Is Lower BAC level for DUI a good idea?
Jerry Morgan
the blood alcohol content to .08 in DUI cases. The Senate is now
considering the measure and if it passes there's little chance the
Governor would not support the change. I seem to recall he's already
on record as supporting it.
The questions I have involve actual impairment and accident rates at
BAC's less than the current DUI standard of .10 %.
In most instances I've either read or heard about in the media where a
"drunk driver" was involved in serious accidents, particularly
fatality accidents, it seems the BAC is often reported between .15 %
to.20 % or on occasion greater. Usually these instances involve a
driver so intoxicated they are driving the wrong way on an expressway,
interstate highway, cross left of center on a undivided highway or
some simply drive off the roadway and into a stationary object.
Are there any records maintained of traffic accidents in which one or
more drivers had a BAC of greater than .07 % and less than .10 %?
Since DUI charges would not be applicable in such cases it may be that
such records are not maintained.
If there's evidence to suggest that driver's with a BAC of .08 % or
.09% are as great a risk as those at .10% and higher that might
justify the lowering of the BAC level. Of course then comes the
question of how about .07 %, .06 % and so forth.
The federal government is blackmailing the states to reduce the BAC
for DUI to .08 % nationwide under the threat of with holding highway
funds to those states that fail to comply.
If these changes are justifiable on a scientific basis it's one thing,
however if they are being considered and enacted simply as a response
to a threat from the federal government it's quite another.
- - - - -
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, do
the other trees make fun of it?
- - - - -
E. Faubion
>The questions I have involve actual impairment and accident rates at
>BAC's less than the current DUI standard of .10 %.
DPS should have some stats on this based on test results entered on collision
reports. This data will probably give slightly lower rates than true allowing
for non tested subjects.
>If there's evidence to suggest that driver's with a BAC of .08 % or
>.09% are as great a risk as those at .10% and higher that might
>justify the lowering of the BAC level. Of course then comes the
>question of how about .07 %, .06 % and so forth.
I don't have the numbers but I can tell you that a great many drivers in the .06
to .10 range are involved in crashes. We need to keep in mind that anyone in
that range currently faces a charge in Oklahoma of Driving While Impaired. It's
a lesser charge than DUI but can still have a serious impact on one's driving
record and wallet.
>The federal government is blackmailing the states to reduce the BAC
>for DUI to .08 % nationwide under the threat of with holding highway
>funds to those states that fail to comply.
Whether the feds are doing this or not makes no difference to me. I've seen
enough of the misery caused by drinking drivers to believe that lowering the per
se limit is a good idea. True impairment begins well before a .08 is reached.
>If these changes are justifiable on a scientific basis it's one thing,
Doctors experienced in the field say that true impairment begins at .03.
Pete
jmo...@bubbaworld.com (Jerry Morgan) wrote:
> The Oklahoma House unanimously passed legislation that would lower
> the blood alcohol content to .08 in DUI cases. The Senate is now
> considering the measure and if it passes there's little chance the
> Governor would not support the change. I seem to recall he's already
> on record as supporting it.
>
> The questions I have involve actual impairment and accident rates at
> BAC's less than the current DUI standard of .10 %.
>
> In most instances I've either read or heard about in the media where a
> "drunk driver" was involved in serious accidents, particularly
> fatality accidents, it seems the BAC is often reported between .15 %
> to.20 % or on occasion greater. Usually these instances involve a
> driver so intoxicated they are driving the wrong way on an expressway,
> interstate highway, cross left of center on a undivided highway or
> some simply drive off the roadway and into a stationary object.
>
> Are there any records maintained of traffic accidents in which one or
> more drivers had a BAC of greater than .07 % and less than .10 %?
> Since DUI charges would not be applicable in such cases it may be that
> such records are not maintained.
>
> If there's evidence to suggest that driver's with a BAC of .08 % or
> .09% are as great a risk as those at .10% and higher that might
> justify the lowering of the BAC level. Of course then comes the
> question of how about .07 %, .06 % and so forth.
>
> The federal government is blackmailing the states to reduce the BAC
> for DUI to .08 % nationwide under the threat of with holding highway
> funds to those states that fail to comply.
>
> If these changes are justifiable on a scientific basis it's one thing,
> however if they are being considered and enacted simply as a response
> to a threat from the federal government it's quite another.
I think it's a good idea because you shouldn't drive with *any*
impairment... I don't. Sorry to disappoint all you folks here on the
newsgroup that think I'm some sort of loose cannon behind the wheel... but
I do NOT drink and drive, not even a little. It's just not worth it. I'm
5'11, 185# - and my mood is altered by two drinks - maybe not reflexes,
but I'm a little more gung-ho after a few beers. Not a good time for
anyone to be driving, IMHO.
Pete
Jerry Morgan
Faubion) wrote:
>jmo...@bubbaworld.com (Jerry Morgan) wrote:
>
>>The questions I have involve actual impairment and accident rates at
>>BAC's less than the current DUI standard of .10 %.
