I\’ve never stopped or ever arrested and I totally agree with you that Madd and the slew of sheep out there are very easily scared into giving up those rights that so many fought and died for (I\’m also a Veteran) but I guess it won\’t matter to the sheep until it\’s done to them….
Keep speaking up just like you did!!
Well here we go again, another challenge to the Stop D.W.I. cause.Sure, let 10,,000 of these \”HIGHWAY TERRORISTS\” free to visit death and destruction upon our roadways.Juries SHOULD hear These trials and also the number of times they were arrested.Maybe we better not produce anything that requires any type of device that measures specifics.
Sure Bill, Highway Terrorists. The only terrorist in our midst is a group known as MADD. They have succeeded in eliminating constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure based on extremely inflated statistics and clever marketing using tear jerking stories. It\’s sheep like you that think we have this huge drunk driving problem when none exist. Here\’s a question Bill: Both Alcotest and Intoxylizer take a parts per million reading and deliver a result based on an \”average\” person charateristics. So Bill, define which terrorist drinking drivers that blow into these little inaccurate machines are average and which are not?
Keep believing the 5 o clock news Bill. MADD and NHTSA count on you to not question their lies.
I want to know how 2 beers can make a person\’s blood-alcohol content over.08.
Those have to be VERY large beers, or \”double\” cocktails. I wish that people who post those \”statistics\” would quote their source of that information. The way they are writing, makes it sound like \”Urban Myths\” to me. Probably mis-heard over too many drinks in a bar, then spouted off as reliable, factual information.
Any machine, whether used for alcohol detection or otherwise can have a small margin of error and I agree, should not be the only thing to convict a person if the results are close to the wire. Here in Oregon the legal limit is also .08 and I know that this is a very low level. A person who consumes little food or is smaller in stature can have one drink and have this reading. I don\’t agree that they are always necessarily impaired. When we\’re taking one point above or something that small, there should be other factors considered in rendering of a guilty verdict. I don\’t agree that everyone with a reading of above .08 is a raod terrorist. Let\’s be reasonable. Personally I\’m more afraid of all of those 15 & 16 year olds driving sober than I am of an experienced driver driving with one beer in him/her. If anything, the driving age should be higher. I\’ve had some near misses with young kids driving–and again not all of them are irresponsible either but I think they get too little experience in a vehicle before they are turned loose into the streets to drive on their own.
Sounds to me getmadd that maybe you have gotten a DUI yourself. Obviously you have not lost a loved one to a drunk driver and hopefully you never will.
I came very close to losing my son because of a 16 year old kid driving drunk. I am not a member of MADD but I can tell you I was definately MAD about that.
GETMADD was probably made from the same mold as those who complain about seatbelt laws and helmet laws. You mention unreasonable search and seizure? What are you trying to hide? I would gladly suffer the minor inconvenience of \”unreasonable\” search and seizure if it means safer roads and driving conditions. Oh wait… I forget. It\’s a conspiracy! The government is going to plant something on me so I can be jailed!
Sounds like someone has been stopped a few times themselves for getting a little tipsy and getting behind the wheel. Bottom line is if you drink, you should not be behind the wheel, despite your claim at unreasonable search and seizure or marketing ploys…whatever. If you have nothing to hide, why do you care if they search you, or in this case, give you a test?
Whether or not the tests are inaccurate (at close to .08) or not, 10,000 convictions does not bode well for gettmadd now does it? I\’m pretty sure a police officer has probable cause when they pull someone over…the test is just the icing on the cake!
Let\’s be honest here. Now, I have never been pulled over for driving impaired, but must say that .08 is a little low. You can have two beers over an hour in a bar with good friends, and still blow over the .08 limit. Now, I can\’t speak for everyone, but I must say that I know plenty of people that can spend 2 hours and have 3 beers and be just fine behind the wheel. Now I am not proposing that I support drunk driving, because I don\’t. It would be a tradgedy for someone to be killed by a drunk driver, but I think that we all agree that most people are not drunk after 2 beers.
