Louie is right. I think we all have our times of distraction behind the wheel, whether it be from drinking, cell phone use, or something else. But certainly drinking will compound those other distractions. How about a drunk wheeling down the road with a cell phone in one hand and a cigarette in the other?
60mph head on crash test
- Thread starter Alan
- Start date
- Status
Driving a large vehicle will help up to a point. But if we all start driving large vehicles, we're back to square one (chances are even) or even worse, because now we both have more mass, and more mass = more pent up energy that will have to be released during a crash.
We should also think about the safety of others on the roads, not just cars but bikes, motorbikes, pedestrians. The bigger and heavier the cars, the more deadly to them.
We should also think about the safety of others on the roads, not just cars but bikes, motorbikes, pedestrians. The bigger and heavier the cars, the more deadly to them.
What anyone's BAC will do in a particular case is dependent upon a number of variables. This means that assumptions about the consequences of drinking x number of drinks are generally incorrect on both sides of the opinion fence. If you feed two drinks to a 225 lb man who is well hydrated, has a full stomach, and consumes them over two hours, you'd probably not see his BAC climb much above 0.02 or 0.03. If you feed the same two drinks to a dehydrated woman who weighs 90 pounds, has an empty stomach, and chugs them back in five minutes, you'll see a much, much higher BAC spike. I'm not endorsing driving in either instance, but simply making the point that blanket assumptions about one, two, or three drinks are dangerous because we all react differently, somtimes dramatically so.
=========================================
Most states now have "two prong" DUI laws, though often the names used, and the mechanicals differ some. You can be guilty of DUI merely for driving with an unlawful BAC, even if you've demonstrated no signs of impairment at all. At the other extreme, you might refuse to take the breath test (or perhaps the machine has a failure, ruining the result), and the state can still convict you, totally apart from BAC if they can prove your normal faculties are impaired by alcohol (or some othher listed drug). That's FL's language btw.
Then there are the overlap cases. I have seen impairment convictions with BACs as low as 0.04. In such cases, the technically legal BAC* proves the presence of alcohol, the testimony about impaired conduct does the rest.
*Whether that's right or wrong is a matter of personal belief.
Ace:
At least IMO, relative mass is but one of several critical factors. In your case, I'd be very concerned about center-of-gravity issues too. The unfortunate occupants of the opposing vehicle may indeed end up eating your front axle, but milliseconds later, you may well be tumbling end over end, your truck having been "tripped" by the lower, smaller vehicle which snagged your suspension.
Personally, I'd prefer a medium-sized vehicle with the capability to successfully perform high-G emergency evasive maneuvers without throwing itself out of control. My G35 Sedan, festooned with airbags all over, fits this bill pretty well.
At least IMO, relative mass is but one of several critical factors. In your case, I'd be very concerned about center-of-gravity issues too. The unfortunate occupants of the opposing vehicle may indeed end up eating your front axle, but milliseconds later, you may well be tumbling end over end, your truck having been "tripped" by the lower, smaller vehicle which snagged your suspension.
Personally, I'd prefer a medium-sized vehicle with the capability to successfully perform high-G emergency evasive maneuvers without throwing itself out of control. My G35 Sedan, festooned with airbags all over, fits this bill pretty well.
Well, I guess I'm just lucky then that I wasn't thrown in jail on the two breathalyzers I've done. Here, it's a 24-hour suspension at 0.04, and charges at 0.08. I've never heard of anything different, and they carry breathalyzers in the cars. I blew .026 on 5 beers in 3 hours, and .008 on 3 beers in about 4 hours. Neither were on an empty stomach. I rarely have a drink on an empty stomach.
I don't condone drunk driving, but I really don't think a person is significantly impaired at 0.04BAC. Besides, company softball tournaments have shown that, even at much higher BACs, I seem to have a lot more coordination than many who haven't had a drink!
