Drinking and Driving.

[heyelander]

Are we telling people on here to **** off now? 'cause I've got a list...

[rhd]

Gregg, great topic. I'm not much of a drinker, but I refuse to take risks because there is too much at stake.

This summer I was out golfing with my best friend. We had three beers late in the round, and I was buzzed. Could I have driven home, most likely. I remembering thinking I'm sure I can drive, but why risk it. Get some lunch and I'll be fine in an hour.

I recently was at 2 wine tasting and had the equivalent of two glasses of wine over 2+ hours and knew I was fine to drive.

Recently, we visited my son and his fiancee in Boston, we went out one night and I enjoyed the evening, but we had a designated driver.

As an adult, getting sloppy drunk has no interest for me. Enjoy a drink or two, but know your limits and have a plan for driving.

I wouldn't have any issue with the blowing machine in cars, perhaps insurance agencies will decide they don't like the risk and will mandate them for consumers, or offer discounts for those who have them installed.

Blowing machines in cars would help generally. But the caveat is different people get impaired differently from different amounts of alcohol under different circumstances. Women get drunk more easily than men. Smaller people get drunk more easily than larger people. It matters how fast you consume the alcohol and how long ago. Whether or not you've consumed food and how much and when makes a difference. And different people have different physiologies which can affect how easily a person becomes impaired. Certain people could pass the blowing machine test but still be impaired enough to be dangerous.

[swampdragon]

Like I said --- sorry for your loss.

Hey, maybe the cars can all have governors, too?

why are cars designed to drive above the legal speed limit?

[heyelander]

why are cars designed to drive above the legal speed limit?

acceleration and hauling capacity I would imagine.

[OaklandA's]

That's why I say it is overblown --- obviously not a super PC thing to say in this day age, but I feel it to be true and I feel the facts back me up.

What facts back you up here? You haven't presented any. The facts are that about one-third of driving deaths in this country are alcohol related. To me, that seems like a pretty significant percentage. And specifically, what laws about DWI have been enacted that you think are limiting your civil rights?

[nots]

According to the Washington Post, there have been approx. 150,000 alcohol related fatalities in the last decade.
Overblown? Hardly.

[Mithrandir]

why are cars designed to drive above the legal speed limit?

i have asked that question many times...

[MrFurious]

why are cars designed to drive above the legal speed limit?

Which speed limit? If they were built with in the 1970's they all would have been set to 55. Today, the highest speed limit is 85, I believe.

Also, with regards to an earlier post about the breathalyzer required to start the car. What happens when it fails to work correctly, says you are drunk when you haven't had a drink or vice versa? You need to get to work for the day, but can't start the car because the breathalyzer says no? Too many variables to keep your vehicle from being driven. When they make one that will never fail, then I would say it's a good idea.

[baldgriff]

I want to be clear here - I am not condoning Driving and Drinking. However, what the law defines as the legal blood alcohol limit is really silly. I think most states now are at .08 - Most any person leaving a bar within one hour of getting there is going to likely be over that limit. I have never had a DWI or any other traffic ticket for that matter.... fortunately.

I respect that the law has to define what is legally intoxicated, but one drink does not a drunk make..... But a drunk will make a drink...

[joncarlos]

I want to be clear here - I am not condoning Driving and Drinking. However, what the law defines as the legal blood alcohol limit is really silly. I think most states now are at .08 - Most any person leaving a bar within one hour of getting there is going to likely be over that limit. I have never had a DWI or any other traffic ticket for that matter.... fortunately.

I respect that the law has to define what is legally intoxicated, but one drink does not a drunk make..... But a drunk will make a drink...

Usually it takes 2 drinks for you to get to 0.08. And also, I believe there is some research that shows that 0.08 does reflect actual impairment. It's not just a number they pulled out of thin air.

[baldgriff]

Again, most people will be over .08 after one hour at a bar...

Waiting to be told to F off too (not by you JC) .... though Im used to it as Im a fundy.....

[heyelander]

Not true. At my weight (230 lbs) I can consume 6 drinks in one hour and I should be at .08082 BAC.

http://bloodalcoholcalculator.org/#LinkURL

agrees with your numbers... says possibly impaired, do not drive at 4 (based on your weight)

[OaklandA's]

The actual statistics, which are tough to glean through all this bullsh!t, are that somewhere around 2,000 people are killed annually by a drunk driver. Whether the drunk driver actually did something preventable when sober is another matter entirely --- that would also lower the real number of direct fatalities from drunk drivers.

What are the sources of these "facts" of yours? According to the link below, in 2009 there were over 10,000 fatalities in crashes involving a DRIVER with a BAC over 0.08. Where are you getting 2,000?

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

[OaklandA's]

From your link: "*According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), "A motor vehicle crash is considered to be alcohol-related if at least one driver or non-occupant (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash is determined to have had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 gram per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatality that occurs in an alcohol-related crash is considered an alcohol-related fatality. The term 'alcohol-related' does not indicate that a crash or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol.""

The 10,000 number is "alcohol-impaired", which is over 0.08. Alcohol-related was 12,744. Alcohol-impaired was 10,839.

So I ask again, where is your 2000 number coming from?

[baldgriff]

I think his response is in his edit that happened after your question posted.

"Again, like I've already said, the NHTSA (from whom your "facts" are gotten) makes wild assumptions with their "facts." Over 60% of alcohol-related fatalities do not have any BAC reading whatsoever. So the NHTSA uses a process called "imputation", a term I'm sure you're familiar with, to fill in the void. Despite that fact that the police did not feel compelled to test any of the people involved in the 60% with no BAC reading, the NHTSA assumes that a range of BACs (strangely, from 0.00 all the way up to 0.94 --- a person is dead at around .40 or so) are involved in the unreported instances."