Driving under the legal limit? Doesn't matter, your vehicle is impounded anyway.

[jar_e]

And the fact that people metabolize alcohol at various rates, and just cause when you start driving your vehicle, you were under the legal limit, doesn't mean you will not go over it while you're driving.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

why don't we see breathalizers linked to the engine ignition, like what was they had in the 40 old virgin?

to be honest, i think having a tool to tell a person if they are or are not at a blood % level , so they, and the passengers they are wtih, are fully aware that they are about to drive while over the legal limit, just seems like a pretty decent solution.

also there is the cost associated that people are not willing to pay. Not only is the initial install cost money but those machines must be calibrated every month I believe it is to maintain accurate readings. That calibration cost is the more expensive of the two.

[bubbsy]

fair counter arguments. I just think that it's hard for anyone to know how many drinks in how many hours their body can handle to be under/over the limit, leaving it to a subjective feeling, and if one is even slightly buzzing, they may justify getting behind the wheel.

either they make alcohol a zero tolerance type rule for the driver, or give some sort of hard and fast, quantifiable and observable limit, as i think right now, it's far too subjective, despite having a numeric blood alcohol limit.

[freedogger]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

i think right now, it's far too subjective, despite having a numeric blood alcohol limit.

At 0.8, I think a lot of people would still be reasonably fine behind the wheel. There are probably some percentage that would not be. Raising the number to 1.0 would surely increase the percentage that would be dangerous behind the wheel. Sure it is subjective but it's the most objective measure society has come up with. Do you want people arguing in front of a judge "your honor, I know I blew 0.93, but with the studded snow tires on my car and the tolerance to alcohol I have built up with decades of practice, my real life blood alcohol limit should be adjusted to 0.68"

[Lights Out]

Originally Posted by billybob123

I'm willing to bet the families and friends of the people she irresponsibly killed will regret her decision a whole lot more.

I agree. It goes without saying...

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by freedogger

At 0.8, I think a lot of people would still be reasonably fine behind the wheel. There are probably some percentage that would not be. Raising the number to 1.0 would surely increase the percentage that would be dangerous behind the wheel. Sure it is subjective but it's the most objective measure society has come up with. Do you want people arguing in front of a judge "your honor, I know I blew 0.93, but with the studded snow tires on my car and the tolerance to alcohol I have built up with decades of practice, my real life blood alcohol limit should be adjusted to 0.68"

how does anyone know the difference between 0.8 and 1.0 though? i think most people have 3 or so obvious levels they can measure; sober, tipsy, slurring. I think there are tons of people who drive despite being in the tipsy range, as there's no way to know what the blood level they're sitting at is.

i'm curious, of most brutal drunk driving accidents/fatalities/tickets/charges, what percentage fall under people being hammered vs. people in and around the realm of the legal limit?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

how does anyone know the difference between 0.8 and 1.0 though? i think most people have 3 or so obvious levels they can measure; sober, tipsy, slurring. I think there are tons of people who drive despite being in the tipsy range, as there's no way to know what the blood level they're sitting at is.

i'm curious, of most brutal drunk driving accidents/fatalities/tickets/charges, what percentage fall under people being hammered vs. people in and around the realm of the legal limit?

If you check earlier in this thread theres some neat stats that would satisfy your curiosity.

[bubbsy]

ya, i got to this thread late, and am reluctant to do a deep dive through 25 pages

[Locke]

Originally Posted by transplant99

According to MLA Rob Anderson's twitter, some numbers to apply to this argument...

Fine, I'll do it for you. Just because I roll like that.

According to MLA Rob Anderson's twitter, some numbers to apply to this argument...

Quote:
of those who cause road deaths 60% no BAC; 22% +.16; 11% .08-.16; 4% below 0.05; ONLY 2% by .05 to .08 -

Courtesy of transplant.

Just remember kids, 60% of road fatalities are caused by the perfectly sober.

[psyang]

Just remember kids, 60% of road fatalities are caused by the perfectly sober.

I know this comment is being at least partially facetious, but the stats need to be looked at the right way.

One question to ask is what proportion of all drivers fall into the different BAC categories. It's easy to conclude that 60% of sober drivers were involved in an accident since there are just so many more sober drivers on the road. To me, 22% of fatal accidents caused by drivers with BAC > .16% is pretty telling. Even 11% of fatal accidents caused by drivers with BAC between .08% and .16% sounds very disproportionate. Put another way, if you think that 1 in 11 drivers on the road have a BAC between .08 and .16, then having a BAC between .08 and .16 effectively doubles your chances of getting into a fatal car crash.