>
>DPS should have some stats on this based on test results entered on collision
>reports. This data will probably give slightly lower rates than true allowing
>for non tested subjects.
>
I'll take another look at their web pages, however I seem to recall
that their data did not get into the degree of impairment or BAC but
rather stated that alcohol either was or was not a factor.
>>If there's evidence to suggest that driver's with a BAC of .08 % or
>>.09% are as great a risk as those at .10% and higher that might
>>justify the lowering of the BAC level. Of course then comes the
>>question of how about .07 %, .06 % and so forth.
>
>I don't have the numbers but I can tell you that a great many drivers in the .06
>to .10 range are involved in crashes. We need to keep in mind that anyone in
>that range currently faces a charge in Oklahoma of Driving While Impaired. It's
>a lesser charge than DUI but can still have a serious impact on one's driving
>record and wallet.
>
Anecdotal evidence is applicable if the source is trusted and this is
one of those cases I would have to trust the judgement of the pros.
If over the years you seen "many" crashes involving drivers with a BAC
in the .06 to .099 range, it does go a long way toward convincing me,
anyhow.
>>The federal government is blackmailing the states to reduce the BAC
>>for DUI to .08 % nationwide under the threat of with holding highway
>>funds to those states that fail to comply.
>
>Whether the feds are doing this or not makes no difference to me. I've seen
>enough of the misery caused by drinking drivers to believe that lowering the per
>se limit is a good idea. True impairment begins well before a .08 is reached.
>
When the "feds" come a'calling with a demand for new or revised laws
and threaten the states, I always first try to determine in my own
mind if the changes are reasonable or not or if they are simply the
whim of some damn bureaucrat in DC.
If they seem reasonable on the surface, next I try to determine if the
"costs" are worth the supposed benefits to be gained.
If so, then fine and I can accept the idea.
If the answer is "NO" on the above criteria, then it's simply a matter
of the "costs" - refusing to yield to the feds versus being a willing
victim of blackmail.
>>If these changes are justifiable on a scientific basis it's one thing,
>
>Doctors experienced in the field say that true impairment begins at .03.
>
What does a .03 BAC equate to "drink wise", sniffing a bottle of 3.2
beer? ;-)
Actually, I question why the need for lowering the level for DUI from
.10 % to .08 % in view of the above. Why not lower it to .05 % or
possibly the .03 % you mention above.
Thanks for the info Earl. I was hoping you would contribute on this
one as you are one of the few regulars here that can provide first
person info regarding the relationship between BAC and traffic
accidents.
- - - - -
The Older I get - The better I *WAS*.
Jerry Morgan
(Pete) wrote:
<snip>
>I think it's a good idea because you shouldn't drive with *any*
>impairment... I don't. Sorry to disappoint all you folks here on the
>newsgroup that think I'm some sort of loose cannon behind the wheel... but
>I do NOT drink and drive, not even a little. It's just not worth it. I'm
>5'11, 185# - and my mood is altered by two drinks - maybe not reflexes,
>but I'm a little more gung-ho after a few beers. Not a good time for
>anyone to be driving, IMHO.
>
>Pete
I agee that a person should not drive with any impairment, be it from
alcohol, other drugs or simply fatigue, anger or frustration with life
in general. Each plays at least some part in impairing a person's
ability to drive, operate other machinery and so forth.
That said however, there remains the subjective nature of
"impairment". Where does it actually begin and does it have a
different starting point for various individuals? Can a person be
well below the legal limit and still be impaired? Can a person be
above the legal limit and not be impaired?
It seems that BAC is one of the few external "scientific" indicators
available to determine if a person is subject to impairment and to
what degree and as such I agree that it's needed.
It would also appear from your comments and those of Igor that we ALSO
need are more folks willing, like the two of you, to confront their
own personal "limits". Both of you have mentioned refraining from
driving at what would probably be a point well below the "legal
limit". That's commendable in that it shows a personal responsibility
BEYOND what's required under law.
Maybe there's hope for us yet.
Peter G.
>
> In ok.general, Jerry Morgan <jmo...@bubbaworld.com> wrote:
> * On Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:08:59 -0600, ig...@Algebra.Com (Igor) wrote:
> *
> * >In ok.general, Jerry Morgan <jmo...@bubbaworld.com> wrote:
> * <snip>
> *
> * >* If there's evidence to suggest that driver's with a BAC of .08 % or
> * >* .09% are as great a risk as those at .10% and higher that might
> * >* justify the lowering of the BAC level. Of course then comes the
> * >* question of how about .07 %, .06 % and so forth.
> * >
> * >Is .08 about equivalent to two beers, for a regular sized man?
> * >
> *
> * At the risk of rekindling the "beer debate"...
> *
> * I can't recall the reference I once seen to the relationship between
> * BAC and a "menu" of various alcoholic beverages.
> *
> * Hopefully someone knowledgeable can enlighten us.
> *
> * >If yes, then I personally can't drive well after drinking two beers.
