Drinking discussions

[Tom Brown]

* Edit: THOR added to the list
It's interesting how futile the discussions about drinking and operating motor vehicles are. There are two opinion camps on this subject and that's that.
Something I take as clear fact on this, but shouldn't, is that people who downplay or support drinking and driving are people who drink and drive. It seems so obvious, I haven't put much thought into it until just now.
I wonder if there is anyone who doesn't drink, who thinks it's OK to drink and drive once in a while. Maybe just a short trip back to the launch ramp and a few miles through town to return home.
The first name that comes to mind is RiverDave. I find Dave's arguments reasonable and logical, largely. They do not, however, seem objective. His arguments, as I understand them, support the idea that a skilled operator can consume some limited quantity of alcohol and still operate a vehicle better than average. This strikes me as reasonable on some level. RD has an OUI so, at least at some point in his life, his situation supports the original hypothesis of this thread.
There is another member of ***boat who drinks and drives. I've seen it. I've heard several others tell me they've seen him. He even posted a story about it. Yet, I've seen him post that he has never, and would never, drink and drive. Further, he has gone on about how little respect he has for people who do so. People even commended him for his position. I wonder if he believes what he's posted? I suspect he does.
When I speculate on the odds that Moneypitt, Wet Dream, THOR, and other people who are defensive about OUI, as it relates to boating safety, I would put the odds they've operated a vehicle intoxicated recently at 100%. I'm not talking about what they say they do... I'm talking about real life.
If I were an enforcement officer, I would watch out for people who are quick to question the dangerous effects of alcohol as unproven and overstated. It would not be entirely ethical to watch for their boats on the water and scrutinize them extra closely, but it would be difficult not to.
Opinions? Discussion? Death threats?

[riverbound]

RD sux
And Tom, you were just added to my people to kill list :mad:
:D

[Tom Brown]

:eek:
That reaction seems a little severe. I could use a belt.

[Jbb]

You keep picking on RD.....and I will stomp your ass:mad: ............That's my job........RD SUX!:D

[HDF WATERDOG]

Well said Mr. Brown, These guys are going to hang you high though.

[Rexone]

Tom what's your opinion on the adequate cooking of a steak if such cooking results in the elimination of salmonella bacteria in the meat? Is it safer to undercook and enjoy the flavor of basically uncooked meat just because you've eaten it that way since you were a young boy and never contracted the salmonella virus? Is a heat lamp to warm the meat and give the impression of actually being cooked an adequate subsitute for cooking it?
Or perhaps with enough tequila in the system the salmonella virus is just eliminated anyway and the steak will absorb enough of the alcohol to make it safe to drive back home. Questions to ponder. :idea:

[Tom Brown]

No one has ever proven that salmonella is dangerous, or even that it exists. It's a myth perpetrated by people who wish to take away our fun.
Even if it does exist, it is completely irrelevant because you could just as easily be killed by the ebola virus, therefore, protecting yourself from salmonella is a complete waste of time.
Feel free to wander into a field, pick up a cow by the hind legs, burry your face in it's ass, and take a bite.
Enjoy, my friend. :cool:

[rrrr]

When I speculate on the odds that Moneypitt, Wet Dream, and other people who are defensive about OUI, as it relates to boating safety, I would put the odds they've operated a vehicle intoxicated recently at 100%. I'm not talking about what they say they do... I'm talking about real life.
I'd say you are quite perceptive, Tom. VVVVVVV
Here we go again with some of you dumb mother f'ers ASSUMING consumption and intoxication. Redwing, that goes for you. TPC, you didn't chase the guys down, how the hell would you know if they were or weren't? You didn't have the balls to go after them and confirm.

[Jbb]

:jawdrop:
http://www.***boat.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=37919&stc=1&d=1188078898

[Tom Brown]

You're killing me, Brian. :eek: :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[Jbb]

I could never eat that....:jawdrop:

[Rexone]

No one has ever proven that salmonella is dangerous, or even that it exists. It's a myth perpetrated by people who wish to take away our fun.
Even if it does exist, it is completely irrelevant because you could just as easily be killed by the ebola virus, therefore, protecting yourself from salmonella is a complete waste of time.
Therefore, feel free to wander into a field, pick a cow up by the hind legs, burry your face in it's ass, and take a bite.
Enjoy, my friend. :cool:
What about E-coli Tom? I find the whole face in a cow's ass thing somewhat disturbing and am not attracted to doing this regardless of the salmonella issue.
With that said I'm heading over to the market now and chomp down a nice bloody Porterhouse right in the isle. Thanks for extinguishing my concerns.
Threadjack complete.

[Tom Brown]

As it happens, I'm somewhat familiar with meat.
I work in the livestock industry. That doesn't make me an expert but I've picked up a thing or two along the way.
Meat safety varies with how it's handled. Salmonella is not a virus native to meat. E. coli virus is also not native to meat. E. coli and other virus are native to the intestinal tract of livestock. It's pretty much guaranteed to be there, just as it's guaranteed to be in human feces. For this reason, meat has to be carefully cut and inspected.
There are many cuts that are perfectly safe raw, as long as they were cut properly. Government inspection and grading largely eliminates the risk of eating these cuts.
Cuts close to the bowel are not safe. This includes hamburger. If there is any question of E. coli, the meat needs to be cooked above 155 degrees. Basically, cook your burgers until the juice coming from the burger is clear.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be cautious about E. coli. I'm just saying there's no need to freak out about it.

[THOR]

If you have one beer and operate, does that mean you are operating illegally, or just operating while under the influence. I have never been told what the difference was. Lets say you were pulled over and blew a .02. What does this mean?

[Rexone]

As it happens, I'm somewhat familiar with meat.
Tom, this is ***boat.com. Not the Canadian meat cutters website.
Good thing most the benchracers are offline on the weekends.

[Ultracrazy]

If you have one beer and operate, does that mean you are operating illegally, or just operating while under the influence. I have never been told what the difference was. Lets say you were pulled over and blew a .02. What does this mean?
It means HBD (had been drinking). Not a violation unless it can be proved that the amount of alcohol in your system impaired you to the point of being considered under the influence.

[THOR]

This is my point. So, I had been drinking. The majority of folks on here are willing to take me jail and throw away the key. Why?

[Her454]

I think if you are a responsible drinker that owns a Pit Bull and have taken a boating safety course then you cannot possibly expect any more. :D
Good thing most the benchracers are offline on the weekends.
All 10 multiple personalties.

[Tom Brown]

This is my point. So, I had been drinking. The majority of folks on here are willing to take me jail and throw away the key. Why?
The point of my original post is that, based on the hypothesis in the original post, there is a strong chance you are either deluded or lying. Perhaps not, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
Still, the point is that people who are defensive and quick to point out that there's nothing wrong with having a drink or two, are likely to have difficulty stopping after a drink or two. This is the hypothesis that I subscribe to.
Boatcop posted a great thread a few weeks ago in which he cited a statistic that about 10% of people on the water or road on Friday and Saturday afternoon and evening are over the legal .08 BAC limit. He cited 16 arrests out of 164 boats stopped at his last checkpoint to support but he also had lots of other numerical data supporting.
I sported that quote in my signature for a while.
10% drivers over .08 BAC.... that blows me away.

[THOR]

I think if you are a responsible drinker that owns a Pit Bull and have taken a boating safety course then you cannot possibly expect any more. :D
I dont own a pitbull, but rather a retriever.

[Ultracrazy]

This is my point. So, I had been drinking. The majority of folks on here are willing to take me jail and throw away the key. Why?
Good question.......

[Her454]

I dont own a pitbull, but rather a retriever.
Then you should be hung from the highest tree rather than jailed. :D

[THOR]

The point of my original post is that, based on the hypothesis in the original post, there is a strong chance you are either deluded or lying. Perhaps not, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
10% drivers over .08 BAC.... that blows me away.
That is stat that makes me not want to go out on the water like I posted a few weeks back. But, my family enjoys it as do I. I remember reading Boatcop's post and I was amazed. I cant believe the amount of a-holes that beer bong all day long, hit the hard stuff then roll up and down the river. It simply amazes me. Now, back to our/your original discussion.....
Have I driven drunk before Tom? Yep. Poor decision by me. Very poor.
But, do I when I boat? No. Do I when I am around town? No.
Do we need to lynch every person that has a beer, a glass of wine, etc and is under the limit? I dont think so. I just dont like hearing of guys assuming all types of shady behavior for being intoxicated. Again, we dont need citizens arresting citizens based on assumptions.

[THOR]

The point of my original post is that, based on the hypothesis in the original post, there is a strong chance you are either deluded or lying. Perhaps not, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
10% drivers over .08 BAC.... that blows me away.
whoops

[Wet Dream]

It's interesting how futile the discussions about drinking and operating motor vehicles are. There are two opinion camps on this subject and that's that.
Something I take as clear fact on this, but shouldn't, is that people who downplay or support drinking and driving are people who drink and drive. It seems so obvious, I haven't put much thought into it until just now.
I wonder if there is anyone who doesn't drink, who thinks it's OK to drink and drive once in a while. Maybe just a short trip back to the launch ramp and a few miles through town to return home.
The first name that comes to mind is RiverDave. I find Dave's arguments reasonable and logical, largely. They do not, however, seem objective. His arguments, as I understand them, support the idea that a skilled operator can consume some limited quantity of alcohol and still operate a vehicle better than average. This strikes me as reasonable on some level. RD has an OUI so, at least at some point in his life, his situation supports the original hypothesis of this thread.
There is another member of ***boat who drinks and drives. I've seen it. I've heard several others tell me they've seen him. He even posted a story about it. Yet, I've seen him post that he has never, and would never, drink and drive. Further, he has gone on about how little respect he has for people who do so. People even commended him for his position. I wonder if he believes what he's posted? I suspect he does.
When I speculate on the odds that Moneypitt, Wet Dream, and other people who are defensive about OUI, as it relates to boating safety, I would put the odds they've operated a vehicle intoxicated recently at 100%. I'm not talking about what they say they do... I'm talking about real life.
If I were an enforcement officer, I would watch out for people who are quick to question the dangerous effects of alcohol as unproven and overstated. It would not be entirely ethical to watch for their boats on the water and scrutinize them extra closely, but it would be difficult not to.
Opinions? Discussion? Death threats?
Tom, I don't know anything about you, and I generally don't follow any of your threads about dumps. However, you seem to know so much about what I believe, how I act, and what I post. This really does piss me off, but I'm not going to name call here. You have just managed to fall into the same category as some of the others that have their head up their ass in certain subjects. I don't know where the hell you ever got the impression that I support drinking and driving. Find one post where I EVER said it was ok. Take your time. I know full well the AFFECTS (with an A) of alcohol and operating vehicles and motor skills. Last night, I had a friend on mine on for town. My wife and I took him out for a few drinks. I drove down, had a few with my buddy, she drove home. How far did we go? 2/10 of a mile max, maybe less. (you can do the conversion) Now, before you make any other asinine comments, she didn't drink, but I wasn't going to chance it. I haven't been boating much this season, but a few weeks ago, went to the river. I love my beer. I can sit on the porch, relax by the pond, play poker and drink the stock price up in beer. But I take O'Douls to the river. I take 4 NA's and 2 regulars, I try to do my part. We were on the river for almost 7 hours. Again, do the math. So, for the most part, you can take your uninformed comments and make a dump thread about that. Since I know you can't find any posts from me about condoning drunk driving, I will help you out. Alcohol DOES affect (again, with the A) different people in a different way, and a should be recognized when it comes to evaluating an operator. Case in point, there recently was a flight attendant who had a BAC of .03, yet she came off as 1.3 to the camera and the crew and security. Some others at a .03, you couldn't tell. Thats my take.

[THOR]

Wetdream,
Tom posted your name and mine so I guess we are both guilty. Quit bringin rational thinking and logic into this. It just doesnt work. These discussions about alcohol usually turn out like the discussions on religion and politics. One side knows all and condemns the other side if they arent in 100% agreement.

[Jbb]

Tom, I don't know anything about you, and I generally don't follow any of your threads about dumps. However, you seem to know so much about what I believe, how I act, and what I post. This really does piss me off, but I'm not going to name call here. You have just managed to fall into the same category as some of the others that have their head up their ass in certain subjects. I don't know where the hell you ever got the impression that I support drinking and driving. Find one post where I EVER said it was ok. Take your time. I know full well the AFFECTS (with an A) of alcohol and operating vehicles and motor skills. Last night, I had a friend on mine on for town. My wife and I took him out for a few drinks. I drove down, had a few with my buddy, she drove home. How far did we go? 2/10 of a mile max, maybe less. (you can do the conversion) Now, before you make any other asinine comments, she didn't drink, but I wasn't going to chance it. I haven't been boating much this season, but a few weeks ago, went to the river. I love my beer. I can sit on the porch, relax by the pond, play poker and drink the stock price up in beer. But I take O'Douls to the river. I take 4 NA's and 2 regulars, I try to do my part. We were on the river for almost 7 hours. Again, do the math. So, for the most part, you can take your uninformed comments and make a dump thread about that. Since I know you can't find any posts from me about condoning drunk driving, I will help you out. Alcohol DOES affect (again, with the A) different people in a different way, and a should be recognized when it comes to evaluating an operator. Case in point, there recently was a flight attendant who had a BAC of .03, yet she came off as 1.3 to the camera and the crew and security. Some others at a .03, you couldn't tell. Thats my take.
I think Brown should be drug to the curb.....like yesterdays garbage...:mad:

[Riverkid]

Then you should be hung from the highest tree rather than jailed. :D
I have two of those. How about an olive branch?
:D

[Wet Dream]

Wetdream,
Tom posted your name and mine so I guess we are both guilty. Quit bringin rational thinking and logic into this. It just doesnt work. These discussions about alcohol usually turn out like the discussions on religion and politics. One side knows all and condemns the other side if they arent in 100% agreement.
Yes, I'm guilty. ;) I'm trying to be calm in this bombardment of self righteous holier than thou bullcrap. I don't know whats more frustrating, trying to explain myself to a f'ing canadian that takes a dump and finds glory in it, or the fact that I'm arguing with a stupid canadian that takes glory dumps, posts on it, and think he knows me.

[Tom Brown]

I'm trying to be calm in this bombardment of self righteous holier than thou bullcrap.
You're making yourself look more and more intelligent all the time, Wet Dream. :D

[Wet Dream]

You're making yourself look more and more intelligent all the time, Wet Dream. :D
Yet, always a few steps ahead you tom.

[Tom Brown]

Yet, always a few steps ahead you tom.
Perhaps, Wet Dream. Perhaps. :)

[Jbb]

I think Wet Dream is ...............angry.........Angry Wet Dream.....:jawdrop:

[Tom Brown]

Back in university, I lived with a woman who had a violent temper. It would get really crazy and then would get sexual.
It was some really seriously good sex.
.... so I can well understand the lure of an angry wet dream. :cool:

[Wet Dream]

Perhaps, Wet Dream. Perhaps. :)
Awww, come one tom. Don't stop with that. I'm still waiting for you to come back with proof of my condonation of drunk driving. I know you won't find anything. I'm done trying to explain anything to you. You made a dumb ass comment, I'll let it go.