And while 1 in 11 seems very conservative to me, we are also at the mercy of the stats here - lots of other factors that aren't taken into account like time of day (my guess is that the majority of sober accidents take place during the day, majority of non-sober accidents take place at night), other impairments like drugs, etc. So as always, take the analysis with a grain of salt.

The real stat that would be good to know, but unfortunately impossible to find out, is how many of the fatal accidents caused by drivers with non-zero BAC would have occurred if they were sober?

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Locke

Just remember kids, 60% of road fatalities are caused by the perfectly sober.

Or, to rephrase, 40% of fatalities are caused by those who are impaired? And we're all OK with this?

Again, and the statistics you have posted back it up, that the people doing the killing aren't generally those in the 0.5-0.8 range. There needs to be some real consequences for those that drive drunk. Obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere, and in my opinion 0.5 isn't it, but driving drunk and taking someone out other than yourself just simply shouldn't be considered collateral damage.

I wish that the focus would have been to adding some serious teeth to the penalties and deterrents, and not emphasizing so much on the 0.5-0.8 area.

[bubbsy]

...

[bubbsy]

if we were to isolate the discussiong to the 40% of fatalities that are alcohol related, half of them are for people who have 0.16+ (double the legal limit) of blood alcohol level, and a quarter of them are in the 0.8-.016 level.

i guess my main concern is, does anybody known what they feel like when they are at 0.8 limit??

because it's difficult to really gauge, i know for myself, if i'm driving, i'd just rather not drink (or have one beer at the beginning of the night) than to basically run a gamble. i'm sure there are at least a time or two, where i had a few that night, and though i felt fine, who knows where i was with regards to the limit.

i'm all for zero tolerance while driving, or having a much clearer/mathematically observable limitation around when you are ok vs when you are not ok to drive.

of course, the fact that 50% of all alcohol related fatalities are when people are double the blood alcohol limit, the problem isn't limited to not being able to determine if you are in and around the limit, but more so, irresponsible people who go into a night knowing they're going to drive home, ,yet, do not allow this to hinder the amount they drink that night.

[Boblobla]

I have no idea what it feels like to be a .08. I would be interested to know. Can I have a drink every 45mins? Every hours? Do I need to have food? There are so many factors that play in, but I would be interested to know.

[Pacem]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I know I'm really, really late to the party here, and this may have been mentioned, but I had some time to play with a DOT approved breathalyzer, and 0.05 for most people is drunk.

After hockey, no dinner yet, I put back 1.5L of beer (the equivalent of 5 cans) in 40 minutes, and blew a 0.04. There is no way I would have gotten behind the wheel. 0.08 is really, really drunk.

Here are some other people's results:

http://www.beyond.ca/bill-26-passes-...e-2/11275.html

Its not five beers its 4.2. minor, but a difference no less.

What was your BAC 30 mins after you took your test 40mins into drinking? it would be higher.

Prior to the new laws in BC, depending on the cop, they would give you a 24hr suspension if you blew in the warning range (.05 - .08) because of how the body metabolizes the booze. Their thought process is that your BAC is on the way up and in a short time you will be over the limit. Usually people finish their last drink and then hop in their car. I got a 24 hour and my last drink was about an hour and half before I blew. I was trending down at this point. Before the new laws I was allowed to request to be taken down to the station and blow into the machine there. That right is now gone. If I just finished my last drink and blew a warning level i wouldnt request one down at the station cause if i blow over then im getting a DUI, but if it was quite some time before my last drink then i'd like that option.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

i guess my main concern is, does anybody known what they feel like when they are at 0.8 limit??

Yes, I do know what I feel like. And typically if I am close to .08 I will not drive. Usually my over/under is around .04-.05

Because I typically drink beer, it is pretty easy to do the math and figure out how much I have had to drink as the serving sizes are standard. I guess my position on this is that if you want to have a couple of social drinks and drive, you should be able to know what your BAC level is by doing the math.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Yes, I do know what I feel like. And typically if I am close to .08 I will not drive. Usually my over/under is around .04-.05

Because I typically drink beer, it is pretty easy to do the math and figure out how much I have had to drink as the serving sizes are standard. I guess my position on this is that if you want to have a couple of social drinks and drive, you should be able to know what your BAC level is by doing the math.

how were you able to determine this?

[ken0042]

Just google "blood alcohol calculator" and take your pick. I just punched some numbers into this one and it was pretty easy.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Just google "blood alcohol calculator" and take your pick. I just punched some numbers into this one and it was pretty easy.

Wow, if that thing is accurate, I would be completely polluted by .08...

[ken0042]

Did you switch it back to regular beer? The default is "reduced alcohol beer."

Yes, .08 is actually pretty high. Which is why I said earlier it is quite rare for me to drive above .05