Slashdot Mirror

They sure are.

With few exceptions, anytime a news article or politicians mentions drunk driving and throws out a really high number like 20,000 per year, they're actually referring to "alcohol related" deaths.

The NHTSA defines "alcohol related" to mean any crash where a driver or nonoccupant had a positive BAC. It's true that all drunk driving crashes are also alcohol related crashes, but all alcohol related crashes are not drunk driving.

For example, all of the below are alcohol related, but only a fool would call them drunk driving:
-.00 driver runs a red light and hits a .01 pedestrian
-.01 driver hits a .00 jaywalking pedestrian
-.00 driver is screwing around in his car at 2:00am on a Saturday night and runs off the road. (certain types of crashes are assumed to be alcohol related without any kind of measurement done.)
-.00 driver runs red light and plows into car full of teens with driver who is .01 (those teens will now be part of the quoted "under 21 killed in an alcohol related crash" statistic.

The group RIDL made some interesting reports from the raw FARS data. Quite a few crashes labeled alcohol related when the driver was tested and was .00 or only the passenger had alcohol in their blood, etc.

They sure are.

With few exceptions, anytime a news article or politicians mentions drunk driving and throws out a really high number like 20,000 per year, they're actually referring to "alcohol related" deaths.

The NHTSA defines "alcohol related" to mean any crash where a driver or nonoccupant had a positive BAC. It's true that all drunk driving crashes are also alcohol related crashes, but all alcohol related crashes are not drunk driving.

For example, all of the below are alcohol related, but only a fool would call them drunk driving:
-.00 driver runs a red light and hits a .01 pedestrian
-.01 driver hits a .00 jaywalking pedestrian
-.00 driver is screwing around in his car at 2:00am on a Saturday night and runs off the road. (certain types of crashes are assumed to be alcohol related without any kind of measurement done.)
-.00 driver runs red light and plows into car full of teens with driver who is .01 (those teens will now be part of the quoted "under 21 killed in an alcohol related crash" statistic.

The group RIDL made some interesting reports from the raw FARS data. Quite a few crashes labeled alcohol related when the driver was tested and was .00 or only the passenger had alcohol in their blood, etc.

"For a 0.085, it's so close it's almost not worth it, and in most cases, by the time you got to the station and did another breathalyser, normally the number would go down not up." Oh, boy, here we go again. This is what I'm talking about when I say so many people believe myths about the drunk driving laws. When you finish drinking, you BAC actually continues to rise for up to two hours before it starts going down. That's because your body is continuing to absorb the alcohol that you drank that's been hanging around in your stomach. Prosecutors love to try and say that a person's BAC is lower by the time they get the breathalyzer test for those cases where a person is just below the legal limit, so that they can extrapolate backwards and say that their BAC was actually higher while they were driving. You can't say this with any certainty whatsoever unless you can know exactly when the person stopped drinking and if you can know (which you can't) that particular person absorption rate which is different for everyone. Which is exactly why the breathalyzer's are inaccurate as they assume an average absorption rate that they apply to everyone and that can and does skew the results almost all the time. Jeanne Pruett President and CEO Responsibility In DUI Laws, Inc. R.I.D.L. http://www.ridl.us/

This is true. You are under no obligation to take the FST's and they are in fact only used to build a case against you. I'm always surprised by how many...I guess you could call them myths...that people believe when it comes to the drunk driving laws. Many people truly believe that if you are sober, you won't get arrested. There are many cases of completely sober people getting arrested for DUI, even if they blew 0.00 and a urine test later showed them to have no drugs in their system.

Fact is, if a cop wants to arrest you for DUI, you're going to get arrested. Now MADD has been quoted as saying that they think the average person would not mind the "slight inconvenience" of being arrested for DUI given the opportunity to "prove their innocence".

Prove their innocence??? Say what? What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? And a DUI arrest is hardly a "slight inconvenience". It totally consumes your life and costs thousands of dollars to fight. And if you get pressured into accepting a plea bargain it will come back to haunt you for the rest of your life. That's hardly a "slight inconvenience".

