DWI...

Off Topic
61

[quote]hedgrinder wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The legal limit is set to keep impaired people off the road so it is set BELOW the line where most people are impaired.

If they set it at or above the line where people are impaired there would be more impaired people on the road.

Sooo…what you are saying here is that we are arresting people who are not impaired? I.E. Driving while NOT intoxicated?[/quote]

You don’t get it at all.

The legal blood alcohol limit is set like speed limits.

It is not dangerous for most people to drive at or above the speed limit. It is still set low to keep people UNDER the the unsafe range. Same with the blood alcohol limits.

Simple concept. I am surprised someone that studies the subject appears to not understand this.

BTW, I have to know what kind of degree requires a thesis on DUI?

62

[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
OK, OK all you judgemental fucks, who among you has NEVER driven drunk?

One…two…three…etc. Hmmm…Looks like we have at least a few liars here!

Before you answer, remember that 3 or 4 drinks in a couple hours will do it — I saw this first hand, at a weight of ~200 lbs. Anyone want to put their hand down now?
[/quote]

Sunshine, my hand is still up. Not only do I not drink and drive, I also don’t get in a car w/ anyone who’s been drinking.

63

[quote]mastermoore wrote:
There is one contestable point about this ordeal with me. I’ve been keeping it to myself with a total of 5 friends knowing. This is very private matter. There are already questions about why I don’t want to go out. I can deal with those, no problem. But, is it best to tell them the real reason and maybe help them out or keep it a private matter?

[/quote]

I would just open up and say it. But then, I’m like that. you know me for 5 minutes and you practically know my life story.

It might help your friends wake up a little bit. Or, you could go and plan to be the designated driver.

64

[quote]ThatGirl77 wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
OK, OK all you judgemental fucks, who among you has NEVER driven drunk?

One…two…three…etc. Hmmm…Looks like we have at least a few liars here!

Before you answer, remember that 3 or 4 drinks in a couple hours will do it — I saw this first hand, at a weight of ~200 lbs. Anyone want to put their hand down now?

Sunshine, my hand is still up. Not only do I not drink and drive, I also don’t get in a car w/ anyone who’s been drinking.[/quote]

I have also never driven drunk, and I rarely drink at all, anyway. Besides, if you’ve done it before, you likely know how stupid it is, and probably want to discourage another from doing the same thing. And I’m sure some just like to judge.

 I was just gonna say quit griping and deal with it, but that seems to be the case already.
65

[quote]hedgrinder wrote:
Are you serious here? Tell ya what, I’m 6’4, 250lbs. Athletic build. Tell me how many drinks I need to hit .08? In what time period? Can you reasonably make the assumption that the bartender poured me an EXACT amount of unwatered down alcohol? How 'bout how much food I’ve had? Over what EXACT time period? Because if you CAN’T tell ALL of those factors, then you better revise the poorly-written law that could lead to my incarceration should I be declared intoxicated while driving. Because the LAW says, “Guilty WITHOUT a reasonable doubt.” [/quote]

Or, you could just not drive if you’ve had anything to drink.

[quote]
I GET IT just fine. You don’t. There are WAY too many variables around something as oversimplified as saying, “At .08, you are drunk.” It is an ASSUMPTION that someone is INTOXICATED at .08. NOT A FACT. Arresting people, and thus immediately implicating guilt, as DUI’s do, based on an assumption, is unnacceptable in our culture. [/quote]

What is the percentage of accidents related to alcohol? Are you saying because the system isn’t perfect (i.e. threatens your personal lifestyle) that we can’t have laws against DUI. And just because other behaviors contribute to traffic accidents, doesn’t mean DUI shouldn’t be dealt with.

[quote]
TONS of people die from speeding and other stupid accidents every day, but we don’t use the same tactics to try and prevent speeding, do we? It’s equally, if not moreso, preventable than drunk driving. Why don’t cops show pictures of a burned, yet living, person, with statements about how they are the result of a speeding accident? It IS NOT different. [/quote]

I saw some back in driver ed.