[Wet Dream]

I think Wet Dream is ...............angry.........Angry Wet Dream.....:jawdrop:
Yeah, I am a little pissed. How would you feel if you couldn't leave a toilet on a nice Saturday? I think I had some bad chicken last night, and to top it off, 101 temp, chills, sweats and a stupid canadian to deal with. ;)

[Tom Brown]

Yeah, I am a little pissed. How would you feel if you couldn't leave a toilet on a nice Saturday?
Shitty?
Get well soon, Wet Dream. :cool:
By the way, I still think you're a moron and a tool. I just also send my best wishes for you to feel better soon. :)

[Wet Dream]

Shitty?
I could shit through a screen without hitting it.
Get well soon, Wet Dream. :cool:
I'm trying.
By the way, I still think you're a moron and a tool. I just also send my best wishes for you to feel better soon. :)
The feeling is mutual. canadian sums it all up. I didn't start this tom, you decided to spew your bs and led to you becoming a bigger ass. You were wrong, can't admit it, as far as this stupid little internet argument went, you'er a loser, and you have an unhealthy fascination with shit.

[Rexone]

Yeah, I am a little pissed. How would you feel if you couldn't leave a toilet on a nice Saturday? I think I had some bad chicken last night, and to top it off, 101 temp, chills, sweats and a stupid canadian to deal with. ;)
Wet Dream, in all seriousness if I felt like that the last thing I'd be doing is posting on ***boat and arguing with some dumass Canadian. Get some rest dude and hope you feel better.

[Jbb]

Yeah, I am a little pissed. How would you feel if you couldn't leave a toilet on a nice Saturday? I think I had some bad chicken last night, and to top it off, 101 temp, chills, sweats and a stupid canadian to deal with. ;)
Montezuma's revenge.......AND a dumb Canatard....the only worse scenario I could Imagine.......would be if that Canatard was Hanson.....and you were without the newest version Hanslator....Then you would be sick....and confused....:jawdrop:
But .....Im warming to the Canadians somewhat.....they did invent the very best show on television....:idea:

[Wet Dream]

You guys are great. ;)

[Moneypitt]

When I speculate on the odds that Moneypitt, Wet Dream, THOR, and other people who are defensive about OUI, as it relates to boating safety, I would put the odds they've operated a vehicle intoxicated recently at 100%. I'm not talking about what they say they do... I'm talking about real life.
Tom, just because I refuse to join the "sky is falling" attitude about operating/driving drunk doesn't mean I condone it, nor do I do it. I think alot of RD's arguement has merit when it comes to actual imparement. I haven't operated a boat with any alcohol in my system in over 10 years. I have, and continue to, driven a few blocks from the bar to home after consuming 3 or 4 drinks in 2 or 3 hours. I learned the threshhold of .08 and am very careful to NOT drive until detoxed below the limit. Food, soda, even coffee kill the time while waiting. Just last Saturday night I called a curtesy cab here in town because I didn't want to listen to the shitty music in the bar any longer, and I felt I was probably above the limit.....I do not advocate any type of impared operation of anything. I also have no tolerance for SOBER drivers/operators that hurt and kill people on a daily basis without the stigma that accompanys the same results if a couple of beers were involved. Not everyone has the same tolerance for alcohol, yet the laws have no way to take that into account. To be punished for what MIGHT happen if you drive at .08 is, IMO, wrong. Unless you add anyone with a cell phone within the driver's reach, who knows what could happen if it rings......Or fastfood, or maps, or????.......Tom there alot of things I have done in the past, as I'm sure alot of people could admit to, but endangering, hurting, or killing other people while driving/operating, aren't one of them........MP
PS, Oh and thanks for including me in your discussion.......Ray

[Tom Brown]

I think alot of RD's arguement has merit when it comes to actual imparement.
I agree, Ray.
The original idea behind the thread is that there are certain things I know to be true, that aren't facts. These things may be well studied and well supported, but there is a gray zone in there somewhere.
This topic is extremely polarized. Both sides know they are right. Some people are so convicted, they seem close to violence... or, at least, talk about it.
It strikes me kind of like political views in that the two sides are oil and water. Both sides think it would be wonderful if the other side would just back off.
Somehow, we need to find a way to live together.
Oh.... and you're always welcome in the discussions. :D

[Jbb]

Somehow, we need to find a way to live together.
Somehow......you need to find a way to shut the hell up....:p

[Tom Brown]

You're not particularly in touch with your feelings and shit, are you Brian? :D
Well... I'd like to stay and chat but I am heading out to meet some friends.

[Jbb]

You're not particularly in touch with your feelings and shit, are you Brian? :D
Only when Im drunk....

[Moneypitt]

I agree, Ray.
The original idea behind the thread is that there are certain things I know to be true, that aren't facts. These things may be well studied and well supported, but there is a gray zone in there somewhere.
This topic is extremely polarized. Both sides know they are right. Some people are so convicted, they seem close to violence... or, at least, talk about it.
It strikes me kind of like political views in that the two sides are oil and water. Both sides think it would be wonderful if the other side would just back off.
Somehow, we need to find a way to live together.
Oh.... and you're always welcome in the discussions. :D
Tom, the gray area is based on driving/operating abilities and tolerance to alcohol. Their is no logical way to establish abilities, or lack of abilities, (except if you have wrecks SOBER there is a good chance your abilities are somewhat lacking), so they do the only thing they can, they punish everyone based on the ones with the least abilities. If you can't drive/operate SOBER, a couple of strong whiffs of a wine cork could put you over the edge. So we now punish everyone based on these stats........I feel I have a very good grip on driving/operating because the vehicle/boat is talking to me as I drive it. I build them, tune them, listen to them at all times, (no loud stereos), and as such, I feel, as RD does, "at one with the machine"......Unfortunatly, the legal system has no means to evaluate abilities other than a very basic driving test. How many times have you seen a total dweeb holding up highway traffic because they have never been anywhere but the grocery store before, and now they're on the highway in total fear? I have heard people, people that have been driving cars for years, say they are afraid to pass a big truck!!!!!! I would rajther go down the road with a group of truckers than any group of cars!......I will admit it took me a long time to see the real downside of impared driving, not so long for impared operating......And YES Alan, I know the stats, and I know the imparement is there even if it doesn't feel like it. I sweat the .08 deal so much more now. 30 years ago it was .15 and I traveled thousands of impared miles without, (knock on wood) any accidents or consequences. No more......I will not drink and boat, period, nor will I work on the PS boat while drinking, period.........I do enjoy a couple of cocktails with both of my friends, but moderation is the key..........Ray

[Jbb]

RD.....At one with the Silver Bullet.....:D
http://www.hotboatpics.com/pics/data/500/181rd_21.jpg

[thatguy]

Tom,
There is a third variety of person and probably as many opinions as there are people.
I feel there is a great deal of truth in your statement regarding those defending light drinking and operating vehicles to justify ones own habits. If that is a correct take on your "hypothesis". It is a form of denial. I point no fingers here, since 3 fingers point at ones self when doing that.
For almost 40 years I drank and drove every weekend. My wife and I would go out to clubs resteraunts and socialize like all 20-30+ year olds.
You are correct in that the " I am fine to drive" threshhold raises as one gets older and has never been in any incident.
HOWEVER, at age 41, when I was arrested in Anchorage Alaska for DWI that house of mirrors came crashing down hard. That was 4 1/2 years ago.
Anchorage has by far the harshest penalties for offenders.
I was doing 78 in a 35. Blew a 1.3 and told the cop that I would be glad to blow in his tester since I felt I was not over .08.
Bail= $1500.00
Jail = 30 days with 27 suspended, $95.00 a day charge for jail time on ANY alchohol related conviction in Anchorage.
License = 3 year suspension, or 90 days and 3 years SR22 insurance.
SR22 = $1750.00 every 6 months. Alaska has the some of the highest rates due to collisions in winter. Toatal= $10,500.00
Car= 30 day impound REGARDLESS of ownership
Mine was a rental, so it was impound fees of $1185.00 PLUS 30 day rental.
Total impound charge?= $2150.00
Alcohol awareness= 3 days at $150.00 per day
Fine = $5000.00 w/ $2500 suspended.
MADD lecture = 1 day at $250.00
Alchohol knowledge evaluation and screening(ASAP) =$150.00
Had to fly to Anchorage for EACH phase over 2 months. Missing work and receiving a demotion since my position required current license.
Total cost including 3 years Sr22? = $17,791.00
-1500.00 Bail
= $16,291.00
PLUS airfare and weeks of missed work. (thousands)
That got my attention, in more ways than one. I thought about the countless times I had done it. To the point of not even believing it.
But when those bracelets snap on, the charade is over.
I realized that it was a miricle I had never got killed or killed somebody else.
I could remember many times I was far more drunk than the day of my arrest.
Going of the road and shit like that.
So can say with 100% truth that when I know I will drive, I DO NOT DRINK.
When I go boating I take 2 beers for the whole day. My wife takes a cooler full, but she doesn't drive the boats and I don't drink her brand.
When I get home? I go Hanson if I feel like it!:D :D
I still drink. I love a good throw down. But I know I already got my break and I do not disrespect that.
Rambling aside, my catagory is "a 2beer drinker" who is not a liar or hypocrite.
Probably a lot of us. And many more to follow.
As soon as that first arrest happens, most will change their attitude.
Either by money or the wake up call.
Tommy Sorry for rambling
PS- These are for first offense in Anchorage. You don't want to know the second or third offense penalties!!
AND any DUI on record ANYWHERE OR ANY TIME in your life is considered the first one.

[Boatcop]

Everyone knows my stance on this subject, so I won't bore you with facts.
All I know, is that whatever the reason for not drinking and driving (boats, motor vehicles, etc.), be it because you feel it's the right thing to do or you're concerned with going through something like thatguy did, (Fines, costs, chrome bracelets, etc)........
........The only thing that matters is that you're driving sober.
For those who do that, I sincerely thank you.
For those who don't? Your time will come.
Let's just hope you run into me, rather than some innocent boater.

[Kim Hanson]

I could never eat that....:jawdrop:
Thats the way I eat my steak.........( . )( . )...........Whats wrong with it :confused: can you still se shit stains :D :D

[Tom Brown]

There is a third variety of person and probably as many opinions as there are people.
:cool:
Tommy Sorry for rambling
Please don't be. That was extremely interesting.
One of my brothers recently went through the DUI process. His perspective is massively different than yours.
I've learned a lot from some of these threads. There are perspectives I could have never imagined.
Thats the way I eat my steak.........( . )( . )...........Whats wrong with it :confused: can you still se shit stains :D :D
Nice job, Kim. These losers don't know how to enjoy a good steak.

[hoolign]

:cool:
Please don't be. That was extremely interesting.
One of my brothers recently went through the DUI process. His perspective is massively different than yours.
I've learned a lot from some of these threads. There are perspectives I could have never imagined.
Nice job, Kim. These losers don't know how to enjoy a good steak.
What the hell are you still doing up Brown??:idea:

[Tom Brown]

I just got home. I can hardly keep my eyes open.

[hoolign]

I just got home. I can hardly keep my eyes open.
I'm working nights..and let me tell you it ain't easy staying on top of my job with alll the BS I have to read on here! :)

[Tom Brown]

... let me tell you it ain't easy staying on top of my job with alll the BS I have to read on here! :)
Have you tried drinking heavily?
Give it a go. It might help.

[hoolign]

Have you tried drinking heavily?
Give it a go. It might help.
I haven't been drunk in about 3 weeks +/-. I have one after work typically on these big jobs but that's it.

[27 Awesome cat]

I haven't been drunk in about 3 weeks +/-. I have one after work typically on these big jobs but that's it.
Yeah right.....

[Moneypitt]

Tom,
There is a third variety of person and probably as many opinions as there are people.
I feel there is a great deal of truth in your statement regarding those defending light drinking and operating vehicles to justify ones own habits. If that is a correct take on your "hypothesis". It is a form of denial. I point no fingers here, since 3 fingers point at ones self when doing that.
For almost 40 years I drank and drove every weekend. My wife and I would go out to clubs resteraunts and socialize like all 20-30+ year olds.
You are correct in that the " I am fine to drive" threshhold raises as one gets older and has never been in any incident.
HOWEVER, at age 41, when I was arrested in Anchorage Alaska for DWI that house of mirrors came crashing down hard. That was 4 1/2 years ago.
Anchorage has by far the harshest penalties for offenders.
I was doing 78 in a 35. Blew a 1.3 and told the cop that I would be glad to blow in his tester since I felt I was not over .08.
Bail= $1500.00
Jail = 30 days with 27 suspended, $95.00 a day charge for jail time on ANY alchohol related conviction in Anchorage.
License = 3 year suspension, or 90 days and 3 years SR22 insurance.
SR22 = $1750.00 every 6 months. Alaska has the some of the highest rates due to collisions in winter. Toatal= $10,500.00
Car= 30 day impound REGARDLESS of ownership
Mine was a rental, so it was impound fees of $1185.00 PLUS 30 day rental.
Total impound charge?= $2150.00
Alcohol awareness= 3 days at $150.00 per day
Fine = $5000.00 w/ $2500 suspended.
MADD lecture = 1 day at $250.00
Alchohol knowledge evaluation and screening(ASAP) =$150.00
Had to fly to Anchorage for EACH phase over 2 months. Missing work and receiving a demotion since my position required current license.
Total cost including 3 years Sr22? = $17,791.00
-1500.00 Bail
= $16,291.00
PLUS airfare and weeks of missed work. (thousands)
That got my attention, in more ways than one. I thought about the countless times I had done it. To the point of not even believing it.
But when those bracelets snap on, the charade is over.
I realized that it was a miricle I had never got killed or killed somebody else.
I could remember many times I was far more drunk than the day of my arrest.
Going of the road and shit like that.
So can say with 100% truth that when I know I will drive, I DO NOT DRINK.
When I go boating I take 2 beers for the whole day. My wife takes a cooler full, but she doesn't drive the boats and I don't drink her brand.
When I get home? I go Hanson if I feel like it!:D :D
I still drink. I love a good throw down. But I know I already got my break and I do not disrespect that.
Rambling aside, my catagory is "a 2beer drinker" who is not a liar or hypocrite.
Probably a lot of us. And many more to follow.
As soon as that first arrest happens, most will change their attitude.
Either by money or the wake up call.
Tommy Sorry for rambling
PS- These are for first offense in Anchorage. You don't want to know the second or third offense penalties!!
AND any DUI on record ANYWHERE OR ANY TIME in your life is considered the first one.
And where are the severe penalities for the SOBER killers that have not killed yet? To punish someone for something that "could" happen is just wrong, when we let people off AFTER the fact they have KILLED people SOBER!! Someone, anyone justify that to me and I will forever remain silent on this issue...........RAY

[hoolign]

Yeah right.....
What do ya mean yeah right? Read up on critical sour wells and decide if they seem like a good idea to come to work hung over on! :rolleyes:

[thatguy]

And where are the severe penalities for the SOBER killers that have not killed yet? To punish someone for something that "could" happen is just wrong, when we let people off AFTER the fact they have KILLED people SOBER!! Someone, anyone justify that to me and I will forever remain silent on this issue...........RAY
Very good point and I do not disagree with you. But I do not think EVERYBODY walks away without penalty if they cause injury while sober.
Tommy

[thatguy]

Everyone knows my stance on this subject, so I won't bore you with facts.
All I know, is that whatever the reason for not drinking and driving (boats, motor vehicles, etc.), be it because you feel it's the right thing to do or you're concerned with going through something like thatguy did, (Fines, costs, chrome bracelets, etc)........
........The only thing that matters is that you're driving sober.
For those who do that, I sincerely thank you.
For those who don't? Your time will come.
Let's just hope you run into me, rather than some innocent boater.
Well said ,Sir.
Tommy

