Nah, it's all good. I'm not trying to be a Bible thumper or preach values...we disagree, it's all good. It's just never easy on the internet to portray emotion unless one uses proper smileys.
If you think 10 beers would impair your ability to drive. Try driving a few hours into an acid trip---in the middle of a blizzard. I remember being absolutely mesmerized by the flashing yellow lights on the top of these huge ODOT snowplows on the turnpike.
It was like I was driving during some kind of nuclear apocalypse.
Quote: That's a trick question....nobody can do that.....drunk people many times say I can't do that sober, at which point you are arrested for admitting you aren't sober.
Quote: I think DUI laws are more about extorting money out of the public than keeping people safe.
Spoken like someone who hasn't lost a close loved one to a DUI driver. You must be young. There's a very very good reason why people who a impaired by alcohol (and who because of the alcohol are unable to objectively assess their impairment and reflexively resist negative judgment) should not operate 3000lb vehicles at lethal speeds. It's really really not just some money shake down.
How quickly your tune would change if, say, your child was mowed down by someone who missed a stop sign and according to them was "like not even really buzzed". It pains me to read that you took your shot of Jamison before hitting the road. Don't mean to deal the heavy hand but this is a deeply sore spot for many of us.
"Team Chemistry No Match for Team Biology" (Onion Sports Headline)
Again, I understand that tragic car accidents happen. I have lost a couple friends in motorcycle accidents. But I don't believe that you should let the emotional aspect of these tragedies cloud your judgement as to what is fair and what is not.
Tyler, seriously, how are drunk driving laws unfair?
It makes a driver less able to effectively operate a complicated piece of machinery. It lowers reaction time, impairs judgement and decreases fine motor skills. This is fact.
I mean, I do understand where part of your argument is. People who decide to drive to the pub and have one or two and then choose to drive home. I think many, if not most, people have and continue to do this. But even suggesting that blood alcohol limits limit one's freedom or rights unjustly is preposterous.
After all, people are only free to as much liberty to the point that it does not infringe on another's liberty. And having someone blurry eyed, playing the "I'll just drive extra careful cuz I'm tipsy" game, infringes on the liberty and safety of every other person on the road.
As to your very original point on whether or not its right that the local police is watching where cars are parked, that's definitely a more reasonable debate.
Quote: Ballpeen is correct. You DO have the option of declining to take any field test. Declining any such test is not an admission of guilt. IF you admit to any guilt, you just made your attorney's job very difficult.
It seems to me that when connected, powerful attorneys, judges etc.. are pulled over, they will decline field tests and breathalizer tests.
There was a local lawyer from my area, who recently just passed away, who came up with the greatest defense when he crashed his car.
I guess he drove into the side of a building, possibly (more than likely) driving drunk. Well, he quickly ran out of his car and across the street to a bar. Started to drink. So when cops arrived and found him in the bar, they couldn't prove if he started drinking before or after the accident. He didn't get charged with driving drunk. I found that pretty slick.
Isn't leaving the scene of an accident a pretty big fine/crime?
Leaving the scene of an accident is a crime. Being a lawyer, I'm sure he got it lessened to something stupid. It's a lot better than getting charged with a DUI and crashing.
I know my brother crashed his car, damaged a guardrail (not to mention his car) and ran over a street sign while drunk in the middle of the night. I picked him up while he left his car there. Of course he got in trouble for it, but I don't think he ended up with anything major- not what he would have gotten nailed with if he was drunk at the scene. My friend, who is a cop, said I did the best thing in picking him up as far as consequences go.
It was Don Hanni. (former head of the Mahoning County Democratic Party) He ran his car into the Youngstown Post Office ....... went into the nearest bar "to find a phone" ....... had several drinks in front of all the patrons there to "calm his nerves" ......... and got away with it with a very minor charge.
Yup! I was waiting for you to come in the thread, because I knew you'd know who I was talking about. I thought it was the post office, but I wasn't sure. Hanni just died last month. He was in the hospital where I work a little while ago.
Quote: It makes a driver less able to effectively operate a complicated piece of machinery. It lowers reaction time, impairs judgement and decreases fine motor skills.
I understand your point of view, but I don't think that you should be prosecuted for simply driving while there is a possibility that you might hit someone.
