Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>Nonsense. Read the papers. Most of the drunk drivers who get checked after
>a crash are somewhere between .05% and 0.1% Most non-alcoholics are not
>even able to walk to their car beyond 1.5%.

Obviously, we haven't been reading the same papers.

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>
>However MADD and other orgs are still pushing a neo-prohibitionist
>agenda. The USA is simply filled with control freaks. Instead of being
>open, the method of recent decades has been incrementalism.

The US isn't the ONLY place filled with control freaks, though. The
Germans, autobahns notwithstanding, have a national reputation for
it. Even the Italians have their control freaks, as the recent
smoking ban demonstrates.

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>
>However MADD and other orgs are still pushing a neo-prohibitionist
>agenda. The USA is simply filled with control freaks. Instead of being
>open, the method of recent decades has been incrementalism.

The US isn't the ONLY place filled with control freaks, though. The
Germans, autobahns notwithstanding, have a national reputation for
it. Even the Italians have their control freaks, as the recent
smoking ban demonstrates.

x-posting trimmed...

C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:48:49 -0500, Max wrote:
>
> Where did you get that number from? About every study about alcohol
and
> driving I read mentioned that non-alcoholic drivers already are
affected
> from .03%.

Do you have any links to substantiate this claim?


> > 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.

> Most non-alcoholics are not
> even able to walk to their car beyond 1.5%.

I should think not. 0.50% BAC would put most all humans in an alcohol
coma, at the very least. 1.5% would be very difficult to achieve,
outside of some embalming process.

HAND,

E.P.

x-posting trimmed...

C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:48:49 -0500, Max wrote:
>
> Where did you get that number from? About every study about alcohol
and
> driving I read mentioned that non-alcoholic drivers already are
affected
> from .03%.

Do you have any links to substantiate this claim?


> > 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.

> Most non-alcoholics are not
> even able to walk to their car beyond 1.5%.

I should think not. 0.50% BAC would put most all humans in an alcohol
coma, at the very least. 1.5% would be very difficult to achieve,
outside of some embalming process.

HAND,

E.P.

>>>I agree. Granted that this requires judgment on the part of the
police
officer, most cop cars these days have video cameras, & I've seen them
show a jury just how badly the guy was driving before the officer made
the decision to pull him over. That's how it should be done


..

>>>So you think DUI should be allowed unless the cop can prove the
driver
is impaired. Do you also think heroin and cocaine possesion should be
allowed unless the cops can prove the user is a threat to society?
Good ideas. Now you're getting somewhere.

>>>I agree. Granted that this requires judgment on the part of the
police
officer, most cop cars these days have video cameras, & I've seen them
show a jury just how badly the guy was driving before the officer made
the decision to pull him over. That's how it should be done


..

>>>So you think DUI should be allowed unless the cop can prove the
driver
is impaired. Do you also think heroin and cocaine possesion should be
allowed unless the cops can prove the user is a threat to society?
Good ideas. Now you're getting somewhere.

In article >, says...

>Where did you get that number from? About every study about alcohol and
>driving I read mentioned that non-alcoholic drivers already are affected
>from .03%. They may still be able to steer the car properly but they take
>risks they would otherwise not take, situational awareness decreases
>sharply and the risk of causing an accident drastically increases.
>> 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% Most non-alcoholics are not
>even able to walk to their car beyond 1.5%.

Read the facts, not the papers. The two are not the same. Most accidents
are caused by people who are hammered, well over the old limits of .10 .
If you did read the paper you would read the common, 'twice the legal limit'
that usually describes the condition of the driver in the accident. If most
of drunk driver crashes were caused by drivers between .05 and .10, then no
one would be against the current limit. Do some research and then you will
see your impression is incorrect.
--------------
Alex

In article >, says...

>Where did you get that number from? About every study about alcohol and
>driving I read mentioned that non-alcoholic drivers already are affected
>from .03%. They may still be able to steer the car properly but they take
>risks they would otherwise not take, situational awareness decreases
>sharply and the risk of causing an accident drastically increases.
>> 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% Most non-alcoholics are not
>even able to walk to their car beyond 1.5%.

Read the facts, not the papers. The two are not the same. Most accidents
are caused by people who are hammered, well over the old limits of .10 .
If you did read the paper you would read the common, 'twice the legal limit'
that usually describes the condition of the driver in the accident. If most
of drunk driver crashes were caused by drivers between .05 and .10, then no
one would be against the current limit. Do some research and then you will
see your impression is incorrect.
--------------
Alex

In article >, says...
>> Where did you get that number from? About every study about alcohol and
>> driving I read mentioned that non-alcoholic drivers already are affected
>> from .03%.
>
>MADD wants you to believe that, because their real purpose is to reinstate
>alcohol prohibition.

Actually, I don't that is what they want. They are an organization looking
for a purpose. They should have stuck with their awareness program and left
it at that.

>And I take more risks after my first cup of coffee in the morning than
>before. Ya wanna ban that, too?
>It's all a matter of degree. And adults are entitled to make their own
>choices about risk, individually.

Enjoy it while you can. Organizations like MADD want to take away your
choices.
------------
Alex