[thatguy]

Thats the way I eat my steak.........( . )( . )...........Whats wrong with it :confused: can you still se shit stains :D :D
ABSOLUTLEY!!!!!
In fact, it looks as though it is a little well done. :D Tommy

[KLEPTOW]

Tom,
There is a third variety of person and probably as many opinions as there are people.
I feel there is a great deal of truth in your statement regarding those defending light drinking and operating vehicles to justify ones own habits. If that is a correct take on your "hypothesis". It is a form of denial. I point no fingers here, since 3 fingers point at ones self when doing that.
For almost 40 years I drank and drove every weekend. My wife and I would go out to clubs resteraunts and socialize like all 20-30+ year olds.
You are correct in that the " I am fine to drive" threshhold raises as one gets older and has never been in any incident.
HOWEVER, at age 41, when I was arrested in Anchorage Alaska for DWI that house of mirrors came crashing down hard. That was 4 1/2 years ago.
Anchorage has by far the harshest penalties for offenders.
I was doing 78 in a 35. Blew a 1.3 and told the cop that I would be glad to blow in his tester since I felt I was not over .08.
Bail= $1500.00
Jail = 30 days with 27 suspended, $95.00 a day charge for jail time on ANY alchohol related conviction in Anchorage.
License = 3 year suspension, or 90 days and 3 years SR22 insurance.
SR22 = $1750.00 every 6 months. Alaska has the some of the highest rates due to collisions in winter. Toatal= $10,500.00
Car= 30 day impound REGARDLESS of ownership
Mine was a rental, so it was impound fees of $1185.00 PLUS 30 day rental.
Total impound charge?= $2150.00
Alcohol awareness= 3 days at $150.00 per day
Fine = $5000.00 w/ $2500 suspended.
MADD lecture = 1 day at $250.00
Alchohol knowledge evaluation and screening(ASAP) =$150.00
Had to fly to Anchorage for EACH phase over 2 months. Missing work and receiving a demotion since my position required current license.
Total cost including 3 years Sr22? = $17,791.00
-1500.00 Bail
= $16,291.00
PLUS airfare and weeks of missed work. (thousands)
That got my attention, in more ways than one. I thought about the countless times I had done it. To the point of not even believing it.
But when those bracelets snap on, the charade is over.
I realized that it was a miricle I had never got killed or killed somebody else.
I could remember many times I was far more drunk than the day of my arrest.
Going of the road and shit like that.
So can say with 100% truth that when I know I will drive, I DO NOT DRINK.
When I go boating I take 2 beers for the whole day. My wife takes a cooler full, but she doesn't drive the boats and I don't drink her brand.
When I get home? I go Hanson if I feel like it!:D :D
I still drink. I love a good throw down. But I know I already got my break and I do not disrespect that.
Rambling aside, my catagory is "a 2beer drinker" who is not a liar or hypocrite.
Probably a lot of us. And many more to follow.
As soon as that first arrest happens, most will change their attitude.
Either by money or the wake up call.
Tommy Sorry for rambling
PS- These are for first offense in Anchorage. You don't want to know the second or third offense penalties!!
AND any DUI on record ANYWHERE OR ANY TIME in your life is considered the first one.
Posting this took a lot of guts, I commend you for opening up and letting others learn from your miss step.
If you boat at the Zoo, and anything was to ever happen to one of your two Beers I would be proud to give you one of my two..........Beers
Brian.

[Wet Dream]

We get it tom. :rolleyes: Everybody that drinks and drives is wrong. Whether its one or 20, we're all the same in your eyes, legal or not. tom, you're still a loser with a shit fettish.

[thatguy]

Posting this took a lot of guts, I commend you for opening up and letting others learn from your miss step.
If you boat at the Zoo, and anything was to ever happen to one of your two Beers I would be proud to give you one of my two..........Beers
Brian.
Gracias!
Tommy

[thatguy]

Tom, just because I refuse to join the "sky is falling" attitude about operating/driving drunk doesn't mean I condone it, nor do I do it. I think alot of RD's arguement has merit when it comes to actual imparement. I haven't operated a boat with any alcohol in my system in over 10 years. I have, and continue to, driven a few blocks from the bar to home after consuming 3 or 4 drinks in 2 or 3 hours. I learned the threshhold of .08 and am very careful to NOT drive until detoxed below the limit. Food, soda, even coffee kill the time while waiting. Just last Saturday night I called a curtesy cab here in town because I didn't want to listen to the shitty music in the bar any longer, and I felt I was probably above the limit.....I do not advocate any type of impared operation of anything. I also have no tolerance for SOBER drivers/operators that hurt and kill people on a daily basis without the stigma that accompanys the same results if a couple of beers were involved. Not everyone has the same tolerance for alcohol, yet the laws have no way to take that into account. To be punished for what MIGHT happen if you drive at .08 is, IMO, wrong. Unless you add anyone with a cell phone within the driver's reach, who knows what could happen if it rings......Or fastfood, or maps, or????.......Tom there alot of things I have done in the past, as I'm sure alot of people could admit to, but endangering, hurting, or killing other people while driving/operating, aren't one of them........MP
PS, Oh and thanks for including me in your discussion.......Ray
Can we all agree that drunks are easier to spot? A much easier target.
My experience with the legal proceedings made one fact VERY clear. DUI penalties are a huge cash cow. NOT ONCE during the whole affair was any mention made by any authority figure about the dangers or potential for disaster. ONLY about how much money was going to be taken from me.
Yes, sober people cause wrecks and damage and death. But drunks are easy pickings.
And if you drive drunk, you will get caught and you will pay eventually. One way or another.
I am not preaching at all, it is just a simple fact.
Remember, no matter WHO causes a wreck, the party with blood alcohol present will be faulted every time. And raked over 3 ways from Sunday.
Ain't gonna be me.
Tommy :D :D :D

[Tom Brown]

One of the things that's tough to believe is how accurate LEO's assessments can be. I would have never believed it, had I not seen it.
A long time buddy was a cop until a few years ago and he can tell if someone is drunk in just a few seconds. Either walking or driving, he could tell.
It's hard to fathom but he could look at a weaving car and tell if the car has front end issues, a drunk driver, or both. When you're trained to look for it, it's really not that tough.
In fact, I would put his accuracy rate at being correct around 49 out of 50. Maybe higher. Everyone should have to ride out with a LEO and watch them spot drunks. I suspect it would lower people's confidence in being able to evade detection.
Hey Wet Dream, how is the shitting going?

[pw_Tony]

I think the difference between the sober driver killing people and the drinking drive killing people is different. If you're sober and kill someone you were either being an idiot, or it was an accident. But if you're driving a boat drunk then it could have been prevented by not drinking, but of course I don't know how much drinking you guys are talking about, so I'm just figuriing the drinker is drunk.
Having a friend killed on a jet ski being run over by a boater, and an uncle ran over by a boat and barely survived from a drunk driver, I'm very much against drunk driving boats, cause it has hit close to home for me.
But I don't believe a boat driver shouldn't have a beer at the sand bar, a beer doesn't make a man drunk, several tequila shots do, or beer bongs.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Tom, just because I refuse to join the "sky is falling" attitude about operating/driving drunk doesn't mean I condone it, nor do I do it. I think alot of RD's arguement has merit when it comes to actual imparement. I haven't operated a boat with any alcohol in my system in over 10 years. I have, and continue to, driven a few blocks from the bar to home after consuming 3 or 4 drinks in 2 or 3 hours. I learned the threshhold of .08 and am very careful to NOT drive until detoxed below the limit. Food, soda, even coffee kill the time while waiting. Just last Saturday night I called a curtesy cab here in town because I didn't want to listen to the shitty music in the bar any longer, and I felt I was probably above the limit.....I do not advocate any type of impared operation of anything. I also have no tolerance for SOBER drivers/operators that hurt and kill people on a daily basis without the stigma that accompanys the same results if a couple of beers were involved. Not everyone has the same tolerance for alcohol, yet the laws have no way to take that into account. To be punished for what MIGHT happen if you drive at .08 is, IMO, wrong. Unless you add anyone with a cell phone within the driver's reach, who knows what could happen if it rings......Or fastfood, or maps, or????.......Tom there alot of things I have done in the past, as I'm sure alot of people could admit to, but endangering, hurting, or killing other people while driving/operating, aren't one of them........MP
PS, Oh and thanks for including me in your discussion.......Ray
Not everyone has the same tolerance for alcohol, yet the laws have no way to take that into account. To be punished for what MIGHT happen if you drive at .08 is, IMO, wrong
Ray,
So is it your belief that DUI or OUI should not be based on one's blood alcohol and those at .15 who can pass a FST, should not be considered DUI?
The problem I have with this is that it is scientific that a persons reflex's and senses dull, concurrently with blood alcohol level.
While this has no bearing on this issue, have you ever been cited for DUI? My guess would be no.
Also, are you an alcoholic in denial?
And where are the severe penalities for the SOBER killers that have not killed yet? To punish someone for something that "could" happen is just wrong, when we let people off AFTER the fact they have KILLED people SOBER!! Someone, anyone justify that to me and I will forever remain silent on this issue...........RAY
And where are the severe penalities for the SOBER killers that have not killed
Sober drivers are not killers. Accidents kill. Drunk driving is no accident
It is fact that a drunk driver is far less likely to be able to avoid an accident and in many cases alcohol causes collision. Drunk drivers are bad drivers, who made the choice to be a bad driver.
Trying to make a case in support of drunk driving shares similar logic with supporting no speed limits in school zones.
Traffic LAWS are, in most cases, about traffic safety. It is against the LAW, drive at .08 and above, PERIOD. If you saw some lunitic driving 90 MPH through a school zone, where your kid or grand kid crosses the street, would you say, let him slide because he didn't kill anyone? BTW, the driver in this example feels the same way about speed laws as you feel about DUI laws. Please open your eyes while you still can.

[Boatcop]

USA - A report from the U.S. Department of Transportation says that Arizona, Kansas and Texas had the greatest increases in the number of drunken driving deaths last year. In Arizona, 585 people died in alcohol-related crashes in 2006, compared to 508 in 2005. Deaths in alcohol-related crashes accounted for 45% of the 1,288 people killed in crashes in Arizona in 2006, up from 43% in 2005. In Arizona in 2006, 409 of the crash deaths involved drivers and motorcycle operators with blood-alcohol levels of .08% or higher, up 34 from 375 in 2005.
Texas also had the largest actual number of drunken driving deaths with a total of 1,354. Florida, Missouri and Pennsylvania had the greatest decreases in drunken driving deaths last year, while the District of Columbia, Alaska and Delaware had the largest percentage decreases compared with 2005.
Federal transportation officials announced the statistics while they unveiled an $11-million nationwide advertising campaign against drunken driving, under the slogan "Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest." They also announced plans to launch a new national law enforcement crackdown.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters appealed to the judicial branch to use all of the tools it has available to keep drunk driving offenders off the roads. She also emphasized the costs of drunk driving in America.
“We see far too many people suffer tragic injuries and loss of their loved ones as a result of drunk driving. This careless disregard for human life must stop,” Secretary Peters said.
In 2006, 13,470 fatalities occurred in crashes involving at least one driver or motorcycle operator who had a .08 or above Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) compared with 13,582 in 2005. Secretary Peters emphasized the critical role the judicial system plays in solving this national problem.

[sorry dog]

Mr. Brown must be lacking some conflict in his life lately...
I see a close parallel between this subject and ALL sins that God forgives us for.
At least for the Fish Eaters... they do the sin...they go confess doing the sin in front of god and promise to do better...and then most likely go do it again...and maybe toss a few dollars in the plate.
BTW - I have been influenced while operating various motorized and unmotorized machines. I think it's not smart from a practical point of view... but sometimes sure is fun...or a byproduct of fun
Is it worth increasing risk to my life or others? That's a moral question that has a different answer for different people...and that doesn't even have to do anything with DUI...could be driving 120 down a marginal two lane for the fun of it or to show off...I've done that to. It was fun at the time, but pretty stupid.
...Just the other day I got a seat belt ticket...after drinking two beers...hell the bottle was open in the car... I finished it off after he left. Good thing the state is protecting me from myself:D
Bottom line for me is I don't want to get caught or cause any damage but there is a hell of a lot of hypocracy mixed in this shit from my point of view and most everybody else's too.
For me recognizing it as such keeps me from giving too much of shit about it.

[Kachina26]

For almost 40 years I drank and drove every weekend.
HOWEVER, at age 41, when I was arrested in Anchorage Alaska for DWI that house of mirrors came crashing down hard. That was 4 1/2 years ago.
First off, very sobering post, no pun intended. Second, 4 1/2 years ago, you were 41, which makes you around 45, no? So are we to understand that you have been drinking and driving since the age of 5? Or was there just a typo there?

[Tom Brown]

I see a close parallel between this subject and ALL sins that God forgives us for.
Praise God.
I've learned quite a bit from this discussion. It would seem I've even made a couple of new friends. I don't think Wet Dream is one of them, though. :D

[thatguy]

Tom, just because I refuse to join the "sky is falling" attitude about operating/driving drunk doesn't mean I condone it, nor do I do it. I think alot of RD's arguement has merit when it comes to actual imparement. I haven't operated a boat with any alcohol in my system in over 10 years. I have, and continue to, driven a few blocks from the bar to home after consuming 3 or 4 drinks in 2 or 3 hours. I learned the threshhold of .08 and am very careful to NOT drive until detoxed below the limit. Food, soda, even coffee kill the time while waiting. Just last Saturday night I called a curtesy cab here in town because I didn't want to listen to the shitty music in the bar any longer, and I felt I was probably above the limit.....I do not advocate any type of impared operation of anything. I also have no tolerance for SOBER drivers/operators that hurt and kill people on a daily basis without the stigma that accompanys the same results if a couple of beers were involved. Not everyone has the same tolerance for alcohol, yet the laws have no way to take that into account. To be punished for what MIGHT happen if you drive at .08 is, IMO, wrong. Unless you add anyone with a cell phone within the driver's reach, who knows what could happen if it rings......Or fastfood, or maps, or????.......Tom there alot of things I have done in the past, as I'm sure alot of people could admit to, but endangering, hurting, or killing other people while driving/operating, aren't one of them........MP
PS, Oh and thanks for including me in your discussion.......Ray
Ray,
While I understand the philosophical principles of your arguement. I must say that I see it slightly different.
When a person is arrested for being over the legal limit, I think that the arrest is for violating a hard and fast law. Not for "what might happen". It is for what HAS happened, ie: drinking then driving.
It is not a conspiracy charge, it is a violation charge.
While the principles of judging each level of personal impairment may be the "according to Hoyle" fairest method of determining charges or not, it is wholly unfeasible in practice.
The stats show that, as a WHOLE, DUI is a killer. The .08 has been determined as the enforcible limit. Right or wrong.
It is noteworthy that the few states that were at .10 have lowered to the .08 after statistical review showed it to lower fatalities proportionately.
(Not to mention greatly increase state revenue!! :D )
Frankly, while you make a valid point. It is idealistic and not practicle in enforcement. IMHO
Respectfully, Tommy

[sorry dog]

USA - A report from the U.S. Department of Transportation says that Arizona, Kansas and Texas had the greatest increases in the number of drunken driving deaths last year. In Arizona, 585 people died in alcohol-related crashes in 2006, compared to 508 in 2005. Deaths in alcohol-related crashes accounted for 45% of the 1,288 people killed in crashes in Arizona in 2006, up from 43% in 2005. In Arizona in 2006, 409 of the crash deaths involved drivers and motorcycle operators with blood-alcohol levels of .08% or higher, up 34 from 375 in 2005.
Texas also had the largest actual number of drunken driving deaths with a total of 1,354. Florida, Missouri and Pennsylvania had the greatest decreases in drunken driving deaths last year, while the District of Columbia, Alaska and Delaware had the largest percentage decreases compared with 2005.
Federal transportation officials announced the statistics while they unveiled an $11-million nationwide advertising campaign against drunken driving, under the slogan "Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest." They also announced plans to launch a new national law enforcement crackdown.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters appealed to the judicial branch to use all of the tools it has available to keep drunk driving offenders off the roads. She also emphasized the costs of drunk driving in America.
“We see far too many people suffer tragic injuries and loss of their loved ones as a result of drunk driving. This careless disregard for human life must stop,” Secretary Peters said.
In 2006, 13,470 fatalities occurred in crashes involving at least one driver or motorcycle operator who had a .08 or above Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) compared with 13,582 in 2005. Secretary Peters emphasized the critical role the judicial system plays in solving this national problem.
The problem with stats like this is you know don't know how much subjectiveness went into the making of the stat...so alchohol related wrecks went up from 43% to 45%. So define alcohol related...was it just there? did it play some role? Was it the proximate cause? It there an objective system to decide what percent of the cause it likely contributed too?
...oh and even assuming statistical collection methodology hasn't changed, are these differences even significant.
Sorry to screw with you on this subject...I'm real negative on all these type of stats...I don't watch network news much anymore (especially those investigative type stories) because they throw these numbers out there that seem to show some kind of story but you are never really given enough information to know if there's really something going on or it is just bullshit.
I've done enough surveys and data crunching to realize that I can manipulate an outcome by showing some causations, leaving some out, altering the parameters of the test, introducing biased groups/ questions, etc.
Unfortunately I think a lot of folks don't have the patience to really understand the stats they often form their opinions around.

