Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

"C.H." > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:09:01 -0500, ParrotRob wrote:
>
>> "C.H." > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> Then call a friend and offer him a 20 to drive you to your bar. Or if
>>> you
>>> absolutely have to have alcohol at a bar, move somewhere where there are
>>> either taxicabs or bars in walking distance.
>>
>> That's crazy talk. If I'm too drunk to drive I'm FAR too drunk to WALK
>> home! ;-)
>
> So you already start having problems walking at .03%?

Nope. But neither do I have problems driving, either. I think I'll have a
few and cruise around your neighborhood tonight.

Olaf Gustafson > writes:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:11:10 -0800, "C.H." >
>wrote:
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:48:56 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:13:49 -0600,
>>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>>>>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.

>>Who cares, what some nutcase drunkard told you?

>Indeed. Why should I care what some nutcase on usenet says either.

Didn't take you long to figure out Chris Hübner. :-)

Careful; he morphs to ensure that his nutcase advertisements reach
the widest audience so keep updating your killfiles.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

Olaf Gustafson > writes:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:11:10 -0800, "C.H." >
>wrote:
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:48:56 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:13:49 -0600,
>>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>>>>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.

>>Who cares, what some nutcase drunkard told you?

>Indeed. Why should I care what some nutcase on usenet says either.

Didn't take you long to figure out Chris Hübner. :-)

Careful; he morphs to ensure that his nutcase advertisements reach
the widest audience so keep updating your killfiles.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

Olaf Gustafson > writes:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:12:24 -0800, "C.H." >
>wrote:

>>> 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.
>>
>>You can drink all you want when you are at home or don't have to drive
>>afterwards. That's not prohibition in the least.

>Yet you have been arguing that people who drink too often shouldn't
>even drive sober.

I drink often. Every evening I have a glass of red wine.

>At least try to be consistent and logical in your arguments.

If the netkook wants people to start falling off the twig
prematurely because they're not allowed to drink alcohol at all,
then I suggest that murder charges be laid.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

Olaf Gustafson > writes:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:12:24 -0800, "C.H." >
>wrote:

>>> 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.
>>
>>You can drink all you want when you are at home or don't have to drive
>>afterwards. That's not prohibition in the least.

>Yet you have been arguing that people who drink too often shouldn't
>even drive sober.

I drink often. Every evening I have a glass of red wine.

>At least try to be consistent and logical in your arguments.

If the netkook wants people to start falling off the twig
prematurely because they're not allowed to drink alcohol at all,
then I suggest that murder charges be laid.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"C.H." > writes:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:01:07 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:

>>>If you think an alcoholic has a choice (without getting help) you need to
>>>read up on the subject a bit (physical and mental drug dependency).
>>
>> Everyone has a choice, including the "alcoholic".

>Then let's say, that in about 100% of cases the alcoholic won't make it on
>the spur of the moment. Would you agree with that?
>
>> Like he said, there is NOTHING wrong with drinking and driving, but
>> there is something wrong with driving drunk.

>There is something wrong with driving impaired. And you are
>impaired much earlier than you think. A videogame, especially one
>that you already know, won't show that, but a dangerous situation
>on the road will.

Which part of
Die Auswirkungen von Alkohol sind individuell sehr
unterschiedlich und lassen eine eindeutige Zuordnung ganz
bestimmter Wirkungen zu ganz bestimmten Promillezahlen nicht
zu.

from your own cited document don't you understand?

The bit that you're referring to is probably
Ab 0,2 bis 0,3 Promille kann die Leistung beeinträchtigt
sein.

You appear to have misunderstood what that says. It's not a
definitive declaration that impairment will occur from 0.02 to 0.03;
it says that impairment _can_ occur occur from those levels.

The footnote to the above says
In der einschlägigen Literatur wird häufig auf diesen
Zusammenhang eingegangen. Allerdings gibt es keine
allgemeingültigen Grenzwerte, abgesehen von denen, die die
Rechtsprechung festlegt.

Translation:
The literature frequently refers to this relationship. (BAC
vs impairment) There are however no generally valid boundary
values, other than those laid down in law.

>> You need to distinguish between drinking and being drunk.

>If you _really_ only drink one beer, you may be sober enough to
>drive. But I don't think that's what you mean by 'drinking'.

That is what we mean by drinking if we intent to drive later.

>I have nothing to do with MADD. I have no idea, what their agenda is but

There you go. Freud has spotted your slip. You have no idea.

>according to that article Brent P published it is not road safety. My
>agenda on the other hand is road safety and alcohol is just a small part
>of that. If you can't see a difference there, you need new glasses - or
>maybe a few glasses less...