> * >
> *
> * Hmmm.
> *
> * Only two huh?
>
> Well, actually I drank something else, but was as drunk as I am after
> 2 beers. I have some internal "gauge".
>
> * By any chance are you of small or medium build?
>
> I am 5'11. I guess medium. I am probably more sensitive to alcohol
> because I do not drink often.
>
> * The reason I ask is over the years I've seen similar "limits" in small
> * to medium build individuals and higher "limits" in big or huge
> * individuals.
>
> I think that it depends on something else and not size/build. I have
> friends who are the same size as myself and yet I get drunk a lot
> faster than them. So I guess Doc SJB had some point.
Oh!, and another great thing of indian descent your more succeptable to
get drunk as a skunk my 1/32% is enough to affect my drinking(not that I
would I'm only 16) and my chances of having diabetes.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
-Peter G.<syt...@webzone.net.nospam>-------------------------
-Rana's Vintage Technologies--http://www.bigdog.tulsa.ok.us/-
--IBM PS/2------IBM XT------IBM CONVERTIBLE------DATAVUE 25--
-------------------------------------------------------------
x-no-archive: yes
Jerry Morgan
Faubion) wrote:
>jmo...@bubbaworld.com (Jerry Morgan) wrote:
>
>>I do think that body size/weight does figure into the picture, but
>>I'll be damned if I'll call in "doc" for a consultation.
>
>>Hey Earl, can you help us out here?
>
>Body mass does make some difference. The following online charts may help:
>http://rampages.onramp.net/~seamed/chart.html
>http://www.thevirtualbar.com/~willie/Hangover/BloodAlcohol.html
>
Thanks for the references, much appreciated.
>>I commend you for your honesty and your caution.
>>If only we could all be as honest and cautious...
>
>Many years ago someone told me their definition of a winner was someone who made
>a mistake and learned from it and did not repeat it.
>
Yep.
E. Faubion
>I do think that body size/weight does figure into the picture, but
>I'll be damned if I'll call in "doc" for a consultation.
>Hey Earl, can you help us out here?
Body mass does make some difference. The following online charts may help:
http://rampages.onramp.net/~seamed/chart.html
http://www.thevirtualbar.com/~willie/Hangover/BloodAlcohol.html
>I commend you for your honesty and your caution.
>If only we could all be as honest and cautious...
Many years ago someone told me their definition of a winner was someone who made
a mistake and learned from it and did not repeat it.
E. Faubion
>If over the years you seen "many" crashes involving drivers with a BAC
>in the .06 to .099 range, it does go a long way toward convincing me,
>anyhow.
Yes. Sorry I don't have the numbers, I'm not a bean counter and don't keep stats
on the crashes I've investigated or assisted with. I do currently have one
case involving a death and a .07 driver but since it is active I can't comment
further.
>When the "feds" come a'calling with a demand for new or revised laws
>and threaten the states, I always first try to determine in my own
>mind if the changes are reasonable or not or if they are simply the
>whim of some damn bureaucrat in DC.
Like you I tend to automatically buck up when the feds start trying to dictate
anything to us. What I try to do is look past their involvement and see if the
proposal has merit. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. In this case I
think it does.
>What does a .03 BAC equate to "drink wise", sniffing a bottle of 3.2
>beer? ;-)
It's roughly equivalent to that little buzz we get after a single bottle of
beer. :=]
>Thanks for the info Earl. I was hoping you would contribute on this
>one as you are one of the few regulars here that can provide first
>person info regarding the relationship between BAC and traffic
>accidents.
I sometimes shock people when I say that drunk driving is not an unsafe act in
and of itself.... it's the traffic violations that the drunks are prone to
committing that cause all the problems. In other words, the alcohol or other
drugs is the drunk's reason for violating the law and when a sober person makes
a conscious decision to violate the same laws the same problems can surface.
When one views the stats regarding how many sober drivers versus drunks kill
with their vehicles it gives us food for thought.
An interesting argument for sure. :=]
E. Faubion
>Alcohol has a more detrimental effect on women as well:
Yes, I think you're right.
>http://www.homearts.com/gh/health/08healb2.htm
>Females get impaired/drunk faster, stay that way longer, and suffer the
>consequences of "long-term" drinking sooner.
Interesting. :-]
Jerry Morgan
Faubion) wrote:
>jmo...@bubbaworld.com (Jerry Morgan) wrote:
>
<snip>
>>When the "feds" come a'calling with a demand for new or revised laws
>>and threaten the states, I always first try to determine in my own
>>mind if the changes are reasonable or not or if they are simply the
>>whim of some damn bureaucrat in DC.
>
>Like you I tend to automatically buck up when the feds start trying to dictate
>anything to us. What I try to do is look past their involvement and see if the
>proposal has merit. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. In this case I
>think it does.
>
I too believe this issue does have merit and thus far have been unable
to find any evidence to the contrary. So I guess I could be included
in the "me too" group.
