9 ms·

When someone blows a 0.08 when it really is a 0.07, that would be putting an innocent person in jail.

by Clubber 9y ago

simion314 9y ago
Don't you have the right to ask for blood tests where you live?
- Clubber 9y ago
  I don't know, but I don't like needles, so I probably wouldn't. That's not really the point though.
- DennisP 9y ago
  Getting a blood test means either going to the police station, or letting a cop stick a needle in you on the side of the road. We should do whatever we can do avoid making innocent people do either one.
  - simion314 9y ago
    I agree with you, but the OP comment was that you would end up in jail, I think here in Romania if you are caught you will have to submit to blood tests so it is determined precisely your alcohol level in blood, depending on the level you may escape free since you are allowed to have a small level.
  - snark42 9y ago
    > Getting a blood test means either going to the police station, or letting a cop stick a needle in you on the side of the road. You have to go to the station anyway, the Portable BAC they use roadside is inadmissible in court, they give you a more accurate test at the station if you fail roadside. Having a nurse available to take a blood sample instead shouldn't be unreasonable.
- jdboyd 9y ago
  In PA, if you try that, you will have to pay a minimum fine of $500 and have your license suspended for a minimum of 1 year, even if the blood tests show no intoxication. If you have no previous DUI convictions, theses penalties may be worse than being found inaccurately to be over the limit.
lifeisstillgood 9y ago
If you got into the drivers seat at 0.07 you are doing something wrong. Unless breathalysers detect alcohol when none exists, then I think knowing they are "10% eitherway" is a good caution.
- trentmb 9y ago
  > If you got into the drivers seat at 0.07 you are doing something wrong. Then change the law so .07 instead of .08.
- rascul 9y ago
  > If you got into the drivers seat at 0.07 you are doing something wrong. Not legally.
- hbnyc 9y ago
  How can you justify this from a legal standpoint? Personal ethics be damned, we've established that 0.08 is the line. 0.07 is not above or equal to that. You can't say someone is in the wrong because they are close, but not on the other side, of something binary.
  - thaumaturgy 9y ago
    What's happening in this thread right now is simply a difference of moral frameworks. On one side, you have people for whom right and wrong is defined by the law: if it's legal, then it's right, and if it's illegal, it's wrong. Therefore as long as people are making decisions that are consistent with law, they are fine. On the other side, you have people for whom right and wrong is a fuzzier judgement of consequences somewhat independent of the law. If it's dangerous but legal, it's still dangerous. If it's illegal and not dangerous, then maybe it shouldn't be enforced by law. It's sadly unlikely that either side is going to find any agreement with the other. I'm firmly in the second camp on this particular issue: I don't care that the law says that anything up to .08 is okay; if you're close enough to .08 that a marginal error in a device could make it illegal, then I wish you weren't driving. Hell, if I'm out, I'll give just about anyone a free ride home, and take them back to their car in the morning, if that's what it takes to keep them from driving "a little bit" drunk.
thaumaturgy 9y ago
In case it wasn't clear from my comment, I'm less willing to argue for the innocence of a person who was at .07, or .075, or .0799, because of the potentially serious consequences of their decisions and the number of convenient alternatives they had available. That's my personal position on this. It's consistent with my own moral framework. I get that there's a valid counterargument from a position of law-and-order morality. But I've also had friends who were first responders to a horrifying drunk driver collision. Trying to keep innocent people from bleeding out on the side of the road messes you up for a while. It's not a victimless crime. You can get from .08 to .06 by walking around for an hour. If you think you might be close enough to borderline, go take a walk.
- ironjunkie 9y ago
  We are in a state of law. you cannot argue that a person is innocent but "not innocent enough" because they came too close to the fixed limit. A person is over it and guilty or under it and innocent. As said above, if you think this limit is too high, fight to have it lowered but please don't blur the lines of the law based on your personal convictions.
- lolsal 9y ago
  > In case it wasn't clear from my comment, I'm less willing to argue for the innocence of a person who was at .07, or .075, or .0799, because of the potentially serious consequences of their decisions and the number of convenient alternatives they had available. Do you feel the same way about getting ticketed for Speeding when going 55mph in a 55mph zone? Going 56mph is technically speeding you know and 55mph is very close to 56 mpg. 55mph and 56mph are arguably equivalently dangerous. A limit is a limit. It's a discrete, unchanging, unambiguous, line in the sand that once crossed warrants consequences. That's why we codify these things into laws.
- driverdan 9y ago
  Your moral framework and personal position is not what should be used to determine guilt. One issue is that some places set a very low standard, one lower than evidence shows to effect driving ability. Being borderline with unnecessarily low limits means the person is not impaired.
DanBC 9y ago
If someone stops drinking, then gets in a car, then an hour later blows a 0.07 they were probably over when they started driving.
- lolsal 9y ago
  Innocent until proven guilty. Please don't pollute our legal system with "probably".
- dpark 9y ago
  Ignoring for a moment the issue with “probably”, this is also just not true. If you stop drinking and immediately get in a car to drive, your BAC is increasing while you are driving for some time. It’s entirely possible that your BAC is higher an hour after you stop drinking than immediately after, depending on how much you drank and how quickly.
thucydidesofusa 9y ago
This is specific to my jurisdiction but one can get a DUI so long as their BAC > 0. The .08 threshold exists because it's presumed that anyone with a BAC > .08 is too impaired to drive. The authorities have to demonstrate that individuals with BACs between 0 and .08 are impaired. A person driving around my local roads with a .07 BAC isn't necessarily innocent, they may well be impaired and a danger to themselves and others on the road.