[thatguy]

First off, very sobering post, no pun intended. Second, 4 1/2 years ago, you were 41, which makes you around 45, no? So are we to understand that you have been drinking and driving since the age of 5? Or was there just a typo there?
LOL!!,
Yeah, I knew somebody would do the math the moment I posted it!!:D :D
I am 45, the 40 years was an age deal. I started driving at 14. Thats what it was then in AK. Started drinking beer at keggers as soon as I could drive myself there. :) But that whole time it was only on weekends. weird, I know. Just another reason I thought it was OK.
Tommy

[sorry dog]

Praise God.
I've learned quite a bit from this discussion. It would seem I've even made a couple of new friends. I don't think Wet Dream is one of them, though. :D
So did you go to church today and ask for forgiveness to our savior Jesus Christ?
Let us pray...
O GOD, whose nature and property is ever to have mercy and to forgive, receive our humble petitions; and though we be tied and bound with the chain of our sins, yet let the pitifulness of thy great mercy loose us; for the honour of Jesus Christ, our Mediator and Advocate. Amen.

[Tom Brown]

Amen..... and shit. :cool:

[Ultracrazy]

:( Alan, for all you do to educate these numskulls on drinking / driving, thier never gonna get it, you know why, because they all have that it'll never happen to me mentality !!!:( :(
Ding, ding,ding.......on the money.

[Ultracrazy]

A long time buddy was a cop until a few years ago and he can tell if someone is drunk in just a few seconds. Either walking or driving, he could tell.
I can't tell you how many times I've been told "I only had two beers and I can't feel the affects" and then they blow a .10 and higher. When you tell them their BA they get the deer in the headlights look. You know why? Because they are under the influence people. You ever try to reason with someone that has been drinking? It's comedy at it's best.
But hey.......go on and have that 1 or 2 or 3 drinks and then drive because you feel you're alright.........I could use the OT.

[Tom Brown]

You ever try to reason with someone that has been drinking?
Yes.
I take it you haven't been following this thread. :D

[sorry dog]

You know why? Because they are under the influence people. You ever try to reason with someone that has been drinking?
It's called bench racers.

[Moneypitt]

There is no easy answer to this. A FST is just additional evidence to be manipulated by the AO, and you are better off refusing to do any road side gymastics. My disagreement is with the grouping at .08. To assume everyone is equally impared, and unable to safely operate at .08 leaves alot to be desired.[/B]
The problem I have with this is that it is scientific that a persons reflex's and senses dull, concurrently with blood alcohol level
This "science" is flawed. To assume everyone, regardless of ability, training, and experience is, once again, grouped together to the lowest skill level is wrong.
While this has no bearing on this issue, have you ever been cited for DUI? My guess would be no.
Also, are you an alcoholic in denial?
Yes, and No
Sober drivers are not killers. Accidents kill. Drunk driving is no accident.
Oh so it is OK to kill sober because it was an "accident"?? Any accident is a result of someones error in judgement. It is OK to make errors sober, even if it results in an accident? If you do harm to another, drunk or sober, you should be held accountable, period.
it is fact that a drunk driver is far less likely to be able to avoid an accident and in many cases alcohol causes collision. Drunk drivers are bad drivers, who made the choice to be a bad driver.
How often was a sober driver at fault? And even another sober driver could not have avoided the error in judgement of the first sober driver. They call this an accident, mix a couple of beers and they call it an arrest.
Trying to make a case in support of drunk driving shares similar logic with supporting no speed limits in school zones.
I have stated over and over I do not advocate drunk or impared driving, so this is moot.
Traffic LAWS are, in most cases, about traffic safety. It is against the LAW, drive at .08 and above, PERIOD. If you saw some lunitic driving 90 MPH through a school zone, where your kid or grand kid crosses the street, would you say, let him slide because he didn't kill anyone? BTW, the driver in this example feels the same way about speed laws as you feel about DUI laws. Please open your eyes while you still can.
The examples you cite are off base. Most .08 drivers would not be a direct threat to anyone, 90 in a school zone is a direct threat. I guess we can relate a .08 driver to a moron talking on a cell phone. If everything goes right, no problem, but anything unusual happens and both could be a danger. Yet we punish the .08 for what might happen and not the distracted cell user?.....
Again, I DO NOT ADVOCATE IMPARED DRIVING....My truck was left at the bar last night, I took a cab home. Was I impared? YES!.......But my judgement was intact...........Compare a $10 cab fare to the case noted above....Even $50. would be cheap in comparision......MP

[Tom Brown]

...we can relate a .08 driver to a moron talking on a cell phone.
Around here, holding a cell phone to your head while driving is illegal and carries penalties. I wouldn't want to get into an accident with witnesses describing me with a cell phone at my ear while I was driving. Being a moron is perfectly legal in most instances, though.

[Ultracrazy]

Yes.
I take it you haven't been following this thread. :D
Opps.......good call.

[thatguy]

The examples you cite are off base. Most .08 drivers would not be a direct threat to anyone, 90 in a school zone is a direct threat. I guess we can relate a .08 driver to a moron talking on a cell phone. If everything goes right, no problem, but anything unusual happens and both could be a danger. Yet we punish the .08 for what might happen and not the distracted cell user?.....
Again, I DO NOT ADVOCATE IMPARED DRIVING....My truck was left at the bar last night, I took a cab home. Was I impared? YES!.......But my judgement was intact...........Compare a $10 cab fare to the case noted above....Even $50. would be cheap in comparision......MP
I am confused. How can you say most drivers at .08 are not a direct threat to anyone, then say you do not advocate impaired driving?
Furthermore, how can you say you were impaired last night, yet your judgment was intact?
It is clear that you knew to take a cab, but were ALL your decisions sound?
Moot point. Society has laws for the good of the whole, at least in theory.
Any driver at .08 is at least somewhat impaired. The cops on here are laughing at this argument. They see this every day and night.
Did you say that you had a DUI? Or was that someone else?
Not calling you out, I think this discussion and debate will make ALL of us think of this next time we launch, regardless of our positions.
Tommy

[THOR]

[B]I could use the OT.
Instead of looking for OT, I would be looking for some good karma. Making comments like that isnt very nice.

[Kyote]

Instead of looking for OT, I would be looking for some good karma. Making comments like that isnt very nice.
Maybe nobody cares what you think. "Your not a Lawyer", Remember!

[Moneypitt]

I am confused. How can you say most drivers at .08 are not a direct threat to anyone, then say you do not advocate impaired driving...
Just because the law was written at .08 doesn't mean that level is a lethal number. Some are so confused with the law that they think .08 is legally drunk. It isn't. It is only a number established to indicate alleged imparement while driving/operating. If the stats were available to show how many .08 arrests were not the result of an accident, unsafe operation, or even a traffic infraction, just a fishing expedition by LE after a car/truck/boat leaves a bar. The issue if probable cause is at an all time low, if not gone altogether....
Furthermore, how can you say you were impaired last night, yet your judgment was intact?
It is clear that you knew to take a cab, but were ALL your decisions sound?
I knew I was impaired based on consumption. Not fall down drunk. Could I have driven home, yes. Was it a good idea, No. So far I haven't had any regrets from my actions last night, so I guess I did OK in other judgements/decisions as well.....
Moot point. Society has laws for the good of the whole, at least in theory.
Any driver at .08 is at least somewhat impaired. The cops on here are laughing at this argument. They see this every day and night.
Did you say that you had a DUI? Or was that someone else?
Not calling you out, I think this discussion and debate will make ALL of us think of this next time we launch, regardless of our positions.
Tommy
Yes, this is a discussion, and if just one death/injury is prevented by it we have made a step in the right direction. The idea that LE is laughing is probably correct. Laughing because it is so easy for them to make an arrest based on .08, regardless of actual imparement. Laughing because no matter what is said here the law will not be changed. From a legal standpoint a driver with a .079 is not guilty, or, by law, impared, but add .001 and now he/she is impared?.......A very fine line there, wouldn't you agree.....MP

[THOR]

Maybe nobody cares what you think. "Your not a Lawyer", Remember!
Maybe, but Karma is a bitch. Remember?

[Kyote]

Maybe, but Karma is a bitch. Remember?
NO But Safety must be first. I'm am sometimes impaired and I haven't even had a drink. Do unsafe things and LE can and will find the correct words to place on the citation. Mouth off and they can find even more words. Maybe that's Karma, I'm not sure. I just refer to it as the real world.

[THOR]

You are out of your mind if I stroll up to a LEO and say, "hey, I just saw this guy breaking the law, will you arrest him?" You actually think a LEO will just take your word for it? Furthermore, if you are impaired and are totally sober, please sell your boat.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The examples you cite are off base. Most .08 drivers would not be a direct threat to anyone, 90 in a school zone is a direct threat. I guess we can relate a .08 driver to a moron talking on a cell phone. If everything goes right, no problem, but anything unusual happens and both could be a danger. Yet we punish the .08 for what might happen and not the distracted cell user?.....
Again, I DO NOT ADVOCATE IMPARED DRIVING....My truck was left at the bar last night, I took a cab home. Was I impared? YES!.......But my judgement was intact...........Compare a $10 cab fare to the case noted above....Even $50. would be cheap in comparision......MP
Nothing is flawed about the science on this issue. The science states that everyone is impaired at .08. It does not state the degree. DUI laws are related to driving while impaired.
You state that you don't advocate driving while impaired, and then admit to having three or four and driving a short distance home from the bar.
Your judgement last night seems based on the issue of the potential cost rather than your perception with regard to your ability to drive. At least you comprehend the potential finiancial penalties of DUI.
It seems fairly obvious that no amount of logic will ever change your view with regard to driving at .08 and above. The fact that you require more than .08 to get buzzed, suggests that you are more than a social drinker. But this is also something that you won't agree with, at least not yet.
To be punished for what MIGHT happen if you drive at .08 is, IMO, wrong I don't care how you try to justify it, being punished for driving over the speed limit, is no different.
Bottom line is that we all have to follow the the same set of rules or pay the price.

[Moneypitt]

Nothing is flawed about the science on this issue. The science states that everyone is impaired at .08. It does not state the degree. DUI laws related to driving while impaired.
You state that you don't advocate driving while impaired, and then admit to having three or four and driving a short distance home from the bar.
Your judgement last night seems based on the issue of the potential cost rather than your perception with regard to your ability to drive. At least you comprehend the potential finiancial penalties of DUI.
It seems fairly obvious that no amount of logic will ever change your view with regard to driving at .08 and above. The fact that you require more than .08 to get buzzed, suggests that you are more than a social drinker. But this is also something that you won't agree with, at least not yet.
To be punished for what MIGHT happen if you drive at .08 is, IMO, wrong I don't care how you try to justify it, being punished for driving over the speed limit, is no different.
Bottom line is that we all have to follow the the same set of rules or pay the price.
I stated clearly having 3 or 4 in 2 PLUS hours....That, my scientific friend, is under .08....And just to be clear, the law purtaining to .08 does not require or imply impairment, just .08 or more is against the law.
Additionally, I never stated it took more or less of anything to "get buzzed". I don't drink to get buzzed. I drink socially. Your continued assumption that I must be an alcoholic in denial is way off base. I do not have a problem with alcohol. Ever since I got hooked on drugs alcohol is no longer a factor in my addictions........Explain how .079 is different from .08...........MP

[Kyote]

You are out of your mind if I stroll up to a LEO and say, "hey, I just saw this guy breaking the law, will you arrest him?" You actually think a LEO will just take your word for it? Furthermore, if you are impaired and are totally sober, please sell your boat.
Why would I be out of my mind if you stroll up to a LEO and say, "hey, I just saw this guy breaking the law, will you arrest him?"?
BTW-The LEO does not have to take my word for it. I can make a Citizens Arrest in the presence of a LEO and they must act on it. If it is shown that I lied then I would be arrested.
You are not going to get off that easy THOR!
I am usually a little impaired when I wake up in the morning.

[THOR]

Why would I be out of my mind if you stroll up to a LEO and say, "hey, I just saw this guy breaking the law, will you arrest him?"?
BTW-The LEO does not have to take my word for it. I can make a Citizens Arrest in the presence of a LEO and they must act on it. If it is shown that I lied then I would be arrested.
You are not going to get off that easy THOR!
I am usually a little impaired when I wake up in the morning.
Kyote, you are missing something called "proof".
Thor- just got off that easy.

[Kyote]

Kyote, you are missing something called "proof".
Thor- just got off that easy.
Thor - I know that you are a little slow and it takes several responses before your lightbulb illuminates.
Actually I was just a little bored today (not impaired) and decided to pull someones chain.
You bit, it has been fun and I'm not bored anymore. Thanks.

