This is the whole point. If your judgment is impaired, as opposed to being distracted, you may not be able to come to this conculsion. How many times have you seen someone who is drunk--maybe even totally wasted--say "I'm fine" when you knew they weren't? I have certainly seen it--they can barely stand up, or form a sentence, but they insist they are fine. And while the person on the cell phone thinks they can talk and drive at the same time--BUT if there's a close call, is likely to realize maybe they are overextending themselves. If you're drunk, you may just think the other driver's an ***hole, not realizing it's you.

That is the fundamental difference, and why those comparisions are not really fair.

 

Im not talking about a person who is totally out of it. I mean those who are slightly tipsy, or borderline legally drunk .08. Where they are capable of driving but the law punishes them more than someone who has a .07 because that person is a little bit bigger but may have drank equally.

Also one of my teachers, gets destroyed after taking ONE shot of tequila. Her BAC would definitely not come out legally drunk but she would not even be able to walk yet she wouldnt get arrested for drunk driving because she is not "legally" drunk.

 

Thank you for making my point--she's not even legally drunk (you think--I assume you didnt breathalyze her), and she can barely walk. How can you be arguing that a .08 person is "capable"?

Anyway--it's the SAME thing, whether you are slightly drunk or totally drunk--your judgment is impaired. Maybe a little, maybe a lot, but you physically are not making decisions with the same abilities you do as when you are sober. A legal line must be drawn SOMEWHERE--since alcohol affects everyone differently, you could argue that the line should be .01. A one or 2 second delay in reaction time can make an enormous difference. And--you can argue that the .08 person is potentially more dangerous, because it is not as obvious to others, who may not stop them from driving.

 

My point is people have different limits some can hold more and be fine while others drink a little bit and be wasted.

If you put it like that the 1 or 2 second difference can make a huge difference with any other distraction. The 1 second you look away from the road to do anything would lead to an accident even something like raising the volume on your stereo can be hazardous. And people will probably not go and "Drop" their cell phone/drink/sandwich to swerve out with both hands and just use their free hand which is a big difference between driving with both

 

And - as I said in my previous post - in order to protect society from idiots, the law must account for idiots. It's all about going after the lowest common denominator, within reason. In this case, the legislature feels that 0.08 is an accurate and reasonable representation of that lowest common denominator.

The fact that other people can be responsible or have a higher tolerance is irrelevant, because the law is there to protect us from those who cannot be responsible and who have a lower tolerance. The mantra that idiots tend to ruin the world for the rest of us is quite accurate.

If anything, your argument quoted above about a person getting "wasted" after one drink would only suggest that the legal limit should be lower.

 

Well, let's see, I had a friend long ago driving drunk along with some other stupid teen kids in the car while coming down the mountain. They crossed the line and slammed head on into a car driven by a man with his wife next to him. They just got married and on their way to their honeymoon. Groom died (not deserved), my friend died (deserved-sorry Danny), and the 3(or was it 2) punk teens (all were drunk) in the car died as well. Only the bride made it out and she was in bad condition though I never found out her long term ailments. I'm pretty sure it made the news 20 years ago.

This is just one if many I know of involving drunk driving including one where a guy rear ended me on the freeway years back at night because he was drunk. I chased him down-was not hard-and let's just say that it was a good thing for him he was numb at the time and good thing for me that his memory was impaired. Cops were amused that he tripped and fell so many times before they arrived.

In situations where a victim is injured or death is involved I think the suspect should be liable for assisting the victims family for the duration of the estimated lifespan of the victim. So in the case that a man kills another man who's age is 40 and has a family then the suspect should be liable 32 (if the average healthy males life expectancy is 72) years financially to that family in the order of up to 50% of his wages. Time to make the punishment real.

I think the current restrictions and penalties are appropriate and though yes some people react and respond differently to various levels of alcohol it would be next to impossible to enforce such a flexible law especially when the solution is so simple-don't drink and drive. What part of that is difficult to understand for people.

 

Everyone is an angel and hero on the internet......

Drinking and Driving is wrong yes. The tests are made for you to fail. People rarely know their true rights when it occurs.

The tolerances of people vary as well. It also is proven that driving with a cell phone is basically, driving drunk.

I think what we need MORE OF, is the same issue we have with driving in general. EDUCATION.
1. If you're going to get hammered, take a cab, drink where you can walk, have a designated driver.
2. EAT before/while you drink. Just drinking gets you pissy drunk.
3. Maybe drink at home instead of going out.
4. Hang among people and places where you can leave your car, or ride with a pal, or save some cash for a motel/hotel etc.

 

All laws must create artificially drawn lines or standards. Why, if you steal $999 is it a misdemeanor, but if you steal $1000 it's a felony. Or once you possess drugs over a certain amount, you are assumed to have "intent to distribute"? It doesn't matter that people have different limits--if that's the argument, then the limit should be ANY alcohol in your system.

And I don't want to say that Pearlpower's story is typical--BUT everyone has heard a story like that. You can't say the same thing about someone who was "distracted".

And, 1Sick--I don't think it is "proven" that driving on your cell phone is the same as DUI--I don't think there's scientific data. I think it is a theory.

 

you can conduct tests to see the physical and mental abilities of the drunk driver after getting pulled over. Instead of just putting a BAC meter. Like they used to do

 

I heard on the radio this morning that today is the 35th anniversary of "Pong", the predecessor to the Wii and all other video games. Just because they "used to" play video games that way, doesn't mean we should go back to that. The only thing better about a field sobriety test is to permit the drunk driver to be able to set up a defense that he/she could not have been found to be drunk beyond a reasonable doubt.

The fact is, there is no way you are going to get off scott free if you drive at a .07 and get caught, and if you "can handle" driving at a .08, then you get all that's coming to you for purposely taking that risk.