If you want to suspend someones license for getting drunk and wrecking cars, fine. If you want to put someone in prison for killing someone while driving "drunk," fine. But don't suspend a license or put someone in prison because of a hypothetical scenario, where they could have killed someone or wrecked their car. I don't agree with that.
And furthermore, I think that the amount of impairment from alcohol is very rarely significant enough to be a real danger on the roads. I mean, obviously, if you are nodding off while trying to drive, or seeing double---then there is a problem, but beyond that I believe that obeying traffic laws, and being reasonable behind the wheel will get you home without endangering the lives of others.
I think I say what you're saying. basically, as long as you are sticking to all the rules of the road, what difference does it make if you're drunk? It's an interesting little viewpoint and a pretty bold one to take.
I guess the answer is that it is a preventative measure. And my guess is thats what has you twisted a bit.
Let me lay out a scenario for you.
Say there's an 85 year old man who, much of the time, is perfectly "with it" and has all of the necessary skills to operate a motor vehicle. However, he suffers from random dementia, confusion and lack of motor control. Sometimes these symptoms are slight, other times they can be signficant.
Would you feel comfortable if he was issued a license? Me? I wouldn't.
Quote: mean, obviously, if you are nodding off while trying to drive, or seeing double---then there is a problem, but beyond that I believe that obeying traffic laws, and being reasonable behind the wheel will get you home without endangering the lives of others.
This is a good point here. Most would not disagree with it... but the problem is defining what is "reasonable". I know of many times that I think I'm fine to drive but hand the keys over anyways because I realize how I think I am versus how I ACTUALLY am are probably somewhat different.
The last thing drunk people acknowledge is how drunk they actually are. I bartended for ALOT of years and saw it over and over. The fact is that by the time you realize that you're "a little tipsy", you're actually pretty drunk. By the time you realize you're drunk, you're smashed. By the time you realize you're smashed, you're...well...sleeping.
Quote: It makes a driver less able to effectively operate a complicated piece of machinery. It lowers reaction time, impairs judgement and decreases fine motor skills.
I understand your point of view, but I don't think that you should be prosecuted for simply driving while there is a possibility that you might hit someone.
If you want to suspend someones license for getting drunk and wrecking cars, fine. If you want to put someone in prison for killing someone while driving "drunk," fine. But don't suspend a license or put someone in prison because of a hypothetical scenario, where they could have killed someone or wrecked their car. I don't agree with that.
And furthermore, I think that the amount of impairment from alcohol is very rarely significant enough to be a real danger on the roads. I mean, obviously, if you are nodding off while trying to drive, or seeing double---then there is a problem, but beyond that I believe that obeying traffic laws, and being reasonable behind the wheel will get you home without endangering the lives of others.
Wow...Just wow.
So, person_a is holding a gun to your head and about to pull the trigger. The cops have a sharp shooter aimed at his head. They can't shoot though, because until he kills you, he hasn't committed a crime?
While I think the .08 is too low for most people, and it can put hard working people in bad positions strictly because someone decided that was the limit, I do agree that there needs to be a deterrent to driving drunk. If you just wait until they kill someone, then what's the point?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Seriously, why don't you guys lay off of Tyler? Quit with the idea that you're all so perfect. You guys no what he's saying about the laws. Does he need to spell it out for you? In a nut shell he's saying the limit needs to be higher before they consider it a hazard. Who doesn't agree? Come on lie to me, please do. All of you look in the mirror then tell me if that you never drive while knowing you would blow over .08. I will say a great majority of you will realize you have done so, but the majority will just lie because most of you think your Jesus Christ or something. It amazes me how many perfect people post on this message board. The thing is you know you're ok to drive if you had a few, just legally you could get in trouble.
You guys know what Tyler is saying, you all just like to think your the fricken chosen ones. Get real with yourselves. Lying is one of the most dispicable things, yet nobody has a problem with that. Yeah I'm supposed to believe the majority of you never drink and drive, never pirate music, and never make racist comments, and have no prejudice's. Wow God spent a little more time on members of the dawg talk message board I guess. He must have forgot about me and Tyler. Sorry to the folks that want to say I'm just young. I'm 29 and have learned that not this many people are so awesome and morally pure, but I can spot liars when I see them.