It's our goal to educate people about the current state of DUI laws. It's not as cut and dry as some people would like to think.

Jeanne Pruett
President and CEO
Responsibility In DUI Laws, Inc.
http://www.ridl.us/

We need responsibility in DUI Laws. Drunk driving is a terrible problem, but the way the states are dealing with it is not good. The BAC limits have been creeping ever so lower, as to raise the revenue from someone having a glass of wine after dinner when stopped at a roadblock. This is not actually helpful in impacting road safety.

Also, breathalyzers have a +/- 20% error, which is rather unfortunate.

Ignition interlocks have a .02 BAC margin of error, so they are set to legal_limit - 0.02, so in a 0.05BAC state, they are set to 0.03. Go on a date and take the girl home on a bus. This is why you should not support mandatory ignition interlocks.

We need to deal with the drunk driving problem responsibly: provide good public transportation options (Boston, extend trains until after 2am, you listening?), encourage designated drivers, and provide massive roaming police enforcement, looking for erratic driving and dangerous behavior (substantially more effective than roadblocks).

The federally bribed speed limits were actually put in place to reduce pollution. Seatbelt laws are designed to save states money by reducing injuries for people who do not have insurance. DWI is a different story, there is a great potential to injure someone other than you self. They are not trying to protect you in this case. They are trying to protect people from you.

The 0.1 BAC may have been to protect others from an individual, but the 0.08 BAC laws are just a money grab. There's little evidence that a driver at 0.08 is more impared than one who is sober. If you take a look at some of the stats, drivers doing things that make them look drunk are more often than not stone sober. http://www.ridl.us/pdf_stats/index.html

someone said:

Unfortunately, I'd imagine that all of this would apply to almost any forensic test. Using this exact same process, a murder defendant could ask for the source code and engineering documents for a machine used to perform DNA analysis. If the company is unwilling to release, a murder defendant could walk away a free man.

All of this could make prosecution problematic for even the most serious of crimes.

Many people here do not seem realize that thanks to the MADDness the DUI laws are unlike any other criminal law. In fact the US Supreme court has in effect proclaimed there to be an exception to the Constitution when it comes to DUI. The fact is even murders, rapists, child molesters, and someone who is driving down the road smoking a joint, or who has just used crack, have more rights under the law. Yes even people who have used and or are under the influence of illegal drugs have more rights when arrested that the average Joe who is arrested for DUI of alcohol after downing one or two beers. DUI of alcohol is the only crime where a person is presumed to be GUILTY under the law before stepping even one foot into a court of law. In Every state there are now what are called Illegal per se laws when it comes to driving a motor vehicle after consuming the legal substance called alcohol.

Per Se = Of, in, or by itself or oneself; intrinsically

Illegal Per Se Law
"A State law that makes it a criminal offense to operate a motor vehicle either (1) at or above a specified alcohol concentration in either the blood, breath or urine."
Many states have no such laws when it comes to DUI of Drugs illegal or legal.. Only for alcohol!!

With blood or urine these is ALWAYS physical evidence left behind that can be independently verified. This is not the case with these breath testing machines. They leave no evidence behind except for an accusation proclaiming ones guilt, which under the law will be consider correct unless the accused can prove otherwise. Under the law the accused must not only prove that they were not impaired (Drunk) but that the machine was wrong. Under the law the state is NOT obligated to prove that the machine has accurately determined a persons true BLOOD alcohol content. No the accused must prove it did not. This is the only place in our entire criminal justice system where the burden of proof automatically shifs from the state to the accused.

