6 ms·

The biggest flaw is that it doesn't actually measure drunkenness or impairment.

by rascul 9y ago

pc86 9y ago
If you're going to be arresting people for DUI, you need an objective measure of impairment. Whether or not someone can walk in a straight line or say the middle third of the alphabet should be plenty for probably cause but not enough to arrest someone.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  BAC isn't an objective measure of impairment, it's a measure of BAC. But short of an actual objective test, arresting people for driving after consuming alcohol is plenty reasonable to me.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > BAC isn't an objective measure of impairment It is, it's just not a precise one. (Yes, it's an indirect proxy measure, but so are all measures on some levem.)
  - pc86 9y ago
    So you want the legal limit to drive to be 0.0? Or something else? How long after I have half a glass of wine with dinner do I need to wait before I can drive?
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      No, I'm just saying it isn't really an objective measure of impairment, but that's fine, people over some limit have clearly been drinking enough that they still shouldn't be allowed to drive.
alkonaut 9y ago
I’d rather have an objective measurement of blood alcohol than a subjective measurement of drunkenness. People can’t judge their own capability or drunkenness so even if you ace a reaction/driving/balance/whatever-test with a high blood alcohol level, there is nothing to say that you could have judged that ability. That’s why the law isn’t against driving drunk or impaired it’s a law against driving with alcohol in your blood.
- notheguyouthink 9y ago
  Also, is "drunkenness" not something measured? I thought the effects on reaction time due to BAC were well understood. Are they not? Decision making is more difficult to judge of course, but reaction time is massively important. So if we have a quantifiable measurement, who cares about vague things like drunkenness? Though, if something like decision making goes south far before reaction time does, then I could totally see an argument being made against using BAC as a measurement. Yet, I don't believe that's the case.
  - rascul 9y ago
    The argument is that BAC isn't a valid way to measure anything pertinent. It doesn't show how drunk you are, or how impaired you are, it just shows how much alcohol is in your blood. It sounds like a good measurement, except that alcohol affects everyone differently (both physically and mentally). One person could have a BAC of .03 and be unable to walk. Another person could have a BAC of .12 before they get wobbly. There are too many factors in play (weight, tolerance, metabolism, hydration, food, etc) to make the measurement meaningful in regard to driving ability.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > That’s why the law isn’t against driving drunk or impaired it’s a law against driving with alcohol in your blood. It's often a law against doing either one, but if you are above they legal BAC limit that's much easier to prove beyond a reasonable doubt than is impairment due to alcohol.
lttlrck 9y ago
You'd still need to be stopped, which would still take an officer observing erratic behaviour, and he'd still make you walk in a straight line and ask you questions to check if you are slurring your speech. And then you'd still need to be tested to see if you are over the legal limit. So maybe you mean that the law shouldn't be based on BAC?
- merpnderp 9y ago
  Every time I've been stopped, the "erratic behavior" was it being late at night and me being out on the road. I was stone cold sober on every stop, and at night I always drive particularly careful as the cops are much more likely to pay attention to you in particular. At one "rolling a stop sign" stop, the cop basically admitted I hadn't rolled the sign, they just wanted to make sure I hadn't been drinking - "Yeah, I just wanted to make sure you hadn't been drinking, have a good night."
- rascul 9y ago
  With stronger reckless driving laws then we can get rid of DUI and cell phone laws. If you're driving recklessly and putting other people in danger, it shouldn't matter how you got there. Drinking, prescription drugs, lack of sleep, cell phone usage, eating, reading, and watching the coast as you drive by are all examples of things that can have equally bad results. Yet we focus almost completely on convicting people based on some arbitrary measurement and sobriety tests designed to make you fail. We should instead convict people based on endangering others.
  - dpark 9y ago
    Agree but reckless driving is subjective and harder to define which is why we have specific laws that are so concrete. edit: subjective, not objective :\
    - rascul 9y ago
      I think you mean subjective, not objective? I do think reckless driving laws need to be modified, also. Here's an example, from Mississippi [1]: > Any person who drives any vehicle in such a manner as to indicate either a wilful or a wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. Reckless driving shall be considered a greater offense than careless driving. > Every person convicted of reckless driving shall be punished upon a first conviction by a fine of not less than Five Dollars ($ 5.00) nor more than One Hundred Dollars ($ 100.00), and on a second or subsequent conviction he may be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten (10) days or by a fine of not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($ 500.00), or by both. The way it's defined does seem a bit subjective. I'm sure this can be addressed, but at least in this example, it's not immediately clear to me how it can be improved. I would probably get some ideas by looking at other states. The penalties, however, could absolutely be increased. In comparison, the punishment for a first offense DUI [2]: > (a) First offense DUI. > (i) Upon conviction of any person for the first offense of violating subsection (1) of this section where chemical tests under Section 63-11-5 were given, or where chemical test results are not available, the person shall be fined not less than Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($ 250.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($ 1,000.00), or imprisoned for not more than forty-eight (48) hours in jail, or both; the court shall order the person to attend and complete an alcohol safety education program as provided in Section 63-11-32 within six (6) months of sentencing. The court may substitute attendance at a victim impact panel instead of forty-eight (48) hours in jail. > (ii) Suspension of commercial driving privileges is governed by Section 63-1-216. > (iii) A qualifying first offense may be nonadjudicated by the court under subsection (14) of this section. The holder of a commercial driver's license or a commercial learning permit at the time of the offense is ineligible for nonadjudication. > (iv) Eligibility for an interlock-restricted license is governed by Section 63-11-31 and suspension of regular driving privileges is governed by Section 63-11-23. The penalties are much more, though the end result of the illegal act itself are the same. The only difference is that you drank a couple beers instead of taking your prescription medications. I picked Mississippi simply because I live here currently, but it's similar with all the states I've looked at. [1] https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2013/title-63/chapter-3/article-25/section-63-3-1201 https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2013/title-63/chapt... [2] https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2017/title-63/chapter-11/section-63-11-30/ https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2017/title-63/chapt...

