Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:04:36 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>> Increasing your own risks of being killed is completely acceptable. In
>>> traffic you not only increase your risk of being killed but the risks of
>>> others, and that is completely unacceptable.
>>
>> Yet as a society we let people who normally drive as poorly as a drunk do so
>> everyday.
>
>They drive even more poorly when drunk. Significantly so.

Habitual drunks drive more poorly when they sober up.

>One question: Do you really need alcohol so bad that you are willing to
>risk your life and others'? If so, you should seek help, because that's a
>sure sign of being an alcoholic.
>
>I have no problem whatsoever to go to a party and enjoy myself without the
>'help' of alcohol if I have to drive home afterwards. If the same is true
>for you, why don't you simply do it? And if it is not true, please go,
>seek help.

I'm sorry you don't enjoy the wonderful effects of alcohol (not to
mention the delicious taste of beverages containing it, and the
sensation of drinking it), but please stop trying to ruin it for the
rest of us.

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:29:59 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>If you in any way feel compelled to drink you are an alcoholic, because
>that's what an alcoholic is, a person who _has_ to drink.

You trivialize alcoholism. A desire to drink isn't alcoholism, any
more than a desire for ice cream is an addiction.

>If you don't have to drink don't drink before driving, if you have to
>drink, seek help, it's that simple.

It ain't quite that simple. I don't have to drink. But I want to
drink. I do have to drive if I want to get anywhere. I don't live in
a city; mass transport and taxis are not feasible alternatives. So if
I drink anywhere but home, I'm going to be driving sometime
afterwards. So by trying to reduce BAC levels down to ridiculous
limits, you're pursuing a neo-prohibitionist agenda by making it
extremely difficult to legally return home after drinking.

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:29:59 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>If you in any way feel compelled to drink you are an alcoholic, because
>that's what an alcoholic is, a person who _has_ to drink.

You trivialize alcoholism. A desire to drink isn't alcoholism, any
more than a desire for ice cream is an addiction.

>If you don't have to drink don't drink before driving, if you have to
>drink, seek help, it's that simple.

It ain't quite that simple. I don't have to drink. But I want to
drink. I do have to drive if I want to get anywhere. I don't live in
a city; mass transport and taxis are not feasible alternatives. So if
I drink anywhere but home, I'm going to be driving sometime
afterwards. So by trying to reduce BAC levels down to ridiculous
limits, you're pursuing a neo-prohibitionist agenda by making it
extremely difficult to legally return home after drinking.

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:27:25 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:

>> Do you have any links to substantiate this claim?
>
>Example:
>
>http://www.psy-online.de/mpu/wirkung.htm
>
>Guaranteed not MADD influenced.

Certainly an advocacy piece, though.

>>> > And the drivers that cause the accidents all have BAC's around .16
>>> > to .25, and if you are at .25 you are really hammered and you'll know
>>> > it.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Read the papers. Most of the drunk drivers who get checked
>>> after a crash are somewhere between .05% and 0.1%
>>
>> What papers? Newspapers? I would prefer to get real, hard data.
>
>Newspapers usually print what is in the police report and you can be sure
>the police report errs on the high side (revenue increase).

Technical foul -- you tell people to look at a source and then
disparage it yourself?

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:27:25 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:

>> Do you have any links to substantiate this claim?
>
>Example:
>
>http://www.psy-online.de/mpu/wirkung.htm
>
>Guaranteed not MADD influenced.

Certainly an advocacy piece, though.

>>> > And the drivers that cause the accidents all have BAC's around .16
>>> > to .25, and if you are at .25 you are really hammered and you'll know
>>> > it.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Read the papers. Most of the drunk drivers who get checked
>>> after a crash are somewhere between .05% and 0.1%
>>
>> What papers? Newspapers? I would prefer to get real, hard data.
>
>Newspapers usually print what is in the police report and you can be sure
>the police report errs on the high side (revenue increase).

Technical foul -- you tell people to look at a source and then
disparage it yourself?

C.H. wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:54:32 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
> >
> > C.H. wrote:
> >> Example:
> >>
> >> http://www.psy-online.de/mpu/wirkung.htm
> >>
> >> Guaranteed not MADD influenced.
> >
> > This site is obviously not a scientific research paper. Is a
> > cartoonish MADD-alike.
>
> Not quite. The site is admittedly not very professionally done, a
fate it
> shares with a sizeable number of commercial sites. Nevertheless the
> materials used there are real and

But how does one determine this? There are *no* references to an
scientific journals.

That's what I was looking for in the first place.

> > Maybe there is real, scientific research to back up the claims, but
it
> > certainly isn't in evidence on that particular page.
>
> It is.

Where? I see no journal references. Maybe you could quote the part of
the pages that reference the original material - I just can't seem to
find them.

> The page is just an example for several others which have the same
> data on the influence of alcohol on driving.

And that data is printed where, again?

> Of course I know that whatever materials I provide you will find a
hair in
> your soup...

Not if they are scientific journals, with real, controlled research.
You know, the stuff I have been harping on...

