Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

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

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

> >> > 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).

No matter what is published in newspapers, it is not controlled,
scientific data. Anecdotal, yes. Rigorous research, no.

> >> 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.
>
> 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. Due to liver damage, alcoholics often have a
*decreased* tolerance for alcohol. 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.

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.
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.

HAND,

E.P.

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.

And there is another sober person driving just as badly.

> I agree with you that driver training needs to be drastically improved,
> but at the same time clamping down on alcohol and cellphones is necessary.

DEMAND COMPETENCE not CONTROL.

> 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.

Do you really need to beat your wife and children? Don't ask such
insulting loaded questions. I have no trouble playing the same game. I am
about as light of a drinker there is. I actually start feeling sick to my
stomach if I have more than 3 beers in 5 hours. I weigh 225lbs and stand
6'4" tall. I cannot even drink enough to feel a buzz because of this. And
if I drink the cheap beer, I have a spliting headache after _ONE_. What
do you think my BAC is two hours after drinking ONE bud light? 0.00000000001?
What do you think impares my driving more? the trivial amount of alcohol
in my system or being in pain from the headache? Last I heard driving
with a headache is legal.

> 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.

Why don't you seek mental help? Or how about learning how to debate
honestly? Nahh. too hard. You cite propoganda that we are just supposed
to believe is gospel truth because it's on the web and in German, and you
insult rather than try to convince. Now I know you have nothing to
support your arguements, you wouldn't need do what you did in the last
two paragraphs if you did.

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.

And there is another sober person driving just as badly.

> I agree with you that driver training needs to be drastically improved,
> but at the same time clamping down on alcohol and cellphones is necessary.

DEMAND COMPETENCE not CONTROL.

> 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.

Do you really need to beat your wife and children? Don't ask such
insulting loaded questions. I have no trouble playing the same game. I am
about as light of a drinker there is. I actually start feeling sick to my
stomach if I have more than 3 beers in 5 hours. I weigh 225lbs and stand
6'4" tall. I cannot even drink enough to feel a buzz because of this. And
if I drink the cheap beer, I have a spliting headache after _ONE_. What
do you think my BAC is two hours after drinking ONE bud light? 0.00000000001?
What do you think impares my driving more? the trivial amount of alcohol
in my system or being in pain from the headache? Last I heard driving
with a headache is legal.

> 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.

Why don't you seek mental help? Or how about learning how to debate
honestly? Nahh. too hard. You cite propoganda that we are just supposed
to believe is gospel truth because it's on the web and in German, and you
insult rather than try to convince. Now I know you have nothing to
support your arguements, you wouldn't need do what you did in the last
two paragraphs if you did.

In article >, C.H. wrote:

>> Fine, convince me.

> Half of all accidents at night at least alcohol related. 1000 of 6000
> traffic deaths per year definitely alcohol related with an unknown but
> supposedly rather large number of cases not checked. German TUEV suspects
> that almost half of all fatal accidents are either alcohol or drug related.

Alcohol related. This is like 'speed related'. Totally sober moron driver
runs a red light and hits a pedestrian crossing the street on his walk
signal. The ped had 2 beers in the last hour and half. Bingo alcohol
related.


> http://www.psy-online.de/mpu/wirkung.htm

A flyer in German. the kind of agenda driven thing we see here in the USA
all the time.

> Quote:
> From .03%: Distances are estimated wrong

I can't estimate distances in feet or meters correctly SOBER. I can
estimate them in my-car-can-stop-from-here-to-there just fine.

> From .05%: Red doesn't register with the brain any more.

I find this very hard to believe.

> Bright-dark-reaction of the Iris slowed down

Dangerously so? Slower than say an 80 year old compared with a 20 year
old?

> And these are conservative estimations, current studies estimate the risks
> significantly higher.

The current studies paint a consistantly grimer picture. If they didn't
the funding would dry up.

> Again, if you want to get on you motocross bike drunk, it's fine with me,
> go ahead, kill yourself. But in traffic you are risking others' lives, so
> if you can't stay sober, don't drive.

And the yapping. No, I just don't believe everything handed to me the way
you seem to. The MADD types achieved their goals. Now they are coming up
with reasons to continue their existance. Simple as that.

In article >, C.H. wrote:

>> Fine, convince me.