66

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It is not dangerous for most people to drive at or above the speed limit. It is still set low to keep people UNDER the the unsafe range.[/quote]

Speed limits are not set with the intent of maximizing safety. Studies have shown that speed limits have very little effect on traffic speed. Setting speed limits at approximately the speed 85% of motorists would “naturally” drive would result in maximum safety. See http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/03jan/10.htm and
Driver Speed Behavior on U.S. Streets and Highways. In the U.S., speed limits are typically set 10 mph below that level. Since some drivers do obey the speed limit, this results in more tailgating, passing, mixed traffic speeds on multi-lane roads, and accidents.

You’ll notice that in the first article, the lower half of the speed vs. crash risk chart is not shown. Anything government-related is typically sanitized to avoid showing the dangers of slow driving, which would include driving at the speed limit. Studies that focus on this are buried, as much as is possible.

So why are speed limits set the way they are in this country?

67

[quote]mastermoore wrote:
I’m very remorseful for what I’ve done. Trust, me I’ve done a year+ of thinking on this and it’s killed me.

It was just that when I posted I had just gotten back from court and it all hit my like a two-ton heavy thing that came out in the form of bitching. I’m getting to point where I can logically step back and say “Yes, I deserve this and I’m fortunate that nothing severely bad happened.”

In the interlude between the incident and the sentencing I have seen the devastation first-hand. A friend’s sister killed a mother and daughter while burning the father badly. That with a few other things have more than convinced me of the dangers.

As for not being able to drink. I can/will deal with that and like many of you said–focus on myself and grow in every way.
The state will enforce it through the PO–(s)he has the power to test me whenever, be it breathalyzer or other. And through fear–a 180 day sentence dangling in front of you is pretty good motivation.

As for my BA rating–I didn’t blow.

There is one contestable point about this ordeal with me. I’ve been keeping it to myself with a total of 5 friends knowing. This is very private matter. There are already questions about why I don’t want to go out. I can deal with those, no problem. But, is it best to tell them the real reason and maybe help them out or keep it a private matter?

[/quote]

If a total of 5 friends know then more know than just five… that’s my experience anyway. It’s your deal, you handle it whichever way makes living with yourself the easiest. Could they learn from your situation? Yes. Will they learn from you?? Only time will tell.

Dude, IMHO it sounds like you have a good head on your shoulders. I think you’ve gotten some pretty harsh treatment on here. I think even my response was tempered by what others posted.

I wish you the best man. It sounds like you have learned a lot from what has happened. And I could get into this arguement about was your punishment fair punishment or what punishment fits your specific crime vs. the crime for which the law was created. The bottom line is that life ain’t fair all the time. It’s not really debatable there are just elements of life that inherently don’t seem fair to one degree or another.

Cliche, but for me learning that has saved me pissing away energy. You can argue whether your punishment is fair or not. It doesn’t seem fair in your specific instance, but those laws are tough for a reason. In other instances I’m sure it was unfair for someone who lost a person to a multiple offender. Maybe the state really doesn’t want to deal with multiple offender?? Who knows.

But fairness is all about whose eyes your are looking through, the judge or the judged, the suppressed or the suppressor, etc. It’s a perspective or perception like most things.

Bottom line… good luck to you man. It sounds like you are doing the best you can. My best to you - Sincerely.

68

[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
OK, OK all you judgemental fucks, who among you has NEVER driven drunk?

One…two…three…etc. Hmmm…Looks like we have at least a few liars here!

Before you answer, remember that 3 or 4 drinks in a couple hours will do it — I saw this first hand, at a weight of ~200 lbs. Anyone want to put their hand down now?
[/quote]

Maybe it’s BECAUSE some of us have done stupid shit at one time and have grown up and DON’T do it anymore that we think this dude has gotten EXACTLY what he deserves. One unit of alcohol [a beer, a shot, a glass of one] takes 1 hour to be completely metabolized for anyone that’s intereseted.