> >> Newspapers usually print what is in the police report and you can
be
> >> sure the police report errs on the high side (revenue increase).
> >
> > No matter what is published in newspapers, it is not controlled,
> > scientific data. Anecdotal, yes. Rigorous research, no.
>
> I wasn't trying to use the newspapers as proof for anything, I merely
> countered the claim of 'Max' that newspapers supposedly only print
> accidents with high BAC numbers and that thus driving with low BAC
numbers
> supposedly is safe.

Maybe you should have not been so flip and explained that in the
begininning. "I believe what I read in the papers" doesn't have any of
the context you have just included.

Anyway, newpaper reporting is not controlled data, and doesn't support
your 0.03% BAC "impairment" standard.

> >> Sorry, I meant .15%. In Germany BAC is measured in Promille (tenth
of
> >> a percent), so 1.5 Promille = .15%.
> >
> > 0.15% is not beyond the realm of functional for plenty of people,
even
> > non-alcoholics.
>
> If you do not at least have trouble walking at .15% you _are_ an
> alcoholic.

Read carefully what was written, before you lose your manners.

> > Being able to walk, talk, play darts or some other physical
activity
> > does not in any way imply ability to safely operate a motor
vehicle.
>
> This is the first sensible thing you said in this thread.

LOL. Good thing you aren't the final arbiter of was does and does not
make sense.

> > BAC, in and of itself, is not an accurate indicator of
intoxication. A
> > 45kg woman at 0.03% and a 90kg man at 0.03% are not equally
impaired.
>
> That is true, but the differences are small.

By body mass alone, you have no idea what the differences in alcohol
effect might be. Gender plays a role, as does % body fat.

In any case, BAC *alone* is not necessarily what defines impairment.

> > There have been some Swedish studies to suggest that people who are
hung
> > over (0.00% BAC) can be less fit to drive than someone over the
legal
> > BAC. The same goes for sleepy drivers.
>
> You have to compare a tired and drunk driver to a tired and non-drunk
> driver.

The studies were properly controlled, IIRC. They measured all sorts of
things, and the conclusions were simple - hung over and tired drivers
were just as impaired as drunk drivers. Sometimes more impaired.

> Concerning hangovers, firstly quite some people think they are hung
over
> but they still have a sizeable amount of alcohol in their bloodstream
(...)

The study made pains to point out that the hung-over subjects had 0%
BAC.

> Unfortunately alcohol
> makes this self assessment [of ability to drive] impossible

Not true for every value of BAC >0.00%.

> which is why DUI is illegal.
Also not true for every value of BAC >0.00%.

HAND,

E.P.

C.H. wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:54:32 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
> >
> > C.H. wrote:
> >> Example:
> >>
> >> http://www.psy-online.de/mpu/wirkung.htm
> >>
> >> Guaranteed not MADD influenced.
> >
> > This site is obviously not a scientific research paper. Is a
> > cartoonish MADD-alike.
>
> Not quite. The site is admittedly not very professionally done, a
fate it
> shares with a sizeable number of commercial sites. Nevertheless the
> materials used there are real and

But how does one determine this? There are *no* references to an
scientific journals.

That's what I was looking for in the first place.

> > Maybe there is real, scientific research to back up the claims, but
it
> > certainly isn't in evidence on that particular page.
>
> It is.

Where? I see no journal references. Maybe you could quote the part of
the pages that reference the original material - I just can't seem to
find them.

> The page is just an example for several others which have the same
> data on the influence of alcohol on driving.

And that data is printed where, again?

> Of course I know that whatever materials I provide you will find a
hair in
> your soup...

Not if they are scientific journals, with real, controlled research.
You know, the stuff I have been harping on...

> >> Newspapers usually print what is in the police report and you can
be
> >> sure the police report errs on the high side (revenue increase).
> >
> > No matter what is published in newspapers, it is not controlled,
> > scientific data. Anecdotal, yes. Rigorous research, no.
>
> I wasn't trying to use the newspapers as proof for anything, I merely
> countered the claim of 'Max' that newspapers supposedly only print
> accidents with high BAC numbers and that thus driving with low BAC
numbers
> supposedly is safe.

Maybe you should have not been so flip and explained that in the
begininning. "I believe what I read in the papers" doesn't have any of
the context you have just included.

Anyway, newpaper reporting is not controlled data, and doesn't support
your 0.03% BAC "impairment" standard.

> >> Sorry, I meant .15%. In Germany BAC is measured in Promille (tenth
of
> >> a percent), so 1.5 Promille = .15%.
> >
> > 0.15% is not beyond the realm of functional for plenty of people,
even
> > non-alcoholics.
>
> If you do not at least have trouble walking at .15% you _are_ an
> alcoholic.

Read carefully what was written, before you lose your manners.

> > Being able to walk, talk, play darts or some other physical
activity
> > does not in any way imply ability to safely operate a motor
vehicle.
>
> This is the first sensible thing you said in this thread.

