I was arrested for DUI

[DJCowboy]

First of all you should always carry a brand new bottle of hard liquor in your car with you.

If you are ever pulled over and you are in danger of getting a DUI, here's what you should do.

-Turn off the engine, take the keys out of the ignition and throw them out the window.

-Carefully step out of the vehicle.

-Open up the bottle of alcohol and start chugging it in front of the cop.

At that point any test the officer performs on you will show that you are drunk, but you can claim that you just now got drunk and that you hadn't been during the time of your driving and there is no way that they can prove otherwise since a breathalyser will show off the charts and by the time they perform a blood test your alcohol level will have been effected by what you just drank.

Since you are not behind the wheel of the vehicle and you don't have your keys, they can't arrest you for drunk driving, or for driving with an open alcohol container.

They might be able to cite you for public intoxication, but it is far less severe than DUI.

What are you talking about? The cop would have obviously seen you operating the vehicle in the first place and I can almost guarantee you they would have noticed you throwing something out of the window which gives them probable cause to search your vehicle (that is if you are holding on to anything else) and they would probably take the time to look for what you threw out the window and eventually find the keys. Please, whatever you do, do not become a lawyer. :1orglaugh

Anyways, to the starter of the thread, I have gotten a DUI before and once you admitted to drinking and you blew over a .08, you are pretty much f'd. They don't have to show or tell you what you blew, it's a good idea to ask to see, but they don't have to. You can get a copy of the report the cop wrote out from the station or your lawyer (which I suggest you get one 'cause who knows, if your lawyer has a good rapport with the State's Attorney and you were hovering around the .08 area, you could get it lowered to a reckless driving, it's rare so don't get your hopes up for that). It sucks, but believe me it is not the end. It'll be expensive and You Might have to take some alcohol classes but after it, your life will continue as normal except for that DUI that'll be on your record for several years but just one on there isn't as bad as people say. Good luck!

Overall, fines and classes included, I had to spend about $800, obviously it varies from state to state but with a couple people I know who are from outside of my state, they always seem to be more lenient to out of staters, but as I said before, don't get your hopes up for that either. Just take it, learn from it and get over it. People have done much worse

 

[ChefChiTown]

No, people aren't allowed to talk on a cell phone (unless it's handsfree but I think that should be illegal as well) or send text messages while they drive. It's not even allowed to hold a cell phone in your hand while you're driving. I also feel the same way about people who use a cell phone while they're driving. When you're driving a car your attention should be focussed on only one thing, driving.

Hmm, I did not know that. The US is waaaaay behind on enforcing strict "no cellphone" laws while driving, but it is slowly implementing laws throughout the states that prohibit people from using their cell phones while driving. I don't think that people here in the US realize the true danger in driving while talking on the phone/texting. It takes away a lot of your concentration from the road, which can make people get into accidents pretty easily.

In fact, my car was hit by a girl who was talking on her cell phone a few years back. By the way, my car was PARKED...:1orglaugh

I also want to explain something. @ any given time the number of people who drive while under the influence of alcohol is far far less than drivers that are sober. That's why there are less alcohol related accidents. It doesn't make driving with alcohol in your system any less dangerous. @ any given time there are also far more people who talk on a cell phone while they drive, that's why it causes more accidents compared to driving under the influence of alcohol. This also doesn't make drinking and driving any less dangerous.

It's not rocket science, it's very easy to understand.

You're right - just because drunk drivers don't cause as many accidents as cell phone users do doesn't mean that drunk driving isn't dangerous. In fact, I'm willing to bet that more serious injuries and/or deaths occur in drunk driving related accidents when compared to those that occur in cell phone related accidents.

As I said, there are people who have driven literally thousands of times after having drank and ne'er a one accident. That's not a defense, that's a simple fact.

Before I was caught and arrested for my DUI, I drove drunk hundreds and hundreds of times. I'm not proud of that, but it's true. Not once, not one single time before my DUI, did I get into any accidents or even come close to being in a wreck and/or breaking the law.

I hate to say it like this, but a lot of drunk drivers who get caught are just unlucky. Should they have been drinking and driving in the first place? No, absolutely not. But, just because you are driving with a BAC which is over the legal limit, it doesn't mean that you are incapable of driving with proper safety and precaution. In fact, when I was arrested for my DUI, I passed all field sobriety tests and was almost let go with a warning - even though I blew a .212 as a BAC. I was nearly 3 times over the legal limit, but I was perfectly functional and had absolutely no slack in my motor skills.