69

[quote]hedgrinder wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Some people just don’t get it at all. Especially the guy writing his thesis on the subject. Kind of scary what passes for higher education these days.

You question my education simply because I point out a different oppinion than yours? Everything I’ve said so far was just a reference to studies and social/criminalogical theories. Not even my particular thoughts on the subject. I bet you’re the kinda guy that thinks all sex offenders are rapists and should therefore have gotten the death sentence or something huh?

Are you serious here? Tell ya what, I’m 6’4, 250lbs. Athletic build. Tell me how many drinks I need to hit .08? In what time period? Can you reasonably make the assumption that the bartender poured me an EXACT amount of unwatered down alcohol? How 'bout how much food I’ve had? Over what EXACT time period? Because if you CAN’T tell ALL of those factors, then you better revise the poorly-written law that could lead to my incarceration should I be declared intoxicated while driving. Because the LAW says, “Guilty WITHOUT a reasonable doubt.”

I GET IT just fine. You don’t. There are WAY too many variables around something as oversimplified as saying, “At .08, you are drunk.” It is an ASSUMPTION that someone is INTOXICATED at .08. NOT A FACT. Arresting people, and thus immediately implicating guilt, as DUI’s do, based on an assumption, is unnacceptable in our culture.

TONS of people die from speeding and other stupid accidents every day, but we don’t use the same tactics to try and prevent speeding, do we? It’s equally, if not moreso, preventable than drunk driving. Why don’t cops show pictures of a burned, yet living, person, with statements about how they are the result of a speeding accident? It IS NOT different.

[/quote]

You are being a douche. There have been tons of studies that show reflexes and reaction time are impaired in indivudals with .08 BAC in every single indiviudal that was tested. It does take different people different amounts to reach that level. That is almost entirely dependant on bodyweight and body composition [amount of muscle and fat].

Cofee and food have nothing to do with. They can make you feel less drunk, but they do not speed the rate at which your body metabolizes alcohol, and they don’t make you any safer on the road. Bottom line, if you are not driving completely sober or have only had a few drinks and waitd several hours to drive, you’re taking a risk.

In my book, anyone that does take that risk and does get stopped and is above the legal limit, deserves what they get. I like to drink. I am extremely careful with driving even after drinking a small amount. Everyone should be.

The best policy is to not drive if you’ve had more than a drink or two over a nice, extended dinner.

70

[quote]larryb wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is not dangerous for most people to drive at or above the speed limit. It is still set low to keep people UNDER the the unsafe range.

Speed limits are not set with the intent of maximizing safety. Studies have shown that speed limits have very little effect on traffic speed. Setting speed limits at approximately the speed 85% of motorists would “naturally” drive would result in maximum safety. See http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/03jan/10.htm and
Driver Speed Behavior on U.S. Streets and Highways. In the U.S., speed limits are typically set 10 mph below that level. Since some drivers do obey the speed limit, this results in more tailgating, passing, mixed traffic speeds on multi-lane roads, and accidents.

You’ll notice that in the first article, the lower half of the speed vs. crash risk chart is not shown. Anything government-related is typically sanitized to avoid showing the dangers of slow driving, which would include driving at the speed limit. Studies that focus on this are buried, as much as is possible.

So why are speed limits set the way they are in this country?[/quote]

I agree most speed limits should be raised. Not because the car is inherently safer or more stable at higher speeds but just because most people tend to drive faster and slow driving when everyone else is driving faster is dangerous.

The same argument cannot be made for driving drunk.

71

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I agree most speed limits should be raised. Not because the car is inherently safer or more stable at higher speeds but just because most people tend to drive faster and slow driving when everyone else is driving faster is dangerous.

The same argument cannot be made for driving drunk. [/quote]

Treating something that is a partially reliable indicator of a possible crime (endangerment) as criminal makes me uneasy, as does treating all DUIs more or less the same regardless of the level of intoxication. It is probably making the roads safer and there may not be another practical way to do so, but I don’t like it, and I don’t think anyone is searching for a better way.

72

[quote]larryb wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I agree most speed limits should be raised. Not because the car is inherently safer or more stable at higher speeds but just because most people tend to drive faster and slow driving when everyone else is driving faster is dangerous.

The same argument cannot be made for driving drunk.

Treating something that is a partially reliable indicator of a possible crime (endangerment) as criminal makes me uneasy, as does treating all DUIs more or less the same regardless of the level of intoxication. It is probably making the roads safer and there may not be another practical way to do so, but I don’t like it, and I don’t think anyone is searching for a better way.
[/quote]

I don’t like it either but with the number of cars on the inadequate roads I think the current laws are the lesser evil.

73

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Or, you could just not drive if you’ve had anything to drink.
[/quote]
Or, we could just tell me they aren’t allowed to drive at all after they’ve broken ANY traffic law. Then nobody will ever get hurt, right?

There is no telling, because every time anyone, in any accident has had even one drink, alcohol is listed as being a factor. It doesn’t matter whether or not it was causal, just whether or not it was present. That pretty much makes any statistic about alcohol “related” accidents totally worthless for research purposes.

74

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You don’t get it at all.

The legal blood alcohol limit is set like speed limits.

It is not dangerous for most people to drive at or above the speed limit. It is still set low to keep people UNDER the the unsafe range. Same with the blood alcohol limits.

Simple concept. I am surprised someone that studies the subject appears to not understand this.

BTW, I have to know what kind of degree requires a thesis on DUI? [/quote]

Yeah, I do “get” that concept. However, I think that if you are going to charge someone with “driving while INTOXICATED” they probably should ACTUALLY BE INTOXICATED. It’s not called, “Driving while slightly impaired.”

I’m NOT saying that driving while drunk is somehow OK. It’s not. I never said it was, and it should be punishable. It absolutely should. However, people are not being charged correctly, the laws are overly strict, and the punishment does not fit the crime. That last part is absolutely fundamental if a society is expected to respect and, more importantly, adhere to, a law.

People are LETTING this stuff happen becuase they have been lead to believe the problem is much worse than it really is.

Got a BS in computer engineering, and working on a Masters in Criminal Justice…which didn’t REQUIRE a thesis in DUI’s, I just chose to do it on the subject. I’m hoping it will expose a bit of truth on the subject of what is essentially a socially constructed problem.

75

You have to understnad that dui blood levels are set in terms fo the biggest idiot in mind. I’m sure .1 would be fine for some people, bu tsome people are very seriously impaired at .08.

Like speed limits, i’ve seen people that can’t drive well below the limit. One auto writer proposed a super license so to speak. It wouls require much more training and a basically 0.0 BAC, but in turn would allow the person to drive at higher speeds on open highways.

76

Do you get to celebrate Christmas, birthdays or hell any other holiday with your family? I clean up the mess people like you leave behind on a regular basis. Two years ago this Christmas a “drunk” drive hit a car killing an 18 month old. Cry to his family about the fact YOU cant drink for a whole year. They get to miss their childs second birthday and everyone after that. I am sure they would understand how upset you are.

Grow up and be responsible! Own up to your mistake and take your punishment like the Man you thought you were.

[quote]mastermoore wrote:
I just need to get this off of my mind, as hard as that might be.

I fucked up and got my first dwi a year and a half ago. There was no way to plead it down. It is on my record as of today–I admitted I was guilty to judge. I didn’t want to go to a trial and sit in front of a jury–that would be too emotionally and mentally draining for me.

The incident happened while I was in college. The last year and a half has matured me, as if that means anything to them.

I’m on probation for a year. There are close to 6k worth of fees over the course of the next three years involved with that. That is alright, I can always make more money, even though it it rather scarce now.

What really gets me is this fact. I am not allowed to drink period. I am not allowed to go into bars, at all. This means that I cannot have a beer in my own house or at a friend’s for one year. That is fundamentally wrong. They are asking a lot taking this right. At the age of 24, that is all my friends do. Work, pump iron, and then hit the bar, rinse, repeat.

