to give about someones BAC, as long as they can still operate a motor vehicle unimpaired. I'm sick of seeing knee jerk reactions to problems. And I certainly don't support people giving up their freedoms in the name of "safety", especially when it is a roundabout way of supposedly making things safer.

The legal limit is irrelevant as far creating a buffer like you're saying. This has been covered already. Who is carrying a breathalyzer in their pocket to check themselves out before getting in their car? NOBODY!! So if you're not impaired, you drive home, but get pulled in to some checkstop and blow over the limit. You're fucked anyway, despite never doing anything morally wrong. They don't even catch 10% of people that drive above the limit, so it's a BS law. Plain and simple, if you're driving impaired you should be pulled over and thrown in the klink. End of story. You shouldn't have your life ruined because you didn't do the due diligence to carry a personal breathalyzer with you.

- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://towardsdatascience.com/stati...s-93274fa32687

Ok. So you've examined the data and have changed your mind now?

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Don't twist my words. I don't support drinking and driving, but I vehemently oppose impaired driving. I have zero fucks to give about someones BAC, as long as they can still operate a motor vehicle unimpaired. I'm sick of seeing knee jerk reactions to problems. And I certainly don't support people giving up their freedoms in the name of "safety", especially when it is a roundabout way of supposedly making things safer.

The legal limit is irrelevant as far creating a buffer like you're saying. This has been covered already. Who is carrying a breathalyzer in their pocket to check themselves out before getting in their car? NOBODY!! So if you're not impaired, you drive home, but get pulled in to some checkstop and blow over the limit. You're fucked anyway, despite never doing anything morally wrong. They don't even catch 10% of people that drive above the limit, so it's a BS law. Plain and simple, if you're driving impaired you should be pulled over and thrown in the klink. End of story. You shouldn't have your life ruined because you didn't do the due diligence to carry a personal breathalyzer with you.

- - - Updated - - -



Ok. So you've examined the data and have changed your mind now?

Okay, you're an alt of a regular here to have fun. Which regular?

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Okay, you're an alt of a regular here to have fun. Which regular?

What's the deal with you guys here? Every time you get in a debate you can't get traction in, you do the ol "Look! An eagle!!" to try and change subject.

Tell a Mod to run my IP or whatever if you can't accept there might be more than one person in the world capable of independent thought. Never been a member here ever. I was on 780 for years and it's totally dead now. So I signed up on Beyond since it's still active.