Drinking and driving is an easy target and certainly it's impossible to defend from typical outrage....but we can't so consume ourselves in the outrage that we're unable to appraise the facts.

That's true. Although drinking and driving is extremely dangerous and potentially deadly, there are plenty of other things that effect our ability to drive in a safe and responsible manner that end up causing even more accidents and even more deaths than drunk driving does.

- Speeding
- Talking/texting on a cell phone
- Putting on makeup
- Getting dressed
- Eating
- Etc.

Still, none of that changes the fact that drunk driving is stupid, dangerous and irresponsible.

 

[whalers90]

Hmm, if you merely thought for yourself your answer was "NO" how then am I supposed to know your answer is "NO"?

You said, "i (sic) want to say no". That doesn't sound definitive in any way. In fact, is suggests you, "want to say no" "...however,". Further you add something at the end suggesting a desire to see people on cellphones in accidents...so that could sound like a "yes".

In either case, I'm glad you cleared it up (I think).

i feel you. i wasn't very clear at all. i should be specific and not add a whole bunch of other stuff and just answer the question.

 

[Supafly]

Hindu Honky (Nice Nick ), I have gotten to know a lot of people who have gotten high on booze, grass, LSD, whatever and partially where insanely lucky not to kill or injure someone, and people who did not fare so good.

Two of them are in a wheelchair now, hitting trees drunk, and one killed himself and three friends. The last one was my cousin, who got his drivers license at 18, got the old VW Beetle and swerved into the lane on his left into a truck after driving home from an evening in a club.

Don't bullshit yourself about having control about your reflexes and the car. You are only fooling yourself. Do us all a favor and keep your promise not to drive drunk again.

 

[CrackHerButt]

Youll be alright man maybe 2 days jail fines and loss of license..2 years ago i got popped in philly with the following charges

1)dui controlled substance 1st offense
2)resist arrest
3)aggravated assault while dui
4)felony battery
5)public drunkiness and similiar misconduct
6)posses controlled substance
7)dui controlled substance alcohol comination

Most charges were tossed especially the most serious assault and i didnt want probation so i just maxed out my 6 month sentence.I got more time than money,you will be alright my friend.If you go to rehab before trial you will get less time cause that shows you made in effort even before trial.Good luck.

 

[shayd]

I think a person who has a drink or two all things being equal represents no greater hazard than the average driver.

If that is indeed your belief, I don't think you fully understand the effects of alcohol on human motor and cognitive abilities. By sheer numbers, you are more likely to be injured or killed in an accident involving alcohol than without alcohol. That's what the numbers say.

Unbelievable, simply unbelievable! I have never read such utter stupidity! Every test ever done in the Netherlands (and I assume other countries as well) has shown that people, even if they have consumed only 2 glasses of beer cannot judge risky situations as well as a sober person and are more likely to take unnessecary risks. You can lie to yourself all you want but that's a statistical fact.

Agreed. The impairment to human motor skills by alcohol consumption, even in small quantities is undeniable.

Just to play Devil's advocate here...

Are people allowed to drive while talking on the cell phone and/or texting in the Netherlands? Because, here in the US, (I heard this on the news just the other night) it is a statistical fact that talking on a cell phone/texting causes 5 times the amount of accidents that drunk driving does. So, technically, driving while talking on a cell phone and/or texting is much more dangerous then driving while intoxicated.

So, do you feel the same way about people who use their cell phone while driving or is it just drunk drivers?

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just asking.

According to the Department of Transportation, accidents caused by cell phone use in the US numbered about 240,000 with 955 being fatal. Driving drunk in comparison has a much higher fatality rate.

 

[Hot Mega]

Hindu Honky (Nice Nick ), I have gotten to know a lot of people who have gotten high on booze, grass, LSD, whatever and partially where insanely lucky not to kill or injure someone, and people who did not fare so good.

Two of them are in a wheelchair now, hitting trees drunk, and one killed himself and three friends. The last one was my cousin, who got his drivers license at 18, got the old VW Beetle and swerved into the lane on his left into a truck after driving home from an evening in a club.

Don't bullshit yourself about having control about your reflexes and the car. You are only fooling yourself. Do us all a favor and keep your promise not to drive drunk again.