[ July 12, 2006, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: rpn453 ]
I don't condone drunk driving, but I really don't think a person is significantly impaired at 0.04BAC. Besides, company softball tournaments have shown that, even at much higher BACs, I seem to have a lot more coordination than many who haven't had a drink!
[ July 12, 2006, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: rpn453 ]
rpn:
To clarify, the "overlap" cases I described above are not everyday events. As you might imagine, when someone is charged and has a below-limit BAC, the defense counsel is going to have a pretty strong argument for acquittal. To counter, the prosecution must have pretty compelling evidence of impairment. Such cases therefore typically involve people falling down, barfing on themselves, speaking incoherently, driving insanely, and so forth. Someone who has a 0.04 BAC, and no more indication of impairment than, say, bloodshot eyes and difficulty finding his driver's license, is probably not going to get charged.
Also, don't forget that the law is different in every state and province, and some of them have pretty big surprises waiting for the uninformed. I've never heard of 24-hour suspensions for low blows. At first glance, that seems like a pretty good idea.
To clarify, the "overlap" cases I described above are not everyday events. As you might imagine, when someone is charged and has a below-limit BAC, the defense counsel is going to have a pretty strong argument for acquittal. To counter, the prosecution must have pretty compelling evidence of impairment. Such cases therefore typically involve people falling down, barfing on themselves, speaking incoherently, driving insanely, and so forth. Someone who has a 0.04 BAC, and no more indication of impairment than, say, bloodshot eyes and difficulty finding his driver's license, is probably not going to get charged.
Also, don't forget that the law is different in every state and province, and some of them have pretty big surprises waiting for the uninformed. I've never heard of 24-hour suspensions for low blows. At first glance, that seems like a pretty good idea.
Is the time gap between the accident and the blood test considered? Would several hours make much difference? We brought someone in from an accident, and because it was really busy and his injuries not too bad, he was not seen for several hours. The person he hit was hurt and they were busy with that person first. I just wondered what the wait did to lower the blood alcohol.
As a former Law Enforcement Officer, you Sir, have brought tears to my eyes.
Very good point.
The police tested my blood a good three to five hours after the accident. Then they told me to get a lawyer. Then the hearing.
If i had been drunk there would be plenty of time for the alcohol to leave my blood.
Ideally they want to make you breathe into the machine right at the accident, ASAP.
Time does indeed make a difference. Interestingly, there's more variation in the up part of the slope than the down. As I understand, the liver's ability to metabolize alcohol is pretty much a constant, and reaches a limit point even with relatively low BAC. Thus, the "down slope" of a BAC plot is pretty steady. The "up slope" is a different story, as it is impacted by several variables. Those would include amount and type of food in the stomach, hydration level, natural ability to absorb, etc. Also, an initially climbing BAC is slightly reduced by the liver, which starts removing alcohol as soon as it sees it.
In FL anyway, two hours seems to be about the point at which questions start to come up about whether a BAC test will remain a good enough indicator of what was happening at the time of driving. There is virtually always some wait (usually 45-60 min when all is said and done), and this is not seen as a problem. In contrast, I once got a misdemeanor DUI case dismissed when the test had been taken almost four hours after the driving. My client's BAC was, IIRC, around 0.03, and the state was arguing that he had been declining and was above the limit when driving. The reasons the judge kicked it: 1) there was no proof at all of whether or not he had peaked above the limit (0.08), and 2) the whole thing came up when my guy, sitting at a stop sign, was rear-ended by a UPS truck (with a sober driver...), so there was no evidence of even impaired driving. Also, I think the judge felt sorry for my guy, since when hit, his shoulder belt didn't catch and thrown into the rearview mirror, partially scalping him -- hence the four-hour delay while they sewed his head back together...
hmmm. Well, how about that. Now i know of another case of someone 1) being rear ended 2) passing the BAC test and then 3) being arrested.
Allright, this is a deadly serious topic, but let's take a momentary detour.
Does one of you guys have my email address??? I just got a spam email (made it through the filters, obviously) for, of all things, a breathalizer cell phone!!! Never heard of this one before. The link in the email takes you here.