The biggest flaw is that it doesn't actually measure drunkenness or impairment.

by rascul 9y ago

The biggest flaw is that it doesn't actually measure drunkenness or impairment.

pc86 9y ago

If you're going to be arresting people for DUI, you need an objective measure of impairment. Whether or not someone can walk in a straight line or say the middle third of the alphabet should be plenty for probably cause but not enough to arrest someone.

maxerickson 9y ago
BAC isn't an objective measure of impairment, it's a measure of BAC. But short of an actual objective test, arresting people for driving after consuming alcohol is plenty reasonable to me.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > BAC isn't an objective measure of impairment It is, it's just not a precise one. (Yes, it's an indirect proxy measure, but so are all measures on some levem.)
- pc86 9y ago
  So you want the legal limit to drive to be 0.0? Or something else? How long after I have half a glass of wine with dinner do I need to wait before I can drive?
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    No, I'm just saying it isn't really an objective measure of impairment, but that's fine, people over some limit have clearly been drinking enough that they still shouldn't be allowed to drive.

alkonaut 9y ago

I’d rather have an objective measurement of blood alcohol than a subjective measurement of drunkenness. People can’t judge their own capability or drunkenness so even if you ace a reaction/driving/balance/whatever-test with a high blood alcohol level, there is nothing to say that you could have judged that ability. That’s why the law isn’t against driving drunk or impaired it’s a law against driving with alcohol in your blood.

notheguyouthink 9y ago
Also, is "drunkenness" not something measured? I thought the effects on reaction time due to BAC were well understood. Are they not? Decision making is more difficult to judge of course, but reaction time is massively important. So if we have a quantifiable measurement, who cares about vague things like drunkenness? Though, if something like decision making goes south far before reaction time does, then I could totally see an argument being made against using BAC as a measurement. Yet, I don't believe that's the case.
- rascul 9y ago
  The argument is that BAC isn't a valid way to measure anything pertinent. It doesn't show how drunk you are, or how impaired you are, it just shows how much alcohol is in your blood. It sounds like a good measurement, except that alcohol affects everyone differently (both physically and mentally). One person could have a BAC of .03 and be unable to walk. Another person could have a BAC of .12 before they get wobbly. There are too many factors in play (weight, tolerance, metabolism, hydration, food, etc) to make the measurement meaningful in regard to driving ability.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> That’s why the law isn’t against driving drunk or impaired it’s a law against driving with alcohol in your blood. It's often a law against doing either one, but if you are above they legal BAC limit that's much easier to prove beyond a reasonable doubt than is impairment due to alcohol.