[thatguy]

Yes, this is a discussion, and if just one death/injury is prevented by it we have made a step in the right direction. The idea that LE is laughing is probably correct. Laughing because it is so easy for them to make an arrest based on .08, regardless of actual imparement. Laughing because no matter what is said here the law will not be changed. From a legal standpoint a driver with a .079 is not guilty, or, by law, impared, but add .001 and now he/she is impared?.......A very fine line there, wouldn't you agree.....MP
Yes, it is a fine line. But there in fact has to be a line somewhere. Would you agree? It is my understanding that below that line, an arrest can still be made depending on the LEO discretion as to the impairment?
I predict that line will be lowered even more. Such as it is already for holders of CDL's.
The potential revenue is incalculable and this fact is not lost on the legal system and state politicians. They will use statistics, but it will be an easy sell.
Eventually any level of blood alcohol will be illegal while operating, I would say. Or at least a very low percentage. Revenue may drive the decision, but the results will also be less alcohol related mishaps. No way around it.
I guess as a whole, society just can't handle the sauce as well as you! :) ;)
Sorry you are penalized for it. :)
Tommy

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I stated clearly having 3 or 4 in 2 PLUS hours....That, my scientific friend, is under .08....And just to be clear, the law purtaining to .08 does not require or imply impairment, just .08 or more is against the law.
Additionally, I never stated it took more or less of anything to "get buzzed". I don't drink to get buzzed. I drink socially. Your continued assumption that I must be an alcoholic in denial is way off base. I do not have a problem with alcohol. Ever since I got hooked on drugs alcohol is no longer a factor in my addictions........Explain how .079 is different from .08...........MP
I don't drink to get buzzed.
I drink socially
Your continued assumption that I must be an alcoholic in denial is way off base
I do not have a problem with alcohol
Ever since I got hooked on drugs alcohol is no longer a factor in my addictions
?????
Explain how .079 is different from .08
.08 is definetely impaired and against the law and .079 is only a maybe.
FYI, I understand addiction quite well and in no way do I have the right to judge you or anyone else.
Ray, you have the ball.

[THOR]

Thor - I know that you are a little slow and it takes several responses before your lightbulb illuminates.
Actually I was just a little bored today (not impaired) and decided to pull someones chain.
You bit, it has been fun and I'm not bored anymore. Thanks.
Its your excuse, tell it however you like. On a serious note though, sell your boat.

[Kyote]

Its your excuse, tell it however you like. On a serious note though, sell your boat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by THOR
If you have one beer and operate, does that mean you are operating illegally, or just operating while under the influence. I have never been told what the difference was. Lets say you were pulled over and blew a .02. What does this mean?
If you don't know the answer to this. You should sell your boat.

[THOR]

:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by THOR
If you have one beer and operate, does that mean you are operating illegally, or just operating while under the influence. I have never been told what the difference was. Lets say you were pulled over and blew a .02. What does this mean?
If you don't know the answer to this. You should sell your boat.

[Moneypitt]

I guess as a whole, society just can't handle the sauce as well as you! :) ;)
Tommy
Years ago, maybe, but I make no claims to be any different from society at large. Moderation is the key, be it beers or big macs.......I agree it is the only system we have......right or wrong, and I strive to be on the legal side of the numbers game....MP

[Trailer Park Casanova]

We're camped on the beach in Parker right now. About 30 ft from the water, boat at anchor.
This morning, we were woke with a knock at the door.
I answered it and it was a couple standing there, the guy put his hand out to shake mine.
I stepped outta the trailer, and the guy proceeded to apologize.
Our boat is a standout, easy to find us.
Yesterday, I was queing up the boat to pull one of the kids skiing, I was correct in my direction (rotation) on the water. I looked 360 degrees all clear,, I then took off full throttle looking into the rear mirror until my skier hits plane,, then I look ahead & back off the throttle and hit the speed set.
Wife with the flag up looking at on-coming (rear) correct rotation traffic.
A wrong way Sea Doo with one rider shot off the beach against traffic & was pulling a raft with three little girls on it.
He was doing approx 40 MPH, wrong way into our blindside, head on, and he was looking backwards the witnesses all say.
I barely saw his image through the reflections of my Starboard windshield and slammed the ZF transmission into full reverse.
Yeah, you can put a ZF into reverse at speed.
It save his and his kids lives.
My passengers were all sitting backwards facing the skier. Most our seats are reverse facing, so all was well aboard our boat in it's panic stop.
We heard screams on the beach, and we just missed the guy on the Sea Doo by inches.
Had I been drinking, our 5000 Lb boat would have creamed them at a total combined speed of perhaps 55 MPH.
The guy reaching out to shake my hand was the wrong-way Sea Doo driver.
His group had been drinking margaritas & snorting cocaine all day on the beach, and he was shit faced during the on-the-water encounter.
We know this because they offered us a drink and a snort.
He and his wife apologized sinceerly.
It was life changing for them I hope.
Word here can't describe this incident,, they really can't.
It's changed on the water. Something is different than in the past.
------------------------
We had an in-the-water-incident a day earlier with a blue and white deckboat.
We saw the boat at Road Runner the next day, and I stopped by to chat with the driver.
We thought it was two guys, but in fact, the guys wife had a short haircut and looked like a guy.
I asked them if they were on the water headed to the dam the day before at about 4:00 PM.
Yep it was them.
They weren't drinking as we talked this visit, because just before their trip to the dam the day of our incident, they downed 2 Road Rapers, and were still in pain being tweekers and all. So it was just lunch this meal.
We talked furthur and they had no recall of our encounter.
----------------------------
I agree with RiverDaves take too.
Of all the people I've met in my life, RD has to be at the top of my 10 list as the most decent, and one of the most influential I've ever met.
----------------------------------
I quit drinking behind the wheel a few years back.
I've been boating and drifting down the river since 1959 and have seen some big changes in that time.
My change came when a British family in a Natique pulled up close to me and politely mentioned I may not be in a condition to operate a boat.
They were right.
I was going through hell with my ex, I took an Ativan, and had a beer before I launched the boat.
I had my son take the helm, and I've never been impared behind the wheel since.
Later we met the family at Fox's and they told me I was pulling in front of people oblivious to the world.
Does this make me a hyppocryte to comment on drunk boaters today? Damfino, but I know I'm no longer one of them, and that's what matters.
---------------------------------
Other changes I've observed boating and floating down the river and on Havasu are the big over 27 foot boats.
They rarely slow down for anyone. I never see it.
Some how they feel they have a special permit to go full throttle down the river not slowing for swimming children, groups of party boaters, PWC's they slow for no one or nothing.
It's not Sunset Harbor to Avalon across the wide open San Pedro Channel, its a narrow river full of other boaters they're threading a needle through.
We see them get shitfaced at the floating bars then take off full throttle through groups of boats.
Anyone that denys that can say it walkin'.
People swimming in the river, and water skiers have always been here along the river since WW2.
It's always been an ocean since before wakeboard boats or PWC's.
And we've always had drunk boaters too.
But now, we also have the powder users.
Lots of Crystal and Dust & Ice users on the water and on the HB board.
We've met a few. It's usually those on the board that troll the threads and start shit with others.
Powder abuse is way, way bigger than anyone wants to admit.
We meet them in person, it all comes out.
Their wife confides to mine they want treatment, or they're trying to kick it,, or it's obvious.
I'm a 60's flower child & been through the drug infested ranks of the USMC and worked with meth and dust users and I know a tweeker when I'm talking to one.
Powder coupled with alcohol on the water, we're at their mercy when behind the wheel of their boats.

[Tom Brown]

Fantastic post, Ross. :)
There are perspectives being shared that I would never have been able to imagine, had I not seen them through other's eyes. :cool:
People swimming in the river, and water skiers have always been here along the river since WW2.
It's always been an ocean since before wakeboard boats or PWC's.
And we've always had drunk boaters too.
One of the things that's changed since WW2 is that now any 20' family boat with a small block stern drive will do 60 mph. There are PWCs that will do 60 mph. Put more watercraft, going much faster, in the same space and something has to give.

[sorry dog]

Does this make me a hyppocryte to comment on drunk boaters today? Damfino, but I know I'm no longer one of them, and that's what matters.
---------------------------------
Other changes I've observed boating and floating down the river and on Havasu are the big over 27 foot boats.
They rarely slow down for anyone. I never see it.
Some how they feel they have a special permit to go full throttle down the river not slowing for swimming children, groups of party boaters, PWC's they slow for no one or nothing.
Yes, you're a hypocrit. But you recognize it, so I guess that's OK...Ever thought about running for public office?

[Kyote]

Yes, a great post Ross.
And thanks for your service.

[sorry dog]

Fantastic post, Ross. :)
One of the things that's changed since WW2 is that now any 20' family boat with a small block stern drive will do 60 mph. There are PWCs that will do 60 mph. Put more watercraft, going much faster, in the same space and something has to give.
...and cars have gotten much faster and there are many more of then... but the number of deaths per mile driven have decreasing lately.
Here's an except from a NTSB speech this year:
Alabama unlike other States has a full operator license with a testing requirement. Boat operators could test out and receive a license, However, many applicants failed the test and have had to take a boating education course. Most boaters in Alabama opted to take a boating safety course. The results of Alabama’s education and license initiative have seen fatalities reduced by 40 percent over the past 5 years. The program includes all recreational boat operators. Alabama officials report that boating education which 95 percent of Alabama’s boaters complete to take the test has made a difference in their fatality numbers.
I'm never for more regulation unless it prevents even more restrictive regulation. In this case I recommend the license deal...anybody who's been around boat for a while can pass the test after skimming the rule book first...and it discourages the total newbies on jetski as they either don't ride or operate more cautiously to avoid Popo attention.
One thing that really surprises me is that we were the first state to implement it. We're usually a clusterf uck when it comes to laws... I think our constitution is like 700 amendments long or something like that.
BTW - most boating deaths in our state involve drowned fishermen.

[thatguy]

TPC, I think that is the most brutally honest observation yet.
I know this will stir a confrontation, but does it seem that the younger crowd is better able to afford newer, nicer, bigger boats than say 15 years ago?
Please don't read this wrong, I am not calling young people addicts! That has no age requirement or limits.
What I mean is that the number of boats with young fun-loving thrill seekers and adrenaline junkies seems to be a lot higher these days.
When I was in my 20's I could not even dream of owning a real performance boat of any kind, let alone a 50K plus barnstormer.
Now it seems to be the norm. In general I see less experience and faster bigger boats. Or am I wrong?
Tommy
PS- Old people like me still like to party, we are just too tired most of the time!! :D :D

[thatguy]

...and cars have gotten much faster and there are many more of then... but the number of deaths per mile driven have decreasing lately.
Here's an except from a NTSB speech this year:
Alabama unlike other States has a full operator license with a testing requirement. Boat operators could test out and receive a license, However, many applicants failed the test and have had to take a boating education course. Most boaters in Alabama opted to take a boating safety course. The results of Alabama’s education and license initiative have seen fatalities reduced by 40 percent over the past 5 years. The program includes all recreational boat operators. Alabama officials report that boating education which 95 percent of Alabama’s boaters complete to take the test has made a difference in their fatality numbers.
I'm never for more regulation unless it prevents even more restrictive regulation. In this case I recommend the license deal...anybody who's been around boat for a while can pass the test after skimming the rule book first...and it discourages the total newbies on jetski as they either don't ride or operate more cautiously to avoid Popo attention.
One thing that really surprises me is that we were the first state to implement it. We're usually a clusterf uck when it comes to laws... I think our constitution is like 700 amendments long or something like that.
BTW - most boating deaths in our state involve drowned fishermen.
Those are impressive numbers. Training is always a better option than restrictions, that is for sure!
BTW, I heard most drowned fishermen are found with their zippers open, fell in while pissing out beer. Is that true?:jawdrop: :confused:
Tommy

[sorry dog]

BTW, I heard most drowned fishermen are found with their zippers open, fell in while pissing out beer. Is that true?:jawdrop: :confused:
Tommy
Recently heard the same thing from an insurance man ... and you know those guys always tell the truth.

[little rowe boat]

Before I was in my current profession, I felt that drinking and operating any type of motor vehicle was ok and that I could tell when I should and should not operate a vehicle. It did not take me very long to realize that these activities should not be mixed at all. Too many people are killed, crippled, left motherless,fatherless,childless because of the people that thought they could tell when they should or should not be operating a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol.

[MADDOG355]

XXXXX number of people are killed yearly in alcohol related in accidents.
That is the soapbox that is commonly used to suport this argument.
Now lets look at some actual accidents.
Friday night major street 2 men had just left a bar, They are stopped at a stop light sitting in the truck and rearended by a SOBER distracted driver. The truck was hit so hard it slid into cross traffic , was hit agian in the passenger side and the pasenger was killed.
This wreck was reported as alcohol related and the driver of the truck was charged with vehicular manslaughter (he was over the limit). The SOBER driver that acually coused the collision recived a failure to yeld citation.
Tuesday afternoon guy has a drink with friends after work, Going home he stops to make a left turn and his car is rearended by a pickup going about 50 at impact. The car travels into oncommimg traffic and he is hit by a suburban and killed.
Agian it is listed a alcohol related.
I have more but don't feel like writing all the specifics.
I did find it interesting a few years ago I was at a beach with about 10 other boats, most people there were drinking and a TWRA Officer (they are the law on the water here) pulls up. He walks around and hands out copies of the boating regs answers questions looks at some of the boats says have a nice day and splits! Now I know this guy he is a retired sherriff deputy and our own version of Buford T Justice!! I am thinking yep he will be waiting down river to clean house! Nope he Waved as everyone went by.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

XXXXX number of people are killed yearly in alcohol related in accidents.
That is the soapbox that is commonly used to suport this argument.
Now lets look at some actual accidents.
Friday night major street 2 men had just left a bar, They are stopped at a stop light sitting in the truck and rearended by a SOBER distracted driver. The truck was hit so hard it slid into cross traffic , was hit agian in the passenger side and the pasenger was killed.
This wreck was reported as alcohol related and the driver of the truck was charged with vehicular manslaughter (he was over the limit). The SOBER driver that acually coused the collision recived a failure to yeld citation.
Tuesday afternoon guy has a drink with friends after work, Going home he stops to make a left turn and his car is rearended by a pickup going about 50 at impact. The car travels into oncommimg traffic and he is hit by a suburban and killed.
Agian it is listed a alcohol related.
I have more but don't feel like writing all the specifics.
I did find it interesting a few years ago I was at a beach with about 10 other boats, most people there were drinking and a TWRA Officer (they are the law on the water here) pulls up. He walks around and hands out copies of the boating regs answers questions looks at some of the boats says have a nice day and splits! Now I know this guy he is a retired sherriff deputy and our own version of Buford T Justice!! I am thinking yep he will be waiting down river to clean house! Nope he Waved as everyone went by.
Don't need a soapbox, OUI and DUI are against the law.

