Why do some countries have stricter penalties for drunk drivers than the US?

[tribdog]

Yes, I've heard of such things. The Sheriffs told me that they decided to breathalize me anyway because had I later that night gotten into an accident and shown over the limit they would have been held responsible.

and you believed them? they breathalized you because they wanted to arrest you for DUI. Around here we are starting to get a lot of DUI checkpoints, every single car gets pulled over and if they have any suspicion that you may have had something to drink they direct you a mobile trailer with a breathalyzer. I'm against drunk driving, but the scary thing is how easy it can be to technically be guilty. Go out to dinner, have a couple of drinks and while you aren't drunk and would probably drive home just fine, if you are unlucky you could end up with a DUI. Every one of us has probably driven when they had a BAC of .08, which is the limit here.

 

[binzing]

Talking about impairment, is it true that fighter pilots in the US army get amphetamines ?

I don't think so anymore, but during WWII it was widely used.

 

[Cyrus]

What's really stupid to me is the fact that unless you get pulled over, you have no clue how many drinks it takes for you to become over the limit. This is information everyone should know. Is it one beer, two beers?

If I have two beers, how long do I have to wait?

Being arrested for having a beer or two with their meal is flat out moronic. The cops should find something better to do with their time. Like cleaning up the ghettos. The only reason they care about DWI/DUI is because they can fine your *** to now tomorrow.

I bet if there was no fine, only jail time, the cops wouldn't care because they would have full prisons and no money to pay for anything.

 

[quadraphonics]

What's really stupid to me is the fact that unless you get pulled over, you have no clue how many drinks it takes for you to become over the limit. This is information everyone should know. Is it one beer, two beers?

Where I grew up, the cops would occasionally send an on-duty officer to the local bars with a breathalyzer, so that people could use it to get an idea of how much effect a given amount of drinking would have on their BAC. I think the idea is that a lot of drunk driving occurs in situations where people develop a habit of drinking and then driving (while still under the limit), but over time their comfort level and alcohol intake starts to creep up. So you want to give them some feedback *before* they actually get up to the point of driving drunk.

Probably in larger, less fortunate cities they do not have the spare resources to do this, though.

 

[lisab]

What's really stupid to me is the fact that unless you get pulled over, you have no clue how many drinks it takes for you to become over the limit. This is information everyone should know. Is it one beer, two beers?

Ha, Cyrus, you're looking at it through engineer's eyes. To control a variable, you have to be able to measure it...how can you be under a target that you can't measure?

 

[Cyrus]

Ha, Cyrus, you're looking at it through engineer's eyes. To control a variable, you have to be able to measure it...how can you be under a target that you can't measure?

What do you mean? I thought the thing will measure a lower bounded threshold. Meaning, it can measure to say 0.005% BAC, but 0.02% is illegal.

 

[tribdog]

blood alcohol is almost completely dependent on body weight I think. Impairment is much more subjective though.

 

[LightbulbSun]

blood alcohol is almost completely dependent on body weight

That's correct. The lower the body weight, the less alcohol you need to consume to have a high BAC reading.

 

[lisab]

What do you mean? I thought the thing will measure a lower bounded threshold. Meaning, it can measure to say 0.005% BAC, but 0.02% is illegal.

The drinker controls the number of drinks they imbibe; the breathalyzer measures alcohol in the blood. There is no way an average person can know exactly how the number of drinks affects BAC.

 

[tribdog]

The drinker controls the number of drinks they imbibe; the breathalyzer measures alcohol in the blood. There is no way an average person can know exactly how the number of drinks affects BAC.

I thought there was a pretty straight forward equation to figure out your bac pretty accurately.

 

[Gokul43201]

In my case I was driving fine and passed a field sobriety test but was over the limit. Is BAC a measure of impairment?

Here... you decide.

Logan B K; Distefano S, "Ethanol content of various foods and soft drinks and their potential for interference with a breath-alcohol test", Journal of Analytical Toxicology 22 (1998).

