Live-Streaming Florida Woman Charged With Drunken Driving

HughPickens.com writes: Christine Hauser writes in the NY Times that police in Lakeland, Florida say 911 dispatchers started receiving calls Saturday from viewers who were watching a woman broadcasting herself while apparently driving drunk, using the live-streaming app Periscope. Despite the tip being generated in the virtual world, it took some traditional police sleuthing to find the woman and, ultimately, arrest and charge her. The woman first invited her viewers to follow her as she went bar-hopping in downtown Lakeland. During the live stream, Beall repeatedly said that she was drunk and appeared to be asking viewers for directions. She noticed that there were at least 57 people watching and asked, "So where am I right now, people?" One 911 caller said Beall was driving a Toyota in the north Lakeland area. "I just saw a girl on Periscope driving drunk. She doesn't know where she is and she's driving really fast," said the caller. As officers pulled Beall over, her 2015 Toyota Corolla, which already had a flat right front tire, rammed into a curb. Beall failed the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and she refused the breathalyzer test.

Comments

Drunks don't make the best decisions

[naughtynaughty]

Taking the optional Field Sobriety Test (FST) is never a good idea. Not doing the Breathalyzer test after being arrested in Florida is also not a good idea as it results in the automatic suspension of your license and your refusal to take the test can be used against you in court. In addition, it doesn't prevent the police from obtaining a warrant to draw your blood and determine your BAC.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[rmdingler]

Taking the optional Field Sobriety Test (FST) is never a good idea. Not doing the Breathalyzer test after being arrested in Florida is also not a good idea as it results in the automatic suspension of your license and your refusal to take the test can be used against you in court. In addition, it doesn't prevent the police from obtaining a warrant to draw your blood and determine your BAC.

Take neither test.

If you're in doubt about what to do, please remember the police are not administering these exams to help prove your innocence.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[wbr1]

In most states, refusing the test is an automatic license suspension.

You should never drive inebriated, however, if you are this stupid, be smart enough to have an attorney on retainer or delay to get one.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[circletimessquare]

you're giving legal advice to people who drive drunk

1. they obviously aren't the best decision makers, even before drinking, so you might as well be giving advice to farm animals on taking a calculus test

2. to all drunk driving irresponsible assholes: fuck you. the legal in and outs of the exact procedure to establish your level of inebriation is secondary. the primary topic is the police should do whatever they need to to take away your driving privileges, as they should be taken away. oh you need to drive to your job? you drove drunk you stupid asshole, you have proven to society you don't deserve to drive. take the bus you irresponsible douchebag

If you're in doubt about what to do

i know: how about don't drive drunk?

there are no lame ass whiny entitled excuses or explanations that apply. don't drive drunk, no exceptions

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[MTEK]

In some states, refusal has other consequences. In Virginia, for example, refusal will result in having your license suspended for a minimum of one year.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Anonymous Coward]

Automatic license suspension > Going to jail

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[rmdingler]

I have no rebuttal. You're spot on.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Wrath0fb0b]

It absolutely falls under the 5A -- the issue is that your privilege to drive on the public roads will be suspended if you don't comply. You don't have to submit to the test, we don't have to let you drive.

The worst possible outcome for the drunk driver is that is to refuse the test (triggering the suspension) and then the officers obtains a telephonic warrant for a blood draw. Then your screwed on both counts -- first on the refusal and then on the DUI. So refusal is a risky strategy...

[ And, since this is /. and I have to explain: complying with a warrant is not voluntary. If the police knock on your door and ask to come in, you can say no. If they police knock on your door with a search warrant, you have to step aside. ]

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[PopeRatzo]

i know: how about don't drive drunk?

If you lived in Florida, you'd do everything drunk.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[naughtynaughty]

Note what my original comment said, refusing a BAC test AFTER being arrested is a poor choice. You've already been arrest, you are going to jail, refusing doesn't keep you out of jail.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[naughtynaughty]

They get a warrant to draw your blood and if necessary they hold you down to get the blood drawn.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[nedlohs]

Except that people who haven't been drinking are also asked to do an FST or a breathalyzer test.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[wisnoskij]

Well if you know you are not drunk, take the damn tests and prove your own innocence with them. These tests are not pseudo science from my understanding, if you have not been drinking they will return that result.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[tehcyder]

If the police knock on your door and ask to come in, you can say no. If they police knock on your door with a search warrant, you have to step aside

Yes, but say that is a warrant to SEIZE ALL YOUR GUNS AND AMMO? In that case, internet tough guys the world over will agree that you should yell the legendary Chuck Heston line "you can pry my weapon(s) from my cold dead hands" before the police oblige.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[tehcyder]

Be sure to obtain a good lawyer. Or better yet just don't drive drunk.

Perhaps more pertinently, don't drive drunk and advertise it over the fucking internet.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[squiggleslash]

Meh. This is Florida. Most of Florida is designed so that it's impossible to hold down a job or get food without driving.

Once the zoning restrictions are lifted and developers are allowed to build a large enough amount of quality high density stock, with decent public transport (Hello All Aboard Florida, but you're not enough) linking residents to jobs and each other, I'll accept that we have the right to treat driving as optional and people who drive while drunk as having "no excuses".

Until then, however anti-social I might feel drinking and driving might be, I just can't side with those treating those who do it as deserving of severe punishments or bans on mobility.

Sorry suburbanists who believe in mandatory car use, but this is the hell you've built for us. I'm not going to make your hell safer until you build an exit door for those who don't want to live in it.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[circletimessquare]

failing a BAC because of a medical condition is not driving drunk, you moron. you don't win an argument by changing the topic

Also, to all those that would throw away everyone's liberties in the search of a small modicum of safety: fuck you.

the most frequent defiler of your freedoms and liberties is not cartoon authoritarian jackboots working for big government. it's the irresponsible douchebags you run into in your life who will take your property, your health, your life. simply because they think freedom means freedom from responsibility. in fact, there is no such thing as freedom without responsibility

and those who often do the most damage to the notion of freedom are not your cartoon notions of statist authoritarians, but social retards like yourself who think freedom means there is no such thing as consequences for *you* defiling the freedoms of those who have to live near you, share the roadway with you, work with you. you damage the notion of freedom by showing there are morons out there who don't even know what freedom is. and when you defile the freedom of others, do you know what society does? it limits your freedom, up to and including prison. as it should. to preserve the freedom of those of us who actually know what freedom fucking is: "i can do whatever i want, as long as i don't hurt anyone else"

you can't increase freedom in society when you allow people who are so egregiously stupid or malicious, that they constantly limiting the freedom of others they encounter with their behavior. freedom is not destroyed just by government. it is also destroyed by the irresponsible and the malicious and the social retards, which is the category you seem to fit into: people who don't have a grasp of what freedom actually means. it does not mean freedom from consequences and responsibility, and never did, and never will

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[circletimessquare]

assuming the officer of the law has a good reason to apply the test, then they pass it, and there is no problem

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[nedlohs]

So do the completely subjective FST that the officer can just declare you failed whenever he likes, which only serves to be used against you?

That's the opposite advice then what every single lawyer and police officer I've talked to has given me.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[circletimessquare]

get a cab. take the bus. walk. arrange for a friend to drive, before or after. sleep it off at the location. get a hotel. prop yourself up on the side of the wall. all options infinitely better than driving drunk

while poor urban planning and poor civil engineering may explain why there are more drunk drivers in a given area statistically, it is no *individual* excuse nor explanation. suburban sprawl simply exposes more of the irresponsible douchebag fraction of society to limited transportation options, yes. if they were responsible, they still would not drive, no matter how much the transportation sucks. but because there are so many irresponsible assholes in the world, yes, there are more drunk drivers in florida

which is simply an argument against living in florida

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[cayenne8]

Yep.

Actually a LOT of this depends on the state you live in. I spoke to an atty friend of mine here and he said basically if you get pulled over and are a bit tanked, don't say a word, don't do any field tests....just hold your hands out because you are going to be arrested.

He said all the field tests are doing, is collecting evidence against you, so you don't want to give them any help. Don't do any tests till you can get an atty. present....if nothing else this will give your body more time to process the alcohol so that if you do have to get blood drawn, it will be less.

But know the laws of your state, if you refuse tests most will suspend your license, but still, that's better than a DWI....and get a good lawyer, they help. You can often get special permission to drive on suspended license for work, groceries, etc.....so, life will go on for you.

With the alcohol laws SO drastic today..the BAC level is now a low 0.08 in most states, as a grown man just having a couple glasses of wine with a meal out can get your dangerously close to the legal level, when in reality you are just fine to drive.

But being pulled over for DWI is like being pulled over for ANY infraction, the police are NOT there to help you, and you need to know your rights and stick by them and not give them any evidence to charge or prosecute you, which IS their job.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[circletimessquare]

if all law enforcement officers are all cartoon goons out to violate your rights via lying and cheating, you would be right

since that is a cartoon universe that only exists your head, you're simply revealing your feeble grasp on reality

there are bad apples in law enforcement. they aren't that prevalent, and they aren't out to get you

paranoid schizophrenia has treatment options. good luck to you

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Gr8Apes]

there are no lame ass whiny entitled excuses or explanations that apply. don't drive drunk, no exceptions

Ah, but what is "drunk"? Is it an arbitrary value or is it an actual assessment of whether you are truly impaired? (The former in the US, in case you're wondering)

Yes, I'm fully aware this goes against the nanny prohibitionists currently gaining favor everywhere, because alcohol is Bad [Tm]. A BAC of 0.08 might put one 90 lb female completely out but another will be perfectly lucid and sane. I personally know a guy that can't drink more than 2 light beers without becoming impaired for the evening (bad luck in the gene lotto) and his BAC is far below 0.08. I know another guy who sometimes drinks all day, and you'd never know. I guarantee you his BAC is above 0.1 for a good period of that time. Instead of an arbitrary BAC as proof, how about it being merely evidence to support proving impairment by actually testing... impairment? For chronic offenders this is relatively simple and obvious.

Note that I fully support throwing the book at those who harm others while DUI. You've run out of mitigating circumstances at that point and deserve the maximum penalty for whatever you did, to run consecutively in cases of multiple harm. Responsibility is something that should be applied appropriately, and merely having an arbitrary BAC is not a reason to throw the entire book at someone.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[cayenne8]

Note what my original comment said, refusing a BAC test AFTER being arrested is a poor choice. You've already been arrest, you are going to jail, refusing doesn't keep you out of jail.

No, but if you can refuse, you are not giving them evidence to convict you of DWI.

If you get a good lawyer, they likely can get it reduced to Reckless Driving or something less...which is certainly much better than a DWI considering that will cost you much more $$, be a stain when applying for jobs, and insurance.

Like I mentioned before, with BAC legal levels being so damned low today...you can get pinched for just a couple glasses of wine with a meal which should not be the case.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[SuiteSisterMary]

These tests are not pseudo science from my understanding, if you have not been drinking they will return that result.

No, not pseudoscience, but a) not necessarily good science, and b) that assumes the Breathalyzers are properly designed, built, maintained, regularly calibrated, used, reported and recorded.

Those are awfully big assumptions to make, especially when so many, like, you, assume that they're infallible magic boxes.

Breathalizer source code analysis. Slashdot discussion thereof

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[cayenne8]

They get a warrant to draw your blood and if necessary they hold you down to get the blood drawn.

Depends on the state you live in, not all force you to submit to such an invasive procedure against your will.

Know the laws of the state you are in is the best advice.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Archangel Michael]

"I am not refusing the test. I am asking for my lawyer be present during its administration."

Then I will listen to what my lawyer tells me.

Thanks

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Holi]

Nice statistic you pulled from your ass, amazing it fit up there next to your head.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[cayenne8]

Well, first...

The BAC legal levels are WAAAY too low now. A grown man or woman just having a couple of glasses of wine with a meal can be dangerously close to the legal level of DWI...when in fact there is no problem with driving home.

And, if you're so against any drinking at all and driving, then why is is even legal to have a bar with a parking lot for the patrons to come in? Do you seriouslythink all those cars are for designated drivers? Do you not wonder where they all disappear to at night at closing time (for those of you living in states/cities where you require bars to close)?

Be realistic. People go out..they have a few...they have to get themselves and their cars HOME for the next day. It happens. The trick is to not be too impaired to drive safely.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Archangel Michael]

If they have a warrant to seize your guns, you ask for a lawyer be present during the warrant search. They can wait.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Holi]

They hold you down and stick a needle in you and take blood,

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[cayenne8]

assuming the officer of the law has a good reason to apply the test, then they pass it, and there is no problem

So, the mere act if driving through a checkpoint is good enough reason to require you to stop your car, get out, take time out of your day and schedule to do some test because of an arbitrary head count.

Would you condone the same if alcohol wasn't a reason...just have checkpoints to stop people in case they are doing something wrong and test things out and search their cars and persons?

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Holi]

And you will still be sitting their with a suspended license for up to a year, refusal is an automatic suspension in most states.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[circletimessquare]

So, the mere act if driving through a checkpoint is good enough reason to require you to stop your car, get out, take time out of your day and schedule to do some test because of an arbitrary head count.

that's not what i said, asshole. in fact it is the exact opposite of what i said. i said assuming the officer of the law has a good reason to apply the test

you can't completely reverse the meaning of someone's comment and reply to them

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Anubis IV]

From my recollection of looking into the laws in my own state, a field sobriety test is requested (much like a "would you mind if I take a look around?" when they want to do a search but don't have a warrant) whereas a breathalyzer is ordered (and for which they must be able to establish reasonable suspicion). A refusal to consent to a subjective field sobriety test just means that the officer has one less piece of data they can use against you, whereas a failure to consent to an objective breathalyzer test carries significant penalties, regardless of whether you're drunk or not. I believe that in some states you can demand they use a blood sample instead of the breathalyzer, which is a massive inconvenience to you since they have to cart you back to the station, though that delay may give your body more time to process alcohol, which could be to the advantage of your potential court case.