<snip>
>>Thanks for the info Earl. I was hoping you would contribute on this
>>one as you are one of the few regulars here that can provide first
>>person info regarding the relationship between BAC and traffic
>>accidents.
>
>I sometimes shock people when I say that drunk driving is not an unsafe act in
>and of itself.... it's the traffic violations that the drunks are prone to
>committing that cause all the problems. In other words, the alcohol or other
>drugs is the drunk's reason for violating the law and when a sober person makes
>a conscious decision to violate the same laws the same problems can surface.
>When one views the stats regarding how many sober drivers versus drunks kill
>with their vehicles it gives us food for thought.
>
>An interesting argument for sure. :=]
>
Yes, an interesting argument for sure.
However beyond the issue of drunks being more prone to violate the
traffic laws and cause accidents there is also the scenario where a
drunk is less able to deal with the situation where another person
violates the traffic laws.
I'm sure there is some percentage of cases where an accident results
from the actions of a sober driver and a drunk driver was unable to
react quick enough to avoid the accident. Drunk driving really is a
double edged sword.
Pete
efau...@oklahoma.USA.net wrote:
that was on some 20/20ish news show a few weeks or maybe a month ago - the
effects of alcohol on women. The metabolize it slower. They had a
breathalyzer, and gave them some drinks... (can't remember how many) and
made them wait until they weren't impaired to leave. Most of the guys were
gone in around an hour, one lady was there for *four* hours, she
metabolized it so slowly.
Pete
QuikWebb Website and Graphics Design
I have not drank at all in about 7 years. To get to the point one of the
requirements to get my drivers licence back was to attend a Driving school.
One of the most important things that I remember was a study that they
performed to show the effects of alcohol at different BAC. The basics of
the study were this, take a group of 40 people that were known for thier
ability to hold thier liquor, give them all carefully monitored amounts of
alcohol depending on thier weight and judge them at a task as they got
progessively more impaired.
To start with they had everone drive through a faily simple obstacle course
while they were sober. A zig-zag cone course, a quik lane change test, and
driving thier car backward at a set rate of speed. Everone done fairly well
while sober. Then they took everone and gave them a drink, everone's glass
was the same size but they had different amounts of alcohol in them. A test
group. It was really interesting to see the effects that even .04 and .05
had on these people. They were wiping out cones and losing control when
backing and one nearly took out the traffic signal pole in the quick lane
change test. Then they took it on up to a notch to the .07 and .08 BAC and
things started getting really funny then. When the BAC went up to .10 % not
one of them could pass the obstacle course.
Keep in mind these were seasoned drinkers known for thier ability to handle
thier alcohol. These people were not staggering, tippsy, slurring thier
words. In my opinion they looked as sober as anybody that I know. Im not
about to tell anyone if they go out and drink three beers they WILL wreck.
These people in this study were running through an obstacle course. They
were perfectly capable of getting in the car and driving down the road
without weaving or acting crazy but the second that they were put into a
situation where they had to make a split second descision or react quickly
they didnt have the reaction time to pull it off.
You might drive home from the bar a hundred times and not have a problem but
what will happen when the little kid rides his bike out in front of you?
Are you sure that you can stop? They experts say no and I believe it, I
saw it with my own eyes. Any doubters out there I welcome to try it. Set
you own test up, shuffle cards or time yourself typing or whatever then have
three beers and try it again.
Im not saying you will be drunk but your senses will be impaired and that is
the only thing that it takes to make the life and death difference.
Possiblly someone elses life or even someone you love.
Im not trying to preach Lord knows I done my share of the stupid stuff when
I was younger. But the driving class and this study in particular made me
stop getting in a car even after I had only 2 beers and eventually made me
give up drinking all together. If me getting on my soapbox can make one
person reconcider the next time they get behind the wheel after a couple of
beers it is worth the flames that this post is sure to bring. :)
Jerry Hutchens
--
________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------
QuikWebb Website Design
http://www.QuikWebb.com
Webm...@QuikWebb.com
ICQ # 24565339
________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Morgan wrote in message
>On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 21:33:01 GMT, efau...@oklahoma.USA.net (E.
>Faubion) wrote:
snip>
>If over the years you seen "many" crashes involving drivers with a BAC
>in the .06 to .099 range, it does go a long way toward convincing me,
>anyhow.
snip>
QuikWebb Website and Graphics Design
And it doen't matter if you are the cause of the accident or not. If you
are in an accident and you are impaired you are automatically guilty. Earl
correct me on this if I am wrong I cant remember how reliable the source
that I heard this from was. :)
Jerry Hutchens
Timothy Melton
Jerry Morgan <jmo...@bubbaworld.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I do think that body size/weight does figure into the picture, but
>I'll be damned if I'll call in "doc" for a consultation.
>
>Hey Earl, can you help us out here?
Well, I'm not Earl, but I wrote a simple program to run the numbers.
EtOH partitions equally in all of the water in your body (if the NTSB
is to be believed). I've been meaning to hack a wrapper to make it a
CGI program and make it available on the 'Net, but haven't gotten
around to it yet. Or you can do an alta vista search on +bac
+calculator and get quite a few hits.