When I was young(er) I drove while tired...I was literally dozing off at the wheel for miles. I don't know why in the world I didn't pull over. My judgment wasn't impaired by any drug or alcohol but for some reason I continued to feel I could make it home and the comfort of my own bed. Fortunately I made it home without killing myself or anyone else. I did it one more time and that time was equally agonizing and fortunate. I've since vowed never to drive tired and if I am in a situation like that again to absolutely pull off the road.

Once I was at a light in a left hand turning lane. The opposite, oncoming traffic had a green..which eventually went yellow to red. A grandmother speeding in oncoming traffic failed to see the red light because she was reaching into the back seat apparently tending to her granddaughter. She blows through the red light, plows into the tail end of a car proceeding in cross traffic through the intersection, the car spins and flips ending up on my hood and partly on my windshield.

I was okay...I immediately got out of my car and checked to see if the guy in the car sitting on my car was okay. He appeared disoriented but uninjured...I rushed to the car where grandma and baby were and aside from having a face full of airbag, she and baby were miraculously okay. I double checked myself to see if adrenaline was masking an injury but I was okay. With the aid of others, helped grandma, baby and the guy from the other vehicles.

I took a brief moment to thank God that I and the others were okay, called my insurance company, exchanged information..waited for the cleanup and got a ride home. Even though I had other cars..I got a rental the next day per my insurance coverage..got a new vehicle per my ins. coverage...and have only thought about the story a few other times (this being one) since.

Years ago I worked at NASA DRF at Edwards AFB, CA. Once you enter the base from Rosamond, you pass through an unguarded gate and go over a dry lake bed another 11 miles of nearly flat, straight, paved road. 2 lanes on either side separated by a grass valley medium eventually arriving at a guarded gate...Going to work in the morning I'd see time and time again likely tired people coming off of some night shift, undoubtedly hypnotized by the long, straight, uneventful drive weaving. In one case, a guy apparently dozed off briefly if not just blacked out momentarily...started to swerve then overcorrected sending his car tumbling off the road into the lake bed where it flipped a few times. I stop, pull over and run back to join others to help....The guy was in his seat belt, unconscious as the car lay upright. We were able to get the door open but you could plainly see something wrong with his neck. Paramedics got to the scene and the guy was pronounced dead likely from a broken neck.

 

[sproing99]

According to the Department of Transportation, accidents caused by cell phone use in the US numbered about 240,000 with 955 being fatal. Driving drunk in comparison has a much higher fatality rate.

Particularly when you consider that the number of incidences of talk-driving is much greater than those of drink-driving.

 

[Hot Mega]

If that is indeed your belief, I don't think you fully understand the effects of alcohol on human motor and cognitive abilities. By sheer numbers, you are more likely to be injured or killed in an accident involving alcohol than without alcohol. That's what the numbers say.

That is one thing that can be anecdotally gleaned from the numbers you cite. But that wasn't the question. The question was, whether some mere amount of alcohol in one's system makes them inherently unsafe enough to then cause accidents?

Agreed. The impairment to human motor skills by alcohol consumption, even in small quantities is undeniable.

No one denies that. At least I didn't...in fact, I stipulated if not enjoined that belief. The question again, is to what degree mere amounts of alcohol matter in certain, relatively uncomplicated tasks?

That is a question unknowable with respect to driving as the data you cite can never produce a number reflective of how many people drink then drive and are never involved in accident nor arrest. There are means for fairly determining some ratio of accidents to driving. There is no practical means of determining some ration of accidents to numbers of those who drink then drive. The only thing relevant your numbers produced for the purposes of a response to my posts is number of accidents attributed to alcohol as compared to accidents attributable to other causes.

 

[Boothbabe]

The question again, is to what degree mere amounts of alcohol matter in certain, relatively uncomplicated tasks?

People die because of it in traffic, that's how much it matters!

 

[shayd]

That is one thing that can be anecdotally gleaned from the numbers you cite. But that wasn't the question. The question was, whether some mere amount of alcohol in one's system makes them inherently unsafe enough to then cause accidents?