But, honestly, let's face it: if you're in the position where that delay may help you, then the truth is that you should be locked up anyway since you had no business being on the road. None at all. So own up and take responsibility for the mistakes you've made.

(Disclaimers: IANAL; when it comes to alcohol, I have a few drinks/month on average, but have never had enough in one sitting to get buzzed, let alone go beyond that; that last "you" above was a generic "you", and wasn't aimed at the previous poster specifically)

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[circletimessquare]

if you drink and then drive, you are an irresponsible asshole and you deserve punishment. yes, it is actually that binary

human's aren't binary, but the choices we make can place us pretty clearly in the wrong. drinking and driving is exactly such a choice

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[cayenne8]

that's not what i said, asshole. in fact it is the exact opposite of what i said. i said assuming the officer of the law has a good reason to apply the test

But that is the reality of today. Just driving to a checkpoint is grounds for them to stop you and pull you from the car for tests. You having the misfortune of hitting a checkpoint is "good enough reason" in many case for them to detain you and test you.

Thankfully in many states, they require the cops to post where checkpoints are in advance, which if you are smart you'll know to look for and avoid those areas. There are also nice apps for your phone to help avoid checkpoints if you don't want your trip to be interrupted by essentially a random search.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[circletimessquare]

you're an irresponsible douchebag

you don't drink then drive

period. ever. no excuses or explanations

your lame self-serving weak rationalizations only reveal your poor character

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know the expression "this is why we can't have nice things"? Most of the laws that we have to know and observe every day, even when what we're doing isn't the least bit harmful or endangering to others, exist only because some people have no fucking self-restraint. Drinking and driving is so obviously and definitively stupid, dangerous and harmful that nobody should consider justifying it, but here you are. So, because the obvious isn't accepted by some egomaniac "freedom" lovers, there has to be a law against drunk driving, and we're OK with it because it doesn't really restrict responsible people, who wouldn't drive drunk anyway.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[circletimessquare]

well thank you for changing the subject and randomly making me the bad guy in a scenario that has nothing to do with what i am saying, douchebag

if you're going to hijack the fucking topic, have the decency to note that you are changing the fucking topic

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Gr8Apes]

...you dumb fuck... immature douchebag ...choke on your mother's cock...result in the death...immature irresponsible piece of shit.

People that cannot contain themselves and threaten and curse repeatedly have been shown to be much more likely to commit violent random crimes. Please submit yourself to the federal prison system immediately, as apparently you are unfit for society.

That's how arbitrary laws work, dumbass. Thank goodness you're supporting the nanny state.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Attila Dimedici]

You make some good points, but you fail to recognize that he is giving advise to people who are stopped on suspicion of drunk driving, not all of whom are actually drunk.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Anonymous Coward]

The worst possible outcome for the drunk drive...

This is a weird case to be getting hung up upon. People should be looking at the worst (reasonably-possible) outcome for various sober driver strategies (i.e. the most typical and expected case). It's lose license vs not lose license, and probably not any DUI convictions anywhere on the table.

(Yes, shit happens, cops can fake evidence, etc. Also, the cop might be hit in the head by a meteorite (placed into orbit long ago, by anti-Xenu terrorists) and his partner might think you shot him, so the surviving cop draws his gun and fires, missing you and accidentally killing your time-travelling grandfather, who at that moment was walking up behind you to tell you stock tips .. from the .. past?! See, this is why it's better to talk about typical/expected cases.)

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[edtice1559]

I'm not a lawyer but I've seen this play out in traffic court. If you refuse the test, you will be charged with *both* the refusal *and* drunken driving. You will then be offered a deal where you plea guilty to only the drunken driving charge. If you're drunk and you're driving, it's really a hopeless situation. Just don't do it. If you refuse the test and then somehow get found not guilty for the DUI, it won't matter, as the penalties for the two are about the same.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[circletimessquare]

lol

nice point

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Gr8Apes]

The step that you and many others who share a similar opinion miss is that in general, the police don't waste their time pulling someone over without some form of probable cause.

I guess that's why we have so many non-violating stop and search court cases?

For drunk driving accusations, this falls into one of two dominant scenarios: 1) it's about 3AM and all the bars closed down for the morning; 2) the driver was driving recklessly. Even if it is 3AM, if you do not show any signs of impairment when the officer comes to talk to you, they probably won't waste their time with a field sobriety test.

Note that at 3am, hopped up cops are more than happy to pull over anyone, for any reason. They are bored, and arresting anyone, even under false pretenses, means they get to do something other than just being bored.

they've either gotten stuck with a cop who's had a bad day and will look for any slight excuse to fine or arrest someone

Yep, and that means arresting you whether you're guilty or not, just because you were out, oh, and they have an "unofficial" quota to meet.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[circletimessquare]

assuming a good cop, and a well-meaning suspicion to apply the test (the vast majority of situations), there will be people who take the test and pass, and go on their way

it's impossible for a cop, a human being not a computer, to only apply the tests when they know for 100% certainty someone is drunk. that's why they do the test, to turn their suspicion into a certainty. it's a valid policy in the field to back up the suspicion with the test

so avoiding the test means you get to spend more quality time with law enforcement rather than get on with your life, which doesn't seem like good advice to me

now for the other kind of situation: the bad cop (the much smaller amount of situations)

this guy wants to railroad you. in which case, i'm not sure taking the test, or not taking the test, makes much difference. you can take the test, and he can muddy the results, and you're screwed. or you can choose not to take the test, and you get to spend much more quality time with a guy who wants to screw you over

they have to take you somewhere where the test will be applied in the presence of other people, to a higher standard of quality, which usually means that if you pass, you're good to go and you made the right choice. but now you've wasted a lot of time of your life. additionally, that time is spent alone with a guy who is looking to screw you over. faking or muddying a test isn't the only option he has to do that. maybe he'll find you in violation of some other trumped up charges. you've given him the time to be nosy, and you've pissed him off by refusing the field test. it's a lose/ lose situation if you run into a bad cop, and whatever you choose to do is only going to wind up with a different kind of pain

so i guess what you have to do is decide up front as quick as possible if you are dealing with a good cop or a bad cop. if a bad cop, maybe don't take the test. but look out for some pain anyways

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Gliscameria]

The BAC level is garbage. At least around here you can get something similar for any level of alcohol in your system, but they talk about that much. Honestly, if you're going to make the BAC so low that 2 drinks can get you, just go zero tolerance. Ohh but wait, then people might not drink and drive... It's really silly to think that someone is going to make increasingly responsible decisions on a drug that makes it harder to make good decisions. It's a whole lot easier to say, "I can't drink, I'm driving." than, "This is my last one." after a couple.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Gr8Apes]

The limit does not exist so that you can have "just one beer" and still be able to drive. If you plan to drive, do not drink alcohol. None.

Yep, nice in theory, but you might as well take the US back to Prohibition. Fortunately, between taxis, Uber, Lyft, and soon autonomous cars, we can perhaps avoid the entire thing.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[squiggleslash]

get a cab. take the bus. walk. arrange for a friend to drive, before or after. sleep it off at the location. get a hotel. prop yourself up on the side of the wall. all options infinitely better than driving drunk

Cabs are expensive, buses don't exist, friends aren't always available, sleeping in a bar will get you arrested, hotels are expensive, propping yourself up on the side of a wall will get you arrested.

So no. Given your suggestion about buses, I have to assume you have absolutely no idea what you're dealing with. I don't blame you. Forced car suburbanism is that fucking insane. It needs to go.

As for whether it's an excuse or makes someone a douchebag or not, it doesn't matter. Demanding of someone that, due to a night of excessive drinking, they starve themselves to death, or even just spend time in jail (either through a drunk driving charge, or through a driving while suspended - which in practice is what people do instead of starving themselves to death), is excessive.

Give people choices rather than forcing everyone to live in suburbia: once you do, you'll have the right to more than tut-tut at people who do things that are antisocial and irresponsible in the name of getting home at night.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[circletimessquare]

those are interesting anecdotal edge cases that don't say much about the vast majority of problems with drinking and driving

obviously the asshole cop should have been more understanding with your wife, and if you want to drink and tip your mower and chop off your fingers, whatever makes you happy

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Gr8Apes]

You're on a crusade and missed the point entirely. Arbitrary laws are bad. I'm optimistically assuming you have some level of intelligence, so let that previous statement sink in.

I fully believe impaired driving is bad (whether due to drinking, drugs, fatigue, reading the paper, electronics, whatever)

I believe that some arbitrarily chosen number with no basis in fact set as a legally deciding factor for automatic guilt is bad.

Since you're blinded and likely slow - that latter reference was to your threatening language in the previous post as being "proof" of your violent nature, and an automatically imposed sentence. Get it now?

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[circletimessquare]

unrelated topic moron

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[cayenne8]

And you seem to ignore reality, people do imbibe a bit and then go home, fact of life.

It isn't really that scary. If I'm loaded, no, I don't drive home..but if I've only had a few (and decades of living with myself and having alcohol and knowing my limits) I will get myself home.

I will say, however, now that uber is out there and so cheap (MUCH less than a cab), if I know I'm planning a night out, I'll do uber back and forth from home to bar(s) and fests. But if you're out and about and happen to have drinks with friends in a restaurant or bar (spur of the moment when someone calls you to stop by xyz) you gotta be more careful and know your limits.

I'm guessing you're a bit more uptight about drinking and driving possibly due to you living up north in the US?

It is much more acceptable in the south, especially down here in the New Orleans area. Hell, until a few years ago, we didn't even have an open container law for cars, if you got pulled over not that long back, all you had to do was hand your beer to the passenger. We have drive through daquiri shops here and you can take drinks to go from bars, some of which never close.

It depends on where you grow up a bit I guess...more relaxed about alcohol down here and we're fine with it unless you do something stupid.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Gliscameria]

The time delay is not accurate. If you delay and refuse and it takes two hours before you get blood drawn they can extrapolate back, plus, if you ate food and/or didn't stop drinking until a short while before you drove your BAC could rise significantly in that period of time. The only thing you're going to get out of having blood drawn is that they probably won't keep you in jail that night.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[circletimessquare]

drinking and driving is never acceptable

if you're insulting people in the south and saying most of them are fine with that (seems rather prejudicial and self-serving to your own shitty attitude), then you will simply reap many more pointless traffic deaths

and therefore tell the rest of the country to avoid an area populated with such morons. and then after enough morons like yourself are dead, your children and grandchildren will pass better laws and have better attitudes. and the "culture" you defend will die, as much of bad and ignorant "culture" in the south has died and should die and will die. as it is with the north as well: everything changes, and no place is squeaky clean

that's not uptight. that's responsible. freedom is never about being free to be irresponsible. nowhere, not logically possible, no matter the lame weak "culture" argument

culture is about cheap plastic beads getting women to show their tits. culture is never about excusing the defilement of other people's freedom by putting their lives in danger

oh sure, someone like yourself will try. and only thereby slander the culture you are supposedly defending. the only question then is why you cheapen your own culture

there is never an excuse for risking the lives of others by drinking and driving. none. never. not even the lame excuse you articulate, which boils down to insulting cheapening and hating your own people

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Wrath0fb0b]

They can wait, but they won't. You don't have the right to stall them while your lawyer shows up.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[circletimessquare]

all i know is that you have hijacked the topic with a tirade about arbitrary laws

gee, that's a really exciting topic

but it has not one fucking thing to do with the fact that drinking and driving is wrong, period. not arbitrary. and the actual fucking topic

i look forward to you missing the actual fucking point and going on an obtuse tangent about nanny states and arbitrary laws, asshole

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[wisnoskij]

Still, the chance of a malfunctioning test (particularly multiple in a row [there is at least a blood test and a breath test]) seems far less than the chance of failing a court case where the only evidence is the officers memory of you acting drunk vs your word that you were not. You will lose any case were you turned down all tests and the officer thought you looked intoxicated. And the chance of this happening seems higher than all the tests giving a false positive. If you know you are not drunk, the best option would seem to me would be to ask for as many objective tests as they will give you. And a faulty tester can be tracked down and tested for accuracy. While an officer's memories of you cannot.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Anonymous Coward]

And despite your "fuck you", I'm quite happy to throw away everyone's "liberty" to drive drunk.

Could you please point out where OP said that bold part? Because it seems to me that you are trying to put words in their mouth.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Gr8Apes]

all i know is that you have hijacked the topic with a tirade about arbitrary laws

there are no lame ass whiny entitled excuses or explanations that apply. don't drive drunk, no exceptions

Ah, but what is "drunk"? Is it an arbitrary value or is it an actual assessment of whether you are truly impaired?

Apparently you wish to continue to ecstatically celebrate your narrow-minded righteousness. Keep stroking, maybe you'll get a payoff.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[circletimessquare]

ah yes, my narrow minded attitude that drinking and driving is wrong

how shallowly judgmental of me

actual narrow minded righteousness is about finding people wrong for arbitrary things

like fashion or sexuality or... swearing

do you know anyone who would judge someone for swearing, you hypocritical shitbag?

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[cayenne8]

if you're insulting people in the south and saying most of them are fine with that (seems rather prejudicial and self-serving to your own shitty attitude), then you will simply reap many more pointless traffic deaths

No, I"m saying I have grown up here all my life, and I know the attitudes and culture, and from my visits up to the NE, yes, I can say that in general, they are MUCH more uptight about drinking any at all and having to drive home. It is very usual with anyone I've even known, to often grab a beer when leaving the house and driving somewhere (I'm speaking primarily on the weekends of course). No one will give you a sideways glance if you do that, in general. I know, I've grown up with it (and to mention I was raised in a house with no alcohol, I learned and observed this from other families, my parents were tee-totallers when I was growing up).

And no, I don't risk lives...frankly the only time I actually look at the speedometer and check the speed limits IS when I've had a couple drinks and making my way home.