Tim
--
Tim Melton t...@questconsult.com
Quest Consultants Inc. http://www.questconsult.com/~tam
P.O. Box 721387 (405) 329-7475
Norman, OK 73070-8069 Fax: (405) 329-7734
E. Faubion
>However beyond the issue of drunks being more prone to violate the
>traffic laws and cause accidents there is also the scenario where a
>drunk is less able to deal with the situation where another person
>violates the traffic laws.
I'm not talking about reaction times and such. What I'm talking about is the
laws of physics, in other words, the point of no return where both the drunk or
the sober driver is committed and is just along for the ride. The end results
are the same.
Another way to view what I mean is to step off the curb (figuratively of course)
into the path of a speeding vehicle. At the time of impact your body has no
idea (nor does it care) whether the driver is drunk or sober. The end result is
the same.
>I'm sure there is some percentage of cases where an accident results
>from the actions of a sober driver and a drunk driver was unable to
>react quick enough to avoid the accident.
Yes, in some cases that happens, but as mentioned above I'm not talking about
the slower reaction time of the drinking driver, I'm talking about that point in
time after the PRT (perception-reaction time) has already been used up and when
both drivers are committed to the crash. Quite often in my line of work we can
show mathematically how a driver (sober or drunk) got involved in a crash
because of a clear cut violation of law. Whether that violation was the result
of a drunk's stupor or the sober person's intentional act makes no difference,
the end result is the same.
Put in ultra simplistic terms, if sober drivers breaking traffic laws are so
much better than drunk drivers breaking the same traffic laws then sober drivers
would never crash. About the only real difference with the drunk is his odds of
crashing are much higher. Many sober drivers put themselves into that same
category via their driving even though they remain sober.
I'm probably not doing a very good job of explaning this. Maybe you can see
where I'm coming from.
E. Faubion
>When I was a teenager I drank quite a bit and I got a DUI (sorry Earl) , but
>I have not drank at all in about 7 years.
There's no need to apologize to me. As was mentioned in another post, the
person who makes a mistake and does not repeat is a winner. The person who
makes a mistake and then turns around and does it again is the loser.
>Im not trying to preach Lord knows I done my share of the stupid stuff when
>I was younger.
Didn't we all? :=]
>But the driving class and this study in particular made me
>stop getting in a car even after I had only 2 beers and eventually made me
>give up drinking all together.
Then you're ahead of me. I'll still down a cold brew every once in a while.
But thanks to some of the things I've seen I won't even consider getting behind
the wheel after even a single beer. It just isn't worth the risk.
>And it doen't matter if you are the cause of the accident or not. If you
>are in an accident and you are impaired you are automatically guilty. Earl
>correct me on this if I am wrong I cant remember how reliable the source
>that I heard this from was. :)
I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. The current .10 BAC per se level
is enough to gain a conviction regardless whether the drunk was the cause of the
crash or not.. If that's what you meant, you are right. This means if a drunk
is legally stopped at a stop sign and gets rearended by a sober driver, the
other driver will be ticketed for causing the crash and the drunk will be
charged with DUI and go to jail. While this type of crash is not very common
it has happened and I've investigated a few. One of the most satisfying
crashes we can investigate is the one where two drunks run into each other.
Those can get *real* interesting when they start suing each other. :-]
Jerry Morgan
Faubion) wrote:
>jmo...@bubbaworld.com (Jerry Morgan) wrote:
>
<snip>
>>I'm sure there is some percentage of cases where an accident results
>>from the actions of a sober driver and a drunk driver was unable to
>>react quick enough to avoid the accident.
>
>Yes, in some cases that happens, but as mentioned above I'm not talking about
>the slower reaction time of the drinking driver, I'm talking about that point in
>time after the PRT (perception-reaction time) has already been used up and when
>both drivers are committed to the crash. Quite often in my line of work we can
>show mathematically how a driver (sober or drunk) got involved in a crash
>because of a clear cut violation of law. Whether that violation was the result
>of a drunk's stupor or the sober person's intentional act makes no difference,
>the end result is the same.
>
I understand what you are saying and of course it is logical in that
once the point of no return has been passed nothing but the laws of
physics matter and those in the vehicles are simply along for the
ride.
>Put in ultra simplistic terms, if sober drivers breaking traffic laws are so
>much better than drunk drivers breaking the same traffic laws then sober drivers
>would never crash. About the only real difference with the drunk is his odds of
>crashing are much higher. Many sober drivers put themselves into that same
>category via their driving even though they remain sober.
>
While there is of course a point of no return, actually a point of no
escape, in every accident scenario it would seem that such a point in
time would be reached later by a sober driver.
I base this on the fact that highly skilled drivers, for example race
car drivers, are able on occasion to avoid crashes in scenarios in
which the typical driver would not stand much of a chance.
>I'm probably not doing a very good job of explaning this. Maybe you can see
>where I'm coming from.