And furthermore, as far as the minor inconveniece of being searched…it\’s the principal, and that is why it\’s in the constitution. Give away your rights and freedoms if you like, but I happen to charish mine, and that is why I would like to think I am proud to be an American!
TPG should look at a few of the essays that our Founding Father\’s penned. In any case, I do not subscribe to all that gettmadd.com pontificates but neither do I blindly follow nor believe that our government is an end all. Obviously there is a fair amount of evidence that debunks the accuracy of many blood alcohol-measuring devises. This is really about zero tolerance; I mean .08 blood alcohol level is quite minimal. Right or wrong, the true desire of New Jersey and other states is to completely eliminate any alcohol consumption while driving. I do not believe the status of these 10,000 convictions will change.
I agree with you. .08 is low, but I would rather it be too low than just a bit higher and allow for a \”buzzed\” person to get behind the wheel and for a cop to have to say, \”oh, well, you only blew a .12 and the legal limit is .15, so I\’m going to let you go.\” Like Adirondacker said, they want the low limits, essentially a zero tolerance. And, again, I am not in agreement with random, unwarranted searches…but if I\’m weaving back and forth at 1:30 in the morning, I probably should be pulled over, if not for the public\’s safety, then for my own…maybe I\’m just tired and behind the wheel, but I wouldn\’t get mad at the officer-I deserved to be checked out.
Your point is conceded about being pulled over for weaving back and forth, however I am sure people are pulled over for things unrelated to obvious indications of driving impaired and durring the ordeal, are arrested for DUI for having a .11 level because the officer smelled beer on their breath, or even one up, had one of those alcohol smelling flashlights like they have in my County. I am just saying that DUI should be measured by the indication of how someone is driving, not what a machine says on how much you have had to drink. Obviously, if someone is driving and cannot control their vehicle because they have had too much to drink, put them in jail. I would say most drunk driving fatalities do not represent anywhere near the .08 levels.
I have never gotten a DUI nor do I ever intend to. There have been several times when my husband and I have been out, had drinks, not to the point of being falling down drunk but not wanting to risk being pulled over for any reason and called a cab instead of taking any risk. If you can\’t afford a cab then call a friend and ask them to pick you up. The cost of a DUI arrest is not worth it to me.
I have drilled this into my kids, who are 19 and 20 and hope that by our example they will follow in our footsteps.
As for the search issue, if you have nothing to hide why get upset about it?
I suck at history so I can\’t quote the quote the Constitution or Declaration of independence, but I know I have a right to bear arms. Should I go out and protest the waiting period to purchase a gun becuause that infringes upon my rights to own a gun? Perhaps these laws are put in place to sometimes draw line. You can own a gun, but you just have to wait so people don\’t act rash and purchase guns when upset. You can have a few drinks, just don\’t get smashed and then get behind the wheel. I can\’t quote statistics, but do most fatal highway accidents occur at speeds in excess of 55? Does that mean we should raise the limit to 75, which would then give the green light for some to drive 95?
as far as the search issue, it kills me when people say that if you have nothing to hide then why be upset about it…do you think our founding fathers had something to hide when they put it in the constitution?
You guys are funny, complaining about a .08 DUI level. We have had that level in California for a number of years now, and STILL do not lead the country in DUI arrests. Go figure! As for giving away your rights, we aren\’t. ILLEGAL search & seizure is just that..Illegal! Allowing a police officer to search your vehicle when you have nothing to hide doesn\’t give anything away.
Those statistics are from a study I have seen where scientists have set up a controlled environment in which people were given measured drinks and then asked to perform an obstacle coarse with a car.
The source does not come from mis-heard comments in a bar.
OK so all you who stand up for madd please contact your congressman and women to ban cell phone use – a recent study done (I think reported in New England Journel of Medicine showed cell phoone usage while driving even with hands free is the equivalent of a .14 BAC we are not talking .08 here folks .14!
He had just had a beer after work with some friends. The officer asked him if he had been drinking and my friend said yes, one beer. Officer did not test my friend, just arrested him and booked him overnight for his own safety.