And the answer is yes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12784660?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16824545?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=5&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

Both of those studies include information that support this conclusion, in addition to citing other studies that offer the same conclusion. According to these studies, significant motor and psychomotor (meaning mental activity that effects motor activity) impairment starts at .02% BAC. According to the studies, as well as the National Traffic Safety board, and the California DMV, having 2 drinks (comprised of 2 beers) within the span of 2 hours would produce a .02% BAC for a male weighing between 220-280 pounds, and .03%-.04% for men below that weight, with the results lasting between 5 and 10 hours. The same result would be produced by a single martini, or common mixed drink (some yield even higher BAC levels). The evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of the assertion that alcohol, in even small amounts, significantly impacts ones ability to function both in terms of motor skills and cognitive ability.

No one denies that. At least I didn't...in fact, I stipulated if not enjoined that belief. The question again, is to what degree mere amounts of alcohol matter in certain, relatively uncomplicated tasks?

That is a question unknowable with respect to driving as the data you cite can never produce a number reflective of how many people drink then drive and are never involved in accident nor arrest. There are means for fairly determining some ratio of accidents to driving. There is no practical means of determining some ration of accidents to numbers of those who drink then drive. The only thing relevant your numbers produced for the purposes of a response to my posts is number of accidents attributed to alcohol as compared to accidents attributable to other causes.

The problem here is that you're assuming that because people get away with driving drunk that their behavior is any less risky/likely to cause accidents. That is simply not the case, as this fact can simply be attributed to the typical time of day that drunk drivers are most likely to be on the road. Because they are on the road typically at night, there tend to be fewer other drivers, which obviously would impact the probability of causing an accident. The bigger issue is whether drunk driving is inherently more dangerous than not, and the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of that fact.

 

[Hot Mega]

People die because of it in traffic, that's how much it matters!

Okayyy. Let me ask it a clearer way. To what degree does mere amounts of alcohol prevent people from the ability to view their surroundings, determine if a light is red, green or yellow, decelerate, brake and maneuver an automobile in normal, driving circumstances? I don't believe all things being equal mere (relatively small) amounts of alcohol in a person's system impairs them to the degree that they cannot simply hold a steering wheel, appropriately steer it left or right, take your foot off of the gas, apply the brake or recognize, process and react to traffic signs or signals in plain view.

Also, people die in accidents for a variety of reasons. That doesn't excuse any of them including the ones involving alcohol. But "shayd" cited some number of overall deaths and some number of accidents resulting in death to which alcohol was "involved". Let's say the number was 50k accidents which resulted in death and 35k were attributed to alcohol that would seem noteworthy and could lead one to believe alcohol is the major culprit in accident causing deaths.

However, what if you go inside the numbers and find that 45k involved speeds above 60 miles an hr? Why wouldn't speed be the leading culprit in the cases of accident causing deaths??

 

[Hot Mega]

And the answer is yes.

Both of those studies include information that support this conclusion, in addition to citing other studies that offer the same conclusion. According to these studies, significant motor and psychomotor (meaning mental activity that effects motor activity) impairment starts at .02% BAC. According to the studies, as well as the National Traffic Safety board, and the California DMV, having 2 drinks (comprised of 2 beers) within the span of 2 hours would produce a .02% BAC for a male weighing between 220-280 pounds, and .03%-.04% for men below that weight, with the results lasting between 5 and 10 hours. The same result would be produced by a single martini, or common mixed drink (some yield even higher BAC levels). The evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of the assertion that alcohol, in even small amounts, significantly impacts ones ability to function both in terms of motor skills and cognitive ability.

More likely to crash based on the assumption of what affect alcohol has on some physical ability. Not practical application to people who actually drink then drive. What a study on motor function can never determine is the psychology of the individual, circumstances in which the impairment takes place, etc. Again, it seems you and I are split on practical versus clinical results.

The problem here is that you're assuming that because people get away with driving drunk that their behavior is any less risky/likely to cause accidents. That is simply not the case, as this fact can simply be attributed to the typical time of day that drunk drivers are most likely to be on the road. Because they are on the road typically at night, there tend to be fewer other drivers, which obviously would impact the probability of causing an accident. The bigger issue is whether drunk driving is inherently more dangerous than not, and the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of that fact.

May be. But as the adage goes..."If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?" If a person who has drank alcohol then drives within the speed limit, in their lane, reacts appropriately to traffic signals and signs and maneuvers their car safely...did they really "get away" with something??? Technically it could be argued that they have possibly gotten away with being over the legal limit while operating a vehicle (which is illegal) but an absolute defense to being over the legal limit is insufficient probable cause which would normally come in the form of violating some vehicle code.