Perhaps you should try to read and understand the entire documents
you cite.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"C.H." > writes:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:01:07 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:

>>>If you think an alcoholic has a choice (without getting help) you need to
>>>read up on the subject a bit (physical and mental drug dependency).
>>
>> Everyone has a choice, including the "alcoholic".

>Then let's say, that in about 100% of cases the alcoholic won't make it on
>the spur of the moment. Would you agree with that?
>
>> Like he said, there is NOTHING wrong with drinking and driving, but
>> there is something wrong with driving drunk.

>There is something wrong with driving impaired. And you are
>impaired much earlier than you think. A videogame, especially one
>that you already know, won't show that, but a dangerous situation
>on the road will.

Which part of
Die Auswirkungen von Alkohol sind individuell sehr
unterschiedlich und lassen eine eindeutige Zuordnung ganz
bestimmter Wirkungen zu ganz bestimmten Promillezahlen nicht
zu.

from your own cited document don't you understand?

The bit that you're referring to is probably
Ab 0,2 bis 0,3 Promille kann die Leistung beeinträchtigt
sein.

You appear to have misunderstood what that says. It's not a
definitive declaration that impairment will occur from 0.02 to 0.03;
it says that impairment _can_ occur occur from those levels.

The footnote to the above says
In der einschlägigen Literatur wird häufig auf diesen
Zusammenhang eingegangen. Allerdings gibt es keine
allgemeingültigen Grenzwerte, abgesehen von denen, die die
Rechtsprechung festlegt.

Translation:
The literature frequently refers to this relationship. (BAC
vs impairment) There are however no generally valid boundary
values, other than those laid down in law.

>> You need to distinguish between drinking and being drunk.

>If you _really_ only drink one beer, you may be sober enough to
>drive. But I don't think that's what you mean by 'drinking'.

That is what we mean by drinking if we intent to drive later.

>I have nothing to do with MADD. I have no idea, what their agenda is but

There you go. Freud has spotted your slip. You have no idea.

>according to that article Brent P published it is not road safety. My
>agenda on the other hand is road safety and alcohol is just a small part
>of that. If you can't see a difference there, you need new glasses - or
>maybe a few glasses less...

Perhaps you should try to read and understand the entire documents
you cite.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

John David Galt > writes:

>C.H. wrote:
>> Several of the studies I am referring to have been conducted in Europe and
>> thus have nothing to do with MADD. The Germans have determined that the
>> risk of causing a fatal accident driving drunk (above the legal limit of
>> 0.05%) is at least 6 times as high than are driving sober.

>Sounds like another statistic that lumps together those slightly over
>the limit with those way over, and is therefore worthless. (But not
>as bad as the US-NHTSA practice of labeling a wreck alcohol-related if
>any participant -- even a passenger or pedestrian -- has had a drink.
>That's truly dishonest, and the MADD types eat it right up.)

Chris's comment is misleading, to say the least.

The document he cited states a doubled risk of crashing (not
necessarily *fatal*) for over 0.05, a quadrupled risk over 0.08 and
a ten-fold risk over 0.11. (Table Page 141)

The document he cites also shows some of the social effects of
unreasonaly low allowable BAC; with Sweden and Poland's allowed
0.02 (page 156); reflected in above-average rates of alcoholism.
This may well be due to binge-drinking (IMHO). People drink to
deep intoxication on occasions when they don't have to drive.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

John David Galt > writes:

>C.H. wrote:
>> Several of the studies I am referring to have been conducted in Europe and
>> thus have nothing to do with MADD. The Germans have determined that the
>> risk of causing a fatal accident driving drunk (above the legal limit of
>> 0.05%) is at least 6 times as high than are driving sober.

>Sounds like another statistic that lumps together those slightly over
>the limit with those way over, and is therefore worthless. (But not
>as bad as the US-NHTSA practice of labeling a wreck alcohol-related if
>any participant -- even a passenger or pedestrian -- has had a drink.
>That's truly dishonest, and the MADD types eat it right up.)

Chris's comment is misleading, to say the least.

The document he cited states a doubled risk of crashing (not
necessarily *fatal*) for over 0.05, a quadrupled risk over 0.08 and
a ten-fold risk over 0.11. (Table Page 141)

The document he cites also shows some of the social effects of
unreasonaly low allowable BAC; with Sweden and Poland's allowed
0.02 (page 156); reflected in above-average rates of alcoholism.
This may well be due to binge-drinking (IMHO). People drink to
deep intoxication on occasions when they don't have to drive.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"C.H." > wrote in message
...

> I have seen too many people die on
> the road under the influence of alcohol, a lot of them thinking they were
> sober enough to drive (in fact most of them). If you can't tell this from
> 'prohibition' it's your problem.

Who are you, Calamity Jane? I've never seen anyone die on the road under
the influence of alcohol.

John Mara