YES! If it’s about safety, that would make sense. But it’s not.
Edit: I may have misread. It would make sense if we establish objective criteria to pass the test and have everyone take the test. If you can’t pass it sober, then you can’t drive. If you can pass it at a .2 BAC but not a .21, then .2 is your limit.
I realize this. I did not in any way mean all roads. I am guessing the roads that had the speed limits set in the method I described are a minority.
It’s not OK to base DUI on what is in someone’s blood but it is OK to base it on what’s in their breath or a smell from their clothing (where someone else may have spilled a drink)?
But what about the variables that impact alcohol tolerance, these can wildly fluctuate during ones lifetime. It isn’t feasible to set in stone “this is you’re limit”
What if I’ve just come back from schoolies and my tolerance now dictates ten standard drinks is what it’ll take to induce substantial impairment, so eight is now my limit… Six months later (no drinking) four drinks induces an equatable state of impairment… But eight drinks is still my limit.
Another problem with such a route of testing is… Getting drunk is suuuuuupppper bad for you, why would I wish to induce such a state within myself for a driving test? What if I crash my car during the test?
I would argue we should have some percentage (the exact percentage is debatable) of the limit you passed at as your limit to account for variables that can’t be counted for.
I would also argue that this test would have to be taken fairly often to ensure you are still capable of your limit.
It’s okay to take someone into custody when the totality of your observations give you probable cause to believe that person is not safely functioning. No different than someone with mental issues that cause him to walk into the middle of the highway.
That’d be fine.
This I could agree with… But it also dictates that everyone needs to get drunk fairly often (extremely bad for you, alcohol is of the most toxic drugs when abused). Perhaps I don’t want to get drunk, perhaps I have had prior problems regulating my alcohol intake and thus only drink very infrequently. Hypothetically if I get drunk 1-2x yearly, it isn’t fair to mandate I get drunk once monthly to set new limits (esp given just how toxic binge drinking is. Alcohol has been societally normalised/accepted, but when consumed to excess in a once off situation it’s typically far more toxic than say, shrooms, LSD, weed, MDMA, ketamine, benzodiazepines etc)
Then if you’re getting older men/women and/or those with underlying predispositions drunk semi regularly there is certainly the potential for serious complications.
An interesting concept would be whether genetic testing could be conducted to give a rough, minimalistic estimate as to what ones limits should be (there are certain enzymes/genes that dictate how fast you process alcohol)
Anecdotally, I know of one girl who becomes the most obnoxious person on the planet after one drink. She’s not a very nice person to begin with … But after one drink she can’t walk properly, starts saying insulting/hurtful things to people, slurring her speech etc.
Her limit should be ZERO… Forever…
I agree. I’d rather see recklessness punished. Cross the double-yellow lines because you’re 80? Get the same charge as the guy that got pulled over for doing so while drunk.
If you’re old, driving recklessly… You should probably be subjected to a driving test, if you can’t pass… You’re license should probably be disqualified (to be fair, perhaps allow two attempts)
Can’t see such a policy significantly straining government expenditure.
Or how about we act like adults who want to live as free as possible from having to deal with a drunk driver and place the same expectation of being an adult on people who plan on drinking to not be selfish idiots. If you are an adult, above the drinking age, then you should understand the responsibility that goes with driving and know the dangers of driving drunk as well as the laws. It’s not as if a drunk driver can claim ignorance of the law.
Given that, why not just make a BAC level of whatever be illegal and have it apply to everyone in order to make things easier for everyone? It’s easier for cops and courts and it’s easier for those who drink. If you drink and you’re not sure if your BAC is too high, then maybe that’s a sign that you shouldn’t drive. If you think the legal limit is too low and you can drive fine while being a little over it, well, too bad. Be a big boy about it and just drink less or don’t drive. First world problems.
The old guy gets punished for the result of being old, which he has no control over, while the drunk gets the same punishment for a behavior he had total control over? That makes sense.
Why not the same punishment as a drunk driver? If driving old is monetized like DUI, old folks would be off of the road.
Exactly, given the standard formula (1 standard drink = 0.025, the avg body metabolised booze at a rate of roughly 1 standard drink per hour) it shouldn’t be difficult for one to follow guidelines…
The roadside drug testing however I can’t get behind. If I can have a couple beers and get behind the wheel and/or have ten drinks and drive the next day… Why can’t I smoke/eat cannabis and drive 36 hours later?
Oh. I forget that old people are unable to not get into a car and drive.
Perhaps, but in which case why not give DUI’s to those driving whilst sleep deprived? Being old isn’t exactly a crime, one might not be quite aware as to when their visuospacial awareness/reaction time deteriorates to the point wherein they can’t drive adequately anymore. I’d say we should mandate the elderly take a driving test every year (past a certain age). Blanketly discriminating against al those aged above say… 75 would be discrimination, the removal of a fundamental right within a populace of which many are probably still fit to drive.
Other flaws become apparent when we realise we don’t test for other drugs of impairment… Cocaine isn’t tested for (except NSW), nor is ketamine, LSD, benzodiazepines (i’d argue driving on LSD is probably even more dangerous than drunk driving).
Theoretically we should test for and punish those for all of the above. Alcohol for whatever reason is specifically focused upon despite the fact that one can be significantly impaired via a wide variety of substances/personal choices (sleep deprivation, texting/talking on phone etc)
I’m going to sleep now, it’s been nice talking with everyone, i’ll pop in tommorow to see whether the debate is still ongoing 
I was thinking a test every two years would be about right, maybe the normal interval for drivers license renewal would be reasonable?
Of course if you don’t drink (often) you would not have to take the test. If that is the case, then you would be given a conservative limit in which practically everybody can pass.
Throw old out of it. If someone who isn’t drunk or old, gets in an accident, should they face the same punishment as someone who was drunk in a similar accident? In the real world, we know accidents happen. We also know being drunk increases the chances.
Getting back to the old man; he may not know his reflexes have slowed. The drunk knew he was going to drink.
Agreed.
Blood tests are taken.
Yes. Edit: Possibly more, since he should be more aware; hence more culpable.
Not when driving. No motor vehicle crash is truly accidental.
But did the drunk know he was a danger when he decided to drive? You make a good case for prohibiting alcohol consumption altogether.