|
New ban! Starting Aug 1, 21 and under cannot have ANY alcohol in blood while driving! (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| nacarter |
This new law is not about increasing revenue. It's the trial balloon for across the board 0% BAC legislation. As a police officer, I'm heavily in favour of 0%, simply because it's easier to enforce. You blow anything at all, BAM! No discretion, no interpretation required.
One thing people should keep in mind, is that you are not required to blow over .08 to be charged and convicted of impaired driving. The .08 is only one piece of evidence in an impaired case. If you're weaving all over the road and causing chaos, it won't matter if you're at only .04, because a court will convict you based on the behaviour evidence.
Having grown up in Europe, I would agree with Jayx that we need a more tolerant approach to alcohol appreciation over a wider age range. That said, this attitude is not applicable over all of Europe, as irresponsible drinking is a major problem in the UK. Our societal attitudes stem largely from British influence, and limitation of access to alcohol is historically in line with British practices. I don't expect this approach to change here anytime soon. |
|
|
| I_Am_Vince |
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
As a police officer... |
If you switch the letters around in your name...
NACARTER = TA'ER NARC! :P Uh ohhh lol |
|
|
| geroin |
| quote: | Originally posted by I_Am_Vince
If you switch the letters around in your name...
NACARTER = TA'ER NARC! :P Uh ohhh lol |
:/ |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
:/ |
the face matches the avatar |
|
|
| -g- |
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
This new law is not about increasing revenue. It's the trial balloon for across the board 0% BAC legislation. As a police officer, I'm heavily in favour of 0%, simply because it's easier to enforce. You blow anything at all, BAM! No discretion, no interpretation required. |
ease of applicablility in an enforcement sense does not equate to ease of justice being done.
the only reason we even have laws that reference BACs in the first place is because it is an easy, quantitative way of evaluating whether or not a driver's motor function is impaired.
and make no mistake - the law we're talking about here is about driver impairment, not BAC per se. to speak nothing of the obvious fact that driver impairment can occur from any number non-alcohol related factors, it would do well to think very carefully about what BAC really means. it is NOT alone proof of impairment. a sufficiently low BAC has no effects whatsoever on motor function.
did you know that the BAC number that your machine spits out is merely an AVERAGE estimate for a person's actual BAC and not a true indicator on an individual basis?
and did you know that very small amounts of BAC can actually improve motor performance?
so just sit back and think about this - arresting and potentially convicting someone of a criminal offense, when their ability to drive a vehicle was not at all impaired.
sound fair? sound just? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by -g-
ease of applicablility in an enforcement sense does not equate to ease of justice being done.
|
exactly. All i hear when this is said is "we can charge more people for doing less".
Making criminals out of otherwise law abiding people for ease of enforcement is not justice. But this is exactly what has been happening with almost every new law out there.
For example, it would be really easy to enforce a law that bans breathing right? An exaggeration? Sure! But i think you get my point. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
Having grown up in Europe, I would agree with Jayx that we need a more tolerant approach to alcohol appreciation over a wider age range. That said, this attitude is not applicable over all of Europe, as irresponsible drinking is a major problem in the UK. Our societal attitudes stem largely from British influence, and limitation of access to alcohol is historically in line with British practices. I don't expect this approach to change here anytime soon. |
Completely, 100% agree
Our society here and our attitudes towards drinking will not suddenly shift to how it works in southern europe if legislation suddenly changes. It will take generations to adjust the culture of excess drinking that is ingrained in our culture. These regulations are an unfortunate consequence of how drinking behaviors have evolved over many years. |
|
|
| -g- |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Completely, 100% agree
Our society here and our attitudes towards drinking will not suddenly shift to how it works in southern europe if legislation suddenly changes. It will take generations to adjust the culture of excess drinking that is ingrained in our culture. These regulations are an unfortunate consequence of how drinking behaviors have evolved over many years. |
i'm not so sure(about the sudden-ness)
take australia as a parallel comparison, for obvious reasons.
now they have a reputation for drinking to excess in some circumstances, but in practice you very rarely see it causing any real problems; the reputation is begotten moreso by the exuberance of select patrons than as a systemic issue.
when you have no last call, and can drink anywhere(which is true of oz, except where signs say you CAN'T drink in public), then it automatically engenders an attitude towards drinking that has alot more to do with whether a person really wants a(nother) drink, rather than drinking to excess because of lawful limitations.
no last call means you can ALWAYS get another drink. it really makes you sit back and enjoy the buzz rather than madly ingesting incredible amounts all at once. i can't count the number of times - around 5am or so - where i'd think about getting another beer and just say, naw, don't really feel like it. it's difficult to convey how powerful this idea works in practice as a real deterrent to drinking more. i drank less in oz than i do here, simply because i COULD have had more if i'd wanted it.
being able to drink anywhere means you generally reserve your drinking to places you prefer.
the cumulative effect is one where the individual exercises a personally imposed limitation on their own drinking habits.
of course you're still going to get some irresponsible louts doing dumb things but this quickly comes to pass as a general rule.
the way it works is kind of interesting. |
|
|
| -g- |
oh and one other thing i noticed about the no last call law:
you never get hords of drunken idiots driving around in the streets all at once the way you do here.
people tend to stagger their departure time from the party as a natural function of some people wanting to stay later(and having every reason to do so, drinks being available and all) than others.
there are other factors too, but that's prob the most important one |
|
|
| nacarter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
exactly. All i hear when this is said is "we can charge more people for doing less".
Making criminals out of otherwise law abiding people for ease of enforcement is not justice. But this is exactly what has been happening with almost every new law out there.
For example, it would be really easy to enforce a law that bans breathing right? An exaggeration? Sure! But i think you get my point. |
0% BAC is simply the natural evolution of driving policy. Take private business for example; there isn't a company around that will let you drive a forklift with ANY alcohol. Liability is the main issue of course, but it does reinforce a culture of 0% BAC as an acceptable practice. We should keep in mind that the .08 BAC was left intact largely because of the acceptance of drinking and driving among older people and to a certain extent some regional areas. MADD may be a pain in the ass, but they have been successful changing the attitude toward drinking and driving across generations.
Ask most young people today, and I'm willing to bet that reducing the BAC limit to 0 will be much of a bother. |
|
|
| -g- |
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
0% BAC is simply the natural evolution of driving policy. Take |
define 'natural'. this is being done to appease special interest groups(source: see today's article in the Metro for MADD's special sponsorship of this bill)
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
Take private business for example; there isn't a company around that will let you drive a forklift with ANY alcohol. Liability is the main issue of course, but it does reinforce a culture of 0% BAC as an acceptable practice. |
aside of its irrelevance as a comparison to the public domain of operating a motor vehicle, as a matter of trivial interest, this is categorically untrue.
sources: please see the Carlesberg strike in the Netherlands in this very year for proof, amongst many other examples in the southern united states.
| quote: | Originally posted by nacarter
We should keep in mind that the .08 BAC was left intact largely because of the acceptance of drinking and driving among older people and to a certain extent some regional areas. |
'Keep in mind' a patently false assertion? No i'm afraid you'll need to provide a source for this claim of social acceptance catalyst theory.
The gradual movement of the accepted BAC level has been at the behest of evidentuary impetus indicating lowered motor functioning to the level of 0.08 SPECIFICALLY, throughout North America. Here is just one: Source
Any law whose basis lies in the calculation of some quantitative measure must, by reason, reflect a substantial association between that measure and some aspect of law. This bill does not do this. |
|
|
| Adamo |
| you forgot to end it with YOU ING PIG! |
|
|
|
|