>
Oh I don't think it's your explaining, it's probably my understanding
that's the problem.
Jerry Morgan
Design" <Webm...@QuikWebb.com> wrote:
>
>And it doen't matter if you are the cause of the accident or not. If you
>are in an accident and you are impaired you are automatically guilty. Earl
>correct me on this if I am wrong I cant remember how reliable the source
>that I heard this from was. :)
>
>Jerry Hutchens
I have no knowledge of whether the law in such that an impaired driver
is "automatically" guilty, more accurately might be "at fault" in all
accidents.
Consider or example, an impaired driver might be stopped at a traffic
signal and be rear-ended by a sober driver. The impaired driver would
of course still be subject to arrest for DUI or DWI as applicable,
however the "fault" would clearly reside with the driver that failed
to stop in time to avoid the crash.
My "guess" is that both drivers would be cited, well actually the DUI
or DWI driver would probably be arrested the other simply cited and
from an insurance point of view I would assume that 100% of the
liability would be with the second driver.
Pete
efau...@oklahoma.USA.net wrote:
> jmo...@bubbaworld.com (Jerry Morgan) wrote:
>
> >However beyond the issue of drunks being more prone to violate the
> >traffic laws and cause accidents there is also the scenario where a
> >drunk is less able to deal with the situation where another person
> >violates the traffic laws.
>
> I'm not talking about reaction times and such. What I'm talking about is the
> laws of physics, in other words, the point of no return where both the
drunk or
> the sober driver is committed and is just along for the ride. The end results
> are the same.
Yep, but the impaired or unskilled driver reaches that 'point of no
return' much easier than someone that is a good driver, or merely aware of
more than what is 10 feet in front of him.
> Another way to view what I mean is to step off the curb (figuratively of
course)
> into the path of a speeding vehicle. At the time of impact your body has no
> idea (nor does it care) whether the driver is drunk or sober. The end
result is
> the same.
> >I'm sure there is some percentage of cases where an accident results
> >from the actions of a sober driver and a drunk driver was unable to
> >react quick enough to avoid the accident.
>
> Yes, in some cases that happens, but as mentioned above I'm not talking about
> the slower reaction time of the drinking driver, I'm talking about that
point in
> time after the PRT (perception-reaction time) has already been used up
and when
> both drivers are committed to the crash.
Driving Education and making people retest when they get their licenses
would go a long way towards fixing this.
> Quite often in my line of work we can
> show mathematically how a driver (sober or drunk) got involved in a crash
> because of a clear cut violation of law. Whether that violation was the
result
> of a drunk's stupor or the sober person's intentional act makes no difference,
> the end result is the same.
I don't buy the drunk's 'stupor' idea - I consider everything a drunk to
do as being an intentional act, since they *chose* to get behind the
wheel. I have an uncle that lost his license due to DUI/DWI - and was
injured a few times. (hit traffic poles and the like... thank god he never
hit anyone else.) That's probably my biggest 'education' on drinking and
driving.
> Put in ultra simplistic terms, if sober drivers breaking traffic laws are so
> much better than drunk drivers breaking the same traffic laws then sober
drivers
> would never crash.
No, because sometimes an accident is just that - an accident. I lost a
*wheel* one time - had a bearing freeze on a '78 camaro when I was a youth
(ok, more youthful) and slid sideways across the BA just past the curve.
Slid the car from the fast lane into the 15th street exit, and it ended up
looking like I parallel parked it. If I hadn't driven the car a little
hard at times, I wouldn't have known what to do when the car started
sliding.
> About the only real difference with the drunk is his odds of
> crashing are much higher. Many sober drivers put themselves into that same
> category via their driving even though they remain sober.
Yep. I have a friend that has poor eyesight, and doesn't stay aware of
traffic 'further up the road' or what's going on around him. He's had
literally 1/2 dozen accidents. He doesn't speed, doesn't run red lights...
he is just literally Mr.Magoo. He's ridden with me before (I sure as hell
don't ride with him) and been amazed at my accident-avoidance techniques,
which basically are just to be AWARE of surroundings, and don't drive
faster than conditions allow. I also never ever speed in residential
areas, and drive slower at night. Heck, I even have my side mirrors set
for my blind spots - something that few drivers do.
...and don't get me talking about drivers that speed when it's raining (or
worse) ...
Pete
> I'm probably not doing a very good job of explaning this. Maybe you can see
> where I'm coming from.
I can. you're clear as always.
E. Faubion
>I understand what you are saying and of course it is logical in that
>once the point of no return has been passed nothing but the laws of
>physics matter and those in the vehicles are simply along for the
>ride.
Yes, that's it. In many crashes the point of no return is reached *before* the
hazard is perceived so the reaction time becomes a moot point.
>While there is of course a point of no return, actually a point of no
>escape,
Yes, it's the same thing and probably a better description.
>in every accident scenario it would seem that such a point in
>time would be reached later by a sober driver.
