You mentioned being at 0.05 being about 4X as dangerous as being completely sober. Going about 10 miles an hour over the speed limit is about that dangerous in general too. We don’t punish someone going 10 over the same as 40 over. I would support a change to law that would make it a scale of punishment, and even perhaps punishing levels under the current limit of 0.08.
A lot, unless you’re trying for a “Gotcha!” here by saying that DUI itself is reckless.
Okay. So people aren’t bothered unless they’re a problem. That’s the way it is here.
And this is where your utopia meets the real world. In your utopia there is no crime prevention.
I’m sure the vast majority of people pulled over and given DUI’s are because the officer sees them being reckless.
But yes driving while intoxicated is also reckless behavior. I don’t see how it could be argued otherwise given the definition of reckless.
How do we know he is drunk? BAC or does he need to be stumbling (but he could just have an inner ear issue)?
How do you figure? Maybe we could start punishing crossing the double-yellow lines just like DUI regardless of the content of the offender’s blood.
What if the driver does not drive in a way that would indicate he is drunk?
Unsteady on his feet, slurred speech, odor of alcoholic beverage about his person, glassy/bloodshot eyes. Lots of things that would provide probable cause to at least detain him to figure out what’s going on.
Is it .08 in all states of America? Its .05 here, certain groups are advocating to drop it to 0.00 (will never happen). I agree, penalties should be introduced based on the severity of the crime, .05 clearly isn’t as dangerous as blowing 0.2.
Perhaps even mandating offenders go to a course (similar to drug diversion here, if you’re caught with a small amount of pot once, you can get away with going to a drug diversion class and only copping a fine)… like someone with a joint on them needs to go to drug counselling but whatever…
I do believe as of recent however in my state they’ve passed a law stating you CAN’T go to jail if you’ve got under a certain amount (you can get a criminal record though). But using in public/in sight of LE can net a jail sentence. Possession and use are two different crimes.
With harder drugs they’re far more draconian, I believe you can be convicted of trafficking if you’ve got three capsules of a substance such as MDMA on you (a substance when used sparingly is arguably safer than alcohol, granted I’ve never tried it)
Is this exactly irrational, driving whilst sleep deprived is arguably just as bad… 18 hrs no sleep is equatable to driving with .05. 24 hrs no sleep is equatable to driving at .1, you probably wouldn’t pass a roadside sobriety test after 24 hours without sleep unless you were on stimulants (caffeine counts). One shouldn’t get behind the wheel whilst severely sleep deprived either.
Seems like there’s not much of a problem then. What’s your question here?
I agree.
Impaired reaction time. You’re more likely to run a red light, get into an accident if the driver in front of you suddenly presses on the breaks etc.
I have a really good story about this stemming from the day after my 18th (a while ago), it’s fairly debauched though… probably not the most appropriate to share (note I didn’t get behind the wheel, nor was I aware the driver was drunk at the time, I only realised when the driver actually started driving)
Yes.
Impaired reaction time is most likely going to be observed by watching your driving.
Not particularly, you don’t exactly need cat like reflexes if to drive down an empty/sparsely filled lane
I haven’t driven impaired before, but I have driven severely sleep deprived (both times to make urgent doctors appointments)… on both occasions I almost crashed.
So we can agree the majority of DUI’s are given by observed behavior. Is your only beef with checkpoints?
If it’s unobservable, it likely doesn’t need to be punished. Granny’s reaction time is likely much poorer than her grandson’s as well.
As to @nickviar and beef with checkpoints
I have no problem with checkpoints checking BAC (accurately measuring for impairment). I do have a problem with the random drug tests in Aus that measure for the tiniest trace of X substance (you can get pinged from days ago). The penalties for failing one of these saliva tests are worse than had you pinged 0.25 on an RBT
Do they have these roadside saliva tests in the USA? Was recently confirmed they’re highly inaccurate, frequently ping positive when the user isn’t impaired and at times even ping positive for those who haven’t used in months… Sometimes ping negative when the user is highly intoxicated too
Imagine a breathalyser that sometimes pinged you at 0.2 when you were at 0.00-0.01 or pinged you at 0.01 when you were at 0.2
100%, however she’s still able fit enough to drive (though I’d argue not for much longer, as of recent her driving abilities have been deteriorating). On the other hand, I know men in their mid 70s who I don’t think should be able to get behind the wheel.
As to drunk driving, intoxication (if it’s mild-moderate) may not be immediately observable to the naked eye… until said person drives by a crosswalk, fails to stop on time and hits a child.