Lighten up Francis....having 3 beers of so in an hour to hour and a half isn't a big deal, especially if you are used to drinking on a regular basis.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[ColdWetDog]

With the alcohol laws SO drastic today..the BAC level is now a low 0.08 in most states, as a grown man just having a couple glasses of wine with a meal out can get your dangerously close to the legal level,

True

when in reality you are just fine to drive.

False

The objective data is way against you. You might be OK to drive, you're probably moderately impaired. Now, you can argue that being tired, taking benadryl, being distracted or texting / whatever is just as bad and you are correct. But two wrongs don't make a right.

Society is trying to tell you that alcohol and automobiles are not a good mix. If you want two glasses of wine at dinner, fine. Either don't drive or wait several hours for the alcohol to clear off. Yes, it might change your lifestyle. Sorry. So did seatbelts.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[ColdWetDog]

Looked more like really bad mescaline last time I was there. Perhaps Krokodil.

Florida is fucking scary. And not the pythons and alligators.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Ichijo]

if you drink and then drive, you are an irresponsible asshole and you deserve punishment.

And what about the cities that encourage that very same behavior?

One could even call it entrapment when the city encourages people to drink and drive and then arrests anyone who does so.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Gr8Apes]

FYI:

I fully believe impaired driving is bad (whether due to drinking, drugs, fatigue, reading the paper, electronics, whatever)

I believe that some arbitrarily chosen number with no basis in fact set as a legally deciding factor for automatic guilt is bad.

MADD has done wonders for demonizing anyone with 1 sip of alcohol as "drunk". Be careful with your mouthwash or breath freshener, or that hand sanitizer. I'm against drunk driving. I'm also against arbitrary laws no matter what their original intent.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[ColdWetDog]

Your friend with a chronically elevated BAC of 0.1 or greater is, by definition, an alcoholic. Yes, they can talk about the local sports team without slurring, they can even walk a nominally straight line. Can they handle two tons of steel, plastic and gasoline going 60 mph** under rapidly changing conditions. Probably not.

Want to play that particular lottery? I sure the hell don't.

Safe driving requires all manner of limitations to your person and lifestyle. You might have to wear your glasses. You might need to get some sleep. Perhaps you shouldn't be taking all of your OxyContin. You certainly shouldn't be on a three day meth bender and you shouldn't be under the influence of alcohol. Sorry if that ruins your day. Driving isn't a right.

* several hundreds of kg and a bunch of km/hr for you SI aficionados.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Attila Dimedici]

Don't make that argument to me. I was merely pointing out that you were not actually addressing the advice being given.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[ColdWetDog]

You seem to think that you should be able to do whatever you want on a public road unless the authorities can scientifically prove, with some unreasonable amount of assurance, that you are impaired and they should be able to do it within a minute or so of being pulled over so it doesn't upset your complex social plans.

Sorry, the world doesn't work that way and won't ever. Cops have to use some judgement (and sometimes it will be poor judgement). Tests have to be reasonably accurate and repeatable, not perfect. Test values have to have some reasonable, if imperfect, upper limits (and your conjecture of the various BACs having no experimental backing are completely untrue - yes, they are lines drawn in a continuum and yes, some people will be caught in them and some people will escape their ramifacations, sucks to be alive, doesn't it?)

So get over it. Society says you don't drive with pretty much any level of alcohol on board. Don't like it, move to Peru or wherever they don't enforce driving regulations (or anything else for that matter). Go lobby for more 'progressive' legal alcohol levels.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[DarkOx]

it doesn't prevent the police from obtaining a warrant to draw your blood and determine your BAC

True it does not but if you are at all in doubt about as it if its possible you could by right on the edge like you had a couple beers and thought you were legal, its best to force the blood draw.

If you were just over the limit by the time they drive you to a facility where they can take your blood, and get a warrant (which can get done over the phone) there is a good chance you will have dropped just below the limit. Even though they can do this pretty quickly it still gives you the better part of an hour for your body to process some of it out of your system. That could easily be the difference between .09 and .07. If you test under they have no way to prove you were over when you were actually driving. At that point the worst they can probably stick you with is reckless, if you were weaving or whatever reason the pulled you over in the first place. This is the advice I have always heard anyway.

On the other hand I am sure they are keeping that blood for DNA evidence for all future times you could have a run in with the law, so its probably not advisable unless you really think you need to go down this path to beat a DUI wrap.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[circletimessquare]

people like you, who argue that police should be allowed to ignore the law

so this has absolutely nothing to do with what i said, not even remotely

nothing i said anywhere would remotely lead you to believe that this statement has anything to do with the content of my comment

it goes without saying i don't believe anything remotely like that

either you are

1. purposefully lying for the sake of trolling, badly. or you

2. genuinely lack the social and cognitive abilities necessary to carry on a coherent conversation

in fact, your comment is kind of a microcosm of much of what goes on in many arguments in the world

1. me: someone says something

2. you: some malicious asshole or social retard grossly twists the meaning to an unrelated fearmongering smear

and then pointless useless drama results

congratulations: you are a useless toxic shitbag. not a baseless insult. an objectively valid description of your contribution to this thread

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Anonymous Coward]

If people who have had alcohol could reasonably be expected to judge their capability to drive, then the law would not need to be as strict, but as I wrote earlier, alcohol doesn't just lower inhibitions. People who drink alcohol overestimate their competence. This is scientific fact. That's why leaving the decision "can I still drive" on the table is not an option. If the answer isn't a clear and predetermined "no, I've had alcohol, so I can't drive", then the answer will be given by a person who overestimates their own capabilities. That's just what alcohol does. The BAC limit isn't zero, so that mouthwash, breath freshener and non-alcoholic beer don't cause false positives, but if you consider the limit for drinking and driving anything but "zero", you are in fact part of the problem.

Re: Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Anonymous Coward]

You're arguing the wrong point like a lot of people who support our absolutely ridiculous DUI laws.

The point is that there are certain minimum physical qualifications for driving a vehicle in terms of vision, reaction times, coordination, etc. It is an undeniable fact that alcohol, or benadryl, or lack of sleep, etc. absolutely will dampen these abilities.

The problem is we can't have a mature discussion about whether they're dampened enough to be a hazard for a given individual.

Someone who is in good shape and has normally high values in these areas might have their reflexes reduced by a beer or two, but perhaps not to the level of inability to drive by our standards (in other words, would a sober person with those same reaction times be ok to drive). We let 80 year olds drive, and it is a decent probability that a 30 year old after one beer still has better reaction times than the 80 year old. Mileage may vary of course, so to speak. There are awesome 80 year old drivers and terrible 30 year old ones too.

These emotion based laws and arguments fail utterly to address the issue: What constitutes actually, objectively being 'good enough to drive'?

The solution is to objectively measure these things without moralizing as to the cause. Someone unqualified to drive is unqualified to drive and I really don't care what the reason is. Similarly, if you meet the qualifications then that should be that.

These tests exist. Actual safety conscious companies with lives on the line use them all the time as opposed to the feel good BS we all get fed. We use nonsense like blood alcohol or (worse) drug tests as a proxy for this because at the time automated reaction and attention tests required computer power we didn't have.

It is time to get rid of these stupid life ruining laws and do something that will actually work.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[thegarbz]

dangerously close to the legal level of DWI...when in fact there is no problem with driving home.

Alcohol has an effect on reflexes from about 0.02.
Alcohol starts to affect reasoning at 0.04

So fuck you if you think you have no problem doing the most dangerous activity of your day with the highest statistical chance of killing a third party by accident with a 0.08 level.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[thegarbz]

Alcohol has an effect on reflexes from about 0.02. Some even say your judgement starts getting impaired at this level.
Alcohol starts to affect reasoning at 0.04, every study picks it up at this level at the latest.

So fuck you if you think you have no problem doing the most dangerous activity of your day with the highest statistical chance of killing a third party by accident with a 0.08 level.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Golddess]

if you're drunk your judgment is impaired you dumb fuck. including your ability to gauge how impaired you actually are

Yes, and? What part of Gr8Apes' post was this supposed to be countering? Was it supposed to counter their implied belief that drunkenness should be measured via an actual assessment of whether you are truly impaired rather than via an arbitrary value? Because I'm fairly certain they meant assessment by some third, non-drunk party, rather than a self-assessment.

you don't drive after drinking. ever.

But for how long after?

quibbling about what actually constitutes being drunk is an immature douchebag attempting to avoid responsibility

The whole point of this "quibbling" as I see it, is that different amounts of alcohol affect different people differently, that over time the alcohol will be broken down and leave the body, and that you don't need to wait for a BAC of 0.00 to be able to safely operate heavy machinery.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Cederic]

Or you could just skip the fucking wine if you're going to be driving.

Is sobriety that much of a burden for just one night?

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[circletimessquare]

basically you're saying your culture is ignorant and stupid. when the truth is only you are ignorant and stupid

your attitude obviously sucks, and you are an accident waiting to happen. when it does happen, please do us the favor and only kill yourself

and thanks for insulting the south in an attempt to mitigate your douchebag character, you irresponsible fuck

you will of course go "he hates the south"

no, i love the south, i have old family roots there. i only hate you, shitbag, because your attitude is clearly somebody's death by automobile waiting to happen

Re: Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Cederic]

It is time to get rid of these stupid life ruining laws and do something that will actually work.

You mentioned tests, but I'm not aware of anything that'll work immediately with zero effort by an idiot and have no false positives.

"I had a drink, I'd better not drive" is pathetically easy and guaranteed to work. It does have false positives though so I agree, lets find something better.

Until then, the DUI laws aren't the worse compromise at the 'whole population' level.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Cederic]

Alcohol has an effect on reflexes from about 0.02. Some even say your judgement starts getting impaired at this level.

My understanding is that alcohol has a beneficial effect on reflexes before it inverts.

Hitting (and staying at) that narrow positive level could be tricky of course.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[garcia]

Calling him an irresponsible douchebag for potentially driving w/in the legal limits is a bit much, don't you think?

While I don't drink and drive, by setting a limit at .08, the government is permitting SOME drinking and driving, albeit at a level which is complicated to pass legally more or less forcing you to choose between not driving or not drinking while providing the people some semblance of choice.

If they're going to do this, they should make it so low (.02) no one will drive after drinking, as they do in other countries, or bring it back to an acceptable level to allow for driving after drinking.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Cederic]

I'm fascinated. How are you both sufficiently educated that you can actually type a comment online and yet simultaneously not understand how easy it is to enter a bar and not drink alcohol?

Forget designated drivers, what about people that want social interaction, fancy coffee with a friend that wants a beer, feel like a game of pool, like the way a bar does a burger?

Shit, I go into bars 2-3 times a week and I've had alcohol on one day in the past five months.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing is, some of the people who think like this are the same ones who want drug tests for people on welfare and want to throw people in prison for smoking plants. The only moral drug use is my own, apparently.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Cederic]

then why is is even legal to have a bar with a parking lot for the patrons to come in?

So that people with a fucking brain don't have to park elsewhere.

Clearly you don't qualify.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[DarkOx]

never an excuse for risking the lives of others

Oh cut the self righteous bullshit. We risk the lives of others all the time. Do think flying planes over populated areas does not risk the lives of others. Do think driven while not under the influence does not risk the lives of others. Do think any kind of mining, drilling or other other natural resource harvesting does not risk the lives and property of those near by? Do think having a fire in your fire place does not potentially risk setting a neighbors roof on fire and risking their lives?

The only questions are how much are we allowed to endanger each other and under what circumstances. Society has been using alcohol socially for a long damn time, it is very much part of our culture. We also have to get home after dinner, cars are very much part of our culture too. Driving at .08 is perfectly reasonable. I would argue driving at .1 was fine too.

People have such a strong emotional reaction to drunk driving because its one of the few situations where the impaired person is not the one most likely to be hurt or killed. So for that reason yes we set the limit pretty low. Arguments to lower it to .05 though seem downright silly. .08 is silly, in terms of risk management. Statistically you are more likely to be hurt or killed drunk walking.

One thing is true about everyone on this earth, none of us getting out alive. Everything is dangerous. Everything caries some risk. Their was a time when drunk driving was an outsized problem. The drinking age, decades of enforcement, low limits have SOLVED IT, to the degree it needed solving. Its time to fucking move on and think about something else.

Its like the gun debate, or terrorism both are statistically not relevant. The 'solution' is just to give these thing a little less news coverage.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[ddtmm]

... as a grown man just having a couple glasses of wine with a meal out can get your dangerously close to the legal level, when in reality you are just fine to drive.

I don't think you understand the concept of using BAC to determine impairment. It doesn't matter how big or small you are, it's about the concentration of alcohol in your blood. The only difference between a large person and a small person is the amount of alcohol they need to consume to reach .08mg/100ml in their blood. Impairment has to do with the brain, not the rest of the body. A person weighing 90lbs can have the same brain size as a 400lb person, and with the same BAC, their impairment will be remarkably similar.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[cayenne8]

LOL...whatever.

I think you're being a bit overdramatic....it isn't like this is not a common thought and consideration of the subject.

Not sure why all the name calling, but seems a bit of an overreaction.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[cayenne8]

I don't think you understand the concept of using BAC to determine impairment.

I'm saying BAC isn't a good measure of a persons tolerance for alcohol. One person can do just fine and .08 and another cannot. The measure and number is arbitrary.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[circletimessquare]

because you drink and drive and don't think it's a problem

this makes you a fucking piece of shit

not a baseless insult, but objectively speaking: your irresponsibility is dangerous to the people you share the road with. by your choice. it's not your culture, asswipe, that's a lame dodge. you're just an immature irresponsible asshole who will kill someone, and seems happy about it

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[cayenne8]

Or you could just skip the fucking wine if you're going to be driving.

Is sobriety that much of a burden for just one night?

So, you're saying that no one should ever have a drink with a meal when dining out? I mean, you're driving your date out to a meal and you never get to have drinks with her that evening till you get home?

Or that maybe we shouldn't even have bars that serve drinks, that have parking lots for the patrons to park in, knowing they'll all be driving home?

That's just not reality man...

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[SuiteSisterMary]

I'm all for blood tests. Roadside Breathalyzer, on the other hand....

Anecdote time: many years back, late 80s or so, we had some police do some community outreach at my school. Grade five or so. I got to blow in the Breathalyzer. It claimed I was falling down drunk.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Coren22]

You are quite ignorant yourself. BAC of .08 is SCIENTIFICALLY too low to be impaired. You can keep arguing otherwise, but you are just showing yourself to be a troll and not interested in facts.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Coren22]

Also, Brethalizers assume that your breath has a 1 to 2000 relationship with the alcohol in your blood, however, people vary from 1 to 1300 to 1 to 5000, so it is an extremely bad test.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[cayenne8]

So that people with a fucking brain don't have to park elsewhere.

So, do you seriously think that even a minority of those cars in the bar parking lots, are NOT drinking and driving home?

I'm guessing you've never been to many bars. MOST of the people in a bar are drinking and will drive home that night likely at or a bit higher than the legal limit BAC.

I mean, you drive by a bar an hour or so after closing time, I guarantee you that parking lot that was full of patons' cars that night is 99% empty and they did NOT all come there to not drink any.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Ichijo]

A parking lot in front of a bar is not an invitation to drink and drive.

Cheap, abundant parking induces driving. Bars facilitate drinking. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to predict the result when you put the two together!

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[drinkypoo]

The BAC legal levels are WAAAY too low now. A grown man or woman just having a couple of glasses of wine with a meal can be dangerously close to the legal level of DWI...when in fact there is no problem with driving home.

And a man or woman who has had two drinks can also be sloppy, depending on their physiology. The rules aren't fair in that they affect everyone equally, the rules are "fair" in that they are there for the benefit of everyone. The goal is to reduce the number of extremely horrible accidents, at the expense of a little inconvenience.

Be realistic. People go out..they have a few...they have to get themselves and their cars HOME for the next day. It happens. The trick is to not be too impaired to drive safely.

Yes, and that's why we have fairly low limits. Safety. This is a great reason why self-driving cars need to be able to drive while you're asleep or whatever. Then we can finally have a technological solution to this problem that makes more sense than racoon-cheatable breath interlocks.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Cederic]

I know a lot of people that dine out without needing to drink alcohol.
I know a lot of people that go on dates without needing to drink alcohol.
I replied to you elsewhere on your stupidity regarding parking lots for bars.

Your views on reality merely reinforce the title of this conversation thread.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[SuiteSisterMary]

Well, to be honest, we were just all tacitly ignoring the idea that you can measure, you know, BLOOD alcohol level without drawing blood.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Cederic]

Whether I think people are as stupid as you is irrelevant to whether there are legitimate and widely used reasons for bars to have parking lots.

There are.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[david_thornley]

Drunk driving is a common cause of impairment and easy to test for. In order to test, there has to be an arbitrary limit, so that the driver is either legally drunk or not. Fatigue is another common cause of impairment, but harder to test.

If you remove arbitrary laws, what's left? You have to toss all criminal punishments, since they're all arbitrary. You have to let everyone vote (which might not be a bad thing).

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[tburkhol]

I'm saying BAC isn't a good measure of a persons tolerance for alcohol. One person can do just fine and .08 and another cannot. The measure and number is arbitrary.

And what's your alternative? Do you want people who scored an A on their driving test to be allowed 0.12, but hold people who scored a C to 0.08? Please provide a nice, clean objective measure to BAC that doesn't rely on the judgement of the officer administering the test or of the subject undergoing the test. Something that can be performed quickly and without a database of individualized reference data. Something with a biological rationale.

I'm sure you're in the top 1% of drivers, but in my observations, people who claim to be "just fine" to drive after four or five drinks are not to be believed.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Darinbob]

Get a designated driver. If you're having more than one glass of wine when dining out then you should NOT be driving.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[operagost]

Clearly, you are someone who either never drinks or doesn't drive.

We don't need to keep people who had one glass of wine from drinking. Having a screaming child in the back seat is more detrimental to your driving than one glass of wine.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Obfuscant]

So, you're saying that no one should ever have a drink with a meal when dining out? I mean, you're driving your date out to a meal and you never get to have drinks with her that evening till you get home?

Is that such a horrible thing? You tell her that you're more concerned about getting her home safely than enjoying the effects of alcohol, and that you'd rather not take the unnecessary risk. Do the women you date prefer that you don't value their lives over a drink?

Or that maybe we shouldn't even have bars that serve drinks, that have parking lots for the patrons to park in, knowing they'll all be driving home?

Funny. You just talked about a situation where the woman was not driving home yet was in a place that both served drinks and had a parking lot. I guess the assumption that everyone in a bar is driving themselves home is a bit of a mistake.

That's just not reality man...

Reality is that you are responsible for your own choices, which might mean, at times, that you choose to forgo alcohol before choosing to operate heavy machinery.

Re: Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Darinbob]

I had a coworker that I just didn't like to ride with even when he was sober. He was brash and took risks, drove too fast, changed lanes quickly, etc. But he was absolutely confident that he was a great driver and that a couple drinks would not affect his ability to drive safely. He's absolutely fooling himself and I worry someday that someone else will get hurt over it.

I have noticed that all the people I've met in person who claim that a few drinks don't bother them correlate very highly with people whom I don't like behind the wheel even when they're sober. It's the basic reckless attitude they have all the time and their over confidence (alpha male syndrome).

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Obfuscant]

Clearly, you are someone who either never drinks or doesn't drive.

Clearly, I am someone who does drink alcohol and does drive. I have, however, chosen never to do them at the same time, or in close proximity. That's because I have realized that having a drink is much less of a necessity than being able to drive myself home.

Having a screaming child in the back seat is more detrimental to your driving than one glass of wine.

The difference is that you can easily choose not to drink and there are no negative consequences from that choice. Your friends may think you are Debbie Downer at the party, but then, you're going to be the one they call to come bail them out when they get arrested for DUI because they know you're the one who is sober enough to come get them.

On the other hand, there are serious consequences if you are someplace with a "screaming child" and you need to drive them home, and you choose to drive safely by leaving the child on the side of the road.

Risk management requires evaluating the risks, the hazards, and the mitigating circumstances. Sometimes the answer is "go" because while there are still hazards the cost of "no go" outweighs them. That's why the low cost of "don't drink" cannot change a "no go" into a "go", while the high cost of child abandonment can.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Ichijo]

That's a silly question. Why do you ask it? What do you think I'm calling on bars to do?

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[operagost]

It only takes one goon to ruin your life, Pollyanna.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Obfuscant]

get a cab. take the bus. walk. arrange for a friend to drive, before or after. sleep it off at the location. get a hotel. prop yourself up on the side of the wall. all options infinitely better than driving drunk

You're attacking the wrong end of the equation. The answer is much simpler with many fewer life implications. Just don't drink before you drive. That solves the driving while drunk problem without keeping anyone from driving.

The only people that "not drinking" keeps from driving are those who are so scared of driving that they need a couple "for the road" to "screw up their courage" to get behind the wheel in the first place. If not drinking keeps them off the road, I'll count that as a plus.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Cederic]

I drive most days. I drink from time to time. Sometimes I do them both on the same day.

But only in that order.

I never however have a screaming child in the back seat. My car doesn't fucking have a back seat.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Cederic]

What does this have to do with making a mature responsible decision about whether to drink or drive home?

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[CrashNBrn]

That's pretty close to my "absolute law": I should have the freedom to do whatever I want, so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's freedom to do what they want.
I'm sure one could find exceptions to this rule, but I'm also sure that a shit-load of existing laws could be contained within that ideology.
It also highlights how ridiculous some US State laws are in regards to sexuality, marriage, drugs, etc really are.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[operagost]

Oh, so one glass is OK. Well, who set that arbitrary limit, then? Dr. Oz?

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[moeinvt]

"there is never an excuse for risking the lives of others by drinking and driving. none. never"

If you think a person is "risking the lives of others" by having a couple of drinks with dinner and then driving home, you better stay off the roads entirely because people are doing much riskier things than that.

Why is having a couple of beers after work and then driving home so inexcusable? Even our ridiculously arbitrary laws make some allowance for degrees of risk. That's why there is a BAC limit of .08 instead of .00. That's why it might be illegal to drive while holding your phone in your hand but legal to drive while talking "hands free". Studies have demonstrated that talking on the phone undermines your ability to pay attention to your driving. Is the sober person doing that "risking the lives of others" any less than someone that drives back to work after having a martini at lunch? What about a person that pulled an all-nighter at work and is driving home after being without sleep for 36 hours? Or maybe someone has the flu and is therefore not functioning at their best? Are those also cases of inexcusable risk?

You can't always be functioning at your healthy, well-rested, caffeine-buzzed, fully attentive optimum. I'd say it's unacceptable to drive when you're significantly impaired and it's up to you to know when that is. Driving with a little alcohol in your blood doesn't create an unacceptably risky situation.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[cayenne8]

Get a designated driver. If you're having more than one glass of wine when dining out then you should NOT be driving.

Hmm...never one around when you need one.

EVERYONE drinks....at least in my crowd. I've never known anyone that played the part of designated driver, unless you count some of my friends who do get their wives to drive us home, but not that many will do that.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Ichijo]

You implied that the existence of something which induces driving to a bar is an invitation to drive drunk.

More specifically, when something that encourages drunk driving is required by law--when the law encourages illegal behavior--isn't this the very definition of entrapment? Or are you using a definition of "entrapment" that I'm not aware of?

When a bar chooses to locate within easy access of transportation, that's just natural market forces at work. You can blame nature until you're blue in the face, but that's not very productive.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[cayenne8]

Well, usually, you are trying to get her to drink a bit too...make the pants come off a bit easier.

:)

But no one wants to drink alone, so would be weird for her to be drinking, and you being a stick in the mud and having only iced tea...?

Re: Drunks don't make the best decisions

[cayenne8]

Then again, there are some of us, whom the others toss the keys to, because they know I'll get us home ok....long proven record.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Obfuscant]

Demanding of someone that, due to a night of excessive drinking, they starve themselves to death, or even just spend time in jail

Who is being forced to "starve themselves to death"? And should someone who chooses to participate in "excessive drinking" and then chooses to drive not spend some time in jail to help teach him not to make such inane choices?

or through a driving while suspended - which in practice is what people do instead of starving themselves to death)

Uhhh. People actually say "I choose not to starve myself to death" and their only option is drive with a suspended license? Does driving somehow satisfy the body's need for nutrition? Or is this just an example of what they call a false dichotomy?

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Obfuscant]

Hmm...never one around when you need one.

If you're out on the town for a night of drinking, and you look around for a designated driver and don't see one, guess what? YOU'RE IT.

EVERYONE drinks....at least in my crowd.

So you are in a crowd of people who all make bad decisions about their own lives. I hope this never comes back to haunt you.

Really. Getting the call that Bob didn't make it home last night because he was so hammered he drove into a bridge abutment and nobody thought enough of him to be the designated driver for the group and get him home safely would haunt most people. At least people for whom Bob really was a friend. And the call that some drunk just ran over your husband as he was crossing the street will haunt you, too. If Bob's just someone to go drinking with, well, more alcohol for everyone else, eh?

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[tibit]

So, you're saying that no one should ever have a drink with a meal when dining out?

I don't know what he's saying, but I'm saying that you're correct. You shouldn't have that drink and then drive. What's so fucking hard to understand about that?

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[nytes]

And maybe give you a colonoscopy or two to search for evidence.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Calydor]

Why is alcohol so important, even necessary to have a nice night out? I really don't get it.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[bughunter]

The BAC thresholds vary from person to person - the brash friend from upthread may have a limit of 0.00, but my grandpa could, and would probably do just fine at 0.08 since he used to be a professional race car driver.

In fact, before that, he was a rum-runner during Prohibition. Whenever this topic came up he'd say "If you can't drive drunk, you can't drive." Meaning if your driving skills weren't good enough to allow for some impairment, then your driving skills weren't adequate. (NOT meaning one should always be intoxicated while driving.)

Also notably: he passed away in the 80's, in his 80's, when MADD was just getting off the ground. These days the legal penalties alone make it stupid to drive drunk, even if individually your skills "aren't impaired" at 0.08 BAC. It's very different now. Back then, in rural NC, the good ol' boys all knew each other and the only time DUI was ever charged was when someone actually caused injury or property damage.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[godel_56]

Taking the optional Field Sobriety Test (FST) is never a good idea. Not doing the Breathalyzer test after being arrested in Florida is also not a good idea as it results in the automatic suspension of your license and your refusal to take the test can be used against you in court. In addition, it doesn't prevent the police from obtaining a warrant to draw your blood and determine your BAC.

In Australia, refusing to take an alcohol or drug test results in you being assumed to be intoxicated to the highest level, so you get the maximum penalty anyway.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Gr8Apes]

As for safe driving, people on OxyContin should not be driving at all. That stuff in any quantity at all leaves you far more impaired than 0.08 BAC will for most.

I believe I have promoted responsibility for your actions. Not sure where you got the idea I think it is a right. I wish a lot fewer people had the privilege.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Ichijo]

"Common sense is that which tells us the world is flat." --Stuart Chase

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[KGIII]

You are going to get shot or tazed. Warrant means due process is already completed - you don't argue with them, you comply or they enforce the warrant by force. There's no calling a lawyer. You then challenge validity of the warrant after the fact, if you want, but if they've got a warrant then - well here... Let's let Jerry explain it:

Sitting and staring out of the hotel window.
Got a tip, they're gonna kick the door in again.
I'd like to get some sleep before I travel.
But if you've got a warrant, I guess you're gonna come in.

Busted, down on Bourbon Street.
Set up, just like a bowling pin.
Knocked down, it gets to wearing thin.
They just won't let you be.