> Half of all accidents at night at least alcohol related. 1000 of 6000
> traffic deaths per year definitely alcohol related with an unknown but
> supposedly rather large number of cases not checked. German TUEV suspects
> that almost half of all fatal accidents are either alcohol or drug related.

Alcohol related. This is like 'speed related'. Totally sober moron driver
runs a red light and hits a pedestrian crossing the street on his walk
signal. The ped had 2 beers in the last hour and half. Bingo alcohol
related.


> http://www.psy-online.de/mpu/wirkung.htm

A flyer in German. the kind of agenda driven thing we see here in the USA
all the time.

> Quote:
> From .03%: Distances are estimated wrong

I can't estimate distances in feet or meters correctly SOBER. I can
estimate them in my-car-can-stop-from-here-to-there just fine.

> From .05%: Red doesn't register with the brain any more.

I find this very hard to believe.

> Bright-dark-reaction of the Iris slowed down

Dangerously so? Slower than say an 80 year old compared with a 20 year
old?

> And these are conservative estimations, current studies estimate the risks
> significantly higher.

The current studies paint a consistantly grimer picture. If they didn't
the funding would dry up.

> Again, if you want to get on you motocross bike drunk, it's fine with me,
> go ahead, kill yourself. But in traffic you are risking others' lives, so
> if you can't stay sober, don't drive.

And the yapping. No, I just don't believe everything handed to me the way
you seem to. The MADD types achieved their goals. Now they are coming up
with reasons to continue their existance. Simple as that.

And here I thought LBMHBF was just getting ready for her usual lunch
special. :-)

And here I thought LBMHBF was just getting ready for her usual lunch
special. :-)

In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:08:53 -0600, Brent P wrote:

>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>> Half of all accidents at night at least alcohol related.

>> Alcohol related. This is like 'speed related'.
>
> Alcohol related means either the direct cause of the accident was alcohol,
> or that alcohol at least precluded the driver from fixing the situation by
> making an evasive maneuver.

No, the real definition is what I just presented. We've been over this
subject in r.a.d before. It turns out the books are cooked.

>> Totally sober moron driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian
>> crossing the street on his walk signal. The ped had 2 beers in the last
>> hour and half. Bingo alcohol related.

> The German police is significantly more thorough than the police around
> here in determining the real cause of the crash even if one or both
> drivers were intoxicated. So the numbers are pretty accurate.

It's not the police who make the definition so the numbers come out the
way they are desired to come out.

> The data is taken from the state medical psychological assessment (MPU)
> that a drunk driver has to go through if he wants his license back after
> a DUI. So it is pretty accurate.

All I have is your word, and considering your chosen debate tatics, I
don't believe it.


> Listen to yourself, you have not offered one shred of evidence that your
> 'freedom of choice' is reasonably safe, you just try to find a hair in any
> evidence that drinking and driving is safe. It's just like with the
> smokers in the 70s and 80s. 'Smoking causes cancer and heart disease?'
> Impossible, my gramps smoked for 40 years.

Making up arguements for me. I have made no 'freedom of choice' arguement
here. I dispute the motivations of the anti drunk driving groups. That's
all I've done. And you've repeated insulted me, tried to label me an
alcholic through 'stop beating your wife' type questions and now this.

You have no credibility sir. You cannot even have discussion. You've gone
right to insult. Did I do anything to you? No. I simply don't believe
you. I disagree with you on the motivations of these groups and you go
after me personally. It's uncalled for.

> Countless studies in just about any country have proven that alcohol and
> driving don't mix. I can't remember ever having seen a study that claims
> DUI is harmless, not even an alcohol funded one.

STRAWMAN.

> What you suffer from is called denial. You have a problem and you simply
> don't want to see it and thus every evidence of this problem must be
> wrong.

Wrong. Every year the number gets lower and lower lower. Are you going to
tell me the data of experiments 20 years ago are now wrong, and today's
correct? Why does the number get lower every year? Think man!

If the methodology was sound, the imparement level should be unchanging
through the last 20 years. Now it's down to .03. Where is your critical
thinking?

> Brent, I respect you and your opinion, but if you really think drinking
> and driving is harmless, you need a reality check, and you need it before
> you hurt someone.

I have argued NOTHING OF THE KIND. I have argued that the level of
imparement continues to drop as groups continue to try and justify their
existance. Don't go putting words in my mouth. I am arguing against this
silly one-drop notion that MADD and other groups are heading towards. The
goal has long since been achieved, the groups no longer have a purpose.
Now it's about becoming prohibitionist. When they get the laws to read
0.000000 BAC what are they going to do then? Ban alcoholic beverages
entirely?

