From: John De Armond Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel Subject: Re: Let's be careful out there. Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 04:26:32 -0400 Rich wrote: > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 01:33:18 -0500, "Young" <fyoung@lakefield.net> > wrote: > > >Be realistic. Most mouthwash contains a goodly percentage of alcohol, > >You want to make life simple by thinking simple. Well welcome to real > >life, the less than simple kind. The one lived by mature thinking > >people. > >Frederick. > > > > and its a mature thing to get behind the wheel of a vehicle after > drinking, eh? someone who has used mouthwash prior to driving is not > gonna be weaving and bobbing down the road. get real. i freely > acknowledge that i am a bit extreme on drinking and driving but i also > have experienced the results of drinking and driving up close and > personal. As you know by now, I've been directly affected 3 times by drunk drivers and my ideas of punishment are pretty radical. As someone who's been heavily involved in the politics of traffic policy for years, it has become a necessity to actually know what I'm talking about instead of firing off emotional opinions as fact. here are some things you really ought to know so you won't make a fool of yourself advocating a BAC of 0.0: * There is a certain amount of alcohol in many people's blood all the time, the byproduct of some varieties of intestinal flora. Usually below 0.01 BAC but not always, particularly in diabetics. * it is relatively rare that someone who is drunk will show a BAC anywhere near 0.1. A person who has a glass of wine, a single beer or a mixed drink with dinner is not in any way impaired but will show a BAC of around 0.01-02. The drunks almost always show 0.17 and upward. Drunks don't get just a little drunk and then go out and kill someone. They get sloshed. I've done many a ride-along with DUI squads so that I could gain a first hand knowledge of how it is out there on the street vs the lies that crazies like MADD promote. * There is a large body of scientific data showing that most people are not in any significant way impaired at a BAC below 0.1. One of the more significant tests was sponsored by Car & Driver magazine where the commissioned a test to determine the effects of alcohol and pot on a wide variety of drivers, ranging from ordinary drivers to race car drivers. That study pissed off a lot of people because it demonstrated that pot has zero effect on motor skills but the data and the science are unassailable. It was funny to see that one of the race car drivers actually lapped faster on pot than he did sober. * the BAC is a poor indicator of impairment, particularly when the impairment is from non-alcohol causes such as drugs or lack of sleep. There are impairment testers available that directly measure the subjects impairment - what we're really interested in for public safety - and are portable. The problem is the prohibitionists and religious nuts are more interested in punishing "sin" (that being the drinking of alcohol rather than being impaired) than they are getting drunks off the street. There is further opposition from a segment of the politicians (the Kennedy faction) who don't want an accurate impairment measurement because they know they'd get caught eventually. A skilled lawyer can usually challenge the BAC procedure enough to get the politicians off if the case doesn't make the paper. Well enough. I'm probably wasting my breath on a zealot. John

From: John De Armond Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel Subject: Re: Let's be careful out there. Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:38:21 -0400 Guess Who? wrote: > John > I think your ideas about "impairment vs BAC" are right on the money, > and hope you can figure out how to invent something to measure > "impairment". These things are already on the market and are used somewhat widely in industry to test for worker impairment, usually after an accident. They lack the "presumed accurate and admissible" legal status that Breathalyzers have and so are not used for law enforcement. Sad. John > Your anger over losing a friend to the addle brained behavior of a > drunk driver is easy to understand. Years ago, when a drunk killed my > ex girlfriend, I wanted him strung up from a high line pole so bad it > made me almost sick.. I haven't learned the specifics on this instance but in the case of the drunk who hit me and the one who killed my other friend, both were chronic drunks with long strings of DUIs (and the slaps on the wrists that follow) and both were far over the legal limit. There is no need to go after the guy with 0.05 on his breath at an unconstitutional DUI checkpoint. Just execute those who chronically blow 0.3 or more. John