This PSA has been brought to you by Jerry Garcia. Hmm... Actually, I think what's his face might have written that one. Hunter maybe? I am too lazy to look. Anyhow, no... You do not contest a valid warrant - you make sure they limit their scope to exactly what is on the warrant (read the damned thing). You don't get to make them wait outside politely (usually).

These are criminal warrants by the way. I think - and I'm not 100% sure - that you can get a lawyer and contest stuff if it's a civil warrant though I think that may have a different name. I am not a lawyer but I know a bunch and I actually spent some time sitting in a mock court room (I was paid to do so) as a student many years ago. I was often on the jury in said court room where they had no people who were not students or wanted to make sure the jury was unbiased. They'd also pay people from off the street to do so. It was a full mock-up and kind of neat.

Also, I could go on. There's a lot of differences between civil and criminal offenses (just as the preponderance of evidence - meaning the burden of the state, pretty much) and whatnot. If it's a criminal warrant then, absolutely not... You do not wait for a lawyer and you refusing to allow them to execute the lawful (or even unlawful, I guess) warrant is going to get you shot. Hell, they've got "no knock" warrants which, as I recall, require a specific permission from the judge and I believe some states allow warrants only to be served during specific times (unless exempted specifically). This does not count for probable cause searches. Those are exempt and don't need a warrant at all. They are also limited in scope - again, you fight them after the fact and not during their execution.

Again, I'm not a lawyer. I do know a bit about the law and do spend a lot of time observing the courts even today as I consider it my civic duty. You can, and should, go observe the courts - they're the most important way to do our job as The People and the next step is The Press but I will save that novella for another day. What I don't know is clearly listed, above, as my not knowing. What I've stated is factual as far as I do know. You're encouraged to verify this or to check with legal council. I am not a lawyer and I am not your lawyer.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[mea2214]

Alcohol has an effect on reflexes from about 0.02. Some even say your judgement starts getting impaired at this level.

Having a BAC of 0.02 will get you a DUI in Sweden. When visiting my relatives there at a gathering one of my cousins had to abstain from drinking because he had to drive to work the following morning and this was in the afternoon.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Gr8Apes]

You seem to think that you should be able to do whatever you want on a public road

Where do you get that idea?

(and your conjecture of the various BACs having no experimental backing are completely untrue -

have a study to quote? I couldn't find one.

Society says you don't drive with pretty much any level of alcohol on board.

Society says don't drive with more than 0.08 BEC. But go ahead with a wide array of drugs, disabled people are fine, newspaper readers too, old people that may not know where they are, young people (there lack of experience is an impairment), sleep deprived drivers are given a warning, and mental illness isn't a problem apparently, nor hormonal swings (esp males between 15 and 40).

Note that I'm merely pointing out how arbitrary that 0.08 BEC is, and that the law is not at all about stopping impaired drivers.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Obfuscant]

And, if you're so against any drinking at all and driving,

If you want to avoid being arrested for DUI, the answer is simple. If you never want to have to worry about "am I too impaired to be safe", the answer is simple. If you want to eliminate an unnecessary hazard to safe driving, the answer is simple.

If you want to categorize those statements as being "so against any drinking at all", nobody can stop you.

then why is is even legal to have a bar with a parking lot for the patrons to come in?

Because even your own example of being on a date and you thinking that you need to get liquored up so you can get her pants off demonstrates that not every patron of a place that serves alcohol is then going to drive home. But on a more general note, it is because there is a defined legal limit below which one is not guilty of DUI, and we have the freedom to choose how closely we approach that limit (or even to exceed it). The fact you have the freedom to choose does not mean you should rail against those who tell you that making a simple choice simplifies the matter immensely.

And, on an even more general level, the bar has a parking lot because some zoning laws demand that places of business have parking for their customers.

Be realistic. People go out..they have a few...they have to get themselves and their cars HOME for the next day.

Now please join the realistic amongst us that understand that the choice to drink alcohol is a choice, not a mandate, and that if you want to avoid ... reread first paragraph ... the choice is simple. Be realistic enough to know that choices often have consequences. And be realistic enough to know that some choices are just stupid when making the right choice is so easy.

The trick is to not be too impaired to drive safely.

It should not take a "trick" to not be too impaired to drive. In fact, it doesn't.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[nedlohs]

No, it just takes the one who is having a bad day.

Why would you take the risk of doing something that can only incriminate you. If you fail the FST they will arrest you for DUI, if you pass the FST they can still arrest you - why do something that only harms you?

It's nothing to do with paranoid schizophrenia, but congrats on making a psychiatric diagnosis over an internet comment you fucking retard.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[KGIII]

Not only does Florida have DRIVE-THRU LIQUEUR STORES but they have mother-fucking DRIVE-THRU MARGARITA/DAIQUIRI STANDS!

It is as awesome as you might expect. I've got a piece of property in Bay County - over in Panama City Beach. I own a chunk of beach and my house is actually across the road. I don't live there. I like Florida because it's amusing - not because I'd live there. It's awesome to visit.

The margarita stands or daiquiri stands are drive-thru or drive-up. There's one, it's grandfathered, where you drive up and they serve you right there in your car - you can walk up and drink outside at a stand-up counter (something about not being able to put in more seats - it's grandfathered in). Now, they can't serve you an 'open container' so you get a giant alcoholic drink, for dirt cheap, in a giant slurpy-type cup. The straw has had the paper removed except for the very top - it's stuck through the hole but the paper is still on it. All you need to do is pull it off.

Now, I gave up drinking a while back - I was too good at it. But I think they've changed the law. Now, I'm pretty sure, they still have the same damned holes (and the same peeled straw) and the actual entry hole in the cup's cover is covered by a barely attached piece of scotch tape. They don't push the tape down all the way because it's too hard to pull up.

The theory is, I guess, that you're supposed to drive up and then not drink your purchase until you get home. I don't think that happens, ever. If you go to the drive through liqueur stores and look, they've got concrete barriers - the round things, poured in a tube thing made of cardboard I think, and they're thick - for a reason. They're usually painted a very bright color and are obviously painted fairly often. However, each and every single one has markings on it from the many, many people who've run into it.

I've personally witnessed, I was inside, a person hit one of the concrete barriers with the center of his bumper - pretty close at least. He then backed up and managed to get it between the two. The clerk still sold him alcohol. I don't know what he hit but there was a loud crunch outside after the guy left - like seconds later. A few moments later he merrily went on his way into the traffic of Route 98 on the seedy side of the bridge.

Yes, yes it is real. I couldn't make this stuff up. I fucking love Florida. I'd never, in a million years, live there by choice. I absolutely love to spend a month or so there every year. They're mostly harmless... They've got a national forest... The trees are all planted in a row (I assume to harvest). It's flat. The speed limit is 75. The drunken rednecks go driving down the road (did I mention that they don't have to get their cars inspected?) in swamp buggies at absurd speeds. It is awesome! It's like a whole collection of distilled insanity. What's not to love? Oddly, they have one of the more tame Mardi Gras festivals.

I once pissed, drunkenly I might add, on the wheel of a cruiser while the cop was still in it - I didn't realize he was in it. In fact, I didn't notice him until he said something. He took me into an alley and we had a discussion but he didn't beat me up or anything. He just told me that if I didn't go home he was going to. He said he wasn't even going to arrest me if he caught me again - he was just going to, "Kick the ever living dog-shit out of you, boy!" (Probably with more drawl and less punctuation. This was the same officer's car that I'd decorated with beads earlier it seems. It was awesome! He was the one who told me it was a family friendly event. I must have missed that part. Ah... Great times... "What the hell are you doing to my car, boy?"

Anyhow, I don't actually have a point. I just figured I'd share a very limited sample of my experiences of Florida. It is like concentrated insanity. It's every bit as funny to visit as you might imagine. The one state has given me hours of silly memories. I can buy alcohol, from my car, and just peel back some tape and drink it but I go to

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[KGIII]

He did say that and he probably means it. He runs away when confronted with demonstrations where his logic is faulty. However... He's usually pretty rational and he's not an idiot, by any means. I've noted a number of good posts from him. On certain subjects, however, he gets a little zealous and then, even more oddly, accuses others of being statists and boot lickers and what not in other threads - I think he's probably in his 30s and just starting to reach that point where you realize (or maybe not realize but still go through it) that your outlook was different and changes as you age.

Hmm... They're not dumb but they're zealous - the two needn't be related though the latter implies a lack of honest and adequate reasoning skills. That's okay - it takes all types and sometimes being unreasoned is actually the best choice. We're not Vulcans. We're not reasoning machines - we're rationalizing machines. Sometimes empathy and doing the "right thing" isn't a matter of reason. After all, the rational thing to do would be letting things like the sick, elderly, hungry, and poor die. That's not a reasonable thing to do but it can be reasoned that it is the right thing to do. We need both types and neither should have a monopoly on power.

I suspect they're reaching that age where they're awfully confused. It's okay. Life is like that. Another one would be AmiMojo. They're not bad people. They just have empathy and that's not a bad thing. It leads to irrational thoughts and behaviors and that's just being a human. They'll grow, or not. Either way, they're not bad - just some subjects are concluded, for them, without reason. He's no different than the Tea Party/GOP person who thinks we should violate the civil liberties of Islamic peoples by default - because the ends justify the means to them. They often reason their way out of it or are sane in other ways - just some subjects are too close to them and they can't be unbiased.

That's okay. Welcome to Earth. I've been across the globe and we're the same no matter where I go - and most of us think we're better than others and have all the answers. To me, I guess, wisdom is when you realize that you don't know the answers and seek those who do. Most of us find that, in time. That too is true across the globe.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Obfuscant]

Cheap, abundant parking induces driving.

If you understood the purpose behind zoning laws and the requirement for parking at a business, you'd know that the zoning laws are not trying to create "cheap, abundant parking" nor are they trying to "induce driving". They are intended to prevent the lack of parking caused by a business trying to rely on shared on-street public parking for all of its customers. It is an acknowledgement that people WILL drive to a business and will want to park nearby while they conduct business there. It is a law to protect OTHER PEOPLE from the effects of a business.

Bars facilitate drinking.

Bars facilitate a lot of things. They do not force anyone to drink.

Using your logic, grocery stores facilitate drinking because they sell beer and wine (and in some states, hard liquor). Many restaurants facilitate drinking because they have licensed service. Hardware stores facilitate drinking because they sell Sterno, and some people just love their squeeze. Should all of these places be prohibited from having parking lots just because they provide access to alcohol? The rocket scientists who claim that the city is promoting drunk driving should be denouncing ALL of those venues and their "cheap abundant parking", because they should all be coming to the same conclusion about all of them.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[KGIII]

Actually, you dumb fuck, they already established or made irrelevant the impaired judgment. You're beating a strawman and only that. Their question was where does the line belong. They didn't say that the drunk person got to establish this line. They asked where it was - they've already established there's a line and that on one side of it you're drunk - you dumb fuck.

So while you're busy feeling like you're able to make a rational argument you might want to step aside and let the adults talk. You completely, and totally, failed (or never took) critical thinking. I doubt you're a programmer or an engineer. I'm reasonably certain you're not a white collar worker at all. I'm also pretty sure you lack any meaningful skills beyond menial manual labor. Why? Those things require reasoning. They require comprehension. They require the application of logic, if you will.

If, by some horrific chance, you are involved in anything more complex than holding a sign to direct traffic (which may be beyond you) then, I hope, you're surrounded by capable people and nothing you do is able to impact others. I'd actually tried to make some sort of effort to defend you up-thread. But, now, you've just gone off the deep end.

Pathetic... Also, dumb fuck. The irony, oh the irony... *sighs* Why do you come here? That's rhetorical. It makes you feel special to associate with the intelligent people and feel like you fit in. We'll babysit you but you should make some effort to learn, okay? (That's not rhetorical - go ahead and reply.) Keep in mind that I've seen your other replies in this thread.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Obfuscant]

But no one wants to drink alone,

She's not alone. She's on a date -- with you.

so would be weird for her to be drinking

I'd think it is weird if someone I took on a date was more interested in getting drunk than being on the date. Says a lot about her, I think, and it would be a good sign that we weren't compatible enough to go on a second one. If she's not trying to get drunk, then there is nothing weird at all in her having a glass of wine or beer with her meal.

If all you're trying to do is get in her pants by getting her drunk, and you think you'll enjoy it more if you are drunk, too, then what does that say about her? Why bother feeding her if all you want is sex and she won't give it to you unless she's drunk? Take her and a bottle home, and then tell her the next morning that yes, you did take her to a really expensive place and she loved the steak and lobster. She won't remember.

and you being a stick in the mud and having only iced tea...?

If she thinks you are a "stick in the mud" for choosing not to drink alcohol while you are responsible for her safety, well, that says a lot about your personality when you are sober and nothing about your ability to hold your liquor. If she's trying to get you drunk so she can stand to have sex with you, well, it's a match made in heaven and I hope you aren't an early arrival.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[KGIII]

Heh... I should have scrolled down. You, my good person, are intelligent and wise. I'm glad I am not the only one who spotted the glaring hole in their "rebuttal." What's really odd is that the OP didn't spot the hole. I assume they were just too annoyed to actually bother refuting their attempted rebuttal but they may have skimmed over it and not noticed or may have just simply not been aware of some simple reasoning techniques.

Do they even have debate classes or critical thinking classes any more? Who the hell is teaching them?

Anyhow, I'm glad I wasn't the only one. I'm assuming others noticed but it was just us two who managed to take the time to point out their flawed reasoning in their ill-fated rebuttal attempt. The irony was thick - deliciously thick. Sadly, I'd made a positive comment concerning them up thread - though I did point out that they had some serious reasoning flaws in that comment as well.

It takes all types, I guess.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[KGIII]

You missed the glaring logic hole in the person's 'rebuttal' (frothing rant, really) above - I fixed it for you as did another poster though I don't think I'd seen their name before now. Anyhow, that's not the point of my reply.