Just because I don't draw the line in the same place you do, doesn't make
me pro-drunk driving, an alcoholic or anything else you've accused me of
being in your no holds barred quest against the DUI. The data shows the
real problem area is already illegal. that lowering the BAC level further
is going to serve no useful purpose. It's simply control freakism. The
same kind of control freakism that sparked the war on drugs and the
united christian women's temperance union.

In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:08:53 -0600, Brent P wrote:

>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>> Half of all accidents at night at least alcohol related.

>> Alcohol related. This is like 'speed related'.
>
> Alcohol related means either the direct cause of the accident was alcohol,
> or that alcohol at least precluded the driver from fixing the situation by
> making an evasive maneuver.

No, the real definition is what I just presented. We've been over this
subject in r.a.d before. It turns out the books are cooked.

>> Totally sober moron driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian
>> crossing the street on his walk signal. The ped had 2 beers in the last
>> hour and half. Bingo alcohol related.

> The German police is significantly more thorough than the police around
> here in determining the real cause of the crash even if one or both
> drivers were intoxicated. So the numbers are pretty accurate.

It's not the police who make the definition so the numbers come out the
way they are desired to come out.

> The data is taken from the state medical psychological assessment (MPU)
> that a drunk driver has to go through if he wants his license back after
> a DUI. So it is pretty accurate.

All I have is your word, and considering your chosen debate tatics, I
don't believe it.


> Listen to yourself, you have not offered one shred of evidence that your
> 'freedom of choice' is reasonably safe, you just try to find a hair in any
> evidence that drinking and driving is safe. It's just like with the
> smokers in the 70s and 80s. 'Smoking causes cancer and heart disease?'
> Impossible, my gramps smoked for 40 years.

Making up arguements for me. I have made no 'freedom of choice' arguement
here. I dispute the motivations of the anti drunk driving groups. That's
all I've done. And you've repeated insulted me, tried to label me an
alcholic through 'stop beating your wife' type questions and now this.

You have no credibility sir. You cannot even have discussion. You've gone
right to insult. Did I do anything to you? No. I simply don't believe
you. I disagree with you on the motivations of these groups and you go
after me personally. It's uncalled for.

> Countless studies in just about any country have proven that alcohol and
> driving don't mix. I can't remember ever having seen a study that claims
> DUI is harmless, not even an alcohol funded one.

STRAWMAN.

> What you suffer from is called denial. You have a problem and you simply
> don't want to see it and thus every evidence of this problem must be
> wrong.

Wrong. Every year the number gets lower and lower lower. Are you going to
tell me the data of experiments 20 years ago are now wrong, and today's
correct? Why does the number get lower every year? Think man!

If the methodology was sound, the imparement level should be unchanging
through the last 20 years. Now it's down to .03. Where is your critical
thinking?

> Brent, I respect you and your opinion, but if you really think drinking
> and driving is harmless, you need a reality check, and you need it before
> you hurt someone.

I have argued NOTHING OF THE KIND. I have argued that the level of
imparement continues to drop as groups continue to try and justify their
existance. Don't go putting words in my mouth. I am arguing against this
silly one-drop notion that MADD and other groups are heading towards. The
goal has long since been achieved, the groups no longer have a purpose.
Now it's about becoming prohibitionist. When they get the laws to read
0.000000 BAC what are they going to do then? Ban alcoholic beverages
entirely?

Just because I don't draw the line in the same place you do, doesn't make
me pro-drunk driving, an alcoholic or anything else you've accused me of
being in your no holds barred quest against the DUI. The data shows the
real problem area is already illegal. that lowering the BAC level further
is going to serve no useful purpose. It's simply control freakism. The
same kind of control freakism that sparked the war on drugs and the
united christian women's temperance union.

In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>> I agree with you that driver training needs to be drastically improved,
>>> but at the same time clamping down on alcohol and cellphones is necessary.
>>
>> DEMAND COMPETENCE not CONTROL.
>
> COMPETENCE AND ALCOHOL ARE A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS! (was that loud enough
> for you?)

You don't get it. It just doesn't compute in that little brain of yours.
You want to control people instead of demanding competence from them.
That's the point. That's the point of pushing for ever lower BAC, ever
lower speed limits, ever watching cameras, etc and so forth. CONTROL.