To all of you complaining that .08 is too low of a level to impair your driving-
Alright, fair enough. If your driving is indeed unimpaired and you are driving within the parameters of the law and have obeyed all other laws (tabs etc), then you will not get pulled over. End of story. If you really are unimpaired, then you will arrive home just fine. If you do get pulled over, it\’s probably because you were breaking the law! Your friend was going 42 in a 25. That\’s speeding. Regardless of whether he had had one beer or twelve beers, he was driving well over the speed limit and should have been pulled over.
Don\’t know what the laws are in other states but in my state one cure for a police officer searching your car is simply to lock your vehicle if asked to step out. The officer would then have to get a warrant if you refused the search. I also have never had more that a couple parking tickets in my life time and don\’t have anything to hide. It is just the principal of the whole thing. As for the friend being booked for his safety–that\’s precisely the over reaction on the part of someone in uniform that I\’m concerned about. If I were that person, I would find it humilating and terrifying to spend even one night in the slammer even \”for my own protection\”. Plus, the friend could have lied and didn\’t about the one beer but was still rounded up. I say issue a speeding ticket and let him/her go on their merry way if there is no alcohol violation. Last I heard this was still a free country and I don\’t want someone invading my space–whether it\’s my house or my vehicle. I don\’t need to have any suspicious reasons for this request. We have dwindling levels of privacy and what we have left needs to be protected.
Actually C.S. Lewis was quite a theologian… this is an interesting quote:
\”Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron\’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.\” — C. S. Lewis
Not sure this idea applies to the truly evil-intended-act of operating a lethal machine while impaired – there is no room in civil minded society for such selfishness – but it does provide a provocative view of the so call \”good intended\” legislation governing our highways
I\’ve never stopped or ever arrested and I totally agree with you that Madd and the slew of sheep out there are very easily scared into giving up those rights that so many fought and died for (I\’m also a Veteran) but I guess it won\’t matter to the sheep until it\’s done to them….
Keep speaking up just like you did!!
Well here we go again, another challenge to the Stop D.W.I. cause.Sure, let 10,,000 of these \”HIGHWAY TERRORISTS\” free to visit death and destruction upon our roadways.Juries SHOULD hear These trials and also the number of times they were arrested.Maybe we better not produce anything that requires any type of device that measures specifics.
Sure Bill, Highway Terrorists. The only terrorist in our midst is a group known as MADD. They have succeeded in eliminating constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure based on extremely inflated statistics and clever marketing using tear jerking stories. It\’s sheep like you that think we have this huge drunk driving problem when none exist. Here\’s a question Bill: Both Alcotest and Intoxylizer take a parts per million reading and deliver a result based on an \”average\” person charateristics. So Bill, define which terrorist drinking drivers that blow into these little inaccurate machines are average and which are not?
Keep believing the 5 o clock news Bill. MADD and NHTSA count on you to not question their lies.
Read the site
I want to know how 2 beers can make a person\’s blood-alcohol content over.08.
Those have to be VERY large beers, or \”double\” cocktails. I wish that people who post those \”statistics\” would quote their source of that information. The way they are writing, makes it sound like \”Urban Myths\” to me. Probably mis-heard over too many drinks in a bar, then spouted off as reliable, factual information.
sounds like gettmadd may have run afoul of the law himself. \”methinks thou protest too much\”
Any machine, whether used for alcohol detection or otherwise can have a small margin of error and I agree, should not be the only thing to convict a person if the results are close to the wire. Here in Oregon the legal limit is also .08 and I know that this is a very low level. A person who consumes little food or is smaller in stature can have one drink and have this reading. I don\’t agree that they are always necessarily impaired. When we\’re taking one point above or something that small, there should be other factors considered in rendering of a guilty verdict. I don\’t agree that everyone with a reading of above .08 is a raod terrorist. Let\’s be reasonable. Personally I\’m more afraid of all of those 15 & 16 year olds driving sober than I am of an experienced driver driving with one beer in him/her. If anything, the driving age should be higher. I\’ve had some near misses with young kids driving–and again not all of them are irresponsible either but I think they get too little experience in a vehicle before they are turned loose into the streets to drive on their own.