by trialjudge (858690) on Monday June 06, @12:15PM
The test in most jurisdictions is some form of "scientific reliability." If the test is generally accepted as reliable, by a preponderance of the scientific community, the results are admissible. This type of defense has been tried before, but has been rejected in most American jurisdictions. NORMALLY the Court would reject the Defendant's motion to dismiss, but allow Defendant to depose the corporate officials (at Defendant's expense.) The Defendant could then offer expert testimony as to why the Defendant felt the test was not reliable. If the Court continued to believe the test was scientifically reliable, and the issue of intoxication, including the technical evidence would be submitted as a question of fact for the jury. I can understand the corporation's reluctance. I suspect if a good technie knew all the details of the radar gun, it might be possible to craft a device to indicate 43 mph on the radar gun when the true speed was something approaching Warp Factor. The corporation might be compelled to testify, however the corporation could apply for a "protective order" prohibiting the use of the information beyond the criminal trial at issue. Tj

trialjudge ??? Your talking about the "Frye inquiry". Haven't you ever heard of Daubert??? At one time a preponderance of the "scientific community" said the earth was flat!!

Admissibility of scientific evidence

http://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1148/

Radar is an open book . H

You know, if you can prove that statistic, it's worth $20,000. Let's not forget that an alcohol-related death is not the same as a death due to drunk driving; the former includes wandering drunks hit by cars.

BTW, unlike MADD or a rambling lunatic, I'm going to back up every claim with a link.

MADD (and NHTSA) grossly overexaggerate their claims of "drunk driving accidents," which are really alcohol-related accidents (a misleading statistic used by NHTSA). Did you know that if you, while 100% sober, hit a drunk pedestrian, it counts as an alcohol-related accident? Or did you know that if you get in an accident and EVERYONE is sober (driver, pedestrian, passengers), you can still be counted as alcohol-related due to the statistical correction that NHTSA uses, since only 63% of drivers are tested for their BAC level!

MADD claims that 0.08 BAC reduction saves lives, yet a study by NHTSA found no proof of such reduction after North Carolina enacted the lower BAC limit: "There appears to have been little clear effect of the lower BAC limit in North Carolina. Survey data indicate that the general public believes the new law was well-publicized. Although awareness of the new lower limit was not particularly high nearly 18 months after the law took effect, frequent drinkers did evidence a substantial degree of awareness that the law had changed and about what the new BAC limit was. As is typical in North Carolina, enforcement of the lower limit was vigorous and strict."

MADD wants to lower the BAC limit lower and lower, to 0.05. It claims victory over the 0.08 law over the previous 0.10 standard. However, it has been found that "the relative risk [of being in a traffic accident while using a cell-phone] is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit." The legal limit in that paper was 0.10 BAC. Another interesting note is that "These data also call into question driving regulations that prohibit handheld cell-phones and permit hands-free cell-phones, because no significant differences in the impairments caused by these two cellular devices were found.", but that's another topic of conversation.

Point is, why do they want to keep lowering the BAC when it has been shown that the vast majority of drunk driving accidents occurs with drivers with over 0.10 BAC, and that below that, it's as risky as using a cell phone? Why is MADD targeting low-BAC-level drivers, such as 0.08 (and as they hope 0.05), with huge fines, property confiscation, loss of driver license, and obscene insurance surcharges? MADD wants to bully states into the 0.08 BAC law by passing legislation that threatens their funding.

Furthermore, when NHTSA's accident data was loaded in a database and independent statistics were ran on it, the massive exaggerations were exposed. Quote from the previous link: "Through the use of this tool we were able to discover that across the entire country NHTSA nearly doubles the number of instances of drunk drivers. And this is prior to them implementing their "Multiple Imputation" methodology w

BTW, unlike MADD or a rambling lunatic, I'm going to back up every claim with a link.

MADD (and NHTSA) grossly overexaggerate their claims of "drunk driving accidents," which are really alcohol-related accidents (a misleading statistic used by NHTSA). Did you know that if you, while 100% sober, hit a drunk pedestrian, it counts as an alcohol-related accident? Or did you know that if you get in an accident and EVERYONE is sober (driver, pedestrian, passengers), you can still be counted as alcohol-related due to the statistical correction that NHTSA uses, since only 63% of drivers are tested for their BAC level!