It depends on the crash. In some, yes, in others, no.
>I base this on the fact that highly skilled drivers, for example race
>car drivers, are able on occasion to avoid crashes in scenarios in
>which the typical driver would not stand much of a chance.
Because they are prepared. An interesting note on professional race car drivers
is that on average they have worse driving records than the average driver.
There have been a number of reasons why this is so, the most common being they
tend to push the envelope off the track as well.
E. Faubion
>Yep, but the impaired or unskilled driver reaches that 'point of no
>return' much easier than someone that is a good driver, or merely aware of
>more than what is 10 feet in front of him.
See my reply to Jerry. Sometimes the perception of a hazard comes past the
point of no escape, I'll use his description because it is more accurate. This
is a much more common scenario than you might think.
>Driving Education and making people retest when they get their licenses
>would go a long way towards fixing this.
Yes, that would certainly help.
>I don't buy the drunk's 'stupor' idea -
That's just an extreme example. The typical "drunk" driver is below the level
of stuporous. In fact, the truly stuporous driver is rather rare because they
*know* they can't drive.
>I consider everything a drunk to do as being an intentional act,
So do I. Just we wouldn't tolerate a drunk with a loaded gun wandering around
in a crowded theater, we won't tolerate a drunk piloting a 3000 pound bullet
down a busy highway. They are indiscriminate killers. According to today's
paper the double fatality in Warr Acres early Wednesday was caused by a drinking
driver.
>No, because sometimes an accident is just that - an accident.
True. That is a true 'accident' that is statistically rather rare, but you're
right, they do happen. I should have clarified my remark to include those
crashes that were the result of driver error.
>Yep. I have a friend that has poor eyesight, and doesn't stay aware of
>traffic 'further up the road' or what's going on around him. He's had
>literally 1/2 dozen accidents. He doesn't speed, doesn't run red lights...
>he is just literally Mr.Magoo.
A truly dangerous driver. This is where periodic eye or physical exams would
help. It's also possible to notify DPS of the potential problem. They used to
have a system in place whereby an officer or relative could request DPS to
retest an individual. I'm not sure if they still do this.
>...and don't get me talking about drivers that speed when it's raining (or
>worse) ...
Hydroplaning is a serious problem and I've investigated a number of crashes
where this has been the culprit. During a steady rain the max. safe speed for
most passenger vehicles is around 60 mph and that's pushing it. The max. speed
will depend on a number of factors but that's a pretty good ballpark figure.
Pete
efau...@oklahoma.USA.net wrote:
I always keep fairly high-priced all season tires on my vehicles... but I
hate driving on wet roads, especially RIGHT after it starts raining and
all the oil, etc makes the road a bit slicker. braking is terrible too,
but my firebird has ABS that works pretty well. I wouldn't want to rely on
it, however.
Pete
E. Faubion
>I always keep fairly high-priced all season tires on my vehicles... but I
>hate driving on wet roads, especially RIGHT after it starts raining and
>all the oil, etc makes the road a bit slicker. braking is terrible too,
>but my firebird has ABS that works pretty well. I wouldn't want to rely on
>it, however.
Good tires are important in inclement weather. I've noticed over the last few
years that fewer vehicles seem to have poor tires when compared with years past.
I've no idea why that is.
Two weeks ago I replaced all four tires on my SUV. I was very pleased to get
53,000 miles out of the original set so I bought identical replacements. I was
even more amazed when the dealer told me it'd take an hour and they had it and
an alignment done in 40 minutes and some special instructions I'd given them
were followed to the letter without having to be repeated. And when it came
time to pay I was charged the exact amount I'd been quoted over the phone. How
often does *that* happen nowadays?
Pete
efau...@oklahoma.USA.net wrote:
> ir00...@mindspringREMOVE.com (Pete) wrote:
>
> >I always keep fairly high-priced all season tires on my vehicles... but I
> >hate driving on wet roads, especially RIGHT after it starts raining and
> >all the oil, etc makes the road a bit slicker. braking is terrible too,
> >but my firebird has ABS that works pretty well. I wouldn't want to rely on
> >it, however.
>
> Good tires are important in inclement weather. I've noticed over the last few
> years that fewer vehicles seem to have poor tires when compared with
years past.
> I've no idea why that is.
Even cheap tires are better than they used to be. I always put the best
tires (for the application intended) that I can find.
> Two weeks ago I replaced all four tires on my SUV.
Aw crap, Earl! You are one of the SUV crowd killing the sports cars!
*grumble* At least tell me you offroad it, or use it for what's it's
intended... going where cars can't, towing stuff, carrying lots of people
and getting really really dirty.
> I was very pleased to get
> 53,000 miles out of the original set so I bought identical
replacements. I was
> even more amazed when the dealer told me it'd take an hour and they had it and
> an alignment done in 40 minutes and some special instructions I'd given them
> were followed to the letter without having to be repeated. And when it came
> time to pay I was charged the exact amount I'd been quoted over the
phone. How
> often does *that* happen nowadays?
