24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 6 of 10 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 16,526
R
Campfire Ranger
Online Content
Campfire Ranger
R
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 16,526
Originally Posted by PaulBarnard
Riding lawn mower. It's what they do down the bayou here.


Not so. At least not in MN.

You can get a DUI on any motorized vehicle. Cars, boats, lawn mowers etc.

So, on par with the OP, you could tip your lawn mower mowing a ditch in your own yard and need medical attention. Technically, they could test you and if you were at a .05, you could get a DUI.



The deer hunter does not notice the mountains

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve" - Isoroku Yamamoto

There sure are a lot of America haters that want to live here...



BP-B2

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,747
J
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
J
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,747
Originally Posted by BillyGoatGruff
Originally Posted by JCMCUBIC

More laws are always the answer.....


Not what I was saying, not advocating for more laws. Simply not to cherry pick. Impaired driving is impaired driving. It's pretty cool to say there should be a .00000001 BAC for DUI, but my how that sentiment would change if actual driving ability were factored in. Meaning DUI should apply to all brain affecting drugs, and distractions.



I understood and agree.

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,764
T
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
T
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,764
Originally Posted by satx78247
toad,

FACE FACTS. This "push" for a lowered BAL to .05 is about MONEY & NOTHING more than MONEY.
(Are you really NAIVE enough to believe that the government bureaucrats CARE about traffic accidents??)

Btw, I drink about ONE beer a month & have never driven "under the influence" BUT I was a peace officer for 3 plus decades & I know that laws like "speed limits" are ONLY about MORE MONEY for the government jurisdictions.
(Even the National Safety Council admits that speed limits are a REVENUE SOURCE & have little or nothing to do with traffi/public safety.)

yours, tex


I live in a state that had no "speed limit".

I have also been the captain on a Jaws-of-Life truck in a large district with interstate highway.

drunks that 'thought they were ok to drive' gave us more work than the speeders by a wide margin


Guns don't kill people, drivers with cell phones kill people.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 27,395
A
Campfire Ranger
Online Content
Campfire Ranger
A
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 27,395
STFU


[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,735
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Online Content
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,735
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
Actually not sure what your point is so adding this.... .


My bad, I mis-interpreted "victims panels." I had no idea they were used for people who didn't crash and have victims.



A wise man is frequently humbled.

IC B2

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,735
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Online Content
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,735
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
......no more than it'd work 100% to let Smoke's kid or others decide when he's had enough diversion sessions.


Nice try but you're really reaching now. I never he he should be able to decide for himself, did I?

What I said was, someone who has a financial interest in keeping him in the program should not be the one making the decision to keep him in the program.

Are you going to argue that point?

Yes. Seriously. Who should decide then? Yet another party? Who would that be that you are not going to also call part of the system?


That's the easy answer but IMO it's a cop-out and does not negate the fact that it's a huge conflict of interest to have people with a financial interest in a decision making that decision. You could ask "who better to write traffic tickets than trained LEOs" but that doesn't mean local police departments don't use traffic citations as a means of generating revenue rather than keeping the public safe. That's wrong plain and simple.

So my answer to your question is, "someone without a vested financial interest in the decision." Or if you prefer, remove the financial incentive to keep people "in the system" or make the financial incentive results-oriented (percentage of re-offenders) rather than what it is now.



A wise man is frequently humbled.

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 22,884
D
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
D
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 22,884
Originally Posted by dvnv
Not trying to argue that alcohol is not an intoxicant at low levels, just trying to argue that it doesn't seriously impact driving ability at .05. By seriously, I mean there is a meaningful statistical difference in that person's chances of driving without an accident.


All the studies ever done prove otherwise. Noticeable and effective impairment on driving skills tests begins by .02 at the least, and by .035 someone performs at best with half the ability they started with. And yes, car accidents are caused/avoided in milliseconds of response time and coordination.

If your golfer buddies were going to play for money in an amateur tournament tomorrow morning with a chance for the winner to make sizable one-time earnings and get a shot at pro sponsorship if they performed exceptionally well, would they knock down two beers at 8am and a short shot of whiskey just before taking the greens?

If those same gentleman were supposed to drive the school bus to your kids basketball game tonight, would you meet them at the bar at 3:30 this afternoon and buy them free shots?

If you were out walking your dog on a side road coming back to your house and one of those buddies was driving oncoming after drinking just two beers less than an hour ago while at the same time there was traffic from the other direction, would you be content that he can pass you within a couple of feet and not mess up?

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,753
N
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
N
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,753
0.05 is bullchit.


�Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.�
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,060
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,060
Problem is, .05 percent does not act the same on everybody. miles


Look out for number 1, don't step in number 2.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 14,056
S
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 14,056
This is BS that is pushed by MADD. I saw an interview with a Mad mother once, her 17 year old daughter was "killed by a drunk driver" and she was on the warpath.
I investigated her story and, yes, her daughter was driving her Camaro and the wreck was at 1 am.
Mom had given the daughter the Camaro.