[ratso]

And where are the severe penalities for the SOBER killers that have not killed yet? To punish someone for something that "could" happen is just wrong, when we let people off AFTER the fact they have KILLED people SOBER!! Someone, anyone justify that to me and I will forever remain silent on this issue...........RAY
Amen...;)

[thatguy]

XXXXX number of people are killed yearly in alcohol related in accidents.
That is the soapbox that is commonly used to suport this argument.
Now lets look at some actual accidents.
Friday night major street 2 men had just left a bar, They are stopped at a stop light sitting in the truck and rearended by a SOBER distracted driver. The truck was hit so hard it slid into cross traffic , was hit agian in the passenger side and the pasenger was killed.
This wreck was reported as alcohol related and the driver of the truck was charged with vehicular manslaughter (he was over the limit). The SOBER driver that acually coused the collision recived a failure to yeld citation.
Tuesday afternoon guy has a drink with friends after work, Going home he stops to make a left turn and his car is rearended by a pickup going about 50 at impact. The car travels into oncommimg traffic and he is hit by a suburban and killed.
Agian it is listed a alcohol related.
I have more but don't feel like writing all the specifics.
I did find it interesting a few years ago I was at a beach with about 10 other boats, most people there were drinking and a TWRA Officer (they are the law on the water here) pulls up. He walks around and hands out copies of the boating regs answers questions looks at some of the boats says have a nice day and splits! Now I know this guy he is a retired sherriff deputy and our own version of Buford T Justice!! I am thinking yep he will be waiting down river to clean house! Nope he Waved as everyone went by.
Now here is the flip side. The 2 men in the truck intoxicated should have never been on the road. THAT is why he got charged.
Like has been said over and over on here. IT DOES NOT MATTER who caused what LEGALLY. The person with blood alcohol WILL be held responsible.
I can not think of a better example why not to drink and drive.
Well, the list is actually a long one, but that is near the top. Don't forget, many if not all insurance companies deny claims if you are DUI.
I am sure someone here knows more about that than I do.
So, it IS alcohol related. The arguments for the poor intoxicated victim (RIP) just will not fly in the blood and bone real world. Someone here suggested riding with a cop for a shift or longer. That and a field trip to the morgue may convince you. There is a very good reason that the LEO's and EMT's, coroners, etc. think it is ridiculous, and it has NOTHING to do with statistics. It has to do with seeing it first hand time and time again.
I know many of you will never see it that way until you are involved in it and experience it first hand somehow. If you drink and drive you will get your' chance. One way or another.
Yes, many other things cause wrecks and death's. Stupidity and recklessness
are top's. BUT DUI can be legislated, stupidity is a much harder to legislate.
Please think about all these posts regardless of your view. This discussion is a very good thing and I am not trying to convince anybody of anything.
Heightened awareness is always a plus and I think all of us have put at least some thought into this subject in the last few days. :) :)
Tommy ;)
"Lets be careful out there!"

[Flyinbowtie]

TPC, I think that is the most brutally honest observation yet.
I know this will stir a confrontation, but does it seem that the younger crowd is better able to afford newer, nicer, bigger boats than say 15 years ago?
Please don't read this wrong, I am not calling young people addicts! That has no age requirement or limits.
What I mean is that the number of boats with young fun-loving thrill seekers and adrenaline junkies seems to be a lot higher these days.
When I was in my 20's I could not even dream of owning a real performance boat of any kind, let alone a 50K plus barnstormer.
Now it seems to be the norm. In general I see less experience and faster bigger boats. Or am I wrong?
Tommy
PS- Old people like me still like to party, we are just too tired most of the time!! :D :D
There is a lot of truth to this. Cheap money in general has put toys within reach of folks who in the past wouldn't have the ability to reach them, due to lack of age, lack of job skill$, etc. Young people generally are not in touch with their own mortality to begin with. Mix in some liquid courage and we are all in trouble.
We seem to beat the alcohol deal to parade rest on here.
I don't at all see the connection comparison to a sober driver screwing up and getting into a accident which kills someone and an impaired driver who gets into an accident and kills someone, other than someody is dead in both cases.
The impaired driver raised the odds on the outcome when he/she got behind the wheel intentionally, after consuming something that has imparied their skills.
The .08 deal again, has been beat to death. Impairment is the word here, folks. .08 is a threshold number, that is all. It is a number which has been scientifically proven that people who reach it have suffered a degree of impairment in the skills necessary to drive a car.
Some folks look at this like it is the cops out to get eveybody that has two glasses of wine with dinner. This ain't the case, people.
DUI law is written by the people we elect to represent us in our state legislatures. These folks are responding to their constituents, because they want to get re-elected. They respond to people who have just buried a family member killed by an impaired driver, and by groups of survivors of DUI vicitims. The laws get written, and the cops enforce them. These people in the legislature require damn near a nuclear blast to get them off of their asses, so beleive me when I tell you they wouldn't do a damn thing without prodding, and they get prodded by us, the peoples out here in the real world.
Now, I'll grant you something.
I didn't like impaired drivers when I was working the streets.
I couldn't stand them, and felt good every time I took one off the street, or heard another officer make an arrest.
You see, I was a deputy sheriff/deputy coroner.
I couldn't stand them because I got tired of dragging bodies out of twisted piles of rubble.
I got tired of the smell of burned flesh.
I got tired of looking into a wreck, seeing a doll or a Tonka truck, and knowing I was going to find a dead child someplace, either in the wreck, in a tree, or in a ditch.
I got tired of wondering when I went to work on a Friday night if one of the DUI's that got away that night was going to require me to go tell some mother/father that their child, their spouse, etc. was dead.
I got tired of dreading the witching hour, when the bars closed, of worrying if another truck was going to loose it on an off-ramp with 3 or 4 beautiful young women in it, and take out a light standard at 60 MPH, killing them all in the process.
I got tired of looking in places in cars and cuverts, and other places where human bodies shoudn't fit, and finding them there.
I got tired of smelling booze and feces inside high impact wrecks where bladders and intestines have exploded.
The .079 or .08 deal out in the real world, doesn't mean a damn thing.
A good cop who is a certfied Drug Recognition Expert and who has worked DUI for a year or so is going to have the entire investigative process down to a fine art. The successfull DUI defense attorneys out there can only look for holes in the investigative process, or argue about sliding/climbing BA.
The slimeball defense attorney, ever mindful of his hourly court rate, talks alot to run the clock and impress his client, and they know who the rookie cops are and how to go after them.
The rest of the cases they work out deals on.
The vast majority of the DUI arrests I made were not even close; they were usually north of .12-.13, and yes, even a cop with a year or so knows what an impaired driver looks like going down the road. It isn't rocket science. If you didn't take the FST's, that was cool with me, the driving act I had before the lights ever got turned on was probable cause for the stop, and the arrest if I determine you have been drinking. Refuse the B.A. test? fine, we still make the case, and the implied consent law costs you your license.
Take the FST's and pass, you probably go home or get a ride there from me if I am worried about you.
Dead and or maimed/crippled human beings is what this is all about.
There are too many of them, and the poor bastard who is the first one on scene, who hears the screams of the dying, and later the screams of those they leave behind, are tired of the deaths that didn't need to happen.
Booze is invloved in lots of those.
If enough of the voting public believes that driving while impaired is becoming too much of a cash cow for cops/government, or that people who have a few snorts and drive are being picked on or discriminated against, then they'll get together and make their run at the folks in the big white building at the state house, and see if they can take some pressure of off.
I don't think that is gonna happen, tho.
It is really hard to forget some of the things ya see and smell and haveta do out there; none of the folks I worked with have found a way to forget.
Wish to hell I could.

[thatguy]

There is a lot of truth to this. Cheap money in general has put toys within reach of folks who in the past wouldn't have the ability to reach them, due to lack of age, lack of job skill$, etc. Young people generally are not in touch with their own mortality to begin with. Mix in some liquid courage and we are all in trouble.
We seem to beat the alcohol deal to parade rest on here.
I don't at all see the connection comparison to a sober driver screwing up and getting into a accident which kills someone and an impaired driver who gets into an accident and kills someone, other than someody is dead in both cases.
The impaired driver raised the odds on the outcome when he/she got behind the wheel intentionally, after consuming something that has imparied their skills.
The .08 deal again, has been beat to death. Impairment is the word here, folks. .08 is a threshold number, that is all. It is a number which has been scientifically proven that people who reach it have suffered a degree of impairment in the skills necessary to drive a car.
Some folks look at this like it is the cops out to get eveybody that has two glasses of wine with dinner. This ain't the case, people.
DUI law is written by the people we elect to represent us in our state legislatures. These folks are responding to their constituents, because they want to get re-elected. They respond to people who have just buried a family member killed by an impaired driver, and by groups of survivors of DUI vicitims. The laws get written, and the cops enforce them. These people in the legislature require damn near a nuclear blast to get them off of their asses, so beleive me when I tell you they wouldn't do a damn thing without prodding, and they get prodded by us, the peoples out here in the real world.
Now, I'll grant you something.
I didn't like impaired drivers when I was working the streets.
I couldn't stand them, and felt good every time I took one off the street, or heard another officer make an arrest.
You see, I was a deputy sheriff/deputy coroner.
I couldn't stand them because I got tired of dragging bodies out of twisted piles of rubble.
I got tired of the smell of burned flesh.
I got tired of looking into a wreck, seeing a doll or a Tonka truck, and knowing I was going to find a dead child someplace, either in the wreck, in a tree, or in a ditch.
I got tired of wondering when I went to work on a Friday night if one of the DUI's that got away that night was going to require me to go tell some mother/father that their child, their spouse, etc. was dead.
I got tired of dreading the witching hour, when the bars closed, of worrying if another truck was going to loose it on an off-ramp with 3 or 4 beautiful young women in it, and take out a light standard at 60 MPH, killing them all in the process.
I got tired of looking in places in cars and cuverts, and other places where human bodies shoudn't fit, and finding them there.
I got tired of smelling booze and feces inside high impact wrecks where bladders and intestines have exploded.
The .079 or .08 deal out in the real world, doesn't mean a damn thing.
A good cop who is a certfied Drug Recognition Expert and who has worked DUI for a year or so is going to have the entire investigative process down to a fine art. The successfull DUI defense attorneys out there can only look for holes in the investigative process, or argue about sliding/climbing BA.
The slimeball defense attorney, ever mindful of his hourly court rate, talks alot to run the clock and impress his client, and they know who the rookie cops are and how to go after them.
The rest of the cases they work out deals on.
The vast majority of the DUI arrests I made were not even close; they were usually north of .12-.13, and yes, even a cop with a year or so knows what an impaired driver looks like going down the road. It isn't rocket science. If you didn't take the FST's, that was cool with me, the driving act I had before the lights ever got turned on was probable cause for the stop, and the arrest if I determine you have been drinking. Refuse the B.A. test? fine, we still make the case, and the implied consent law costs you your license.
Take the FST's and pass, you probably go home or get a ride there from me if I am worried about you.
Dead and or maimed/crippled human beings is what this is all about.
There are too many of them, and the poor bastard who is the first one on scene, who hears the screams of the dying, and later the screams of those they leave behind, are tired of the deaths that didn't need to happen.
Booze is invloved in lots of those.
If enough of the voting public believes that driving while impaired is becoming too much of a cash cow for cops/government, or that people who have a few snorts and drive are being picked on or discriminated against, then they'll get together and make their run at the folks in the big white building at the state house, and see if they can take some pressure of off.
I don't think that is gonna happen, tho.
It is really hard to forget some of the things ya see and smell and haveta do out there; none of the folks I worked with have found a way to forget.
Wish to hell I could.
And there you have it. VERY well put, Sir. I salute you.
Tommy

[Some Kind Of Monster]

There is a lot of truth to this. Cheap money in general has put toys within reach of folks who in the past wouldn't have the ability to reach them, due to lack of age, lack of job skill$, etc. Young people generally are not in touch with their own mortality to begin with. Mix in some liquid courage and we are all in trouble.
We seem to beat the alcohol deal to parade rest on here.
I don't at all see the connection comparison to a sober driver screwing up and getting into a accident which kills someone and an impaired driver who gets into an accident and kills someone, other than someody is dead in both cases.
The impaired driver raised the odds on the outcome when he/she got behind the wheel intentionally, after consuming something that has imparied their skills.
The .08 deal again, has been beat to death. Impairment is the word here, folks. .08 is a threshold number, that is all. It is a number which has been scientifically proven that people who reach it have suffered a degree of impairment in the skills necessary to drive a car.
Some folks look at this like it is the cops out to get eveybody that has two glasses of wine with dinner. This ain't the case, people.
DUI law is written by the people we elect to represent us in our state legislatures. These folks are responding to their constituents, because they want to get re-elected. They respond to people who have just buried a family member killed by an impaired driver, and by groups of survivors of DUI vicitims. The laws get written, and the cops enforce them. These people in the legislature require damn near a nuclear blast to get them off of their asses, so beleive me when I tell you they wouldn't do a damn thing without prodding, and they get prodded by us, the peoples out here in the real world.
Now, I'll grant you something.
I didn't like impaired drivers when I was working the streets.
I couldn't stand them, and felt good every time I took one off the street, or heard another officer make an arrest.
You see, I was a deputy sheriff/deputy coroner.
I couldn't stand them because I got tired of dragging bodies out of twisted piles of rubble.
I got tired of the smell of burned flesh.
I got tired of looking into a wreck, seeing a doll or a Tonka truck, and knowing I was going to find a dead child someplace, either in the wreck, in a tree, or in a ditch.
I got tired of wondering when I went to work on a Friday night if one of the DUI's that got away that night was going to require me to go tell some mother/father that their child, their spouse, etc. was dead.
I got tired of dreading the witching hour, when the bars closed, of worrying if another truck was going to loose it on an off-ramp with 3 or 4 beautiful young women in it, and take out a light standard at 60 MPH, killing them all in the process.
I got tired of looking in places in cars and cuverts, and other places where human bodies shoudn't fit, and finding them there.
I got tired of smelling booze and feces inside high impact wrecks where bladders and intestines have exploded.
The .079 or .08 deal out in the real world, doesn't mean a damn thing.
A good cop who is a certfied Drug Recognition Expert and who has worked DUI for a year or so is going to have the entire investigative process down to a fine art. The successfull DUI defense attorneys out there can only look for holes in the investigative process, or argue about sliding/climbing BA.
The slimeball defense attorney, ever mindful of his hourly court rate, talks alot to run the clock and impress his client, and they know who the rookie cops are and how to go after them.
The rest of the cases they work out deals on.
The vast majority of the DUI arrests I made were not even close; they were usually north of .12-.13, and yes, even a cop with a year or so knows what an impaired driver looks like going down the road. It isn't rocket science. If you didn't take the FST's, that was cool with me, the driving act I had before the lights ever got turned on was probable cause for the stop, and the arrest if I determine you have been drinking. Refuse the B.A. test? fine, we still make the case, and the implied consent law costs you your license.
Take the FST's and pass, you probably go home or get a ride there from me if I am worried about you.
Dead and or maimed/crippled human beings is what this is all about.
There are too many of them, and the poor bastard who is the first one on scene, who hears the screams of the dying, and later the screams of those they leave behind, are tired of the deaths that didn't need to happen.
Booze is invloved in lots of those.
If enough of the voting public believes that driving while impaired is becoming too much of a cash cow for cops/government, or that people who have a few snorts and drive are being picked on or discriminated against, then they'll get together and make their run at the folks in the big white building at the state house, and see if they can take some pressure of off.
I don't think that is gonna happen, tho.
It is really hard to forget some of the things ya see and smell and haveta do out there; none of the folks I worked with have found a way to forget.
Wish to hell I could.
Good post!
This thread really makes you think.. both ways..

[River Lynchmob]

I not unlike many people on these boards have been legally intoxicated while driving. That all came to an end thanks to the La Paz County Sheriff 3 years ago. I subscribed to the RD theory that I have been driving a boat for so many years I KNOW that I can drive better than most while intoxicated. I do not think that way anymore. Nothing Life shattering happened, nothing like TPC's story I was pulled over in front of Roadrunner idleing down river. I blew a .17 and had the bracelets put on me and did my night in the Parker jail. I did this, but not to this extenty driving a car as well, albeit 2 or 3. For some reason at the river I did it to a greater extent. While in there you have a lot of time to think. You start off thinking I was fine I could have made it home no problem. Then you start thinking everything happens for a reason. Maybe I was pulled over, got this OUI instead of driving home and hitting another boater. Then it hits you out of the blue that that was a very real possibility and you find yourself somewhat relieved that you are sitting there having that revelation instead of sitting there thinking "what have I done"
Sure the money you have to spend hiring an attorney, taking the boating safety classes, the alcohol awareness classes and taking time off of work to drive out there hurts. But in the long run I look at it as money well spent on an education that only experience can teach. Luckily this education came only at my monitary expense and not at someone elses expense. As I am sure you can imagine I don't drink and drive anything anymore.
I am not going to stand here at browbeat anyone as to what's right and wrong. I just hope that people can learn their lesson as easy as I learned mine...and I do think that I got off easy, not as far as money is concerned or punishment but the lesson.