I am in a fairly unique situation in life. I do know, on a personal level (and a professional level *grins*) a few police officers though I'd probably not call any of them 'friends.' They're certainly acquaintances and are welcome in my home. I harbor no ill will towards they nor they to I and I hope they'll do their duty in a professional manner if I need to be investigated, stopped, or arrested. I've no problem with that - I accept responsibility for my actions and am usually the type to avoid confronting them at all so it's not really an issue.

Anyhow, in my real world life, I know some police officers and am friendly enough with them to the point where we've discussed the idea of an unofficial quota. Each one has told me similar stories and I'm inclined to believe them. They do not, as it were, have official or unofficial quotas, such would be illegal or unethical. What they do have is 'performance metrics' and 'reviews.' I'm sure you're familiar with the concept and can see where this goes.

If most officers working in one area have an average amount of stops and arrests at certain dates and times then others are expected to have similar performance metrics. They actually frown on someone being above the average as much as they frown on someone being below the average and this is reflected in their reviews which go towards determining raises or promotions.

You can make of that what you will and draw all sorts of assumptions. They've all indicated that it's not really a big deal but that seems unlikely but I'm simply speculating at this point. None of them seemed overly concerned and I've had a number of them stop by - while on duty, and just shoot the shit for quite a while. I'd also point out that I'm typically at my house in Maine and the police there are much different than what you might be used to - they're actually pretty good. I've not always lived here and I've been all over the globe.

So, it's up to you to really make any presumptions from the above information, if you want. I can only share what I'm told but I've been told this by a number of police officers from various jurisdictions so I am assuming it is a common practice in modern police forces in the United States - I can't speak of elsewhere, not even Canada.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[PopeRatzo]

I once pissed, drunkenly I might add, on the wheel of a cruiser while the cop was still in it - I didn't realize he was in it. In fact, I didn't notice him until he said something. He took me into an alley and we had a discussion but he didn't beat me up or anything.

And that is what's known as "white privilege". I get the feeling that if you were a young black man, we'd be hearing about how you "tried to take away his service weapon". In Florida, the cop would have gotten a medal and a gift certificate for the Waffle Hut.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[jwhitener]

The BAC legal levels are WAAAY too low now

Someone up above claimed that studies show that reaction times become noticeably slower as low as 0.02 with 0.08 being definitely at a higher risk of stopping too slow/swerving too slow.

Are you making that claim just because you feel fine after 2 glasses of wine/beer, or do you have studies to say otherwise? I really don't know either way. But people are saying the exact opposite about a topic that is truly a life or death one. How about a few citations instead of making it seems like chugging a couple beers then hitting the road is completely fine?

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Ichijo]

zoning laws are not trying...to "induce driving".

I agree, that isn't the main purpose. But the intention is not relevant, only the effect is.

They are intended to prevent the lack of parking caused by a business trying to rely on shared on-street public parking for all of its customers.

That's a rather clumsy and expensive way to prevent a shortage:

In economic terminology, a shortage occurs when for some reason (such as government intervention, or decisions by buyers not to raise prices) the price does not rise to reach equilibrium.

When you understand that shortages occur when prices are held artificially low, another solution besides micromanaging the supply becomes obvious.

Should all of these places be prohibited from having parking lots just because they provide access to alcohol?

Do you think I said bars should be prohibited from having parking lots?

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[gfxguy]

I don't go out much anymore, but when I was in college I played DD many times - but only when the plan was to go out drinking a lot. And that didn't even mean that I didn't drink at all, just that I didn't drink much... sometimes nothing, but absolutely no more than one typical drink per hour (the supposed rate alcohol leaves your system). Never did it mean not having a drink with dinner.... it meant not having a pitcher of beer with dinner.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[gfxguy]

I promise you, if you drank a glass of wine (even two!) over the course of your hour long dinner at a restaurant, you'd still be sober.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[KGIII]

As I mentioned above, I drove drunk for forty years. Sorry. I am, indeed, sorry. I drove in blackout state - multiple times. I'm positive that I've driven more miles drunk than I've driven sober - I've only been sober for three years. Well, no... I've only been not drinking for three years. I've literally driven at least a million miles in my life - work was very stressful and it'd been my MOS while I was enlisted. I've even driven across various other countries besides my own. Again, I'm sorry.

This is not a defense - this is just a statement of fact. I have zero at fault accidents on my record - ever. I had one speeding ticket when I was still a teen. I have no moving violations, besides said ticket, ever - in my entire life. I'm 57. I started drinking at the age of 11 or so. I was drinking daily by the age of 13. I drank until I was 54. (Quitting sucked, don't quit.) I never got an OUI. I've been stopped more times than I can count - while drunk and driving. I've had zero issues that resulted in property harm or personal harm.

I was a functional drunk for many years - it was after I retired, about eight years ago, that I suddenly found myself unable to cope. I quit - it almost killed me, it turns out that DTs/withdrawals from alcohol are one of the few withdrawals that can kill you. I did not know that.

This is not an endorsement of drinking and driving. Luck? Quite probably. There's also a modicum of skill, practice, familiarity, and training. I've taken countless advanced driving courses including courses designed for security personnel. I've taken a number of racing courses and have driven on a track multiple times with and without traffic.

To be honest, I attribute it to luck more than anything. I've woken up, not knowing where I was or how I got there, asleep on someone's couch, battery dead from the lights being on, and the gasoline tank empty from having let the engine run all night. I once drove after consuming 2.5 liters (probably a little more) of vodka in a very short time - I spent three days in a coma while a friend hid me in his attic by the way - and don't even remember driving the 30 miles to get there.

I'm not sure what my point is - it sure as shit isn't an endorsement of drinking and driving. I guess it's more to refute the idea that people seem to have where they assume it's going to result in harm. It doesn't, not always. There's a good chance that it will and that is not an acceptable risk in a shared environment and I'm truly sorry for my actions even though they harmed nobody. I took needless risks with the lives of other people due to my own issues and selfishness. I accept any scorn heaped on me and offer no defense.

I just figure that there needs to be more information for a more complete picture. I'm sure my training and my alcoholism made me less likely to cause an accident or be unable to prevent an accident. I'm also sure that it was also a lot of just plain dumb luck. They say that God protects drunks and fools. I don't believe in god but it seems that sometimes the odds are on their side. I've had lots of times where I've simply been on the small end of statistics and am forever grateful for it.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[gfxguy]

You should be able to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights. And there should be no exceptions to the rule - the only issue is what "rights" are. Do you have the right to sleep at 2:00am, or can someone lean on their horn on the street in front of your house? At the same time, can people be playing roudy and loud in a park while you're trying to take a nap under a tree? So... maybe in addition it should often also include someone else's 'freedom to do what they want.'

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[KGIII]

You have never ridden with me while I was drunk. Roads are optional. In fact, they're not even preferred. I can almost, sort of, make a claim that it should be okay to drive drunk under those circumstances - where you're on your own property or have permission to use the property, for example, and where you're in no danger of harming anyone other than yourself.

Before you chime in with an ignorant reply (not your fault, mine for not typing it all over again) I'd suggest seeing my other posts in this thread. I am not, by any means, one to advocate driving drunk. However, I could see some exceptions being made and could almost reason a few viable answers but this isn't a place where we must be purely rational and we probably should err on the side of caution.

But, for the sake of argument - or more navel gazing really, I'm not sure we should outlaw driving drunk in the above circumstances. Maybe with a "I'm really drunk" button that limited the engine's HP output so they were limited to 5 MPH or something. Maybe letting them drive golf carts on their own property while drunk or something. Ya know... Entirely pointless and simply for the sake of presenting an idea where maybe it does actually encroach on some freedoms we want to preserve? I can't even drive my lawn tractor - to mow my own lawn - drunk or even with just a beer in the cup holder. I neither drink nor mow my own lawn but, you know, assuming I wanted to...

I think the law on public roads is fine but do we really need it to go so far as to restrict the rights of a person on their own property 'for their own safety?'

Thats's rhetorical. I'm not actually interested in your reply even if it agrees with me. It's just something for you to think about if you want to and only if you want to. 'Snot up to me to decide. Society has been pretty damned clear about this and, perhaps regrettably, I'm a bit partial to letting the commons be protected for certain things. Where I fall, in the above, is immaterial.

I used to drive drunk - a lot and for a very long time. I had not one single incident that harmed another nor was I ever arrested for it. I've already offered my sincere apologies even though I don't have to. I've since changed my ways and am forever grateful that I harmed nobody. It's a reasonable certainty that, even if allowed, I'd not be the one to drive drunk even on my property.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Obfuscant]

I agree, that isn't the main purpose. But the intention is not relevant, only the effect is.

No, when you claim that the intent of the city is to promote drunk driving, the intent of the laws you use to justify the claim are critically important.

That's a rather clumsy and expensive way to prevent a shortage:

No, it is a rather simple and objective way of dealing with the problem. It costs the city nothing other than enforcement; the cost applies to the business owner who benefits from having more parking.

When you understand that shortages occur when prices are held artificially low,

Shortages exist when there is insufficient supply. There is a lack of physical space for on-street parking, thus a business with many customers can easily outpace the supply, even if the price is ridiculously high.

Do you think I said bars should be prohibited from having parking lots?

Either we extend the argument about the city promoting drunk driving to its natural conclusion by agreeing that the city should not promote drunk driving (by prohibiting parking at any place that facilitates the use of alcohol), or that it is not important that the city is promoting drunk driving. One way argues for prohibition on parking for some businesses, the other makes the discussion about city zoning laws irrelevant to the overall topic. You pick.

Or we could choose to recognize that the claim that the city is promoting drunk driving is patent nonsense, which is the truth.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[gfxguy]

So you're driving down a road in an area that is flat for miles, with no obstacles, nothing to obscure your view of anything for a long distance, but you come to an intersection that has a four way stop. You can clearly see there's no other vehicles coming from either side (or the front) long before you get there. Do you stop?

If you said "no," then I'm right there with you, because the intent of the law that you must come to a complete stop before continuing is for the sake of safety, but clearly it's safe to proceed without stopping.

However, does that mean if, for example, there was a police car behind you, he shouldn't give you a ticket?

So, if I was that cop, I probably wouldn't want to give someone that did that a ticket unless there was something else wrong, too. But still, if a cop DID give you a ticket, you wouldn't be able to fight it - you violated traffic code. If you're driving down a 45MPH road going 50MPH, and other people are going 55MPH, and a cop pulls you over and gives you a ticket, you wouldn't be able to fight it. That other people were going faster doesn't change the fact you were speeding.

The law has to have objective limits or it's unenforceable. There are people under 18 who are smarter and more informed than people over 18, yet they can't vote. There are people under 21 (and under 18) that could drink responsibly, but they aren't allowed to by law... because the law needs objective limits. I'm not a fan of the way legal BAC levels have dropped, but unfortunately, in order to be objective, they have to follow the lowest common denominator.

Now, if you think about what "circletimessquare " wrote, if people just never drove while they were impaired, there probably wouldn't be ANY laws regarding driving while intoxicated because there wouldn't need to be. And if people drove reasonably in parking lots, there wouldn't be speed bumps (because nobody likes those - but because people couldn't drive reasonably now we are stuck with them). There are all sorts of annoying laws and traffic code because people just couldn't keep themselves from acting like complete idiots. Don't blame the police, blame the people that made those laws necessary.

Laws are a result of human behavior, and if they aren't objective then they can't be enforced.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[mjwx]

The objective data is way against you. You might be OK to drive

There is no might about it.

I've participated in a controlled experiment on drink driving, we took a series of challenges (parallel parking, accelerating and stopping as well as following instructions on lane selection) on a test track (meaning a large skid pan marked with traffic cones). People showed a marked decrease in driving ability when they had enough to drink to blow 0.05 (Australia's legal limit), Myself included.

The strange thing is, I was one of two test candidates to have a higher score drunk than the sober median score... Meaning I'm a better drunk driver than half of the people tested sober (Sample size was 40). Other interesting fact was manual drivers consistently scored higher in both tests. That being said, I'd never drive drunk because as the tests showed, it did severely impact my driving ability.

If you want two glasses of wine at dinner, fine. It was also fun getting drunk for science. I had 2 full strength beers (330 ml, 5% ABV) and still didn't blow 0.05. Alcohol doesn't have a uniform effect on people, some will be under 0.05 after a glass of wine, others will be over. However, I'm also of the mind that if you're planning to drink, leave the car at home and take a taxi.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[gfxguy]

And, of course, whatever the reason - medical condition or not, you're still not supposed to drive while impaired. The class I took to be able to serve alcohol made that clear, and, for example, if someone is very tired then even below the legal BAC limit they can still get a ticked for driving impaired.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[gfxguy]

Cabs are expensive, buses don't exist, friends aren't always available, sleeping in a bar will get you arrested, hotels are expensive, propping yourself up on the side of a wall will get you arrested.

Alcohol is expensive. Drinks in bars and restaurants are expensive. You probably shouldn't go OUT drinking if you can't afford to get home without putting other people's lives at risk.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Ichijo]

when you claim that the intent of the city is to promote drunk driving

I never claimed that. I only said that cities, through their laws, encourage drunk driving. I'm certain that isn't the intent, only the effect.

[requiring parking] costs the city nothing other than enforcement...

And a LOT of tax revenue. And increased enforcement costs because empty parking lots turn into crime magnets after dark. And they encourage people to drive and send their money to out-of-state car companies and oil companies, so parking lots are bad for the local economy.

the cost applies to the business owner who benefits from having more parking.

If that's true, then business owners don't need to be forced to provide parking.

Shortages exist when there is insufficient supply.

That's partially true, but it completely ignores the demand side.

Either we extend the argument about the city promoting drunk driving to its natural conclusion...