In the first place, it is not real smart to give a high school kid a hot rod car, most of them can't handle it.
Secondly, your high school junior should not be out at 1 am, nothing good happens after midnight.
And yes, the guy who she collided with was drunk, but, I bet the girl was drunk too.

What you have is a case of incompetent parenting, this Mad mother was on a guilt trip so she wants to punish everyone in society.

.08 is a perfectly good marker they should leave it there.

IC B3

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 31,400
M
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
M
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 31,400
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
......no more than it'd work 100% to let Smoke's kid or others decide when he's had enough diversion sessions.


Nice try but you're really reaching now. I never he he should be able to decide for himself, did I?

What I said was, someone who has a financial interest in keeping him in the program should not be the one making the decision to keep him in the program.

Are you going to argue that point?

Yes. Seriously. Who should decide then? Yet another party? Who would that be that you are not going to also call part of the system?


That's the easy answer but IMO it's a cop-out and does not negate the fact that it's a huge conflict of interest to have people with a financial interest in a decision making that decision. You could ask "who better to write traffic tickets than trained LEOs" but that doesn't mean local police departments don't use traffic citations as a means of generating revenue rather than keeping the public safe. That's wrong plain and simple.

So my answer to your question is, "someone without a vested financial interest in the decision." Or if you prefer, remove the financial incentive to keep people "in the system" or make the financial incentive results-oriented (percentage of re-offenders) rather than what it is now.

Cop-out? Portrayal of the guilty as 'victims' of the system is the cop-out. Simply don't drink and drive and they'd not be subject to those awful councilors with vested financial internet to keep them in the system - which you don't offer any evidence of, nor viable solution to. Remember your son was guilty of DUI and got off wayyyy easy. But you still bitch about it. How about just not offering diversion? There's your viable solution. How about just don't offend? Easy and 100% viable. More cheers.


"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!"
--- Kid Rock 2022


Holocaust Deniers, the ultimate perverted dipchits: Bristoe, TheRealHawkeye, stophel, Ghostinthemachine, anyone else?
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,735
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Online Content
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,735
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
......no more than it'd work 100% to let Smoke's kid or others decide when he's had enough diversion sessions.


Nice try but you're really reaching now. I never he he should be able to decide for himself, did I?

What I said was, someone who has a financial interest in keeping him in the program should not be the one making the decision to keep him in the program.

Are you going to argue that point?

Yes. Seriously. Who should decide then? Yet another party? Who would that be that you are not going to also call part of the system?


That's the easy answer but IMO it's a cop-out and does not negate the fact that it's a huge conflict of interest to have people with a financial interest in a decision making that decision. You could ask "who better to write traffic tickets than trained LEOs" but that doesn't mean local police departments don't use traffic citations as a means of generating revenue rather than keeping the public safe. That's wrong plain and simple.

So my answer to your question is, "someone without a vested financial interest in the decision." Or if you prefer, remove the financial incentive to keep people "in the system" or make the financial incentive results-oriented (percentage of re-offenders) rather than what it is now.

Cop-out? Portrayal of the guilty as 'victims' of the system is the cop-out. Simply don't drink and drive and they'd not be subject to those awful councilors with vested financial internet to keep them in the system - which you don't offer any evidence of, nor viable solution to. Remember your son was guilty of DUI and got off wayyyy easy. But you still bitch about it. How about just not offering diversion? There's your viable solution. How about just don't offend? Easy and 100% viable. More cheers.



Bullsh**. I never bitched about it, or portrayed offenders as victims. All I said was that people with a vested financial interest in the outcome should not be making the decisions on whether someone needs "more counseling.". This whole back-and-forth between you and I started because you said "it's not about the money," which is also bullsh**.

And I did give viable alternatives, you just chose to ignore them.



A wise man is frequently humbled.

Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,062
B
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
B
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,062

Those that are saying .05 is BS, what is that based on? I honestly don't know what .05 does to a person, I believe hte studies posted that it has an effect, but I don't know what the effect is. Could be as simple as a pulse change, or not.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,733
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,733
Why doesn't MADD call for the abolition of alcohol? Wouldn't this put them out of "business"?


"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson

We are all Rhodesians now.






Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,854
Campfire Outfitter
Online Confused
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by renegade50
It is all about revenue for governments. Just like recreational pot. Some of these states depend on the tax base from it big time now.
If anyone thinks they GAF about Joe citizen , they are sorely mistaken. It's about the revenue that can be generated and used for politician job security with government programs.


+1


GOA
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,813
C
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
C
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,813
.05? Best not gargle with Listerine and drive. Better not use that asthma inhaler either. Lots of products use alcohol as a preservative. Honey buns, hot sauce, sugarless gum, rum cake, hand sanitizers...