Quote: All of you look in the mirror then tell me if that you never drive while knowing you would blow over .08. I will say a great majority of you will realize you have done so, but the majority will just lie because most of you think your jesus christ or something
Nope, never drive drunk. Even with just one drink, I have a designated driver.
Am I an angel, hell no! I cuss like a sailor, I'm not always as nice as I should be and I have a bit of anger management issues. I'm certainly no Jesus Christ, or even close to it. Just don't drink and drive.
Quote: It makes a driver less able to effectively operate a complicated piece of machinery. It lowers reaction time, impairs judgement and decreases fine motor skills.
I understand your point of view, but I don't think that you should be prosecuted for simply driving while there is a possibility that you might hit someone.
If you want to suspend someones license for getting drunk and wrecking cars, fine. If you want to put someone in prison for killing someone while driving "drunk," fine. But don't suspend a license or put someone in prison because of a hypothetical scenario, where they could have killed someone or wrecked their car. I don't agree with that.
And furthermore, I think that the amount of impairment from alcohol is very rarely significant enough to be a real danger on the roads. I mean, obviously, if you are nodding off while trying to drive, or seeing double---then there is a problem, but beyond that I believe that obeying traffic laws, and being reasonable behind the wheel will get you home without endangering the lives of others.
Wow...Just wow.
So, person_a is holding a gun to your head and about to pull the trigger. The cops have a sharp shooter aimed at his head. They can't shoot though, because until he kills you, he hasn't committed a crime?
While I think the .08 is too low for most people, and it can put hard working people in bad positions strictly because someone decided that was the limit, I do agree that there needs to be a deterrent to driving drunk. If you just wait until they kill someone, then what's the point?
The wow just wow comes to your statement. There is a victim from an assault charge (holding gun to head), but there is no victim from someone who is over the legal limit, yet drives fine and makes it home fine without any problems.
No, it's not just an "eye test". It a "coordination test". How can it be an "eye test" when you have to...............
1. Say your ABC's backwards.
2. Walk toe to toe
3. CLOSE YOUR EYES and touch your nose with your index finger tips.
None of these have anything to do with your "eyes".
I don't know the name of the test, but when you are drunk/have been drinking, they shine a light in your eyes, slowly move it from side to side, and the cop watches your pupils. People that have been drinking - their pupils will bounce (left to right, right to left) as they follow the light. People that have not been drinking, their pupils will follow the light smoothly.
That IS an eye test. Try it on a friend that has been drinking. It's also a way - albeit a simple, not 100% conclusive way - of checking someone for a concussion.
Once again, you speak about what you do not know.
So the point is, you can be "physicly coordinated enough to drive" (field sobriety test passed), but if your pupils aren't just right, the fact you're really "not physicly impaired" means nothing.
So even though you have the coordination to drive well, your eyes are the deciding factor?
Sounds like a bunch of BS to me.
You're either in good enough condition to drive, or you're not. Three beers may effect your pupils, but it's not enough for "most people" to truely be physicly impaired.
And what makes you the "expert" Arch? You're self adoration?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Well that's very good of you. I believe you are in the minority though with the drinking and driving thing. Shew, glad your not Jesus, to find out I been praying to you all these years would be quite traumatizing.
Quote: If you think 10 beers would impair your ability to drive. Try driving a few hours into an acid trip---in the middle of a blizzard. I remember being absolutely mesmerized by the flashing yellow lights on the top of these huge ODOT snowplows on the turnpike.
It was like I was driving during some kind of nuclear apocalypse.
Its a wonder I made it home in one piece.
I'm so glad I don't live anywhere near you. Your decisions are very well thought out in life.
I'm not perfect, I've driven drunk before. But reading your view point than reading this one post says a lot about the type of person you are.
Yes you were legally drunk, but not impaired. All Tyler is saying is that the legal limit is too low, which you must agree with if you felt fine breaking the law. My only question is why is everyone arguing with him then, like they don't agree??
I was just your average American teenager, going out and doing crazy stuff like I was indestructable---managed to pull through to a time now where things move slower and I maintain some tangible sense of responsibility towards other people.
