Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

"C.H." > writes:

>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:22:06 +0800, Bernd Felsche wrote:

>> "C.H." > writes:
>>>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:06:21 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>>>> C.H. wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://www.dvr.de/download/aaba3fa8-...c374c02148.pdf
>>
>>>Then deliver the primary reference. Secondary references by sources
>>>on the web are about as accurate as tarot.
>>
>> Why are you so anxious to discredit your own references?

>I didn't discredit anything.

>> DVR lists the references that it uses.

>As does any scientific study. The web sites gcsmchemist suggested to
>support his swedish 'study' on the other hand didn't list any references,
>but just claim to have read it somewhere.

DVR is a _secondary_. It doesn't appear to reference any supportive
work it has itself undertaken. You've stated *above* "Secondary
references by sources on the web are about as accurate as tarot."

>>>The law needs to be consistent, not dependent on the whim of some cop or
>>>judge.

>> The law doesn't define impairment. It only defines "arbitrary" numbers
>> to quantify intoxication.

>Say, where in the quoted sentence did I talk about impairment?

So you're saying that the law is the law is the law; and it
shouldn't take into account *actual* impairment in its definition?

>>>What would you base your impairment rules on? BAC is bad enough because
>>>people have no way of checking whether they are below the limit and the
>>>BAC may even climb after getting in the car as more alcohol is drawn
>>>from your stomach, so with drinking you can never be quite sure whether
>>>you are still legal or not.

>> If the legal BAC limit is too low, then you would be correct.

>What makes you come to this conclusion?

From drinking. Prost!

I know when I'm at about 0.02. I know when I'm over 0.04. And I can
tell the difference.

Either your drinking has dulled your senses or you were born
insensitive. :-)

>> You may be in the habit of out-drinking your sensibility. Probably not a
>> difficult task.

>I am not in the habit to out-drink anything.

So if it's not a habit, it's just out of opportunism?

>> Others are not necessarily afflicted by the same.

>You seem to be afflicted by the misguided idea that you can still drive
>when you are drunk.

Have you stopped beating your wife?
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"C.H." > writes:

>Apparently some people need a flamewar to prove themselves. I just
>read the last 10 messages and there is nothing but insults, flames
>and attempts to prove you guys are better than I.

And there was me thinking you don't read what you post.
Apologies.

>I don't see any point in continuing.

You want to stop digging just because your spade's melting in the
magma?
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"C.H." > writes:

>Apparently some people need a flamewar to prove themselves. I just
>read the last 10 messages and there is nothing but insults, flames
>and attempts to prove you guys are better than I.

And there was me thinking you don't read what you post.
Apologies.

>I don't see any point in continuing.

You want to stop digging just because your spade's melting in the
magma?
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"C.H." > wrote in message
...
>>>> I suppose you think it was a good thing that the guy who told his
>>>> doctor he drank a 6-pack a day lost his license.
>>>
>>>Only if he had withdrawal symptoms when sober or if he was caught driving
>>>drunk.
>>
>> As far as we know, neither of those applied to him.
>
> As he is most likely the product of your overactive imagination we can
> safely discount him.

Well that explains a lot. Apparently you live in a bubble. You should try
getting out more often or occasionally turning on the news.

http://www.doctordeluca.com/Library/...sLicense04.htm
http://www.legalreader.com/archives/002066.html
http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=24086

Hell, there's even a reference on your own home page:

http://www.getmadd.com/DontDrinkatHome.htm

And if that isn't enough, if you google +doctor +"six pack" +license, you'll
find over 7,000 other references.

A figment of his imagination, indeed, idiot.

"C.H." > wrote in message
...
>>>> I suppose you think it was a good thing that the guy who told his
>>>> doctor he drank a 6-pack a day lost his license.
>>>
>>>Only if he had withdrawal symptoms when sober or if he was caught driving
>>>drunk.
>>
>> As far as we know, neither of those applied to him.
>
> As he is most likely the product of your overactive imagination we can
> safely discount him.

Well that explains a lot. Apparently you live in a bubble. You should try
getting out more often or occasionally turning on the news.

http://www.doctordeluca.com/Library/...sLicense04.htm
http://www.legalreader.com/archives/002066.html
http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=24086

Hell, there's even a reference on your own home page:

http://www.getmadd.com/DontDrinkatHome.htm

And if that isn't enough, if you google +doctor +"six pack" +license, you'll
find over 7,000 other references.