Is one of you pulling my leg???
Does one of you guys have my email address??? I just got a spam email (made it through the filters, obviously) for, of all things, a breathalizer cell phone!!! Never heard of this one before. The link in the email takes you here.
Is one of you pulling my leg???
After my ordeal with NJ state troopers I began contributing to Pennsylvania Fraternal Order of Police.
[ July 12, 2006, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: skate1968 ]
[ July 12, 2006, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: skate1968 ]
wanton150, Larry probobly won't tell you but he was successful at putting aside 25 years of hatred on the day that he walked in to the rehersal hall and met the grownup little girl. There was not a dry eye in the place, including me. That grownup little girl has her own little girl, now, that calls Larry, Papa. She's almost 2 and adores her adopted Grandfather. From the moment she sees him she squeels with delight and runs to his arms. Sometimes the best things in life are better than the worst, sometimes. If he is down on drunks, I think it's justified. No one should go through 6 weeks in screaming pain, in a burn ward with a punctured lung and broken back. If we can't stop drunk drivers, somehow, this kind of thing will keep happening.
No matter how you cut it, drunks are not being stopped. Known drunks are not being taken off the road, some yes, many others, no. There is nothing to be gained by letting a DUI offender back on the road. Driving is serious business, it's dangerous, too. Until drivers know that they will be taken off the road for having even low levels of alcohol in their blood, they will keep on driving. We sure are kind, generous people, aren't we?
Larry:
You certainly have earned the right to speak on the topic, with authority -- that's completely and totally beyond question. I don't have the same level of personal and emotional closeness to it, and I pray I never do. That said, I do think we've been steadily improving, though we're far from done, and probably never will completely eliminate the problem. The fundamental problem, IMO, is that we're trying to use reason based, cause-effect logic to influence people who are making bad decisions at the very time when they are least likely to think rationally, that is, when they've been drinking. We can make the stick as big as we want to, but after people have had enough alcohol that they shouldn't drive, the stick has become meaningless to them as well.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. They should. But to really cut further into the problem, we need to find better ways either to get people to make the right decision, or to keep them from ever reaching the point where they can make the bad decision in the first place. My frustration with this whole issues comes from seeing how easy it is to simply become angry and say, "lock 'em up for life!" That may indeed be the right answer for some of these offenders, but wouldn't it have been better to prevent the tragedy in the first place?
And thank you very much for having been one of those guys who's willing to put yourself at risk to save others.
You certainly have earned the right to speak on the topic, with authority -- that's completely and totally beyond question. I don't have the same level of personal and emotional closeness to it, and I pray I never do. That said, I do think we've been steadily improving, though we're far from done, and probably never will completely eliminate the problem. The fundamental problem, IMO, is that we're trying to use reason based, cause-effect logic to influence people who are making bad decisions at the very time when they are least likely to think rationally, that is, when they've been drinking. We can make the stick as big as we want to, but after people have had enough alcohol that they shouldn't drive, the stick has become meaningless to them as well.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. They should. But to really cut further into the problem, we need to find better ways either to get people to make the right decision, or to keep them from ever reaching the point where they can make the bad decision in the first place. My frustration with this whole issues comes from seeing how easy it is to simply become angry and say, "lock 'em up for life!" That may indeed be the right answer for some of these offenders, but wouldn't it have been better to prevent the tragedy in the first place?
And thank you very much for having been one of those guys who's willing to put yourself at risk to save others.
ekpolk, wise words. It fits my idea that when a person get into the car after three drinks, the problem has begun. The problem is made worse, because that person really believes there is no problem. The best solution would be to stop it right there. Avoiding the mysery that's caused by drunks is by far the best way to go. I had to let go of the woman's hand, when they pulled the baby and I out of the car. I had the feeling that I had failed her. No one should have to wait 25 years to find a moment of peace, and finally let go. Thanks for the kind words.
- Status
Similar threads