"A Republic, if you can keep it." ~ B. Franklin
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 31,400
M
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
M
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 31,400
Originally Posted by smokepole

Bullsh**. I never bitched about it, or portrayed offenders as victims. All I said was that people with a vested financial interest in the outcome should not be making the decisions on whether someone needs "more counseling.". This whole back-and-forth between you and I started because you said "it's not about the money," which is also bullsh**.

And I did give viable alternatives, you just chose to ignore them.

Wahhhhhh! Poor poor poor offeners getting off without a conviction when they've pled guilty... It's about the victims not the money dude.


"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!"
--- Kid Rock 2022


Holocaust Deniers, the ultimate perverted dipchits: Bristoe, TheRealHawkeye, stophel, Ghostinthemachine, anyone else?
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 25,316
A
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
A
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 25,316
I participated in drunk driving studies in impairment when I was younger. The departments provided the booze and after each drink we did sobriety tests and drove a course. I did it for the free room, board and booze for the weekend at Ft. Worden, plus there was also this incredibly hot chick that I wanted to hook up with. Several of us guys didn’t show signs of impairment until we were .10 or above while some of the girls showed impairment under .10 (legal BAC at the time). It was a blast and after we were done and sufficiently drunk it started snowing and the hot chick “accidentally” locked herself out of her room and stayed with me. I compiled plenty of data that night and well into the morning. I still can’t drink a screwdriver without thinking about that natural platinum blond. 😁


�Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician.� �General George S. Patton, Jr.

---------------------------------------------------------
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,370
M
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
M
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,370
Originally Posted by milespatton
Problem is, .05 percent does not act the same on everybody. miles



No, it doesn't....I'm not a medical expert, but I've known a boatload of people who could drink beer all day and not show any outward sign of impairment....whether or not their body somehow metabolizes it faster than others, I don't know.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 13,017
D
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
D
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 13,017
I'll chime in.
I did DUI enforcement as a primary responsibility for almost 9 years. I am (was) a drug recognition expert as well as an instructor. I went all over the country teaching DUI/drug impairment to other LEOs. I investigated more than a hundred fatal accidents; many hundred of more serious accidents. I am also a certified reconstructionist for both commercial and passenger vehicles.

When I first started we had one level, .10 BAC. Later they lowered it to .08 and added extreme DUI for those who were over .16% (I think). I have arrested people for DUI for being as low as .06% and as high as .37%. I have seen some .400+ but they weren't driving. I met a nurse at Phoenix Indian hospital who had seen several over .70%. That is mind boggling.

I also put on many "alcohol workshops" I would enlist volunteers to come drink and I supplied the booze. I fed them and their alcohol intake was carefully monitored by scientists. They were tested frequently to see what their BAC was. We would then let the cops in training run them through a battery of field sobriety tests. They had to determine whether they person was above or below a .100 BAC.

I got to see what people behaved like as they progressed.

The first things that happen are inhibitions are removed and judgement is altered. You can't test this with a straight line on the sidewalk. It is impossible to replicate the complicated task of driving a motor vehicle- especially in the mix with other traffic.

I investigated a LOT of accidents where the at-fault driver was a .06% or .07%. Was he legally drunk? No but most state laws describe "impaired to the slightest degree".

A guy can smoke a big fatty joint and nail the walk and turn test yet ask him to estimate 30 seconds and he will likely go beyond 2 minutes or maybe only 5 seconds. That's what weed does to you. This affects your judgement in perceiving threats and situations. You don't look impaired until you are asked to do a task that requires judgement.

Another thing that most people are getting wrong here is that 2 beers at dinner will not put anyone except maybe the most petite person to a .05%.

As some has stated, alcohol tolerance has some affect on you "feel". Your judgement is likely still impacted regardless your drinking history. There are many things that can impair your ability to drive, alcohol is just one of them and it impairs everyone who drinks it to excess. Having sex while driving will also impair your ability to drive. We don't have anything on the books about it though. Texting is gaining some traction and I see a few signs around the country where it is illegal.

I am not in favor of the .05 for the most part in that it is extremely difficult to detect that level of intoxication in the field with rudimentary testing. I am not against charging someone for DUI should they have an incident that is their fault and a chemical test shows a .05 BAC.

Pilots and truck drivers are already at a .04% BAC threshold and have been for a long time. We don't bitch about that!


NRA Benefactor Member

Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Page 6 of 10 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
729 members (12344mag, 007FJ, 10gaugemag, 204guy, 10Glocks, 17CalFan, 75 invisible), 2,943 guests, and 1,294 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,770
Posts18,401,519
Members73,823
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.113s Queries: 15 (0.005s) Memory: 0.9164 MB (Peak: 1.0920 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-29 15:41:02 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS