Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:13:49 -0600,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>C.H. > wrote:
>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:29:59 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>>
>>If you in any way feel compelled to drink you are an alcoholic, because
>>that's what an alcoholic is, a person who _has_ to drink.
>
>You trivialize alcoholism. A desire to drink isn't alcoholism, any
>more than a desire for ice cream is an addiction.
>

A self-proclaimed alcoholic told me if you get drunk more than 3 times
a year (Birthday, New Years, and 1 other time) you're an alcoholic.

Using the legal definition of 'drunk' and the 'alcoholics' definition
of alcoholic, most drinkers are alcoholics.

Misery loves company.

>>If you don't have to drink don't drink before driving, if you have to
>>drink, seek help, it's that simple.
>
>It ain't quite that simple. I don't have to drink. But I want to
>drink. I do have to drive if I want to get anywhere. I don't live in
>a city; mass transport and taxis are not feasible alternatives. So if
>I drink anywhere but home, I'm going to be driving sometime
>afterwards. So by trying to reduce BAC levels down to ridiculous
>limits, you're pursuing a neo-prohibitionist agenda by making it
>extremely difficult to legally return home after drinking.

In article >,
says...
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:25:48 -0500, Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>> In article >,

>> says...
>>
>>>Nonsense, half the studies I have read have been conducted in Europe and
>>>have nothing whatsoever to do with MADD.
>>
>> Let's see the numbers.
>
>Google is your friend.

A quick search led me to this report
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...Rpt/Alc00Chap1.
htm

Of the fatalities that involved alcohol approximately 75% of them were at
BAC over .10. Unfortunately this report does not give more detail. I would
be interesteed in seeing the numbers broken out by tenths of a percent. That
would give a better picture of who the really dangerous drivers are.

>>>I want to ban drivers who don't have a grip on themselves.
>> Me too.
>Then why are you yammering about clamping down on drunk drivers?

Because I dont' agree with your definition of a drunk driver.

>>>If you drive drunk you indeed don't and if coffee has the same effect on
>>>you you should be banned from driving altogether.
>>
>> Define drunk. That's the problem.
>
>Drunk = a BAC that may impair the driver, i.e. everything over .3

Why .3? Why not .2 or .4? How did you come up with that number?

>I think the most apropriate thing to do would be to introduce a
>restriction of no alcohol within 8 hours before driving.

This would be an unecessary law that would have very little benefit. It
would also mean taking away police from doing other more important duties
that have real benefits.

>> You should more concerned with them because there are alot more of
>> them.
>Drunk drivers are much more dangerous though.

The really drunk ones are.

>> It should come down to the simple matter of whether you are driving
>> properly or not. ------------
>
>No, it should come down to the simple matter of whether you are fit for
>driving, and that includes both no alcohol and adequate training.

There are many peopel who can drive perfectly fine even when their
alcohol level is above .00 .

>Oh, btw, let's put the same punishment as for alcohol on being on the
>[CENSORED] cellphone while driving. Recent studies confirmed my
>observations, cellphoniacs are about as dangerous as drunk drivers.

I'm sure that if the data was available you would find that the same folks
who don't know when they have had too much alcohol to drive properly are
the ones who don't know when it is inappropriate to use a cell phone a drive.

I'm going to quote Brent P, I hope he does not mind, because what he wrote
is very appropriate.

"Just because I don't draw the line in the same place you do, doesn't make
me pro-drunk driving,..... The data shows the
real problem area is already illegal. that lowering the BAC level further
is going to serve no useful purpose. It's simply control freakism. The
same kind of control freakism that sparked the war on drugs and the
united christian women's temperance union."

------------------
Alex

In article >,
says...
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:25:48 -0500, Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>> In article >,

>> says...
>>
>>>Nonsense, half the studies I have read have been conducted in Europe and
>>>have nothing whatsoever to do with MADD.
>>
>> Let's see the numbers.
>
>Google is your friend.

A quick search led me to this report
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...Rpt/Alc00Chap1.
htm

Of the fatalities that involved alcohol approximately 75% of them were at
BAC over .10. Unfortunately this report does not give more detail. I would
be interesteed in seeing the numbers broken out by tenths of a percent. That
would give a better picture of who the really dangerous drivers are.

>>>I want to ban drivers who don't have a grip on themselves.
>> Me too.
>Then why are you yammering about clamping down on drunk drivers?

Because I dont' agree with your definition of a drunk driver.

>>>If you drive drunk you indeed don't and if coffee has the same effect on
>>>you you should be banned from driving altogether.
>>
>> Define drunk. That's the problem.
>
>Drunk = a BAC that may impair the driver, i.e. everything over .3

Why .3? Why not .2 or .4? How did you come up with that number?

