The graph says nothing of the sort. By your logic, someone with a .41 is good to go, because there are very few fatalities at that level of impairment.
The graph more closely reflects the distribution of BAL among drivers involved in accidents, than the danger that a particular level of impairment represents.
/graph reading comprehension FTW
And furthermore, common sense would tell you that danger is a function of impairment. To claim that someone with a .08 BAL is almost as dangerous as someone with .17 is silly. .08 represents about two drinks, a level of impairment that is minor. By the time you are at .2, then you are really impaired, and obviously pose a much greater danger.
But thanks for playing.
The important thing to understand is that a police officer can arrest anyone at anytime for any charge at all. The important to remember is that arrest doesn’t mean conviction and that police officers are often ignorant of the law they are supposed to enforce. The problem isn’t with the law, but with the people enforcing them. The fact that you got arrested, doesn’t mean you violated the law.
The laws will vary from state to state, but the doctrine of actual physical control will be important.
http://www.lawadvicenow.com/law/criminal-law/can-you-get-a-dui-while-parked/
If you weren’t in the drivers seat with the car in drive, then there is an excellent chance you will either have the charge dismissed or plea down to drunk and disorderly. Of course, if you admit to the officer that you were driving or were planning on driving, then you are SOL.
No, what the graph shows is that very few people with a blood alcohol of .41 are capable of walking to their car and opening the door much less driving it. You must be rather innumerate not to figure that out.
http://www.goodcocktails.com/drinking/bac.php
The chart indicates most people will pass out at around a BAL of .3 and above .4 you may die before you have a chance to become a traffic statistic.
If you had presented some data that drivers below .08 were enormously more common than higher BAL, you might have a point, but since you don’t actually present any data, you are just blowing smoke.
If you looked at my post above, then there is some question whether such arrests are actually legal. A few multimillion dollar class action suits might stop them.
I proven that your statement that people with a BAL of .08 or are ‘hardly dangerous’ is ignorant and unfounded. You haven’t demonstrated that your ‘common sense’ is reliable.
I watching a video with Steven Levitt were he mentioned that 1 mile out of 140 is driven by drunk drivers. I thought if 38% of traffic fatalities are alcohol related, then drunk drivers are 53 times as dangerous as sober drivers on a vehicle mile basis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFi-tKZ3ijQ
The quote is about 50 seconds in.
It might be that someone who has one drink might only be 10 times as dangerous as a sober driver and two drinks might be 20 times as dangerous and someone who is at .2 BAL might be 100 times as dangerous.
Sadly - my friend was convicted
I have been reading up on DUI law and the facts, as you stated them, should have been a routine dismissal with an attorney. At worse, it should be reduced to drunk and disorderly. If your friend never got in the drivers seat, then it will be hard to prove actual physical control. I suspect this anecdote is missing significant information.
Unbelievable.
Read your own cite that I referenced.
Besides, there’s common sense. When I’ve gone out on the road, I counted on the fact that “drivers below .08 were enormously more common than higher BAL”.
Good Luck with that. I"m up here in Canada.
I went back to my cite and the only relevant reference is:
37% of all traffic fatalities were alcohol related in 2007, which implies that 15% (2389/15387) of alcohol related fatalities involve BAL below .08% or 6% (2389/41059) of all traffic fatalties. Since only .7% of mileage is driven by drunk drivers, that sure implies that <.08 drivers are a lot more dangerous than sober drivers. In fact the lower bound would be 8.3 times as dangerous as a sober driver. This means that my earlier guess of ten times as dangerous was actually in the right ball park.
To put this number in perspective, A motorcyclist is usually be 20 to 30 times as likely to killed on a passenger mile basis as someone in a car or truck. The difference is that the motorcyclist is assuming most of the risk himself, while the ‘safe’ <.08 driver is shifting much of the risk to other people.
Apparently your ‘common sense’ is not a reliable guideline.
The relevent reference I’m responding to is page 5 figure 5 that you specifically pointed to and which I specifically pointed out that you misinterpreted to come up with the ridiculous statement the .08 BAC is almost as fatal as .17 BAC.
The fact that .08 BAC is more dangerous than .00 BAC is not in dispute. I do dispute any suggestion that any study can determine the ratio of drunk drivers at any level of BAC in the general population to sober drivers, unless these random copstops test each and every driver.
Based on figure 5, page 5 it is remotely possible (though very highly unlikely) that .08 BAC drivers are safer than sober drivers. I don’t think you can PROVE otherwise statistically.
The fact that there is any cut-off at all means that the laws try to build in some consideration of degree of impairment. Otherwise, they could just make it illegal to have any alcohol at all in one’s system. The level of .08% BAC is more or less arbitrary, and I’m sure the fact that someone has a very high level gets considered by the DA in court. They probably consider other things, too–the penalties for drunk driving probably can very a lot, from jail to community service, to a fine with probation, etc. Someone with a .08 or .09 probably might even be able to plea bargain down to a lessor charge, if s/he has an aggressive lawyer, and if the circumstances indicated an otherwise responsible driver (no prior record, etc.). The way things play out are not any more draconian than other violations, like assault. The law can’t really say something like: “One year of jail for hitting a person hard, but only six months for hitting a person softly.” That puts the idea of wiggle room into people’s minds, which is easy to happen with booze, when people often don’t realize how much they’ve had to drink, or how much it’s actually affecting them.
I’m still researching the topic, but it quite possible they are testing each and every driver. Has as a police officer ever pointed a flashlight in your face? They might not be comparing your photo to your face, but checking you for ethanol on your breath.
http://www.mutineermagazine.com/img/blog/pas.jpg
The passive sensor isn’t good enough for court, but plenty good enough for statistical data gathering including a rough idea of your BAC.
I’m skimming Alcohol and Highway Safety 2006: A Review of the State of Knowledge, so I may know more later.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/Research+&+Evaluation/Impaired+driving+(alcohol-related)+reports
I’m actually surprised at how high the fatality rates are at low BALs. I suspect that there may be a psychological component. People with a high BAL will adjust their driving habits to be more cautious. People with only one or two drinks in them don’t feel impaired and may be less cautious. When you are driving it is actually a good thing to be a little scared.
I was surprised that the NHTSA had data about how many miles were driven by alcohol impaired drivers for the USA and actually had numbers for each state. Florida was only 1 out of 100 miles compared to 140 miles for the whole country, but I blame the tourists.
All I have to go on is what he told me.
Yeah, it’s all about public safety. :rolleyes:
Bad example for your point. He was also charging with “aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle”, which means he was driving with a suspended license, which means it was a good safety stop.
I checked some more and the charge was AUO 2nd.
http://www.redlichlaw.com/traffic/auo.html
Thank you for posting something that helps me make my point.
That seems to agree with the study I mentioned above:
[QUOTE=The relationship between serious injury and blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in fatal motor vehicle accidents (2011)]
Accident severity increases significantly even when the driver is merely ‘buzzed’, a finding that persists after standardization for various confounding factors. Three mechanisms mediate between buzzed driving and high accident severity: compared to sober drivers, buzzed drivers are significantly more likely to speed, to be improperly seatbelted and to drive the striking vehicle.
[/quote]
Not here. Over 0.18% gets you penalties similar to someone who got there 2nd DUI, and things such as a BAC Interlock become likely/certain.
(If you’re talking about a specific place only, apologies. I tried to follow the threat upstream and didn’t get anywhere)
Here is some technology that should thrill some posters in this OP.
It was a lot harder to text on those brick phones back in the 80’s.