[thatguy]

I not unlike many people on these boards have been legally intoxicated while driving. That all came to an end thanks to the La Paz County Sheriff 3 years ago. I subscribed to the RD theory that I have been driving a boat for so many years I KNOW that I can drive better than most while intoxicated. I do not think that way anymore. Nothing Life shattering happened, nothing like TPC's story I was pulled over in front of Roadrunner idleing down river. I blew a .17 and had the bracelets put on me and did my night in the Parker jail. I did this, but not to this extenty driving a car as well, albeit 2 or 3. For some reason at the river I did it to a greater extent. While in there you have a lot of time to think. You start off thinking I was fine I could have made it home no problem. Then you start thinking everything happens for a reason. Maybe I was pulled over, got this OUI instead of driving home and hitting another boater. Then it hits you out of the blue that that was a very real possibility and you find yourself somewhat relieved that you are sitting there having that revelation instead of sitting there thinking "what have I done"
Sure the money you have to spend hiring an attorney, taking the boating safety classes, the alcohol awareness classes and taking time off of work to drive out there hurts. But in the long run I look at it as money well spent on an education that only experience can teach. Luckily this education came only at my monitary expense and not at someone elses expense. As I am sure you can imagine I don't drink and drive anything anymore.
I am not going to stand here at browbeat anyone as to what's right and wrong. I just hope that people can learn their lesson as easy as I learned mine...and I do think that I got off easy, not as far as money is concerned or punishment but the lesson.
My Brother. See, I knew there was more of us out there!
My story was close, but in a car. Glad it was only time and money.
Tommy

[River Lynchmob]

My Brother. See, I knew there was more of us out there!
My story was close, but in a car. Glad it was only time and money.
Tommy
I know many many people that this has happened to that have done the same things we have as far as not drinking and driving anything anymore. The other side of this story, unfortunately is that I know a lot of people that just contiuned the same way as though nothing happened. Hopefully I won't be around them when their reckoning comes.

[MADDOG355]

Now here is the flip side. The 2 men in the truck intoxicated should have never been on the road. THAT is why he got charged.
Someone here suggested riding with a cop for a shift or longer. That and a field trip to the morgue may convince you. There is a very good reason that the LEO's and EMT's, coroners, etc. think it is ridiculous, and it has NOTHING to do with statistics. It has to do with seeing it first hand time and time again.
Just for the record I was a Firefighter, First Responder, TN Certified Extracation Technician for about 12 years, And have cut my fair shair of patients out of wrecks.
My position is drinking within your limits is acceptable. I am aganst the .08 standard for the simple reason, Just like prescription drugs. I have a script for hydrocodone, My nephew has the same script I outweigh him buy a good 75 pounds yet it screws me up much worse than him. Yet alcohol is just the opposite.
I just do not get the "He was drinking so it was his fault" mentality.

[thatguy]

Just for the record I was a Firefighter, First Responder, TN Certified Extracation Technician for about 12 years, And have cut my fair shair of patients out of wrecks.
My position is drinking within your limits is acceptable. I am aganst the .08 standard for the simple reason, Just like prescription drugs. I have a script for hydrocodone, My nephew has the same script I outweigh him buy a good 75 pounds yet it screws me up much worse than him.
What would you suggest as an enforcable alternative? Leaving it up to the LEO's discretion? I can only imagine THAT debate! :D
Seriously, there has to be a line somewhere. As posted earlier, lobby your state politicians, see if you get anywhere.
Frankly, and with all due respect, I find it difficult to believe you disagree with the BAL after cutting people out of cars.
How do you feel an enforcable standard should be managed? I am truly curious.
BTW, having a set limit can help you guys who do drink and drive. A friend I had got off of his charges because when it went to trial, it was revield he had blown a .07 at the time of booking. After failing FST.
Judge let him go.
How would ones personal limit be established? Have more each time until crashing? Then subtract one beer from that?
Tommy

[centerhill condor]

you know, we're saving all these people with air bags and everybody complains about cell phones, make up, being drunk, high, etc...maybe if we put air bayonettes in place of air bags people would drive like their lives depended on it....not just the other guys.
CC

[Moneypitt]

XXXXX number of people are killed yearly in alcohol related in accidents.
This wreck was reported as alcohol related and the driver of the truck was charged with vehicular manslaughter (he was over the limit). The SOBER driver that acually coused the collision recived a failure to yeld citation.
Tuesday afternoon guy has a drink with friends after work, Going home he stops to make a left turn and his car is rearended by a pickup going about 50 at impact. The car travels into oncommimg traffic and he is hit by a suburban and killed.
[QUOTE=ULTRA26 # 1;2757987]Don't need a soapbox, OUI and DUI are against the law.
Based on those two stories, that is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Sure they're against the law, but so is ramming someone from behind!!! And causing a death!! Neither impared driver was the cause of these "alcohol related" traffic deaths, the SOBER drivers should have gotten mega time in prison, not the impared guy who was just sitting there!!
Now here is the flip side. The 2 men in the truck intoxicated should have never been on the road. THAT is why he got charged.
And the guys that hit them SHOULD have been on the road??? If those two sober drivers weren't on the road, those people may still be alive!!!!!
Like has been said over and over on here. IT DOES NOT MATTER who caused what LEGALLY. The person with blood alcohol WILL be held responsible.
This is so wrong.....
Yes, many other things cause wrecks and death's. Stupidity and recklessness
are top's. BUT DUI can be legislated, stupidity is a much harder to legislate.
The law needs to address the "taking of a life", drunk or sober, the punishment should be very close to the same. The victims are just as dead!!
Please think about all these posts regardless of your view. This discussion is a very good thing and I am not trying to convince anybody of anything.
Heightened awareness is always a plus and I think all of us have put at least some thought into this subject in the last few days. :) :)
Tommy ;)
"Lets be careful out there!"
Agreed..........MP

[thatguy]

[QUOTE=MADDOG355;2757943]XXXXX number of people are killed yearly in alcohol related in accidents.
This wreck was reported as alcohol related and the driver of the truck was charged with vehicular manslaughter (he was over the limit). The SOBER driver that acually coused the collision recived a failure to yeld citation.
Tuesday afternoon guy has a drink with friends after work, Going home he stops to make a left turn and his car is rearended by a pickup going about 50 at impact. The car travels into oncommimg traffic and he is hit by a suburban and killed.
Based on those two stories, that is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Sure they're against the law, but so is ramming someone from behind!!! And causing a death!! Neither impared driver was the cause of these "alcohol related" traffic deaths, the SOBER drivers should have gotten mega time in prison, not the impared guy who was just sitting there!!
Agreed..........MP
I am not a legal expert, MP, but I do read about people being convicted of vehicular manslaughter quite often. People who were not intoxicated at the time of the wreck.
Are you sure everyone gets off of charges just for being sober? The laws ARE there for them also. I do not think they are as overlooked as you believe.
Or am I wrong?
If you pull some bonehead move and kill someone, you will be held accountable, even if sober. I think.
A DUI arrest is just that, not a "you will kill someone arrest". The .08 can be debated all day, but it is not going away.
I really hate sounding all preachy, but for MOST of those who think they know their limit, they are sadly mistaken and will be educated one day. Sadly.
I pose the question again for those who are in favor of "personal tolerance" enforcement. How will ones personal limit be established, and how would you have it enforced by LEO?
Tommy
PS- I like your style!

[Moneypitt]

If a sober person is involved in an "accident" causing a death, yes they can be charged/convicted. There is a very high threshold of negligence required for a felony to be charged, and a sober person, convicted, or pleading guilty, is far less likely to get any serious prison time/license revocation/heavy fines.....But the victims are just as dead. The families have the same grief...Those two cases are clearly examples of how the system is broken....And I reiterate, What about the sober drivers that kill????? How do we prevent those deaths?....Maybe LE should spend as much time looking for sober, underskilled drivers, as they do spent looking for the dollar producing duece.....Ever been behind someone that was a true hazard? A true hazard to everyone, but legal?.......You never see the 60 MPH #1 lane driver get stopped. But hundreds of others have to swerve around them....But again, the LEs are too busy looking for the speeders to even notice the dweebs....I closing, I advocate equal justice for anyone killed by another, drunk or sober.......They are still dead........MP

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Now here is the flip side. The 2 men in the truck intoxicated should have never been on the road. THAT is why he got charged.
Like has been said over and over on here. IT DOES NOT MATTER who caused what LEGALLY. The person with blood alcohol WILL be held responsible.
I can not think of a better example why not to drink and drive.
Well, the list is actually a long one, but that is near the top. Don't forget, many if not all insurance companies deny claims if you are DUI.
I am sure someone here knows more about that than I do.
So, it IS alcohol related. The arguments for the poor intoxicated victim (RIP) just will not fly in the blood and bone real world. Someone here suggested riding with a cop for a shift or longer. That and a field trip to the morgue may convince you. There is a very good reason that the LEO's and EMT's, coroners, etc. think it is ridiculous, and it has NOTHING to do with statistics. It has to do with seeing it first hand time and time again.
I know many of you will never see it that way until you are involved in it and experience it first hand somehow. If you drink and drive you will get your' chance. One way or another.
Yes, many other things cause wrecks and death's. Stupidity and recklessness
are top's. BUT DUI can be legislated, stupidity is a much harder to legislate.
Please think about all these posts regardless of your view. This discussion is a very good thing and I am not trying to convince anybody of anything.
Heightened awareness is always a plus and I think all of us have put at least some thought into this subject in the last few days. :) :)
Tommy ;)
"Lets be careful out there!"
In CA, as a result of Prop 213, an uninsured driver or drunk driver is barred from collecting pain and suffering from an at fault party. The law allows for the paymemnt of actual medical bills and actual propety damage payments only.
In CA , the drunk driver is not automatically at fault. Example, drunk is rear ended. The drunk will no doubt be charged with DUI, but will not be found at fault for the acident. At fault party owes for medical bills and property damage, drunk driver owes DUI fines and fees, and his/her atty if one used.

[Moneypitt]

I pose the question again for those who are in favor of "personal tolerance" enforcement. How will ones personal limit be established, and how would you have it enforced by LEO?
Tommy
PS- I like your style!
I think the probable cause issue, if properly judged by the courts, could eliminate alot of the BS traffic stops that result in .08 DUIs. If the driver has done nothing except leave a bar, no swerving, no speeding etc. there is no probable cause to be stopped and tested. I hear about the checkpoints at the ramp AFTER the boat is 10 feet from the trailer, and OUI arrests...That is pure BS. If the boater was impared it should have shown up on the water, right?......Now he is 10 feet from his trailer and they bust him!!! Boy that sure is prevention, huh...Again, probable cause!! What lead an LE to believe the person needed to be tested? ......enough.............MP

[thatguy]

I think the probable cause issue, if properly judged by the courts, could eliminate alot of the BS traffic stops that result in .08 DUIs. If the driver has done nothing except leave a bar, no swerving, no speeding etc. there is no probable cause to be stopped and tested. I hear about the checkpoints at the ramp AFTER the boat is 10 feet from the trailer, and OUI arrests...That is pure BS. If the boater was impared it should have shown up on the water, right?......Now he is 10 feet from his trailer and they bust him!!! Boy that sure is prevention, huh...Again, probable cause!! What lead an LE to believe the person needed to be tested? ......enough.............MP
Good point. And a good argument. Now, get a politician to sign off on it. :D
There is no doubt that they have revenue in mind (the politicians) but it is one way to REDUCE accidents. We know the penalties, I sure as hell ain't going through it again!
Tommy----------OUT

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I think the probable cause issue, if properly judged by the courts, could eliminate alot of the BS traffic stops that result in .08 DUIs. If the driver has done nothing except leave a bar, no swerving, no speeding etc. there is no probable cause to be stopped and tested. I hear about the checkpoints at the ramp AFTER the boat is 10 feet from the trailer, and OUI arrests...That is pure BS. If the boater was impared it should have shown up on the water, right?......Now he is 10 feet from his trailer and they bust him!!! Boy that sure is prevention, huh...Again, probable cause!! What lead an LE to believe the person needed to be tested? ......enough.............MP
Ray, leaving the legal limit open to the digression to arresting officers and the courts, would likely result in more arrests, more convictions and more revenue.
Speed limit= 70 , Speed limit= 35. This gives the driver a guideline. Remove all speed limits and replace it with probable cause, chaos will erupt.
You can't have Law Enforcement Officers, making the laws as they go. No disrespect to LE intended.

[Boatcop]

A few points here.
#1: Ramp OUI checkpoints.
Doesn't happen. It doesn't do any good to check boaters at the ramp, except maybe prevent the drunk boaters from becoming drunk drivers. We want to stop them from drinking before or while they're on the water. Not after.
#2: I've investigated numerous accidents where the at fault party was sober and the "victim" was drunk. Yes. The drunk goes to jail for OUI, but the "at fault" party gets cited for the appropriate violations, and the reports state that. Some have involved fatalities. If the actions of the sober party can be deemed reckless or negligent, then we recommend charging Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide. It's ultimately up to the prosecutor to file charges and prosecute the case. We were not able to test Greer Rush after he killed 3 kids. We charged Manslaughter, Felony Endangerment, Aggravated Assault, and a host of other charges. He eventually plead to Negligent Homicide.
#3: We DO go after the unsafe drivers/boaters as hard as we go after the drunks. But then, the same people saying we should concentrate on unsafe drivers are the same ones saying that we should be doing something more important than traffic enforcement and call the CHP "dick heads".
#4: Sober drivers who kill ARE charged as seriously as drunk ones. Here's an article from the Needles Daily Star:
Four-vehicle traffic incident leads to two deaths and one arrest
By MARK ASHLEY, News West
Thursday, August 23, 2007 3:38 PM PDT
NEEDLES - Two California residents were killed in an accident on U.S. Highway 95, south of mile marker 66 on Aug. 15 at about 3:40 p.m.
Police allege the accident was caused by the driver of a tractor trailer, a 22-year-old man from Moreno Valley, Calif., who tried to pass south-bound traffic through a curve in the road.
As the north-bound driver of a 2000 Honda Civic, a 36-year-old man from San Juan Capistrano, Calif., approached the same curve, he attempted to avoid a collision with the semi and swerved into the south bound lane, striking a 2002 Honda Civic.
After the two Civics collided, one spun into the west dirt shoulder. The 2000 Civic spun into the path of a Ford Expedition.
The Expedition struck the 2000 Civic, causing major damage to the Honda's right side and fatal injuries to both occupants.
The Expedition and 2000 Civic came to rest in the west dirt shoulder of U.S. 95.
The driver of the 2002 Civic was uninjured. The four occupants of the Expedition sustained minor injuries.
The driver of the semi stopped approximately 250 feet south of the accident, and was subsequently arrested for vehicular manslaughter.
I do respect everyone's opinions. Whether I agree with them or not. But the one thing I do, that others don't or can't , is provide facts and not just "I heard" or "my buddy told me".