The natural conclusion I was thinking of is that the government should get out of our lives. "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[gfxguy]

Laws like this that aren't objective cannot be enforced. It was all the people driving while they were impaired that required laws regarding drunk driving to begin with; then you need an objective limit to test. I think it's too low (and it's creeped down over the years), but there still needs to be some objective limit.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[KGIII]

Well, to be fair then you should probably ask the person who did it and not the method that they used. If your father was killed with a steak knife would you be screaming about unsafe eating utensils? I understand your pain and this is NOT an advocacy of drunk driving. By no means should anyone drive while impaired beyond capacity to make reasoned and rapid responses. It should be illegal and, as near as I can tell, actually illegal.

Your issue should be with the person and not the method. I'm assuming the drove a car. Do you want to outlaw those? Your father was killed by an idiot, a drunken idiot, with an automobile and your loss is unfortunate and inexcusable. The person responsible for your father's death is where you should direct your ire.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[gfxguy]

Yes, arbitrary laws are... not necessarily bad, but I understand where you're coming from. But what would you do to enforce laws against driving while impaired? A few posts up I admitted I think the BAC levels are too low, and they've been creeping ever downward, but you need some objective line to cross in order to be able to enforce the law, unless you think everybody should have to take a test to see what their limit is before being impaired, and have that stamped on their license?

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[KGIII]

Actually, I don't think there's cause for you to be arrested by failing the portable test. I think there's cause for you to be DETAINED for a more accurate test (or a refusal or a blood draw depending on jurisdiction) which, if you fail said test, results in your being arrested. Prior to the test results showing a positive you're not arrested but are detained. There's a difference and it's important.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[KGIII]

Do you have a citation for that claim? A quick search doesn't seem to indicate that as being true. In fact, only a trivial amount appear to have been stopped at roadblocks. I don't see data confirming your other allegation either. Let's stick to the facts.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[gfxguy]

I agree with your last line there, but you have your choice between a subjective field sobriety test - ones that are almost always challenged, or an objective BAC test. I think the BAC legal limit is too low, but I also believe it's better to have an enforceable, objective law than a subjective one that is not enforceable. I also think people need to take personal responsibility; I don't think you shouldn't drink when you go out with your friends, but if you limit it to one serving of alcohol per hour - which is theoretically the average amount a typical person can filter out in an hour, then you won't have any BAC problems if a cop pulls you over.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[KGIII]

I'm not white.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[gfxguy]

So get over it. Society says you don't drive with pretty much any level of alcohol on board. Don't like it, move to Peru or wherever they don't enforce driving regulations (or anything else for that matter). Go lobby for more 'progressive' legal alcohol levels.

I was with you up to that point... that's not what "society" says. They accept a fairly low limit, but I don't know anybody that thinks you can't have a beer with your burger and then drive home.... if they do think that, they're morons.

I don't know how "good" the BAC limits are for judging how impaired someone is; I know they have creeped down over the years, and I don't know that I'm happy about it, because I think it was lowered simply to catch more people and I don't think it impacted safety. But I don't argue with where it is now, and I do think you need an enforceable, objective line to cross to make the determination. It's silly to think everybody should get some subjective test when pulled over, instead of an objective conclusive one.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Obfuscant]

I never claimed that. I only said that cities, through their laws, encourage drunk driving. I'm certain that isn't the intent, only the effect.

They take no actions to encourage drunk driving. In fact, they hire many police to arrest people who do break that law. That means they take explicit steps to discourage it.

You started with the premise that cities have zoning laws to encourage driving. That premise is wrong. If anything, the zoning laws encourage parking. Therefore the remainder of the argument is false.

And they encourage people to drive and send their money to out-of-state car companies and oil companies, so parking lots are bad for the local economy.

What an amazing web you are trying to weave. Simply fascinating how far afield you go, and how many patently absurd assumptions you are making.

And a LOT of tax revenue.

Developing a space to include parking and a business does not cost tax revenue, it creates tax revenue. Property taxes are based on assessed value, not on space occupied. Allocating a "cost" to money that is never earned is a specious argument. It is the same nonsense that is used to claim that an increase in tax funding for a program is actually a cut because the increase wasn't as big as the program asked for.

If that's true, then business owners don't need to be forced to provide parking.

Business owners don't want to spend the money for parking spaces when they can just share the on-street limited supply. They don't care if the neighbors don't like their customers taking up all the spaces, because the neighbors are unlikely to be a large number of customers to begin with, nor will they require parking should they be.

That's partially true, but it completely ignores the demand side.

It is factually true -- shortages exist only because there is insufficient supply. That is almost a tautology. Yes, I ignore the "demand side", because the zoning laws are created to handle the "supply side". They are NOT created to "encourage drunk driving".

"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Government is neither promoting drunk driving nor creating that problem. Drunk driving is a problem created by people who make poor choices, and those decisions often impact many other people.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[gfxguy]

drinking and driving is never acceptable

Of course, that's why you're not allowed to have open containers containing alcohol in the car with you. If, of course, you're referring to driving AFTER you've been drinking, then I assure you I (and 99% of the population) could have a beer or glass of wine with dinner, and you would NEVER know, and they'd be far below the legal limit, and they wouldn't be swerving or posing any danger to anybody.

Yes, it's true, that drunks don't make good decisions... having a beer with dinner (or even two or three over the course of several hours in a bar or club) does not make one drunk.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[gfxguy]

I disagree with the other poster's insistence that you can't have ANY alcohol and drive safely, but there are fundamentally wrong things with your post, here, too. First of all, just because it's socially acceptable in your area doesn't mean it's safe. Second, I would agree that if I had two or three glasses of beer or wine over the course of an hour to hour and half that, at my size, I'd be fine.... if that's ALL I had. If that was coming off 2 or 3 the hour before, and 2 or 3 the hour before that, NOBODY would be fine. Being "used to" drinking also doesn't help - there's a lot of people guilty of manslaughter that thought they could handle it because they were "experienced" drinkers - just like there are a lot of people guilty of manslaughter who previously would have sworn up and down they could "multitask" and text while driving.

Just because nothing bad has happened yet doesn't mean you're good at driving while impaired.

Where the debate is (or should be) is what level is "impaired," and I agree with BAC test (even if I think the limit is low) because they are objective and enforceable. You want another government issued permit that indicates what level you're allowed to drive at after you've taken some test? That's not going to happen. The only realistic, objective, enforceable way to enforce the law is to measure BAC. And I'm saying this while sitting here drinking beer (it's been a weird week).

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[PopeRatzo]

I'm not white.

I stand corrected. Are you Sicilian like me?

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Ichijo]

Allocating a "cost" to money that is never earned is a specious argument.

It's called an opportunity cost, and I assure you, it's a very legitimate and wise way to choose whether and how to invest. Ask your financial planner if you don't believe me.

Business owners don't want to spend the money for parking spaces when they can just share the on-street limited supply.

Exactly. Why should they pay for parking when government gives it to them for free?

shortages exist only because there is insufficient supply.

More generally, shortages exist when demand exceeds supply. So it's just as true that shortages are caused by "insufficient supply" as it is that shortages are caused by "excessive demand," but either claim alone only paints half the picture.

zoning laws are created to handle the "supply side".

Yes, unfortunately those who write zoning laws don't understand supply and demand very well.

Drunk driving is a problem created by people who make poor choices...

Again, that's only half of the truth.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[PopeRatzo]

I look Asian, Vietnamese really - maybe a skinny Polynesian. I have sort of black hair - I can make a 'fro like a mofo.

So, you can pass as Sicilian. Cool. Come to Chicago and I'll take you to a place that makes the best babbaluci on the continent.

Oddly, for the most part, the cops seem pretty laid back there.

To be fair, a lot of 'em are probably high. If you were a cop in Florida, wouldn't you be?

dispatch: "Car 54, we've got a 8-36b out on 41"
officer: "Uh, dispatch, what's an 8-36b again?"
dispatch: "A man dressed in a clown suit having sex with an underage alligator."
officer: "OK, dispatch, we're on our way as soon as I can fire one up."

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[delt0r]

You understand wrong. The ballmer peak is funny. But it is not science and it is *not* biology. It is quite easy to measure relevant motor skills with alcohol impairment. Every single person gets bad then worse then terrible.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[delt0r]

Giving advice to prospective repeat customers more like. Lawyers don't make money off people who don't need a lawyer!

There is a reason that the centuries old joke of "kill all the lawyers" was and still is funny. And perhaps a little sad that the law profession has done nothing in the intervening years to fix that reputation.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[delt0r]

Hence why i want autonomous cars. And yet idiots like yourself probably are dead against them. Because "your the good driver" right.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[cayenne8]

Why is alcohol so important, even necessary to have a nice night out? I really don't get it.

Because it is fun and makes fun MORE fun.

I think it was W.C.Fields who said "I feel sorry for people that don't drink, when they get up in the morning, that is the best they'll feel all day..."

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Gr8Apes]

Regarding police - as one on one people they're the usual mix, some you'll like and get along with, others just a civil passing. Based on a large number of stories reported on a variety of departments across the US, the use of ticket revenue to fund themselves and in some jurisdictions the judicial branch and even entire towns is completely and utterly a problem. Couple those reports with some officers being written down for not writing enough tickets, and we can say that there's a quota system in place, no matter what semantics you put around it to avoid calling it a quota. If it looks, walks, quacks like a quota.... IMNSHO tickets and revenue generated should not even be on the performance review. What should be is whether incidents in the area of responsibility are going up, staying even, or going down, and if they are within parameters. This is easily measured, btw, as those metrics (should) exist, as they should be publicly available.

As for pointing out every single logical flaw in the various rantings, that would take far too much time. My point was merely to state that the law, as it currently exists, is bad because it's arbitrary. There's not been a single post to argue against this point (because it's true:) Note that I'm not arguing about whether the intent is good or not - I believe getting impaired drivers off the road is good btw - but that this law is inherently flawed and being abused, like quite a few other laws these days.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Gr8Apes]

The BAC limits are completely arbitrary. No one here arguing against me has yet posted a refutation of that point. They also skip over the part that I fully believe impaired drivers should not be on the road and punished more harshly when their actions result in harm than they currently are.

A meaningful objective measure will always be difficult to come by regarding this issue. Ask any anesthesiologist, not everyone reacts to drugs the same way, which is why they are present and monitoring their patients carefully throughout the application of anesthesia. You can't have BAC be 0 because you can naturally produce alcohol although that is a severe case. There are other mechanisms that will result in trace BAC amounts as well, so "zero tolerance" would mean no one drives.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Gr8Apes]

Drunk driving is a common cause of impairment and easy to test for. In order to test, there has to be an arbitrary limit, so that the driver is either legally drunk or not.

So, apparently it's not easy to test for, it is easy to test to an arbitrary limit however. We'll just call anything over that limit "drunk". Next year, maybe we'll drop it down to 0.01....

Fatigue is another common cause of impairment, but harder to test.

This sounds like a cop-out. From drowsydriving.org

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conservatively estimates that 100,000 police-reported crashes are the direct result of driver fatigue each year. This results in an estimated 1,550 deaths, 71,000 injuries, and $12.5 billion in monetary losses. These figures may be the tip of the iceberg, since currently it is difficult to attribute crashes to sleepiness.

I added that only to show that fatigue is a pretty big problem, but somehow we're not addressing it at all.

If you remove arbitrary laws, what's left? You have to toss all criminal punishments, since they're all arbitrary. You have to let everyone vote (which might not be a bad thing).

Taking something that is not yours without permission is stealing. Hitting another person outside of a few selected organized activities is assault. Killing another person is manslaughter, with elevations in crime depending upon circumstances. These are not arbitrary laws.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Gr8Apes]

I'd say take the revenue feature out of DWIs. Any money fined goes to a DWI victims fund. They would be the only ones to sanction programs offenders have to pay for to attend, meaning they control all funds. Also, all DWI violations should be a secondary violation similar to seat belt violations. (Otherwise, why did you think they were impaired?) Note that PI can be used to prevent a potential DWI driver from taking to the road in the first place leading to much lower problems for the violator while maintaining a greater level of safety. Today, police have been known to watch for drunks leaving a bar, and then pulling them over after they get into their cars. People should be asking "why did they wait"? The answer is in the first statement - police currently have a revenue incentive to wait for a PI to get in a car so they can get a DWI.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Obfuscant]

I think it was W.C.Fields who said "I feel sorry for people that don't drink, when they get up in the morning, that is the best they'll feel all day..."

Enjoying how much better you feel when the hangover wears off is like the old joke about the guy who is hitting himself in the head with a hammer. When he's asked why he's doing that, he says "because it feels so good when I stop."

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[david_thornley]

Do you have any idea how to test if someone is legally fatigued? I don't. Do you have a way to test if someone's driving is impaired if he or she is driving straight down the freeway? I don't.

Do you agree we should have some sort of law addressing people driving with some impairments? If so, how? If we could measure impairment directly, at what point do we call it illegal? That's going to be arbitrary. What if we can measure just one important form of impairment?

As far as homicide goes, we have various arbitrary distinctions for self-defense. Does the shooter have to retreat as far as possible, even in his or her home? Is it legal to shoot someone threatening in your home without trying to run away? Is it legal to shoot someone for threatening or trying to steal your property in your home? This is arbitrary, and it's different answers in different places.

An advantage of arbitrary known limits is that people can know them. A driver can get a good idea whether he or she is over the legal limit of alcohol, and plan accordingly. Fuzzy laws leave people uncertain whether they're violating them or now.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Gr8Apes]

Do you have any idea how to test if someone is legally fatigued? I don't.

You could test for brain activity (it's objective) for several types of fatigue. But this would also be an arbitrary measurement for the same reason as any other measurements you could come up with.

A better test concept would be whether you passed a minimum set of capability tests. Those would be objective and repeatable. The downside? There will be people that even when they are at their 100% would not pass, even though they may have a license today. That number will be higher than most would think at first, as it will almost certainly remove a large group of elderly and challenged people. It would certainly solve the hassle of when to take grandpa's keys if it was a requirement for renewing your license.