You consider the time of day when people are driving after having drank as factor in accidents or lack of them. Thank you!! As you are now conceding it's not a simple, clinical, linear circumstance and other factors possibly inherent to drinking play a role in whether they are prone to more accidents.

Again, clinical and theoretical conclusions are helpful but not determinative in many cases...Certainly if a bumble bee went by theory and clinical study...it would have been convinced it couldn't fly as it's ability to fly is in contravention to almost all known theories of aeronautical engineering.:2 cents:

 

[Boothbabe]

it seems you and I are split on practical versus clinical results.

You are truly unbelievable, shayd presents you with hard evidence and you still don't want to see it. Your uncle was killed by a drunk driver and here you are, still trying to desperately convince yourself of "facts" wich aren't there. It seems the only thing that can convince you of how dangerous it is is for you to do some drunk driving and wrap your car around a tree.

This is also why I have lost my respect for you, I don't respect stupidity.

 

[Rey C.]

Youll be alright man maybe 2 days jail fines and loss of license..2 years ago i got popped in philly with the following charges

1)dui controlled substance 1st offense
2)resist arrest
3)aggravated assault while dui
4)felony battery
5)public drunkiness and similiar misconduct
6)posses controlled substance
7)dui controlled substance alcohol comination

Damn dude. You kind of made your own episode of "Breaking Bad" that night, didn't you?

 

[Honky Hindu]

Hindu Honky (Nice Nick ), I have gotten to know a lot of people who have gotten high on booze, grass, LSD, whatever and partially where insanely lucky not to kill or injure someone, and people who did not fare so good.

Two of them are in a wheelchair now, hitting trees drunk, and one killed himself and three friends. The last one was my cousin, who got his drivers license at 18, got the old VW Beetle and swerved into the lane on his left into a truck after driving home from an evening in a club.

Don't bullshit yourself about having control about your reflexes and the car. You are only fooling yourself. Do us all a favor and keep your promise not to drive drunk again.

I promise you that. In fact, I'm volunteering as a designated driver this weekend for my buddy's wife's birthday party.

 

[Hot Mega]

You are truly unbelievable, shayd presents you with hard evidence and you still don't want to see it. Your uncle was killed by a drunk driver and here you are, still trying to desperately convince yourself of "facts" wich aren't there. It seems the only thing that can convince you of how dangerous it is is for you to do some drunk driving and wrap your car around a tree.

This is also why I have lost my respect for you, I don't respect stupidity.

Here's the problem. The first thing you do is cite a personal loss associated with this subject....not to be insensitive but it was frankly irrelevant. Losing someone as a result of some circumstance doesn't give you experience with that circumstance per se. It only gives you experience with tragic loss. I mean, did you think people weren't killed in accidents or even in accidents involving alcohol before your nephew was unfortunately killed?

I don't need to crash or lose someone to an accident to know that accidents happen and people sometimes die in them.

I will say this, I probably have more experience with tragic loss than do you. I've been in combat and watched men die that were brothers to me, men you swore to protect with your own life if necessary. For me experiencing tragic loss scarcely gets worse than that. I am likely a little more broad in my perspective on death and resigned to the WIDE VARIETY of circumstances death can visit upon people. Once you accept that reality then it's a matter of putting the truth of cirucumstances in perspective. People have been killed by lightning strikes....but it's not reasonable to walk around consumed with being killed by one as the occurrences are rare. There are people I know today who fear flying even though incidents of plane crashes, while dramatic are fairly low. You are far more likely to be involved in an accident not involving alcohol than one which does. Why that is? Well, I obviously have my opinions as do others.

The simple fact of the matter is we (in the US) live in a society where alcohol is legal and people have vehicles. That naturally amounts to people drinking and driving at some point. My judgment on the behavior aside, in relevant terms the only thing I ration is the likelihood my life (including loved ones) will be impacted by such circumstance. I've reasoned that it's fairly small based on what I know about the circumstance.

I don't know you other some of your writings here...beyond that I don't presume to characterize you. But I have to say, if you don't or have never drank alcohol...never driven while under it's influence nor know anyone who does...what insight can you offer beyond what you've read or been told??

I mean, not to be blunt about it but that's really what it amounts to....

But not to beat a dead horse, the references "shayd" cites only show what affect alcohol has on motor function..from that it concludes thus and so with respect to driving....