This is calling for a huge change in my lifestyle. If I do drink and get caught, that is 180 days in jail. I’m torn apart right now and not sure how to deal with it.[/quote]

77

[quote]larryb wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I agree most speed limits should be raised. Not because the car is inherently safer or more stable at higher speeds but just because most people tend to drive faster and slow driving when everyone else is driving faster is dangerous.

The same argument cannot be made for driving drunk.

Treating something that is a partially reliable indicator of a possible crime (endangerment) as criminal makes me uneasy, as does treating all DUIs more or less the same regardless of the level of intoxication. It is probably making the roads safer and there may not be another practical way to do so, but I don’t like it, and I don’t think anyone is searching for a better way.
[/quote]

What better way would you suggest? I can’t think of one. I fucking love it. I know many people, some of them friends, who only avoid driving drunk beause they could get in trouble. Never mind the lives they’d threaten.

78

[quote]mastermoore wrote:

What really gets me is this fact. I am not allowed to drink period. I am not allowed to go into bars, at all. This means that I cannot have a beer in my own house or at a friend’s for one year. That is fundamentally wrong. They are asking a lot taking this right.
[/quote]

That is no longer your right. You voluntarily gave up that right when you proved that you could not handle the responsibility of drinking alcoholic beverages without making poor decisions that endangered the lives of other people.

79

[quote]hedgrinder wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
Or, you could just not drive if you’ve had anything to drink.

Or, we could just tell me they aren’t allowed to drive at all after they’ve broken ANY traffic law. Then nobody will ever get hurt, right?

What is the percentage of accidents related to alcohol? Are you saying because the system isn’t perfect (i.e. threatens your personal lifestyle) that we can’t have laws against DUI. And just because other behaviors contribute to traffic accidents, doesn’t mean DUI shouldn’t be dealt with.

There is no telling, because every time anyone, in any accident has had even one drink, alcohol is listed as being a factor. It doesn’t matter whether or not it was causal, just whether or not it was present. That pretty much makes any statistic about alcohol “related” accidents totally worthless for research purposes.
[/quote]

I wouldn’t say they were totally worthless. For such a minor socially constructed problem, there sure is a lot of death on account of DUI’s. Just because someone is not totally hammered does not mean the alcohol isn’t affecting their driving. Minor distractions can become a problem if you’re impaired even a little. I agree that not every so-called “alcohol-related” accident is rightfully so, but I think it’s better to make a big deal about the danger than downplay it.

80

[quote]Kratos wrote:
hedgrinder wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
Or, you could just not drive if you’ve had anything to drink.

Or, we could just tell me they aren’t allowed to drive at all after they’ve broken ANY traffic law. Then nobody will ever get hurt, right?

What is the percentage of accidents related to alcohol? Are you saying because the system isn’t perfect (i.e. threatens your personal lifestyle) that we can’t have laws against DUI. And just because other behaviors contribute to traffic accidents, doesn’t mean DUI shouldn’t be dealt with.

There is no telling, because every time anyone, in any accident has had even one drink, alcohol is listed as being a factor. It doesn’t matter whether or not it was causal, just whether or not it was present. That pretty much makes any statistic about alcohol “related” accidents totally worthless for research purposes.

I wouldn’t say they were totally worthless. For such a minor socially constructed problem, there sure is a lot of death on account of DUI’s. Just because someone is not totally hammered does not mean the alcohol isn’t affecting their driving. Minor distractions can become a problem if you’re impaired even a little. I agree that not every so-called “alcohol-related” accident is rightfully so, but I think it’s better to make a big deal about the danger than downplay it.
[/quote]

Damn straight. Bottom line, people can’t tell if they are impaired or to what degree their relfexes and reaction time has decreased. The only way to do it is have a set limit for everyone and inform people what amount of alcohol brings you to this limit in most people. There are no surprises here. Drink and drive [even if you’ve only drank a little bit] at your own peril. You deserve what you get. Because you are placing other people in danger.