Quote: I was just your average American teenager, going out and doing crazy stuff like I was indestructable---managed to pull through to a time now where things move slower and I maintain some tangible sense of responsibility towards other people.
Good honest answer that should also answer why the laws are written the way they are. To maintain some tangible sense of responsibility towards other people.
Bah, it's differing opinions. Just like you disagree with us, we disagree with him. You can't expect a hot button topic like loosening DUI standards to not draw a sharp response. He seems to be doing okay, and this is an open forum. If we all agreed with eachother, what's the point of having a message board?
Most of us have come out and admitted our faults and things we've done wrong. It's one thing to say not to do something based on experience compared to scolding someone for something you do. I know personally the only I bootleg is sweet, sweet clown porn.
Hence why I even said in my post that I think the .08 limit is low.
And my example was an extreme example, but the still demonstrates the "black or white" concept. Personally I don't trust breathalyzer tests as being a true indicators of someone alcohol tolerance or impairment. I still prefer roadside tests as a better indicator.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: Yes you were legally drunk, but not impaired. All Tyler is saying is that the legal limit is too low, which you must agree with if you felt fine breaking the law. My only question is why is everyone arguing with him then, like they don't agree??
I agree with him in "principal". My belief is that you can not make a "standard breathelizor test" that would be fair at all.
Take for example a high school kid who has drank very little in his lifetime. ( not saying "all", but some )
The kid has three beers quite quickly and decides to drive. The odds favor that the current .08 may very well apply to this kid "being impaired". He has no real tollerence to drinking.
Now take Joe Steelworker who drinks a six pack every evening and a twelve pack every day on the week-end. Odds are in his favor that the .08 is pure silliness for him. He is in all likelihood NOT impaired.
That's why I favor the field sobriety test. The tollerence level is far higher for this guy and the .08 test is in no way indicative of his sobriety IMO
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I agree with that, the problem is that the government likes one size fits all answers because it takes the human element out of it... I can just see the first time the high school kid blows a .09 and gets arrested and the steelworker blows a .09 and is allowed to go home.... when the high school kid is black and the steelworker is white.... Sad to say but our government is almost forced to take subjective measures out of the equation for just those types of situations....
It's an average percent where a normal person would be impaired. Joe Steelworker likely isn't "that bad" but you gotta set limits. If you didn't have that # it would allow too much freedom for the cop at the scene to make a judgement if someone just failed a field sobriety. I can't say my alphabet backwards to save my life and have the balance of bull in a china shop, so if I got pulled over and said it wrong, I should get a DUI? Gotta have both.
Minor Correction: Your Joe Steelworker IS impaired, he is just acclimated and accustomed to functioning in an impaired state.
That is NOT the same... the impairment is still there
Either way, it's all moot... too high or too low, it IS the law as it stands and ones opinion of its validity has no bearing on whether or not they get to obey it or should be held accountable if they get caught not being in accordance.
Right, wrong or whatever... if you get pulled over at 0.08 or higher, you DESERVE to get busted and lose your license. Why? Because you KNOW the law, yet you CHOOSE to not obey it. Same thing as speeding. It isn't a major shock or surprise when you get popped for speeding... you've earned it. Same with a DUI/DWI/OVI. You know the law, yet you choose to not obey.... you've earned what you get.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
No, it's not just an "eye test". It a "coordination test". How can it be an "eye test" when you have to...............
1. Say your ABC's backwards.
2. Walk toe to toe
3. CLOSE YOUR EYES and touch your nose with your index finger tips.
None of these have anything to do with your "eyes".
I don't know the name of the test, but when you are drunk/have been drinking, they shine a light in your eyes, slowly move it from side to side, and the cop watches your pupils. People that have been drinking - their pupils will bounce (left to right, right to left) as they follow the light. People that have not been drinking, their pupils will follow the light smoothly.
That IS an eye test. Try it on a friend that has been drinking. It's also a way - albeit a simple, not 100% conclusive way - of checking someone for a concussion.
Once again, you speak about what you do not know.
So the point is, you can be "physicly coordinated enough to drive" (field sobriety test passed), but if your pupils aren't just right, the fact you're really "not physicly impaired" means nothing.