Nowhere did it cite real, practical application of it's conclusions...as a practical study would hardly be practical to perform. And forget what you see with these kids trying to navigate through cones after a beer. That doesn't represent real driving nor situations where the margin for error is that tight.

Having said all of that, while I drink, I don't binge drink, drink to get drunk and I don't drink and drive. But I'm sure you knew that.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Also, people die in accidents for a variety of reasons. That doesn't excuse any of them including the ones involving alcohol. But "shayd" cited some number of overall deaths and some number of accidents resulting in death to which alcohol was "involved". Let's say the number was 50k accidents which resulted in death and 35k were attributed to alcohol that would seem noteworthy and could lead one to believe alcohol is the major culprit in accident causing deaths.

However, what if you go inside the numbers and find that 45k involved speeds above 60 miles an hr? Why wouldn't speed be the leading culprit in the cases of accident causing deaths??

That's a good point. Is drinking obviously a suspect in those cases? Yes. But, it doesn't mean that it's the only guilty party.

Just for conversation's sake, let's say that two cars are involved in a deadly accident. One of the drivers was drunk and one of the drivers was sober - the sober one dies in the accident but the drunk one survives. After all is said and done, the authorities come to the conclusion that the drunk driver was at fault for no other reason than that they were over the legal limit and had no business being behind the wheel of a car. The drunk driver spends the rest of their life in jail for manslaughter.

Now, did alcohol play a part in that accident? Yes. Or, no. Who knows? But, it is definitely a suspect and very well could have interfered with that driver's ability to properly and safely operate a motor vehicle. But, it very well could have had little to no effect on their ability to properly and safely operate a motor vehicle as well either. Unfortunately, nobody but the drunk driver would ever know the answer to that question.

But, what about all of the other factors that just as easily could've lead up to that deadly accident?

- How fast were the cars going? What if the drunk driver was obeying the speed limit but the sober driving was driving 20MPH over the speed limit? That could've caused the accident.

- What were the drivers looking at during the time of the accident? What if the drunk driver was paying attention to the road, but the sober driver was busy looking for a CD on the floor underneath the passenger's seat? That could've caused the accident.

- How did the accident happen? What if the drunk driver was obeying all traffic signs, but the sober driver ran a red light, blew a stop sign or failed to yield (etc)? That could've caused the accident.

There are sooooo many different scenarios that could've caused that accident that would have nothing to do with drunk driving.

- The sober driver could've been distracted by talking on a cell phone, getting dressed or eating, causing the accident.
- The sober driver could've been changing the radio station and not paying attention to the road, causing the accident.
- The sober driver could've been wearing sandals that got caught on the gas pedal, making it impossible for them to stop momentarily, causing the accident.
- The sober driver could've crossed over the white dotted lines and entered the opposite lane of traffic, causing the accident.
- The sober driver could've purposely gotten into the accident in a suicide attempt, causing the accident.

The list goes on and on and on. But, unfortunately, for the drunk driver in that situation...it doesn't matter how long that list continues on for because they are still going to get arrested and charged for drunk driving and, waaaaay more often than not, be charged with manslaughter - even though their alcohol consumption could've very well had nothing to do with the accident.

I'm not saying that drunk drivers are completely innocent and I'm certainly not endorsing driving under the influence - I am saying that drunk driving statistics only focus on the fact that the driver is drunk, leaving all other variables and possible causes of the accident out of the equation.

 

[skechers]

There's far too much science being discussed here when the only thing that matters is, drinking and driving is a really dumb and irresponsible thing to do.

Had a couple of buddies have their driving liscences taken away. And we've all heard the horror stories about accidents, where alcohol was involved. Some of us have experienced that first hand, or have had loved ones lost because of it.

Call a taxi. Call a sober friend. Or family member. Have your girlfriend come get you. Walk. Eat something and wait.


No matter what the argument, common sense tells me that if you inbibe something, and it impairs your senses and functions, you shouldn't be operating heavy machinery.

 

[Hot Mega]

I'm not saying that drunk drivers are completely innocent and I'm certainly not endorsing driving under the influence - I am saying that drunk driving statistics only focus on the fact that the driver is drunk, leaving all other variables and possible causes of the accident out of the equation.

Agreed. It's not a linear circumstance. i.e. you drink and become automatically prone to causing accidents. As studies which purport to conclude that don't include many relevant variables.

Human beings aren't robots. While specific inputs do produce specific affects..you can't conclude those affects will effect specific results.