Abstract:

A variety of breads and soft drinks were tested and found to contain low concentrations of alcohol. The potential for these products to generate false readings on an evidential breath-alcohol instrument was evaluated. Alcohol-free subjects ingested these products and then provided breath samples into a DataMaster. It was found that breath samples provided immediately after consumption of some of these products, or with them still present in the mouth, did produce low levels of apparent breath alcohol, which may or may not be rejected as invalid by the breath-test instrument. If the subject swallowed or expectorated the food or beverage and then observed a 15-min deprivation period during which nothing was introduced into the mouth, the apparent effect was eliminated. These findings emphasize the need for the mandatory pretest alcohol-deprivation period and the benefits of duplicate breath sampling.

How long after you left the bar before you took the breathalyzer test?

I'm just giving you the opinion of someone who's going through this for no other reason than .01% difference in a measurement.

Did you ask to check the calibration of the meter? Did you take just one test or more than one? How many? Have you subsequently taken blood tests to establish you breath to blood partition ratio? Have you talked to a lawyer about any of this? My own opinion is that a 0.03% margin on a blood alcohol test by a single breathalyzer measurement is almost meaningless, but the law may be such that this margin is already accounted for in the legal limit.

Here's a paper on the systematic error bar on breath tests:

Gullberg Rod G; Logan Barry K "Results of a proposed breath alcohol proficiency test program" Journal of forensic sciences 51 (2006)

Abstract:

Although proficiency test programs have long been used in both clinical and forensic laboratories, they have not found uniform application in forensic breath alcohol programs. An initial effort to develop a proficiency test program appropriate to forensic breath alcohol analysis is described herein. A total of 11 jurisdictions participated in which 27 modern instruments were evaluated. Five wet bath simulator solutions with ethanol vapor concentrations ranging from 0.0254 to 0.2659 g/210 L were sent to participating programs, instructing them to perform n = 10 measurements on each solution using the same instrument. Four of the solutions contained ethanol only and one contained ethanol mixed with acetone. The systematic errors for all instruments ranged from -11.3% to +11.4% while the coefficient of variations ranged from zero to 6.1%. A components-of-variance analysis revealed at least 79% of the total variance as being due to the between-instrument component for all concentrations. Improving proficiency test program development should consider: (1) clear protocol instructions, (2) frequency of proficiency testing, (3) use lower concentrations for determining limits-of-detection and -quantitation, etc. Despite the lack of a biological component, proficiency test participation should enhance the credibility of forensic breath test programs.

And if you measured 0.01% over in a measurement of 0.09%, that's 11.1% over the legal limit. A second measurement or a different instrument may just as easily have read 0.08%.

 

[lisab]

I thought there was a pretty straight forward equation to figure out your bac pretty accurately.

Oh, yes, I'm sure there is. But does the average citizen know that equation? I could probably find it, but not when I'm out drinking with a bunch of friends.

That's (I believe) the point of Cyrus's post: how can the citizen know when they are breaking the law?

 

[Cyrus]

The drinker controls the number of drinks they imbibe; the breathalyzer measures alcohol in the blood. There is no way an average person can know exactly how the number of drinks affects BAC.

Huh? I drink a beer, I take the test. An hour later I go back and take the test again to see how much it went down. Repeat with two beers. Repeat with three beers. Ok now I've gone over the limit. Test over. I can drink three beers before I'm illegal, and I have to wait an hour and a half before I can drive again.

 

[rootX]

Huh? I drink a beer, I take the test. An hour later I go back and take the test again to see how much it went down. Repeat with two beers. Repeat with three beers. Ok now I've gone over the limit. Test over. I can drink three beers before I'm illegal, and I have to wait an hour and a half before I can drive again.

Most people drink at night time. So, why don't just wait for the morning
Drink whatever and wait for 8 hours.

 

[Cyrus]

Most people drink at night time. So, why don't just wait for the morning

What?

 

[rootX]

What?

I don't see the point why one should think about driving (or even doing anything) after drinking?
If you are thinking about drinking outside [which shouldn't be every day], you should rather use bus/a cab/friend who is not planning to drink at all.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't see the point why one should think about driving (or even doing anything) after drinking?
If you are thinking about drinking outside [which shouldn't be every day], you should rather use bus/a cab/friend who is not planning to drink at all.