MADD claims that 0.08 BAC reduction saves lives, yet a study by NHTSA found no proof of such reduction after North Carolina enacted the lower BAC limit: "There appears to have been little clear effect of the lower BAC limit in North Carolina. Survey data indicate that the general public believes the new law was well-publicized. Although awareness of the new lower limit was not particularly high nearly 18 months after the law took effect, frequent drinkers did evidence a substantial degree of awareness that the law had changed and about what the new BAC limit was. As is typical in North Carolina, enforcement of the lower limit was vigorous and strict."

MADD wants to lower the BAC limit lower and lower, to 0.05. It claims victory over the 0.08 law over the previous 0.10 standard. However, it has been found that "the relative risk [of being in a traffic accident while using a cell-phone] is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit." The legal limit in that paper was 0.10 BAC. Another interesting note is that "These data also call into question driving regulations that prohibit handheld cell-phones and permit hands-free cell-phones, because no significant differences in the impairments caused by these two cellular devices were found.", but that's another topic of conversation.

Point is, why do they want to keep lowering the BAC when it has been shown that the vast majority of drunk driving accidents occurs with drivers with over 0.10 BAC, and that below that, it's as risky as using a cell phone? Why is MADD targeting low-BAC-level drivers, such as 0.08 (and as they hope 0.05), with huge fines, property confiscation, loss of driver license, and obscene insurance surcharges? MADD wants to bully states into the 0.08 BAC law by passing legislation that threatens their funding.

Furthermore, when NHTSA's accident data was loaded in a database and independent statistics were ran on it, the massive exaggerations were exposed. Quote from the previous link: "Through the use of this tool we were able to discover that across the entire country NHTSA nearly doubles the number of instances of drunk drivers. And this is prior to them implementing their "Multiple Imputation" methodology w

BTW, unlike MADD or a rambling lunatic, I'm going to back up every claim with a link.

MADD (and NHTSA) grossly overexaggerate their claims of "drunk driving accidents," which are really alcohol-related accidents (a misleading statistic used by NHTSA). Did you know that if you, while 100% sober, hit a drunk pedestrian, it counts as an alcohol-related accident? Or did you know that if you get in an accident and EVERYONE is sober (driver, pedestrian, passengers), you can still be counted as alcohol-related due to the statistical correction that NHTSA uses, since only 63% of drivers are tested for their BAC level!

MADD claims that 0.08 BAC reduction saves lives, yet a study by NHTSA found no proof of such reduction after North Carolina enacted the lower BAC limit: "There appears to have been little clear effect of the lower BAC limit in North Carolina. Survey data indicate that the general public believes the new law was well-publicized. Although awareness of the new lower limit was not particularly high nearly 18 months after the law took effect, frequent drinkers did evidence a substantial degree of awareness that the law had changed and about what the new BAC limit was. As is typical in North Carolina, enforcement of the lower limit was vigorous and strict."

MADD wants to lower the BAC limit lower and lower, to 0.05. It claims victory over the 0.08 law over the previous 0.10 standard. However, it has been found that "the relative risk [of being in a traffic accident while using a cell-phone] is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit." The legal limit in that paper was 0.10 BAC. Another interesting note is that "These data also call into question driving regulations that prohibit handheld cell-phones and permit hands-free cell-phones, because no significant differences in the impairments caused by these two cellular devices were found.", but that's another topic of conversation.

Point is, why do they want to keep lowering the BAC when it has been shown that the vast majority of drunk driving accidents occurs with drivers with over 0.10 BAC, and that below that, it's as risky as using a cell phone? Why is MADD targeting low-BAC-level drivers, such as 0.08 (and as they hope 0.05), with huge fines, property confiscation, loss of driver license, and obscene insurance surcharges? MADD wants to bully states into the 0.08 BAC law by passing legislation that threatens their funding.

Furthermore, when NHTSA's accident data was loaded in a database and independent statistics were ran on it, the massive exaggerations were exposed. Quote from the previous link: "Through the use of this tool we were able to discover that across the entire country NHTSA nearly doubles the number of instances of drunk drivers. And this is prior to them implementing their "Multiple Imputation" methodology w