>I think the most apropriate thing to do would be to introduce a
>restriction of no alcohol within 8 hours before driving.

This would be an unecessary law that would have very little benefit. It
would also mean taking away police from doing other more important duties
that have real benefits.

>> You should more concerned with them because there are alot more of
>> them.
>Drunk drivers are much more dangerous though.

The really drunk ones are.

>> It should come down to the simple matter of whether you are driving
>> properly or not. ------------
>
>No, it should come down to the simple matter of whether you are fit for
>driving, and that includes both no alcohol and adequate training.

There are many peopel who can drive perfectly fine even when their
alcohol level is above .00 .

>Oh, btw, let's put the same punishment as for alcohol on being on the
>[CENSORED] cellphone while driving. Recent studies confirmed my
>observations, cellphoniacs are about as dangerous as drunk drivers.

I'm sure that if the data was available you would find that the same folks
who don't know when they have had too much alcohol to drive properly are
the ones who don't know when it is inappropriate to use a cell phone a drive.

I'm going to quote Brent P, I hope he does not mind, because what he wrote
is very appropriate.

"Just because I don't draw the line in the same place you do, doesn't make
me pro-drunk driving,..... The data shows the
real problem area is already illegal. that lowering the BAC level further
is going to serve no useful purpose. It's simply control freakism. The
same kind of control freakism that sparked the war on drugs and the
united christian women's temperance union."

------------------
Alex

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:09:56 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:04:36 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>> Increasing your own risks of being killed is completely acceptable. In
>>> traffic you not only increase your risk of being killed but the risks of
>>> others, and that is completely unacceptable.
>>
>> Yet as a society we let people who normally drive as poorly as a drunk do so
>> everyday.
>
>They drive even more poorly when drunk. Significantly so.
>
>I agree with you that driver training needs to be drastically improved,
>but at the same time clamping down on alcohol and cellphones is necessary.
>
>One question: Do you really need alcohol so bad that you are willing to
>risk your life and others'? If so, you should seek help, because that's a
>sure sign of being an alcoholic.
>

Do you really think a skilled driver and a professional drinker is
risking lives because his BAC is 0.09%?

If so, you should seek help, because that's a sure sign of
psychological problems. Psychos often kill people - often violently.

Stop risking our lives!

>I have no problem whatsoever to go to a party and enjoy myself without the
>'help' of alcohol if I have to drive home afterwards. If the same is true
>for you, why don't you simply do it? And if it is not true, please go,
>seek help.
>
>Chris

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:09:56 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:04:36 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>> Increasing your own risks of being killed is completely acceptable. In
>>> traffic you not only increase your risk of being killed but the risks of
>>> others, and that is completely unacceptable.
>>
>> Yet as a society we let people who normally drive as poorly as a drunk do so
>> everyday.
>
>They drive even more poorly when drunk. Significantly so.
>
>I agree with you that driver training needs to be drastically improved,
>but at the same time clamping down on alcohol and cellphones is necessary.
>
>One question: Do you really need alcohol so bad that you are willing to
>risk your life and others'? If so, you should seek help, because that's a
>sure sign of being an alcoholic.
>

Do you really think a skilled driver and a professional drinker is
risking lives because his BAC is 0.09%?

If so, you should seek help, because that's a sure sign of
psychological problems. Psychos often kill people - often violently.

Stop risking our lives!

>I have no problem whatsoever to go to a party and enjoy myself without the
>'help' of alcohol if I have to drive home afterwards. If the same is true
>for you, why don't you simply do it? And if it is not true, please go,
>seek help.
>
>Chris

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:54:52 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>COMPETENCE AND ALCOHOL ARE A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS! (was that loud enough
>for you?)
>
>If you had any alcohol your ability to assess your driving capabilities
>decreases to the point of non-existence,

Which is why I always test my driving skills out on a video game
before I leave the bar. If I get a crappy score, I'll call a cab.

> which is why you seriously think
>that you can drive safely even when drunk. (Un-)fortunately neither
>physics nor the judge care about whether you think you are safe to drive.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:54:52 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>COMPETENCE AND ALCOHOL ARE A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS! (was that loud enough
>for you?)
>
>If you had any alcohol your ability to assess your driving capabilities
>decreases to the point of non-existence,

Which is why I always test my driving skills out on a video game
before I leave the bar. If I get a crappy score, I'll call a cab.

> which is why you seriously think
>that you can drive safely even when drunk. (Un-)fortunately neither
>physics nor the judge care about whether you think you are safe to drive.