A figment of his imagination, indeed, idiot.

"C.H." > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:42:50 -0500, ParrotRob wrote:
>
>> "C.H." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:09:01 -0500, ParrotRob wrote:
>
>>>> That's crazy talk. If I'm too drunk to drive I'm FAR too drunk to WALK
>>>> home! ;-)
>>>
>>> So you already start having problems walking at .03%?
>>
>> Nope. But neither do I have problems driving, either. I think I'll have
>> a
>> few and cruise around your neighborhood tonight.
>
> You mean you _think_ you have no driving problems. Apparently you have a
> big problem with being responsible enough to drive at all though.

How's that? 50 miles each way to work, then back again, every day for 16
years and I've never killed so much as a squirrel. Add in all the
unneccessary "just out there looking to kill you" miles, and that's easily a
half-million death-less miles. The way you talk, I must be living on
borrowed time, eh? Especially considering one night a week in the pool bar
all night and one night in the dart bar, it's a wonder I haven't killed more
people than Hitler.

(Godwin's Law - topic over)

"C.H." > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:42:50 -0500, ParrotRob wrote:
>
>> "C.H." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:09:01 -0500, ParrotRob wrote:
>
>>>> That's crazy talk. If I'm too drunk to drive I'm FAR too drunk to WALK
>>>> home! ;-)
>>>
>>> So you already start having problems walking at .03%?
>>
>> Nope. But neither do I have problems driving, either. I think I'll have
>> a
>> few and cruise around your neighborhood tonight.
>
> You mean you _think_ you have no driving problems. Apparently you have a
> big problem with being responsible enough to drive at all though.

How's that? 50 miles each way to work, then back again, every day for 16
years and I've never killed so much as a squirrel. Add in all the
unneccessary "just out there looking to kill you" miles, and that's easily a
half-million death-less miles. The way you talk, I must be living on
borrowed time, eh? Especially considering one night a week in the pool bar
all night and one night in the dart bar, it's a wonder I haven't killed more
people than Hitler.

(Godwin's Law - topic over)

In article >,
Olaf Gustafson > wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:36:48 -0800, "C.H." >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Nice namecalling here, Matthew. I am not a neo-prohibitionist, and the
>>neo-prohibitionists would probably be offended by the beer in my fridge
>>(which reminds me, I need to try the new Trader Joe's Hefeweizen tonight
>>when I don't have to drive any more).
>
>Uh oh - CH *needs* a drink. Better talk to a counselor.

ROTFL. Good catch.

In article >,
Olaf Gustafson > wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:36:48 -0800, "C.H." >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Nice namecalling here, Matthew. I am not a neo-prohibitionist, and the
>>neo-prohibitionists would probably be offended by the beer in my fridge
>>(which reminds me, I need to try the new Trader Joe's Hefeweizen tonight
>>when I don't have to drive any more).
>
>Uh oh - CH *needs* a drink. Better talk to a counselor.

ROTFL. Good catch.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:21:26 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:50:15 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:10:54 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:24:02 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Everyone should be required to be competent behind the wheel,
>>>> regardless of how much they drink when they're not driving.
>>>
>>>Habitual drunks are not competent behind the wheel.
>>>
>> I'd prefer that we measure such things objectively.
>
>I can't wait to hear your suggestion.

Stop being so unobjective

>
>>>> I suppose you think it was a good thing that the guy who told his
>>>> doctor he drank a 6-pack a day lost his license.
>>>
>>>Only if he had withdrawal symptoms when sober or if he was caught driving
>>>drunk.
>>
>> As far as we know, neither of those applied to him.
>
>As he is most likely the product of your overactive imagination we can
>safely discount him.

You don't read the news much, do you?

>
>>>As much as you wish I were some MADD fanatic, the only thing I am
>>>interested in is sharing the road with safe drivers. And only because
>>>drunk drivers are unsafe even when they didn't have much to drink I am for
>>>a zero tolerance rule.
>>
>> Which is to say, 1 sip makes a person drunk.
>
>No. You need a refresher course in basic logical reasoning.

That's your logic, buddy boy. You said repeatedly that 1 drink will
lead to another. The implication was clear - if you have 1 drink,
you're very likely to have 2 even if you only started out to drink 1.

>
>A->B means by no means B->A.
>
>Chris