>>> 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.

>> Do you really need to beat your wife and children?
>
> No, nor do I defend wife beaters like you defend alcoholics and drunk
> drivers.

I HAVEN'T. You obviously cannot read. Or have some serious mental
imparement. I am arguing against the ever lowering BAC values that define
drunk driving because each year, the number is lower. Tell me, was the
law for .08 BAC in Illinois a few years back based on flawed data? The
..085 BAC before that? The .1 before that? Why is it that the target keeps
moving and the studies keep showing lower numbers? It stinks. It smells.
It's groups looking to justify their continued existance.

When the laws were .1 the studies showed .08 when the laws made it to .08
now the studies show .05, when the laws are .05 the studies will be .03,
and so on and so on. This isn't an area where there are technology
breakthroughs or anything. A sound study from 1985 should produce the
same result as a sound study from 2005. Why don't they? Because of the
agenda IMO.

>> Don't ask such insulting loaded questions.

> If you don't want to be asked questions like that, don't defend drunk
> drivers.

I haven't. If you think so you're a ****ing moron.

>> I have no trouble playing the same game.

> It is _not_ the same game. You defend drunk driving, which is why my
> question is legitimate. I did not in any way defend wife beating, which is
> why your question was just a stupid and intentional insult.

I haven't defended drunk driving. Yet you feel the need to insult me
instead of having a discussion. That tells me I'm right on the mark. It's
a crusade, a need to justify your goals, your beliefs. My mere
questioning of where the line should be drawn as caused you to label me
as an extreme, to insult me, to attack me in this unjustified fashion.
Look at yourself. Look at your behavior. Clearly anything for the cause.
I think the current .08 BAC is low enough and that makes me the enemy to
you. You're proving my arguement that it is about the continued existance
of the crusaders, an incrementalist movement towards a new prohibition.

>> I am about as light of a drinker there is. I actually start feeling
>> sick to my stomach if I have more than 3 beers in 5 hours. I weigh
>> 225lbs and stand 6'4" tall.

> This makes it even more surprising for me that you of all people would
> defend drunk driving.

I haven't. You're obviously a moronic zealot who sees only 'us' and
'them'. Since I don't agree with you 100% you have classified me as one
of 'them'.

> No, it is very likely about .01% given your size and weight. But since
> when does Bud Light qualify as a beer? Yes, I know, I am a beer snob, I
> drink Franziskaner imported from Munich, Germany...

HA! Bud light is mostly water and chemicals! It's pure poison.

>> What do you think impares my driving more? the trivial amount of
>> alcohol in my system or being in pain from the headache? Last I heard
>> driving with a headache is legal.

> And what if you don't drink the Bud Light? Will your quality of life have
> decreased in any significant amount?

It decreases from drinking the **** water. Do you have trouble reading?

> Alcohol impairs people's self assessment, which is why DUI should be
> completely illegal, not only from .05% BAC. The only reason why it isn't
> is, because companies like Busch or Miller have a lot of influence on
> politicians.

Here it is, the one drop. The crusade, the zeal. None shall drink. If you
had a drink 3 years ago, you are impared and should not drive. Ever
lower BAC. Ever more silly. Ever more taking of freedom, ever more police
state check points. It's a crusade. A war on DUI. Fill the prisons with
the people who had a glass of wine with dinner! Took some cough surup and
drove to work? Off with your head! Used mouth wash in the morning and
drove? 30 days in the slammer!

>> Why don't you seek mental help?

> Again you resort to unprovoked insults. Obviously you need help more
> urgently than I thought.

Unprovoked? You started this by accusing me of being an alcoholic,
accusing me of being for drinking and driving, and few other insults you
lobbed at me for the sin of questioning your beliefs.

> I challenge you to find a study that claims DUI is harmless. Conditions
> are that it must not be funded in any way by either the alcohol industry
> including restaurants and it must

I NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM. WHAT IS YOUR MALFUNCTION?

> You have no study, no argument, not even evidence that drunk driving is
> harmless, only your own assertion that it is, which has exactly zero
> value.

I've never made any such claim or assertion!!!!!!
Find it, quote it, with link to google groups or any other independent
usenet archive if you think I have. You're going to have a hard time
finding it, because it doesn't exist. You're either dishonest or a moron
take your pick.