Do you have a way to test if someone's driving is impaired if he or she is driving straight down the freeway? I don't.

If they're driving straight down the freeway with no violations, then apparently they're not impaired at that point.

Do you agree we should have some sort of law addressing people driving with some impairments? If so, how? If we could measure impairment directly, at what point do we call it illegal? That's going to be arbitrary. What if we can measure just one important form of impairment?

I'd say once someone exhibits impairment with driving, at that point you investigate. If the officer believes they are impaired, book em. In fact, most laws I'm aware of are explicit in that regardless of any other factors, if the officer believes you are impaired, they can arrest you. In case you're unaware of it, the whole BAC thing is just an easier way to rubberstamp your revenue generating guilt.

As far as homicide goes

I was talking about manslaughter. Homicide is a small subset covered by circumstances.

An advantage of arbitrary known limits is that people can know them. A driver can get a good idea whether he or she is over the legal limit of alcohol, and plan accordingly. Fuzzy laws leave people uncertain whether they're violating them or now.

And they're still fuzzy, because I have no way of determining whether I'm in violation at any specific point in time.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[thegarbz]

Oh wow. Did you get that from a comment on the internet?
Alcohol in any form has no benefit to reasoning or motor skills. It can be argued to have a benefit on other physiological issues such as high heart rated, high blood pressure and reduces the chance of clotting, but it has absolutely zero positive effect on the brain's ability to function.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[thegarbz]

The BAC thresholds vary from person to person - the brash friend from upthread may have a limit of 0.00, but my grandpa could, and would probably do just fine at 0.08 since he used to be a professional race car driver.

There is no threshold. Alcohol has a negative effect. Just because the racing driver is good enough that he can still stay on the road while inebriated while grandpa probably can't even figure out how to start the car doesn't mean it is not having an effect.

You get behind the wheel when you are in any way impaired from your normal abilities you're making the single riskiest task of your day worse. We talk about alcohol but the same applies to driving while injured, tired, or the latest craze high on some designer drug. The problem is the large number of accidents that are caused completely outside of your control where a split second difference in reflexes can have a big effect. I'm sure very few people here would have a problem driving a car between 2 white lines while even at 0.1 or higher. The same can not be said for avoiding a sudden and unexpected person running on the road, a car that suddenly turned out in front of you etc. Alertness, and attentiveness is not a skill.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[Cederic]

No, a vaguely remembered academic study in the 90s I think. Can't find any references now, but it mentioned a very brief but discernable improvement in alertness or reflexes at exceedingly low levels of alcohol - of the order of far less than a single shot.

Any more than that and the beneficial effect disappeared then rapidly descended into adverse impacts.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[cayenne8]

Enjoying how much better you feel when the hangover wears off is like the old joke about the guy who is hitting himself in the head with a hammer. When he's asked why he's doing that, he says "because it feels so good when I stop."

What's a hangover?

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[david_thornley]

If they're driving straight down the freeway with no violations, then apparently they're not impaired at that point.

Not necessarily true. An impaired driver may be able to keep the car going straight while having no awareness of what's going on around the car, and may get into an accident if there is any problem.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[driblio]

Could you please point out where OP said that bold part? Because it seems to me that you are trying to put words in their mouth.

Sure:

don't drive drunk, no exceptions

Actually, there are.

You're welcome. Actually, no you're not. That was a fucking pain in the arse to type on my phone and you've and idiot.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[driblio]

This is amazing. None of the things you list are drink driving!
Yes, parking facilities facilitate drink driving. It's still your responsibly not to.

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[driblio]

Question:

How exactly do you 'know your limits'?

Re:Drunks don't make the best decisions

[gfxguy]

The BAC limits are completely arbitrary.

As are a lot of laws - like the drinking age, and age of consent; age to be able to vote, drive, smoke.... they simply have to be set somehow in order to be enforceable, and those laws are also laws that wouldn't have been necessary if so many people weren't complete morons... just like DUI and the BAC limit. I'm not saying I'm happy about it, I'm saying I haven't heard a better alternative.

Has to be said

[DanJ_UK]

She sounds like a complete and utter Thundertwat.

Re:Has to be said

[cyberchondriac]

Someone will probably offer her her own realityTV show now.

What next?

[Coisiche]

Since online approval via "likes" or equivalent seems to be the basis of self-worth for so many, how many more crimes are going to be live streamed?

"Sure, I got eighteen months but I got 10,000 likes!"

Nice

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Live-Streaming Florida Woman Charged With Drunken Driving

That's not what drunken women are usually doing when live streaming.

They both involve headlights, tho.

Equal Opportunity

[lazarus]

I say that there should be equal opportunity for both Florida men and women.

coming soon

[Thud457]

Twitch LARPs "GTA : DUI"

A cry for help . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . that what it sounds like to me. If there are any gentlemen from Florida on Slashdot, please invite her over for a coffee, and advise her to get some professional help.

pee or blood test only don't Breathalyzer test

[Joe_Dragon]

pee or blood test only don't use the Breathalyzer test the software in them are not that good.

Wrong

[HeavenlyWhistler]

In most states, refusing the test is an automatic license suspension.

Refusing a breath test is an automatic license suspension. A breathalyzer test is not a breath test. It is a preliminary breath test. Refusing that has no penalty.

A breath test is a large machine down at the police station, that is carefully calibrated and accurate (for what it does). Police ask you to take the breathalyzer, and FST, so that they can collect enough evidence to justify arresting you and taking you downtown for the real breath test. They ask, you say no.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is part of your own quote of Florida Law:

... if the person is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed... The chemical or physical breath test must be incidental to a lawful arrest

That means "after you are arrested" with, you know, probable cause and stuff. Here is the Intoxilyzer 8000 that is used by the Florida Department Of Law Enforcement (a.k.a state police): http://www.alcoholtest.com/int...

Here is their web page on their alcohol testing program:
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Co...

I don't know, Bob, that looks like a big machine to me. Although it does have what looks like a handle, I'll give you that. But it is not a breathalyzer. A breathalyzer is not used in BAC tests. A breathalyzer is not a "breath test instrument" as referred to in 316.1932 (1)(a)2. You should also read 316.1932 (1)(f)1. If you refuse to blow into a breathalyzer on the side of the road, you are not "refusing to submit to a BAC test".

Re:Wrong

[Holi]

Wow, really really bad legal advice from an armchair lawyer. You go ahead and refuse the breathalyzer and see what happens.

Re:Wrong

[HeavenlyWhistler]

IANAL, but every lawyer I have spoken with has said that "what happens" is nothing.*

* may not be valid in all 50 states. Read the statutes in your area. Know your rights.

A breathalyzer is not a "breath test instrument" as referred to in Florida 316.1932 (1)(a)2.

Re:Prodigy Video Re-enactments

[OakDragon]

Is there a link that I should know about? :)

thunder...

[AmazingRuss]

Thunder... ThunderTwat! Hoooooooo!

PEBSWAS!

[Applehu Akbar]

Problem exists between steering wheel and smartphone.

Re:PEBSWAS!

[thegarbz]

Problem exists between steering wheel and smartphone.

My double sided tape?

Re:PEBSWAS!

[Cederic]

No, the fuckwit that put it on your steering wheel.

Ever considered watching the fucking road and surrounding environment while driving?

Re:PEBSWAS!

[mjwx]

Problem exists between steering wheel and smartphone.

In other words, have you tried removing the nut behind the wheel.

Re:PEBSWAS!

[thegarbz]

I don't know. Ever consider getting a sense of humour?

Re:Prodigy Video Re-enactments

[RavenLrD20k]

Look for the official uncensored video for Prodigy's song "Smack my Bitch Up"

Well

[DaMattster]

They don't make a cure for stupid.

Re:Greetings from Florida Polytechnic

[cayenne8]

I dunno....

I often wonder if social media is just making people more stupid....

Or if social media just brings the people that are stupid more out of the woodwork for the rest of us to see.

Why would anyone FB, Tweet, Periscope or whatever ANY activity that might potentially get you jailed?

We see gang members with FB pages of stolen goods, drugs and cash online. This chick live streams a drunk drive home (not to mention many shots of her early drinking heavily with a timecode attached to it)...I mean, why do people gather so much evidence against themselves and just hand it to the police?

Are we just getting dumber as a country?

Re: Bogus troll posting back to own post

[Nidi62]

Ninety percent of all comments you see on the web are jews trolls. Financed by their fake government

90%? Damn, how can I get in on this easy money?

Hometown Hero

[joelharrison]

Reading Slashdot for over ten years has finally paid off! My home town of Lakeland, FL is finally on the map. hahahahahaha

Re: Greetings from Florida Polytechnic

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Florida is renown for its drugs and drug abusers, among other tragedies.

Flori-Duh Man has an endless stream of adventures

Re:Greetings from Florida Polytechnic

[Barsteward]

the answer is "Or if social media just brings the people that are stupid more out of the woodwork for the rest of us to see."

Re:Greetings from Florida Polytechnic

[TheDarkener]

People have always been stupid. The smart ones that invent the tech that stupid people use to get themselves in trouble is just a coincidence. I'd think it's pretty obvious, really. Stuff like FB, Meerkat, etc. just enables the stupidity of people to be broadcast much further.

Re:Greetings from Florida Polytechnic

[Coren22]

Kind regards,

The rest of the world.

Which is just as dumb.

Who cares?

[kuzb]

Why is this news for nerds? Because she was dumb enough to put it on social media? Are the editors around here that stupid?

Re:Florida

[Coren22]

Funny, one of those mug shots is from the TV show Burn Notice, not a real mug shot. Also, what is up with that one guy (on there twice) with a caved in head? How is he even standing for the mugshot?

Re:Greetings from Florida Polytechnic

[Darinbob]

Does social media make people more stupid, or is it just a viewing device that lets stupid people become more visible?

Re:Greetings from Florida Polytechnic

[damnitalready]

Idiocracy. Once a great movie, turning into a documentary... especially the intro.

Designated driver

[DrYak]

There's this thing called a "designated driver".
If these words sound strange to you, you might want to google them. It might save you an arrest in the future. Or avoid death by car accident.

Re:Designated driver

[KGIII]

I drank for a lot of years - I've not been drunk in over three years (I've had two drinks a couple of times since but that's it). I drove. I drove everywhere. I've even driven black out drunk. Yet, I've never once had an OUI and I've no at-fault accidents on my record - ever - in 40+ years. I've driven more miles drunk than I've driven sober - tens and probably even hundreds of thousands.

I'm not sure what my point is. I'm not advocating driving drunk. No, not by any means. I do think there should be subjectivity in there somewhere instead of an arbitrary limit. I also think that maybe we shouldn't punish somebody until they've caused harm but, really, the risks are pretty high so I understand the law and accept it. I do think it should be less arbitrary. I'm not sure how to go about it. I'm not sure where the line should be. In my case, well, alcohol affects alcoholics a bit different. I was a functioning alcoholic up until I retired - at that point I kind of stopped having to function so I drank a whole lot more.

Again, I'm not sure where I'm going with this but I figured I'd toss my experience into the mix. I was often the designated driver - I could drive while drunk. Of course, my MOS was, specifically, motor pool and I learned to drive lots of varied things and to drive them well. So, yeah... Again, no pearls of wisdom or anything, just my experiences.

Re:Greetings from Florida Polytechnic

[smooth wombat]

They're smarter that you think.

No, I'm smarter than you think because I don't record myself doing stupid things or endangering others.

It can't be used against them due to the fifth ammendment.

The Fifth Amendment says nothing about you displaying to the world your own words and deeds of your own volition.

Would you rather have freedom or nanny-state communism?

This had nothing to do with the government. She willingly and of her own free will posted this for everyone to see. The government only got involved because she was endangering those around her and she admitted it without coercion.

But then I'll bet you're one of those who thinks it's great the government has told people they must hand over their money to a private company whether they want to or not.

Re:Greetings from Florida Polytechnic

[Calydor]

My grandfather was a manager at a bank.

Back in the late 60s or early 70s there was a robbery at the bank. The robber had beforehand stolen a bike to get away, so he was thinking ahead.

He also knew that people were untrustworthy scumbags that might steal an unattended bike, so to be sure it was there when he came out from the bank ... he locked it.

The stolen bike.

The police didn't have much trouble catching him because even back then, people did really, REALLY stupid stuff when breaking the law.

Re:Greetings from Florida Polytechnic

[mjwx]

the answer is "Or if social media just brings the people that are stupid more out of the woodwork for the rest of us to see."

This.

Stupid has always existed. The difference is now recording and transmitting it is within the capabilities of stupid.

The real problem is, some people celebrate stupidity which gives the stupid their 15 minutes of fame which in turn encourages more stupidity. Even those who simply watch it are contributing to the problem.

It's not really a new concept either, see "Americas/Australias/Britains Stupidest Home Videos" that have been going on for decades but at least then they would filter the stupidest of the stupid, now anyone with a phone can upload their stupid video for all to see.

Also see: the Dunning-Kruger effect. People that stupid never realise how stupid they are.

Finally someone explains the best strategy

[Cajun Hell]

This is where I think so many people screw up: they aren't lucky enough. I am glad that you stepped forward and publicly endorsed luck. If only everyone would embrace that approach, there would be many fewer incidents of injury, death, and property damage.

C'mon, people: Just Be Lucky!

Re:Greetings from Florida Polytechnic

[someoneOtherThanMe]

I don't get it, what difference does it make in locking that the bike was stolen?

Re:Greetings from Florida Polytechnic

[Calydor]

It wasn't his lock. He didn't know the combination to it, thus the bike remained locked when he came out from the bank and had to get away.

Re: Greetings from Florida Polytechnic

[MenThal]

If it was unlocked when he stole it, and he locked it with the welded-on locking mechanism that at least was common back in my youth, he'd locked himself off it.

Re:Greetings from Florida Polytechnic

[lsatenstein]

Why is this topic even posted to slashdot??

Is it because it is sad?