Because drinking one beer or two beers doesn't do anything to the majority of people out there, and to give them a ticket for having a beer (or two) with their food is beyond stupid.

If you're going to make drinking and driving a big deal, then have a sensible limit to what's considered dangerous.

Have you ever had a beer in your life?


Just because some family gets killed on their way home by a guy who is PLASTERED, does not mean a person who had one or two beers is a threat to anyone. In fact, its a joke. But I am sure all the PD's make a TONNNNN of money arresting people who had two beers. Keeping the street safe, my a**. Imagine how much money they make from one arrest. Court fees, points, biggggggg ticket. If you take that away they are going to have to pull over a lot more people to make up for that lost revenue.

 

[Gokul43201]

The drinker controls the number of drinks they imbibe; the breathalyzer measures alcohol in the blood. There is no way an average person can know exactly how the number of drinks affects BAC.

Actually, the breathalyzer does not measure alcohol in the blood.

1. The breathalyzer measures alcohol content in the breath. (And will often mistake acetone, and some methyl and ethyl compounds as "alcohol", but let's ignore that.)

2. The average human being has a ratio of blood alcohol to breath alcohol of 2100 (the partition ratio). The measured standard deviation on this number is about 250 so there's a 15% likelihood that any person will have a partition ratio smaller than 1850. Partition ratios as low as 1500 are not particularly rare.

3. The breathalizer assumes you are an "average person" and multiplies the breath alcohol content by 2100. If your partition ratio happens to be only 1400, the breathalyzer will give a reading that is 50% too high. On a person with an 1850 partition ratio, the perfect breathalizer will read 0.09% on a subject with a 0.08% BAC level.

 

[Cyrus]

Actually, the breathalyzer does not measure alcohol in the blood.

1. The breathalyzer measures alcohol content in the breath. (And will often mistake acetone, and some methyl and ethyl compounds as "alcohol", but let's ignore that.)

2. The average human being has a ratio of blood alcohol to breath alcohol of 2100 (the partition ratio). The measured standard deviation on this number is about 250 so there's a 15% likelihood that any person will have a partition ratio smaller than 1850. Partition ratios as low as 1500 are not particularly rare.

3. The breathalizer assumes you are an "average person" and multiplies the breath alcohol content by 2100. If your partition ratio happens to be only 1400, the breathalyzer will give a reading that is 50% too high. On a person with an 1850 partition ratio, the perfect breathalizer will read 0.09% on a subject with a 0.08% BAC level.

The police should just give you a series of tests that demonstrate you have full abilities to drive the rest of your way home. If you are fully aware of what's going on and can demonstrate some tests of reaction time, you should be able to drive.

Simply saying, "oh, your 0.02%, jail time" - is pathetic.

 

[rootX]

Because drinking one beer or two beers doesn't do anything to the majority of people out there, and to give them a ticket for having a beer (or two) with their food is beyond stupid.

IMO it doesn't look civil to drink during daytime (or planning to do any task after drinking).

Have you ever had a beer in your life?

nopes and I am not planning to drink at all in near/far future.

Just because some family gets killed on their way home by a guy who is PLASTERED, does not mean a person who had one or two beers is a threat to anyone. In fact, its a joke. But I am sure all the PD's make a TONNNNN of money arresting people who had two beers. Keeping the street safe, my a**. Imagine how much money they make from one arrest. Court fees, points, biggggggg ticket. If you take that away they are going to have to pull over a lot more people to make up for that lost revenue.

To me, human life costs far more than million dollars. So, it is best to avoid those circumstances before hand. It is better to spend some thousands to save lives (which are worth far more).

 

[Cyrus]

IMO it doesn't look civil to drink during daytime (or planning to do any task after drinking).

That's the silliest comment I have ever heard in my life. People have a drink with their meals all the time, in many cultures around the world.

nopes and I am not planning to drink at all in near/far future.

Explains why you have no concept of alcohol consumption.