LOL. Good thing you aren't the final arbiter of was does and does not
make sense.

> > BAC, in and of itself, is not an accurate indicator of
intoxication. A
> > 45kg woman at 0.03% and a 90kg man at 0.03% are not equally
impaired.
>
> That is true, but the differences are small.

By body mass alone, you have no idea what the differences in alcohol
effect might be. Gender plays a role, as does % body fat.

In any case, BAC *alone* is not necessarily what defines impairment.

> > There have been some Swedish studies to suggest that people who are
hung
> > over (0.00% BAC) can be less fit to drive than someone over the
legal
> > BAC. The same goes for sleepy drivers.
>
> You have to compare a tired and drunk driver to a tired and non-drunk
> driver.

The studies were properly controlled, IIRC. They measured all sorts of
things, and the conclusions were simple - hung over and tired drivers
were just as impaired as drunk drivers. Sometimes more impaired.

> Concerning hangovers, firstly quite some people think they are hung
over
> but they still have a sizeable amount of alcohol in their bloodstream
(...)

The study made pains to point out that the hung-over subjects had 0%
BAC.

> Unfortunately alcohol
> makes this self assessment [of ability to drive] impossible

Not true for every value of BAC >0.00%.

> which is why DUI is illegal.
Also not true for every value of BAC >0.00%.

HAND,

E.P.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:22:34 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:29:59 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:54:02 GMT, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I like a beer or a glass of wine now and then, I just don't drive
>>>afterwards until the effect of the alcohol has completely worn off (both
>>>impairment and BAC wise). If someone is unable to make sure they don't
>>>drink if you have to drive afterwards, they are an alcoholic.
>>
>> Heh - that's what the substance abuse "treatment" industrial complex
>> wants everyone to think - more money for them.
>
>If you in any way feel compelled to drink you are an alcoholic,

So if I think to myself, I sure would like a beer right now, I'm an
alcoholic?

> because
>that's what an alcoholic is, a person who _has_ to drink.

Nobody _has_ to drink. It's a simple choice.

>
>If you don't have to drink don't drink before driving,

Well, I was brought up to believe that it's okay to drink WHILE
driving as long as you're not drunk.

It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. I don't actually drink
WHILE driving anymore, but you're nuts if you think I'm going to call
a cab just because I've had a couple of drinks.

Go to ANY bar with a parking lot and ask yourself if you believe all
the cars belong to designated drivers or bar staff.

Come back an hour after the bar is closed. How many cars are left?

>if you have to
>drink, seek help,

Or quit your frat. Nobody has to drink. It's a simple choice.

>it's that simple.
>
>Chris

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:22:34 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:29:59 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:54:02 GMT, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I like a beer or a glass of wine now and then, I just don't drive
>>>afterwards until the effect of the alcohol has completely worn off (both
>>>impairment and BAC wise). If someone is unable to make sure they don't
>>>drink if you have to drive afterwards, they are an alcoholic.
>>
>> Heh - that's what the substance abuse "treatment" industrial complex
>> wants everyone to think - more money for them.
>
>If you in any way feel compelled to drink you are an alcoholic,

So if I think to myself, I sure would like a beer right now, I'm an
alcoholic?

> because
>that's what an alcoholic is, a person who _has_ to drink.

Nobody _has_ to drink. It's a simple choice.

>
>If you don't have to drink don't drink before driving,

Well, I was brought up to believe that it's okay to drink WHILE
driving as long as you're not drunk.

It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. I don't actually drink
WHILE driving anymore, but you're nuts if you think I'm going to call
a cab just because I've had a couple of drinks.

Go to ANY bar with a parking lot and ask yourself if you believe all
the cars belong to designated drivers or bar staff.

Come back an hour after the bar is closed. How many cars are left?

>if you have to
>drink, seek help,

Or quit your frat. Nobody has to drink. It's a simple choice.

>it's that simple.
>
>Chris

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:13:49 -0600,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>C.H. > wrote:
>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:29:59 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>>
>>If you in any way feel compelled to drink you are an alcoholic, because
>>that's what an alcoholic is, a person who _has_ to drink.
>
>You trivialize alcoholism. A desire to drink isn't alcoholism, any
>more than a desire for ice cream is an addiction.
>

A self-proclaimed alcoholic told me if you get drunk more than 3 times
a year (Birthday, New Years, and 1 other time) you're an alcoholic.

Using the legal definition of 'drunk' and the 'alcoholics' definition
of alcoholic, most drinkers are alcoholics.

Misery loves company.

>>If you don't have to drink don't drink before driving, if you have to
>>drink, seek help, it's that simple.
>
>It ain't quite that simple. I don't have to drink. But I want to
>drink. I do have to drive if I want to get anywhere. I don't live in
>a city; mass transport and taxis are not feasible alternatives. So if
>I drink anywhere but home, I'm going to be driving sometime
>afterwards. So by trying to reduce BAC levels down to ridiculous
>limits, you're pursuing a neo-prohibitionist agenda by making it
>extremely difficult to legally return home after drinking.