[Flyinbowtie]

Ultra,
Not slammin; ya here, just interested in the points you made.
I also disagree with dropping the presumptive limits; they are in place for a reason, and represent a known point based on scientific evidence and mountains of documentation and case law.
If they were removed, tho, while some of the more ... I dunno, foolish cops out there might push the issue and make the arrest more frequently, the truth is they would still have to produce the evidence in court that would sustain probable cause for the stop, and evidence to support the fact that the suspect was driving under the influence. Even before that, they must convince a prosecutor that evidence is present to convince a jury that the suspect is guilty, or the DA won't even file the case.
Believe me, the D.A.'s office knows who the sharp cops are, and they know the ones who are not. I will leave it to you to figure out who the attorney is going to put his on rep on the line in court with. The B.A. test is just one piece of the puzzle, not the whole thing. Less than articulate cops, with less than stellar skills are still going to have trouble making the case, and cops at the other end still would not.
Cops shouldn't make laws as they go, but lemme tell ya, every single day of my career I was involved in trying to understand the intent of the legislature when they wrote a law, or trying to understand and interpret some fresh case law decision on a hot topic crime, so that the deputies that worked for me could hit the bricks, (or go try to buy some dope) with a clear picture of just exactly what the hell the state of the "art" was at any given moment.
Every year, the supervisors in my agency spent 3 8 hour days in Sacramento going through a "Legal Update" to keep us up to speed.
In those 24 hours, the instructor hit only the highlights.
We got sent home with a 3 inch thick manual for penal code type law, and a 2inch thick one for traffic stuff
We were told to "go over the material with our troops" :rolleyes:
No offense taken, but I gotta tell ya, sometimes, at 3:30 in the morning, in two feet of snow, there can be some interesting interpretations....:)

[Moneypitt]

Ray, leaving the legal limit open to the digression to arresting officers and the courts, would likely result in more arrests, more convictions and more revenue.
Speed limit= 70 , Speed limit= 35. This gives the driver a guideline. Remove all speed limits and replace it probable cause, chaos will erupt.
You can't have Law Enforcement Officers, making the laws as they go. No disrespect to LE intended.
It is the probable cause issue that has been ignored, not re written....
As it is now they stop a car that leaves a bar. Ask the driver if he/she has been drinking, (they already know), then the "step out of the car please" and the rest is downhill from there. This motorist did nothing to indicate there was any imparement whatsoever. But now that the ol' breathalizer comes out and shows the magic .08 the arrest report will show that the officer truly excelled in the creative writing class at the academy.....And the courts turn a blind eye toward probable cause based on the arrest report. Alot of the jurisdictions do not want cameras in the "duece" patrol vehicles because the video could be used by the defendant to show there was no traffic infraction, no license plate light out, etc etc......Tinted windows, no front plate, equipment violations, baubles hanging from the rearview mirror, are all probable cause to stop and roust........Very few .08 drivers have actually done anything illegal EXCEPT drive at .08, but the officer could not possibly know that prior to the unwarranted stop......Alan's referece, (another thread) to the high courts decision about stops on the water is a real reach on an inland, landlocked waterway......As i said, it will be status quo until the issue of probable cause is re visited, and re instated........I do not advocate impared driving. I also do not advocate un warranted fishing expeditions in the guise of saving lives unless and until the same effort is put forth to rid the road of unskilled dangerous drivers that will cause deaths sober......MP

[Flyinbowtie]

MP;
FWIW, probable cause still is the deal here in my little corner of NorCal, the courts and the local barristers have never deviated from it. Why do a half-assed job on a cut and dried, easy to work case when it is so simple to do it correctly? Just doesn't make sense to this ole' dumb arse retired sergeant.
Beleive me my former agency is tickled pink to be getting new cameras in all the patrol cars. Mind you, this was an S.O., and traffic is not our priority, but DUI's are everyones problem.
The cameras in the booking room have brought many a defense attorney to offer up their client on a silver platter.

[Boatcop]

It is the probable cause issue that has been ignored, not re written....
As it is now they stop a car that leaves a bar. Ask the driver if he/she has been drinking, (they already know), then the "step out of the car please" and the rest is downhill from there.
We specifically tell our Officers to NOT camp outside bars. Any bar owner who doesn't scream high and loud to the local elected officials about this, probably shouldn't be allowed to own a business.
This motorist did nothing to indicate there was any imparement whatsoever. But now that the ol' breathalizer comes out and shows the magic .08 the arrest report will show that the officer truly excelled in the creative writing class at the academy.....And the courts turn a blind eye toward probable cause based on the arrest report.
Yep. All Cops are liars and we falsify reports every day. And the courts condone our lies. :rolleyes:
Alot of the jurisdictions do not want cameras in the "duece" patrol vehicles because the video could be used by the defendant to show there was no traffic infraction, no license plate light out, etc etc......Tinted windows, no front plate, equipment violations, baubles hanging from the rearview mirror, are all probable cause to stop and roust.
All jurisdictions that have vehicles equipped with video, put them primarily in the DUI enforcement vehicles. It makes cases for us, and keeps us on the road and out of court.
Very few .08 drivers have actually done anything illegal EXCEPT drive at .08
And very few murderers have actually done anything illegal EXCEPT kill somebody.
Alan's referece, (another thread) to the high courts decision about stops on the water is a real reach on an inland, landlocked waterway
It's not a reach. The Supreme Court says so.
As i said, it will be status quo until the issue of probable cause is re visited, and re instated........I do not advocate impared driving. I also do not advocate un warranted fishing expeditions in the guise of saving lives unless and until the same effort is put forth to rid the road of unskilled dangerous drivers that will cause deaths sober......MP
I appreciate your not condoning impaired driving. I do not, however appreciate your painting Police Officers as dishonest liars that are out there doing our jobs for the sole purpose of making arrests and gaining stats. I, as a police Supervisor, could care less if my officers make zero or 1,000 DUI or OUI arrests. But as long as drunks continue to kill and maim innocent people on our roads and waterways in a far greater proportion to their numbers on the roads or waterways we will continue to try and stop them from doing so.
At the worst, drunk drivers (.08%+) account for 10% of the drivers on the road. (NHSTA figures for Friday and Saturday nights, way below that at other times) But they are responsible for 43% of traffic fatalities.
A drunk driver is a potential murderer who has not met his victim. YET!

[Tom Brown]

As it is now they stop a car that leaves a bar. Ask the driver if he/she has been drinking, (they already know), then the "step out of the car please" and the rest is downhill from there.
WTF?
The next thing we know, they will start looking for illegal immigrants at the border. http://www.***boat.com/ubb/mad.gif

[ratso]

We specifically tell our Officers to NOT camp outside bars. Any bar owner who doesn't scream high and loud to the local elected officials about this, probably shouldn't be allowed to own a business.
.
!
Totally different out where I live... They wait all up and down the highway and backroads here... I don't think they have anything better to do. The bars let out and it looks like Christmas around here with all the red and blue flashing lights...

[ULTRA26 # 1]

It is the probable cause issue that has been ignored, not re written....
As it is now they stop a car that leaves a bar. Ask the driver if he/she has been drinking, (they already know), then the "step out of the car please" and the rest is downhill from there. This motorist did nothing to indicate there was any imparement whatsoever. But now that the ol' breathalizer comes out and shows the magic .08 the arrest report will show that the officer truly excelled in the creative writing class at the academy.....And the courts turn a blind eye toward probable cause based on the arrest report. Alot of the jurisdictions do not want cameras in the "duece" patrol vehicles because the video could be used by the defendant to show there was no traffic infraction, no license plate light out, etc etc......Tinted windows, no front plate, equipment violations, baubles hanging from the rearview mirror, are all probable cause to stop and roust........Very few .08 drivers have actually done anything illegal EXCEPT drive at .08, but the officer could not possibly know that prior to the unwarranted stop......Alan's referece, (another thread) to the high courts decision about stops on the water is a real reach on an inland, landlocked waterway......As i said, it will be status quo until the issue of probable cause is re visited, and re instated........I do not advocate impared driving. I also do not advocate un warranted fishing expeditions in the guise of saving lives unless and until the same effort is put forth to rid the road of unskilled dangerous drivers that will cause deaths sober......MP
Years ago, when I played music for a living, I spent great deal of time in bars. Obvioulsy, the band never left before clsoing time. I don't recall LE hanging around, in wait of people to leave. Things must have changed.
Seems one of your points is a drunk driver who kills shouldn't face stiffer penalties than the sober driver who kills.

[Moneypitt]

Alan, no disrepect intended towards your. You statement about sitting on bars in Az is quite possible. Here in Ventura County it is quite different. The SO does sit on bars. They have been directly responsible for the closure of several local watering holes. Still, to this day, they sit around the corners from what bars are left. They even stalk the higher end establishments on weekends and do exactly as I said, roust, test, arrest, and write the report. Oh, and the video is never available.....unless it shows the defendant in a bad light. Also, here in VC, 85-90% of the judges are ex DAs, so the deck is stacked against justice most of the time. I dated a para legal, as well as an attorney active in the VC courts and had occasions to review cases for appeals......Wow, what they say is right on, Come to Ventura County on vacation, leave on probation...I remember a case, that was won on appeal, where the defense had photographic proof the SO lied on the report, and on the stand and the judge refused to dismiss.......The 2nd district saw it different.........Oh, the defendant owned a bar, which is now closed due to stalking SOs.......I do not drink and boat.....Used to, no more. I do, as stated several times, limit my consumption and have a cocktail or 3,4 after work occasionally......Over a period of hours, and usually with food.....And last Saturday night I took a cab, again......In contrast to Alan's statement about sitting on bars, the BHC police seem to have a different outlook to that practice along Hancock road at closing time.......I've seen it alot from the PS shop.........Not from the bars parking lots...........Ray

[ratso]

Alan, no disrepect intended towards your. You statement about sitting on bars in Az is quite possible. Here in Ventura County it is quite different. The SO does sit on bars. They have been directly responsible for the closure of several local watering holes. Still, to this day, they sit around the corners from what bars are left. They even stalk the higher end establishments on weekends and do exactly as I said, roust, test, arrest, and write the report. Oh, and the video is never available.....unless it shows the defendant in a bad light. Also, here in VC, 85-90% of the judges are ex DAs, so the deck is stacked against justice most of the time. I dated a para legal, as well as an attorney active in the VC courts and had occasions to review cases for appeals......Wow, what they say is right on, Come to Ventura County on vacation, leave on probation...I remember a case, that was won on appeal, where the defense had photographic proof the SO lied on the report, and on the stand and the judge refused to dismiss.......The 2nd district saw it different.........Oh, the defendant owned a bar, which is now closed due to stalking SOs.......I do not drink and boat.....Used to, no more. I do, as stated several times, limit my consumption and have a cocktail or 3,4 after work occasionally......Over a period of hours, and usually with food.....And last Saturday night I took a cab, again......In contrast to Alan's statement about sitting on bars, the BHC police seem to have a different outlook to that practice along Hancock road at closing time.......I've seen it alot from the PS shop.........Not from the bars parking lots...........Ray
They have really hit the bars hard here up and down the highway... DPS, Sheriff Dept, Waco PD, TABC... When I was bouncing at one of the clubs here on the highway, I could step outside, and more often than not, cops had somebody pulled over. They have a nice little "speed trap" too that goes from 70 down to 60 in the middle of nowhere. You'll almost always see a cop sitting off in the ditch at night where the speed limit changes... Never ever during the day, but from about 10 or 11pm til 2am...

[Flyinbowtie]

Alan, no disrepect intended towards your. You statement about sitting on bars in Az is quite possible. Here in Ventura County it is quite different. The SO does sit on bars. They have been directly responsible for the closure of several local watering holes. Still, to this day, they sit around the corners from what bars are left. They even stalk the higher end establishments on weekends and do exactly as I said, roust, test, arrest, and write the report. Oh, and the video is never available.....unless it shows the defendant in a bad light. Also, here in VC, 85-90% of the judges are ex DAs, so the deck is stacked against justice most of the time. I dated a para legal, as well as an attorney active in the VC courts and had occasions to review cases for appeals......Wow, what they say is right on, Come to Ventura County on vacation, leave on probation...I remember a case, that was won on appeal, where the defense had photographic proof the SO lied on the report, and on the stand and the judge refused to dismiss.......The 2nd district saw it different.........Oh, the defendant owned a bar, which is now closed due to stalking SOs.......I do not drink and boat.....Used to, no more. I do, as stated several times, limit my consumption and have a cocktail or 3,4 after work occasionally......Over a period of hours, and usually with food.....And last Saturday night I took a cab, again......In contrast to Alan's statement about sitting on bars, the BHC police seem to have a different outlook to that practice along Hancock road at closing time.......I've seen it alot from the PS shop.........Not from the bars parking lots...........Ray
MP,
Your description of what goes on in V.C. really pisses off those of us who try to do it right.
FWIW, a cop today who gets caught lying on the stand or preparing documents that are later determined to be intentional fabrications can get his ass in huge trouble. There is a case out there called the Brady Decision, and it requires Prosecutors who have knowledge of an untruthful cop to really lean against filing ANY cases he/she brings forward, and that "Brady Material" is, I believe, subject to a Discovery Motion by the defense, which means that the cops' credibility on the stand is shot, and pretty much cannot be rehabbed. The officer you spoke of would, based on what you have written, be subject to a Brady challenge. We had policy in our dept. that made a Brady violation grounds for serious discipline, and in some cases termination.
I see this as a good thing, the job is difficult enough to do without fighting to keep our credibility.
Geezus, my spelling is junk. I'm goin' nitey-nite..

[Moneypitt]

MP,
Your description of what goes on in V.C. really pisses off those of us who try to do it right.
FWIW, a cop today who gets caught lying on the stand or preparing documents that are later determined to be intentional fabrications can get his ass in huge trouble. There is a case out there called the Brady Decision, and it requires Prosecutors who have knowledge of an untruthful cop to really lean against filing ANY cases he/she brings forward, and that "Brady Material" is, I believe, subject to a Discovery Motion by the defense, which means that the cops' credibility on the stand is shot, and pretty much cannot be rehabbed. The officer you spoke of would, based on what you have written, be subject to a Brady challenge. We had policy in our dept. that made a Brady violation grounds for serious discipline, and in some cases termination.
I see this as a good thing, the job is difficult enough to do without fighting to keep our credibility.
Geezus, my spelling is junk. I'm goin' nitey-nite..
You know what they say about one bad apple spoiling the whole basket. I know the majority of cops out there are honest hard working people, just like non LE people. It is the judges here in VC that have let the bad apples run amok.......All this hype about being safest city, (Simi Valley/Thousand Oaks) has distorted the court system into it's own little world. How many defendants have the wherewithall to appeal away from the tyrant judges...The cop gets a rep for arrests, the DAs get a rep for convictions, and the judges, even if voted out of office by the people, (John Hunter) will be assigned judical duties by the presiding judge because they are so understaffed, Ha....It is truly out of control here.......
I remember years ago no self respecting officer would even think about sitting on a bar. It was considered un ethical, now it is done on a regular basis here in VC and other jurisdictions as well......CHP has had their "duece hunt" for years, and still do....Running blacked out until right behind an unsuspecting driver then hitting them with everylight they have. I've seen it......As someone else said, like a christmas tree at closing time, all around the bar districts.............MP