To me, human life costs far more than million dollars. So, it is best to avoid those circumstances before hand. It is better to spend some thousands to save lives (which are worth far more).

What a worthless statement. Ok, human life costs more than a million bucks...and so what? Maybe you missed the point that you're NOT saving any lives if a person has had one or two beers. You're just screwing them over and runing their lives with exorbitant fees.

 

[JasonRox]

IMO it doesn't look civil to drink during daytime (or planning to do any task after drinking).


nopes and I am not planning to drink at all in near/far future.




To me, human life costs far more than million dollars. So, it is best to avoid those circumstances before hand. It is better to spend some thousands to save lives (which are worth far more).

You're better off giving tickets who are bad drivers than waste time chasing a couple who went out for diner and the person driving might of had one drink. That's just stupid. Sorry, not my taste.

 

[tribdog]

The girl I'm sleeping with is an alcoholic. She wakes up and mixes a rum and coke. She drinks all day long and never appears to be impaired. I'm sure her bac is over the limit most of the day.

 

[Cyrus]

The girl I'm sleeping with is an alcoholic. She wakes up and mixes a rum and coke. She drinks all day long and never appears to be impaired. I'm sure her bac is over the limit most of the day.

How are her faculties when she's in this state?

 

[tribdog]

How are her faculties when she's in this state?

she's great in bed. almost never falls off. other than that who knows

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Here... you decide.

Logan B K; Distefano S, "Ethanol content of various foods and soft drinks and their potential for interference with a breath-alcohol test", Journal of Analytical Toxicology 22 (1998).

Abstract:

How long after you left the bar before you took the breathalyzer test?

Did you ask to check the calibration of the meter? Did you take just one test or more than one? How many? Have you subsequently taken blood tests to establish you breath to blood partition ratio? Have you talked to a lawyer about any of this? My own opinion is that a 0.03% margin on a blood alcohol test by a single breathalyzer measurement is almost meaningless, but the law may be such that this margin is already accounted for in the legal limit.

Here's a paper on the systematic error bar on breath tests:

Gullberg Rod G; Logan Barry K "Results of a proposed breath alcohol proficiency test program" Journal of forensic sciences 51 (2006)

Abstract:

And if you measured 0.01% over in a measurement of 0.09%, that's 11.1% over the legal limit. A second measurement or a different instrument may just as easily have read 0.08%.

Not sure about the time frame for the drink since it's been a while but they stopped me only a block away and tested me about twenty minutes after that.
They took about six readings. The first was I think .16% and another that they showed me was .1%. After three or four readings they had someone bring another box that is apparently better than the one they used and eventually gave me a .09%. I'm assuming that they took at least two consecutive readings that were the same in the end.
I considered fighting it based on the trouble they had getting a reading and argue that they had little to no reason to breathalize me in the first place. When I did a bit of research though I found that it's quite difficult to fight. Unless I could prove that both breathalizers were not working properly at all or find some major fault in the officers handling of me (or they didn't show up to court) I would at best get what's called a 'wet and reckless' which carries nearly the same sentence as a DUI and would have had to pay two or three grand to a lawyer on top of the fines. Since I only barely had money to pay my fines I didn't think it was worth the try.

 

[quadraphonics]

Not sure about the time frame for the drink since it's been a while but they stopped me only a block away and tested me about twenty minutes after that.
They took about six readings. The first was I think .16% and another that they showed me was .1%. After three or four readings they had someone bring another box that is apparently better than the one they used and eventually gave me a .09%. I'm assuming that they took at least two consecutive readings that were the same in the end.
I considered fighting it based on the trouble they had getting a reading and argue that they had little to no reason to breathalize me in the first place. When I did a bit of research though I found that it's quite difficult to fight. Unless I could prove that both breathalizers were not working properly at all or find some major fault in the officers handling of me (or they didn't show up to court) I would at best get what's called a 'wet and reckless' which carries nearly the same sentence as a DUI and would have had to pay two or three grand to a lawyer on top of the fines. Since I only barely had money to pay my fines I didn't think it was worth the try.