Where did I say that? The eye test is just one of several that police use to determine if a breathalyzer should be used. And, while not foolproof, it is more indicative than an ABC test, or walking a line.
Quote:
So even though you have the coordination to drive well, your eyes are the deciding factor?
Sounds like a bunch of BS to me.
You're either in good enough condition to drive, or you're not. Three beers may effect your pupils, but it's not enough for "most people" to truely be physicly impaired.
And you will not get a dui for failing the eye test. No one in Ohio ever has, and no one ever will. That is one test, to help to determine if a breathalyzer is needed. You can lie about whether you were drinking. Your eyes cannot lie. Can't you see the difference? Passing the eye test may actually enable you to NOT blow. But regardless, failing an eye test will NOT get you a OVI.
Quote:
And what makes you the "expert" Arch? You're self adoration?
What the hell was that for? You don't like what I'm saying? Check it out. I have a feeling it was an attempt to put me down. It was lame, regardless.
Don't you too know that when your about to say something bad to someone, your supposed to say "With all due respect.", that means you can say anything you like.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
No, it's not just an "eye test". It a "coordination test". How can it be an "eye test" when you have to...............
1. Say your ABC's backwards.
2. Walk toe to toe
3. CLOSE YOUR EYES and touch your nose with your index finger tips.
None of these have anything to do with your "eyes".
I don't know the name of the test, but when you are drunk/have been drinking, they shine a light in your eyes, slowly move it from side to side, and the cop watches your pupils. People that have been drinking - their pupils will bounce (left to right, right to left) as they follow the light. People that have not been drinking, their pupils will follow the light smoothly.
That IS an eye test. Try it on a friend that has been drinking. It's also a way - albeit a simple, not 100% conclusive way - of checking someone for a concussion.
Once again, you speak about what you do not know.
So the point is, you can be "physicly coordinated enough to drive" (field sobriety test passed), but if your pupils aren't just right, the fact you're really "not physicly impaired" means nothing.
So even though you have the coordination to drive well, your eyes are the deciding factor?
Sounds like a bunch of BS to me.
You're either in good enough condition to drive, or you're not. Three beers may effect your pupils, but it's not enough for "most people" to truely be physicly impaired.
And what makes you the "expert" Arch? You're self adoration?
You do realize that the horizontal ngytmus test determines the amount you are imparied, right? It shows how impaired you are because the eye is a muscle that is impaired by drinking. Therefore, you ARE impaiared if you fail the test. It may sound like "BS" to you, but maybe if you studied up on it and acutally learned what the test proves, you wouldn't be so ignorant on the subject and would understand why it's not "BS".
Quote: Minor Correction: Your Joe Steelworker IS impaired, he is just acclimated and accustomed to functioning in an impaired state.
That is NOT the same... the impairment is still there
Either way, it's all moot... too high or too low, it IS the law as it stands and ones opinion of its validity has no bearing on whether or not they get to obey it or should be held accountable if they get caught not being in accordance.
Right, wrong or whatever... if you get pulled over at 0.08 or higher, you DESERVE to get busted and lose your license. Why? Because you KNOW the law, yet you CHOOSE to not obey it. Same thing as speeding. It isn't a major shock or surprise when you get popped for speeding... you've earned it. Same with a DUI/DWI/OVI. You know the law, yet you choose to not obey.... you've earned what you get.
Quote: Minor Correction: Your Joe Steelworker IS impaired, he is just acclimated and accustomed to functioning in an impaired state.
That is NOT the same... the impairment is still there
Either way, it's all moot... too high or too low, it IS the law as it stands and ones opinion of its validity has no bearing on whether or not they get to obey it or should be held accountable if they get caught not being in accordance.
Right, wrong or whatever... if you get pulled over at 0.08 or higher, you DESERVE to get busted and lose your license. Why? Because you KNOW the law, yet you CHOOSE to not obey it. Same thing as speeding. It isn't a major shock or surprise when you get popped for speeding... you've earned it. Same with a DUI/DWI/OVI. You know the law, yet you choose to not obey.... you've earned what you get.
![[Linked Image from pic18.picturetrail.com]](http://pic18.picturetrail.com/VOL905/3216203/6567769/349897772.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