In article >, C.H. wrote:

>> I don't live in a city; mass transport and taxis are not feasible
>> alternatives.
>
> If you have 20 bucks to blow on alcohol and claim you don't have enough
> money for a cab you need to get your priorities straight.

You don't seem to understand the concept that there are NO CABS. He could
have a $1000 to spend on a cab ride, but without the cabs being around....

>> So if I drink anywhere but home, I'm going to be driving sometime
>> afterwards. So by trying to reduce BAC levels down to ridiculous
>> limits, you're pursuing a neo-prohibitionist agenda by making it
>> extremely difficult to legally return home after drinking.

> You can drink all you want when you are at home or don't have to drive
> afterwards. That's not prohibition in the least.

Bull****. The whole point one drop extremist zealotry is prohibition.
Incrementally built prohibition created around limiting transportation.

> Driving is a privilege and with it comes responsibility, which includes
> making sure you are not impaired when driving. If you can't do that
> because you are too cheap to call a cab, you are not responsible enough to
> drive.

Here it is again, the driving is a privilege arguement being used once
again as a way to control people. Just define imparement as one drop
of alcohol consumed in the last 5 years and you have control. It's
prohibition through a different route, a different means to an end. That's
what you and your fellow zealots are doing. Each year, new studies
showing the imparement level at ever lower BACs.

There isn't any great breakthrough here. BAC could be measured accurately
for these purposes 20 years ago and it can be today. A valid study done in
1985 should have the same result as a valid study done in 2005. The only
reason they wouldn't have the same result is because of the political agenda
behind them.

And I'll wager that after drunk driving is defined as 0.0000000001 BAC or
higher that the zealots start going after the transportation of alcoholic
beverages even more. Making it difficult or impossible to get the stuff
home to drink it.

Prohibition without doing it directly is clearly the goal of the
incremental policies.

Look at this: http://www.madd.org/activism/1,1056,4612,00.html
"New 8-Point Plan To Jumpstart Stalled War On Drunk Driving"

Notice point number 7, which has nothing to do with drunk driving, it's
designed simply to discourage consumption. Number 2 as well, the police
state papers checking to discourage even being out and about. Or having a
sealed bottle of wine in the trunk.

Also see http://www.madd.org/activism/1,1056,...cohol_taxation

In article >, C.H. wrote:

>> I don't live in a city; mass transport and taxis are not feasible
>> alternatives.
>
> If you have 20 bucks to blow on alcohol and claim you don't have enough
> money for a cab you need to get your priorities straight.

You don't seem to understand the concept that there are NO CABS. He could
have a $1000 to spend on a cab ride, but without the cabs being around....

>> So if I drink anywhere but home, I'm going to be driving sometime
>> afterwards. So by trying to reduce BAC levels down to ridiculous
>> limits, you're pursuing a neo-prohibitionist agenda by making it
>> extremely difficult to legally return home after drinking.

> You can drink all you want when you are at home or don't have to drive
> afterwards. That's not prohibition in the least.

Bull****. The whole point one drop extremist zealotry is prohibition.
Incrementally built prohibition created around limiting transportation.

> Driving is a privilege and with it comes responsibility, which includes
> making sure you are not impaired when driving. If you can't do that
> because you are too cheap to call a cab, you are not responsible enough to
> drive.

Here it is again, the driving is a privilege arguement being used once
again as a way to control people. Just define imparement as one drop
of alcohol consumed in the last 5 years and you have control. It's
prohibition through a different route, a different means to an end. That's
what you and your fellow zealots are doing. Each year, new studies
showing the imparement level at ever lower BACs.

There isn't any great breakthrough here. BAC could be measured accurately
for these purposes 20 years ago and it can be today. A valid study done in
1985 should have the same result as a valid study done in 2005. The only
reason they wouldn't have the same result is because of the political agenda
behind them.

And I'll wager that after drunk driving is defined as 0.0000000001 BAC or
higher that the zealots start going after the transportation of alcoholic
beverages even more. Making it difficult or impossible to get the stuff
home to drink it.

Prohibition without doing it directly is clearly the goal of the
incremental policies.

Look at this: http://www.madd.org/activism/1,1056,4612,00.html
"New 8-Point Plan To Jumpstart Stalled War On Drunk Driving"

Notice point number 7, which has nothing to do with drunk driving, it's
designed simply to discourage consumption. Number 2 as well, the police
state papers checking to discourage even being out and about. Or having a
sealed bottle of wine in the trunk.