Sounds to me getmadd that maybe you have gotten a DUI yourself. Obviously you have not lost a loved one to a drunk driver and hopefully you never will.
I came very close to losing my son because of a 16 year old kid driving drunk. I am not a member of MADD but I can tell you I was definately MAD about that.
GETMADD was probably made from the same mold as those who complain about seatbelt laws and helmet laws. You mention unreasonable search and seizure? What are you trying to hide? I would gladly suffer the minor inconvenience of \”unreasonable\” search and seizure if it means safer roads and driving conditions. Oh wait… I forget. It\’s a conspiracy! The government is going to plant something on me so I can be jailed!
Sounds like someone has been stopped a few times themselves for getting a little tipsy and getting behind the wheel. Bottom line is if you drink, you should not be behind the wheel, despite your claim at unreasonable search and seizure or marketing ploys…whatever. If you have nothing to hide, why do you care if they search you, or in this case, give you a test?
Whether or not the tests are inaccurate (at close to .08) or not, 10,000 convictions does not bode well for gettmadd now does it? I\’m pretty sure a police officer has probable cause when they pull someone over…the test is just the icing on the cake!
You speak of over inflated statistics. I have no idea if they are or not. I do know 1 drunk driver on the road with my family is 1 too many.
Let\’s be honest here. Now, I have never been pulled over for driving impaired, but must say that .08 is a little low. You can have two beers over an hour in a bar with good friends, and still blow over the .08 limit. Now, I can\’t speak for everyone, but I must say that I know plenty of people that can spend 2 hours and have 3 beers and be just fine behind the wheel. Now I am not proposing that I support drunk driving, because I don\’t. It would be a tradgedy for someone to be killed by a drunk driver, but I think that we all agree that most people are not drunk after 2 beers.
And furthermore, as far as the minor inconveniece of being searched…it\’s the principal, and that is why it\’s in the constitution. Give away your rights and freedoms if you like, but I happen to charish mine, and that is why I would like to think I am proud to be an American!
TPG should look at a few of the essays that our Founding Father\’s penned. In any case, I do not subscribe to all that gettmadd.com pontificates but neither do I blindly follow nor believe that our government is an end all. Obviously there is a fair amount of evidence that debunks the accuracy of many blood alcohol-measuring devises. This is really about zero tolerance; I mean .08 blood alcohol level is quite minimal. Right or wrong, the true desire of New Jersey and other states is to completely eliminate any alcohol consumption while driving. I do not believe the status of these 10,000 convictions will change.
I agree with you. .08 is low, but I would rather it be too low than just a bit higher and allow for a \”buzzed\” person to get behind the wheel and for a cop to have to say, \”oh, well, you only blew a .12 and the legal limit is .15, so I\’m going to let you go.\” Like Adirondacker said, they want the low limits, essentially a zero tolerance. And, again, I am not in agreement with random, unwarranted searches…but if I\’m weaving back and forth at 1:30 in the morning, I probably should be pulled over, if not for the public\’s safety, then for my own…maybe I\’m just tired and behind the wheel, but I wouldn\’t get mad at the officer-I deserved to be checked out.
Your point is conceded about being pulled over for weaving back and forth, however I am sure people are pulled over for things unrelated to obvious indications of driving impaired and durring the ordeal, are arrested for DUI for having a .11 level because the officer smelled beer on their breath, or even one up, had one of those alcohol smelling flashlights like they have in my County. I am just saying that DUI should be measured by the indication of how someone is driving, not what a machine says on how much you have had to drink. Obviously, if someone is driving and cannot control their vehicle because they have had too much to drink, put them in jail. I would say most drunk driving fatalities do not represent anywhere near the .08 levels.