At least in certain states, you can refuse to take a breathalyzer, and they can't force you to take one. They can, however, take you down to the station and give you a blood test. So, if you're worried about accuracy, and figure you're probably going to the station *anyway*, it's the way to go. It also buys you a little bit of time for your BAC to drop, assuming you don't still have fresh alcohol in your stomach.

 

[tribdog]

you can refuse the breathalyzer in EVERY state. just don't blow.

 

[rootX]

That's the silliest comment I have ever heard in my life. People have a drink with their meals all the time, in many cultures around the world.

I wanted to get statistics on:
>costs
- co-relation between crime and people who drink
- accidents caused by drunk drivers and % of total accidents etc.

> benefits
- industries

and then concluding that how good is drinking of the over all society or how its benefits go against the costs

Unfortunately, I don't think I would be able to get those statistics. So, I just decided go with weak personally biased statement :shy:.

P.S. I just hate alcohol for personal reasons.

 

[Cyrus]

I wanted to get statistics on:
>costs
- co-relation between crime and people who drink

Why? What does crime and drinking have to do with drinking and driving? This is a pointless statistic in terms of this conversation.

accidents caused by drunk drivers and % of total accidents etc.

While that would be interesting, I'm not sure what it proves. First, what is the definition of drunk driving? Having two beers? If so, that's not a good measure of drunk, at least not to me. Unless there is some form of a test where it says your motor functions are reduced to the point where you are a danger, then yes you're driving drunk.

and then concluding that how good is drinking of the over all society or how its benefits go against the costs

Again, I really don't see the point of all this. This thread isn't about putting moral values of drinking, which you are clearly trying to do.

P.S. I just hate alcohol for personal reasons.

You can hate alcohol all you want, but you can't let that bleed over into rational arguments for/against it. If you don't want to drink that's your choice, but I think you have a very irrational fear/misunderstanding about alcohol in general.

Hating a 'thing' - alcohol, makes about as much sense as me hating a tree, or a car, or a fork...

 

[BryanP]

Stoned and drunk driving are NOT the same thing.

I'm not going to lie. I've used a considerable amount of pot in the past and these "dangers" presented are just ridiculously overstated.

I am not encouraging use of it, but I've known no one who was a stoner and had considerable trouble driving.

Drunk driving is just a total loss of concentration and coordination, which is not necessarily alike to smoking marijuana.

I don't drink anymore either.

Clean :)

 

[bassplayer142]

I think it would be unfair to take away someones license for 2 years on a first offense. We could be talking about a guy who has 4-5 drinks and barely blows over. Now his life is screwed because he had a good time with some friends?

 

[BobG]

I think it would be unfair to take away someones license for 2 years on a first offense. We could be talking about a guy who has 4-5 drinks and barely blows over. Now his life is screwed because he had a good time with some friends?

Losing their license or limiting them to a restricted license (to and from work) isn't screwing a person's entire life over. Having a criminal misdemeanor offense on their record is a pretty stiff penalty, though. It's stiff enough that getting it dismissed from your record is a pretty strong motivation to complete any of the more rehabilitative "punishments" such as alcohol education classes.

I agree a young person's entire life shoudn't be screwed over because of one mistake. Still, younger drinkers create a bigger drunk driving risk and something has to be done to keep the risk under control. Allowing a near freebie as a lesson just isn't a very viable option.

Aside from raising the drinking age (raising from 18 to 21 drastically reduced drunk driving fatalities), the best way to further reduce drunk driving is:

1) Raise taxes on beer (most popular beverage of younger drinkers). Higher prices reduce consumption.
2) Raise taxes on gas. The soaring gas prices this year have had a silver lining. Traffic fatalities have dropped to their lowest level since 1961. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j_INIiz1kcLpWqGsaqZ_BFXERVeQD92PGCTG0

A person older than 25 with a first drunk driving offense might have made just one mistake, but there's a pretty good chance the older drunk driver has alcohol problems more severe than just ignorance of the effects of alcohol. There's a good chance they'll do it again. It probably wouldn't be fair to make the punishments more severe than for a younger drinker, but the main reason for not making their penalties more severe is that there's less of them and they present less of an overall risk.