Also see http://www.madd.org/activism/1,1056,...cohol_taxation

C.H. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:55:20 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> > C.H. wrote:
>
> >> Not quite. The site is admittedly not very professionally done, a
fate
> >> it shares with a sizeable number of commercial sites. Nevertheless
the
> >> materials used there are real and
> >
> > But how does one determine this? There are *no* references to an
> > scientific journals.
>
> Every single study on alcohol and traffic I have read so far (and I
have
> read quite a few)...

That's great. Since you've read them, and there is more than one, it
stands to reason that *one* would be on-line, or at least at some
decent university research library. If you've got something more than
a German clone of MADD's propaganda, I'd love to see it.


> Neither you nor anyone else has ever been able to bring any evidence
that
> driving drunk is _not_ dangerous.

I don't think anyone has made that claim anywhere. Go ahead and find
such a claim, if you can.

> Here is a challenge: You believe, that drunk driving is harmless

Ooops, strawman argument. Along the lines of "have you stopped beating
your wife yet?" sorts of commentary. Bad form.

> so back
> it up with studies that meet your criteria for

Ooops, again. One cannot logically prove a negative.

Maybe, instead of flailing around, you could provide just one link to
real data?

> >> I wasn't trying to use the newspapers as proof for anything, I
merely
> >> countered the claim of 'Max' that newspapers supposedly only print
> >> accidents with high BAC numbers and that thus driving with low BAC

> >> numbers supposedly is safe.
> >
> > Maybe you should have not been so flip and explained that in the
> > begininning. "I believe what I read in the papers" doesn't have
any of
> > the context you have just included.
>
> If you had read the posting my answer referred to you would have seen
the
> correct context.

I saw what he wrote, and your response. None of the original comment,
nor your responses, in any way reflects your "clarification" above.

You are indeed attempting to use newspapers as proof of something:

Max wrote:
> And the drivers that cause the accidents all have BAC's around .16 to
> .25, and if you are at .25 you are really hammered and you'll know
it.

To which you replied:

Nonsense. Read the papers. Most of the drunk drivers who get checked
after
a crash are somewhere between .05% and 0.1% Most non-alcoholics are not
even able to walk to their car beyond 1.5%.

> >> > BAC, in and of itself, is not an accurate indicator of
intoxication.
> >> > A 45kg woman at 0.03% and a 90kg man at 0.03% are not equally
> >> > impaired.
> >>
> >> That is true, but the differences are small.
> >
> > By body mass alone, you have no idea what the differences in
alcohol
> > effect might be. Gender plays a role, as does % body fat.
>
> I think you are confusing the amount of alcohol it takes to get to a
> certain BAC with the BAC itself.

No, it is you who seems to be confused. Alcohol *effect* is not
strictly limited to BAC.

> The BAC has a direct influence on the
> brain, which is quite close to proportional to the BAC.

Proof, absent the other factors of which I have spoken?

> On the other hand of course a heavy man has to drink more to get to
the
> same BAC.

That's not the only factor...

> > In any case, BAC *alone* is not necessarily what defines
impairment.
>
> No, it isn't, but it is the only indicator of probable impairment
> available.

False.

> And it is infinitely more reliable than the self evaluation of
> a drunk person.

What if the person has measurable BAC but is not drunk?

> >> Concerning hangovers, firstly quite some people think they are
hung
> >> over but they still have a sizeable amount of alcohol in their
> >> bloodstream
> > (...)
> >
> > The study made pains to point out that the hung-over subjects had
0%
> > BAC.
>
> Could you provide me with a reference please?

Type "swedish traffic hangover driving" (without the quotes) into
Google to get tens of secondary references. Alas, the translated
version that I read is not available on-line.

> >> Unfortunately alcohol
> >> makes this self assessment [of ability to drive] impossible
> >
> > Not true for every value of BAC >0.00%.
>
> The problem is that the person is not aware of the limit where his
self
> assessment will be affected and thus is not able to make this
assessment,

At what BAC does this assessment become impossible?

> which is why driving drunk is illegal.

Ah, but "driving drunk" is a moving target. In fact, the definition of
"drunk" seems to shift with time and location. Hardly the absolut
thing you present it to be.

> >> which is why DUI is illegal.
> >
> > Also not true for every value of BAC >0.00%.
>
> DUI doesn't mean 'BAC>0.00%' but 'driving under the influence' which
means
> that you were above the legal limit.

You are claiming that "influence" begins at 0.03%. That is not above
the legal limit. In fact, in most locations within the U.S. (maybe
all,) you can have twice that BAC and still not be legally DUI.
Therefore, my statement is 100% correct.

Analogy: since some folks can't handle driving at a speed limit of
55MPH, the speed limit should be reduced to 30MPH.

HAND,

E.P.