I have never gotten a DUI nor do I ever intend to. There have been several times when my husband and I have been out, had drinks, not to the point of being falling down drunk but not wanting to risk being pulled over for any reason and called a cab instead of taking any risk. If you can\’t afford a cab then call a friend and ask them to pick you up. The cost of a DUI arrest is not worth it to me.
I have drilled this into my kids, who are 19 and 20 and hope that by our example they will follow in our footsteps.
As for the search issue, if you have nothing to hide why get upset about it?
I suck at history so I can\’t quote the quote the Constitution or Declaration of independence, but I know I have a right to bear arms. Should I go out and protest the waiting period to purchase a gun becuause that infringes upon my rights to own a gun? Perhaps these laws are put in place to sometimes draw line. You can own a gun, but you just have to wait so people don\’t act rash and purchase guns when upset. You can have a few drinks, just don\’t get smashed and then get behind the wheel. I can\’t quote statistics, but do most fatal highway accidents occur at speeds in excess of 55? Does that mean we should raise the limit to 75, which would then give the green light for some to drive 95?
as far as the search issue, it kills me when people say that if you have nothing to hide then why be upset about it…do you think our founding fathers had something to hide when they put it in the constitution?
Keep giving away your freedoms…
You guys are funny, complaining about a .08 DUI level. We have had that level in California for a number of years now, and STILL do not lead the country in DUI arrests. Go figure! As for giving away your rights, we aren\’t. ILLEGAL search & seizure is just that..Illegal! Allowing a police officer to search your vehicle when you have nothing to hide doesn\’t give anything away.
Actually,
Those statistics are from a study I have seen where scientists have set up a controlled environment in which people were given measured drinks and then asked to perform an obstacle coarse with a car.
The source does not come from mis-heard comments in a bar.
OK so all you who stand up for madd please contact your congressman and women to ban cell phone use – a recent study done (I think reported in New England Journel of Medicine showed cell phoone usage while driving even with hands free is the equivalent of a .14 BAC we are not talking .08 here folks .14!
got pulled over for speeding, 42 in a 25 mph.
He had just had a beer after work with some friends. The officer asked him if he had been drinking and my friend said yes, one beer. Officer did not test my friend, just arrested him and booked him overnight for his own safety.
Are you serious? No ticket? Why didn\’t he just bring him home then?
To all of you complaining that .08 is too low of a level to impair your driving-
Alright, fair enough. If your driving is indeed unimpaired and you are driving within the parameters of the law and have obeyed all other laws (tabs etc), then you will not get pulled over. End of story. If you really are unimpaired, then you will arrive home just fine. If you do get pulled over, it\’s probably because you were breaking the law! Your friend was going 42 in a 25. That\’s speeding. Regardless of whether he had had one beer or twelve beers, he was driving well over the speed limit and should have been pulled over.
Don\’t know what the laws are in other states but in my state one cure for a police officer searching your car is simply to lock your vehicle if asked to step out. The officer would then have to get a warrant if you refused the search. I also have never had more that a couple parking tickets in my life time and don\’t have anything to hide. It is just the principal of the whole thing. As for the friend being booked for his safety–that\’s precisely the over reaction on the part of someone in uniform that I\’m concerned about. If I were that person, I would find it humilating and terrifying to spend even one night in the slammer even \”for my own protection\”. Plus, the friend could have lied and didn\’t about the one beer but was still rounded up. I say issue a speeding ticket and let him/her go on their merry way if there is no alcohol violation. Last I heard this was still a free country and I don\’t want someone invading my space–whether it\’s my house or my vehicle. I don\’t need to have any suspicious reasons for this request. We have dwindling levels of privacy and what we have left needs to be protected.
People who are willing to give-up liberty for safety are undeserving of both liberty and safety.
The Constitution was drafted to protect this country from its government.
Amen.
Actually C.S. Lewis was quite a theologian… this is an interesting quote:
\”Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron\’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.\” — C. S. Lewis
Not sure this idea applies to the truly evil-intended-act of operating a lethal machine while impaired – there is no room in civil minded society for such selfishness – but it does provide a provocative view of the so call \”good intended\” legislation governing our highways