When someone blows a 0.08 when it really is a 0.07, that would be putting an innocent person in jail.

simion314 9y ago

Don't you have the right to ask for blood tests where you live?

Clubber 9y ago
I don't know, but I don't like needles, so I probably wouldn't. That's not really the point though.
DennisP 9y ago
Getting a blood test means either going to the police station, or letting a cop stick a needle in you on the side of the road. We should do whatever we can do avoid making innocent people do either one.
- simion314 9y ago
  I agree with you, but the OP comment was that you would end up in jail, I think here in Romania if you are caught you will have to submit to blood tests so it is determined precisely your alcohol level in blood, depending on the level you may escape free since you are allowed to have a small level.
- snark42 9y ago
  > Getting a blood test means either going to the police station, or letting a cop stick a needle in you on the side of the road. You have to go to the station anyway, the Portable BAC they use roadside is inadmissible in court, they give you a more accurate test at the station if you fail roadside. Having a nurse available to take a blood sample instead shouldn't be unreasonable.
jdboyd 9y ago
In PA, if you try that, you will have to pay a minimum fine of $500 and have your license suspended for a minimum of 1 year, even if the blood tests show no intoxication. If you have no previous DUI convictions, theses penalties may be worse than being found inaccurately to be over the limit.

lifeisstillgood 9y ago

If you got into the drivers seat at 0.07 you are doing something wrong. Unless breathalysers detect alcohol when none exists, then I think knowing they are "10% eitherway" is a good caution.

trentmb 9y ago
> If you got into the drivers seat at 0.07 you are doing something wrong. Then change the law so .07 instead of .08.
rascul 9y ago
> If you got into the drivers seat at 0.07 you are doing something wrong. Not legally.
hbnyc 9y ago
How can you justify this from a legal standpoint? Personal ethics be damned, we've established that 0.08 is the line. 0.07 is not above or equal to that. You can't say someone is in the wrong because they are close, but not on the other side, of something binary.
- thaumaturgy 9y ago
  What's happening in this thread right now is simply a difference of moral frameworks. On one side, you have people for whom right and wrong is defined by the law: if it's legal, then it's right, and if it's illegal, it's wrong. Therefore as long as people are making decisions that are consistent with law, they are fine. On the other side, you have people for whom right and wrong is a fuzzier judgement of consequences somewhat independent of the law. If it's dangerous but legal, it's still dangerous. If it's illegal and not dangerous, then maybe it shouldn't be enforced by law. It's sadly unlikely that either side is going to find any agreement with the other. I'm firmly in the second camp on this particular issue: I don't care that the law says that anything up to .08 is okay; if you're close enough to .08 that a marginal error in a device could make it illegal, then I wish you weren't driving. Hell, if I'm out, I'll give just about anyone a free ride home, and take them back to their car in the morning, if that's what it takes to keep them from driving "a little bit" drunk.

thaumaturgy 9y ago

In case it wasn't clear from my comment, I'm less willing to argue for the innocence of a person who was at .07, or .075, or .0799, because of the potentially serious consequences of their decisions and the number of convenient alternatives they had available. That's my personal position on this. It's consistent with my own moral framework. I get that there's a valid counterargument from a position of law-and-order morality. But I've also had friends who were first responders to a horrifying drunk driver collision. Trying to keep innocent people from bleeding out on the side of the road messes you up for a while. It's not a victimless crime. You can get from .08 to .06 by walking around for an hour. If you think you might be close enough to borderline, go take a walk.

ironjunkie 9y ago
We are in a state of law. you cannot argue that a person is innocent but "not innocent enough" because they came too close to the fixed limit. A person is over it and guilty or under it and innocent. As said above, if you think this limit is too high, fight to have it lowered but please don't blur the lines of the law based on your personal convictions.
lolsal 9y ago
> In case it wasn't clear from my comment, I'm less willing to argue for the innocence of a person who was at .07, or .075, or .0799, because of the potentially serious consequences of their decisions and the number of convenient alternatives they had available. Do you feel the same way about getting ticketed for Speeding when going 55mph in a 55mph zone? Going 56mph is technically speeding you know and 55mph is very close to 56 mpg. 55mph and 56mph are arguably equivalently dangerous. A limit is a limit. It's a discrete, unchanging, unambiguous, line in the sand that once crossed warrants consequences. That's why we codify these things into laws.
driverdan 9y ago
Your moral framework and personal position is not what should be used to determine guilt. One issue is that some places set a very low standard, one lower than evidence shows to effect driving ability. Being borderline with unnecessarily low limits means the person is not impaired.

DanBC 9y ago

If someone stops drinking, then gets in a car, then an hour later blows a 0.07 they were probably over when they started driving.

lolsal 9y ago
Innocent until proven guilty. Please don't pollute our legal system with "probably".
dpark 9y ago
Ignoring for a moment the issue with “probably”, this is also just not true. If you stop drinking and immediately get in a car to drive, your BAC is increasing while you are driving for some time. It’s entirely possible that your BAC is higher an hour after you stop drinking than immediately after, depending on how much you drank and how quickly.

thucydidesofusa 9y ago

This is specific to my jurisdiction but one can get a DUI so long as their BAC > 0. The .08 threshold exists because it's presumed that anyone with a BAC > .08 is too impaired to drive. The authorities have to demonstrate that individuals with BACs between 0 and .08 are impaired. A person driving around my local roads with a .07 BAC isn't necessarily innocent, they may well be impaired and a danger to themselves and others on the road.