lttlrck 9y ago

You'd still need to be stopped, which would still take an officer observing erratic behaviour, and he'd still make you walk in a straight line and ask you questions to check if you are slurring your speech. And then you'd still need to be tested to see if you are over the legal limit. So maybe you mean that the law shouldn't be based on BAC?

merpnderp 9y ago
Every time I've been stopped, the "erratic behavior" was it being late at night and me being out on the road. I was stone cold sober on every stop, and at night I always drive particularly careful as the cops are much more likely to pay attention to you in particular. At one "rolling a stop sign" stop, the cop basically admitted I hadn't rolled the sign, they just wanted to make sure I hadn't been drinking - "Yeah, I just wanted to make sure you hadn't been drinking, have a good night."
rascul 9y ago
With stronger reckless driving laws then we can get rid of DUI and cell phone laws. If you're driving recklessly and putting other people in danger, it shouldn't matter how you got there. Drinking, prescription drugs, lack of sleep, cell phone usage, eating, reading, and watching the coast as you drive by are all examples of things that can have equally bad results. Yet we focus almost completely on convicting people based on some arbitrary measurement and sobriety tests designed to make you fail. We should instead convict people based on endangering others.
- dpark 9y ago
  Agree but reckless driving is subjective and harder to define which is why we have specific laws that are so concrete. edit: subjective, not objective :\
  - rascul 9y ago
    I think you mean subjective, not objective? I do think reckless driving laws need to be modified, also. Here's an example, from Mississippi [1]: > Any person who drives any vehicle in such a manner as to indicate either a wilful or a wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. Reckless driving shall be considered a greater offense than careless driving. > Every person convicted of reckless driving shall be punished upon a first conviction by a fine of not less than Five Dollars ($ 5.00) nor more than One Hundred Dollars ($ 100.00), and on a second or subsequent conviction he may be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten (10) days or by a fine of not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($ 500.00), or by both. The way it's defined does seem a bit subjective. I'm sure this can be addressed, but at least in this example, it's not immediately clear to me how it can be improved. I would probably get some ideas by looking at other states. The penalties, however, could absolutely be increased. In comparison, the punishment for a first offense DUI [2]: > (a) First offense DUI. > (i) Upon conviction of any person for the first offense of violating subsection (1) of this section where chemical tests under Section 63-11-5 were given, or where chemical test results are not available, the person shall be fined not less than Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($ 250.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($ 1,000.00), or imprisoned for not more than forty-eight (48) hours in jail, or both; the court shall order the person to attend and complete an alcohol safety education program as provided in Section 63-11-32 within six (6) months of sentencing. The court may substitute attendance at a victim impact panel instead of forty-eight (48) hours in jail. > (ii) Suspension of commercial driving privileges is governed by Section 63-1-216. > (iii) A qualifying first offense may be nonadjudicated by the court under subsection (14) of this section. The holder of a commercial driver's license or a commercial learning permit at the time of the offense is ineligible for nonadjudication. > (iv) Eligibility for an interlock-restricted license is governed by Section 63-11-31 and suspension of regular driving privileges is governed by Section 63-11-23. The penalties are much more, though the end result of the illegal act itself are the same. The only difference is that you drank a couple beers instead of taking your prescription medications. I picked Mississippi simply because I live here currently, but it's similar with all the states I've looked at. [1] https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2013/title-63/chapter-3/article-25/section-63-3-1201 https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2013/title-63/chapt... [2] https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2017/title-63/chapter-11/section-63-11-30/ https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2017/title-63/chapt...