That never happens in Tulsa. ever. ask Carl. = )
From my what it's worth department: If you're buying new tires, go to
www.tirerack.com - I recently bought some Zrated all season Pirellis,
245/50/16s (big, wide tire) for my Formula - and they were $108 each.
That's about $80 cheaper *each* than a Pirelli dealer in town quoted me,
for just the tire - no mounting, etc included. Shipping was like $11 a
tire... still saved a lot of money. They also sell 'normal' tires, all
season, truck, etc... at a much better price than tire stores in town. I
paid a tire store in Tulsa $10 per tire to have em mounted and balanced,
and was out the door MUCH cheaper than I expected. by the way... it took
about 10 minutes to get me out the door.
I don't work for tirerack or know anyone who does - but they have saved a
lot of $ from the six tires I've purchased from them in the last few
years.
E. Faubion
>Aw crap, Earl! You are one of the SUV crowd killing the sports cars!
>*grumble* At least tell me you offroad it, or use it for what's it's
>intended... going where cars can't, towing stuff, carrying lots of people
>and getting really really dirty.
The SUV is more my wife's than mine and is a 2-wheel drive with (gasp!) no
trailer hitch. She spends a small fortune at the car wash and detail shop
keeping it clean. Sometimes she even lets me drive it.
>From my what it's worth department: If you're buying new tires, go to
>www.tirerack.com - I recently bought some Zrated all season Pirellis,
>245/50/16s (big, wide tire) for my Formula - and they were $108 each.
Not bad. Pirelli's are good tires, I used to own a set on an MGB and they
lasted almost as long as the larger UniRoyals we just replaced on our current
vehicle.
Gold...@yahoo.com
syt...@webzone.net.nospam wrote:
> Igor wrote:
> >
> > In ok.general, Jerry Morgan <jmo...@bubbaworld.com> wrote:
> > * On Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:08:59 -0600, ig...@Algebra.Com (Igor) wrote:
> > * >Is .08 about equivalent to two beers, for a regular sized man?
No.... (the following assumes a normal size male. If your fat then lower the
BAC numbers I'm about to give you. If your small, raise them)
According to MADD, a 12 oz. beer, a glass of wine (? oz), or 1 oz. shot of 80
proof liquor will raise your BAC .01. Your body metabolizes alcohol at affect
your BAC by .01/hr. So basically if you drink 1 drink per hour you will never
get above .01 BAC. If you start at 4pm and have two beers (no matter how fast
you drink them), by 5pm you will have .01 BAC. So, if you go out and drink 6
beers over 3 hours, your BAC should be .03. So, if you drink 10 beers in 2
hours, you should have a .08 BAC. The thing that gets me about the whole BAC
thing is that BAC levels can affect people different. So by having laws that
are latched to BAC, it's not going to apply to everyone equally.
Hope this helps!
GoldChain
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
J. Lower
> In article <36DCA9...@webzone.net.nospam>,
> syt...@webzone.net.nospam wrote:
> > Igor wrote:
> > >
> > > In ok.general, Jerry Morgan <jmo...@bubbaworld.com> wrote:
> > > * On Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:08:59 -0600, ig...@Algebra.Com (Igor) wrote:
> > > * >Is .08 about equivalent to two beers, for a regular sized man?
>
> No.... (the following assumes a normal size male. If your fat then lower the
> BAC numbers I'm about to give you. If your small, raise them)
> According to MADD, a 12 oz. beer, a glass of wine (? oz), or 1 oz. shot of 80
> proof liquor will raise your BAC .01. Your body metabolizes alcohol at affect
> your BAC by .01/hr. So basically if you drink 1 drink per hour you will never
> get above .01 BAC. If you start at 4pm and have two beers (no matter how fast
> you drink them), by 5pm you will have .01 BAC. So, if you go out and drink 6
> beers over 3 hours, your BAC should be .03. So, if you drink 10 beers in 2
> hours, you should have a .08 BAC. The thing that gets me about the whole BAC
> thing is that BAC levels can affect people different. So by having laws that
> are latched to BAC, it's not going to apply to everyone equally.
Good grief! I have to suspect these numbers. If I ever drink 10 beers in
2 hours you'd better hope I don't get behind the wheel of a car.
--
| Jim Lower | See my Computer->Aquarium conversions at |
| jlo...@home.com | http://members.home.com/jlower/ |
Pete
Lower) wrote:
Yeah, I hate to agree with Jim (just kidding!) but that sounds way off. I
think most people drinking 10 beers in two hours would be sleeping or
barely able to walk, let alone go drive a car. Unless you're really big or
make drinking a hobby... that's going to mess you up pretty good.
I also think the metabolization rate is off too...
Earl, want to give us the 'real deal'?
Pete
Timothy Melton
[drivel snipped]
I've repeatedly posted site that do an accurate calculation for the
instantaneous BAC as well as decaying it for the passage of time. I
guess I need to "webify" the code I wrote to do it. But the numbers
youpost are, more or less, correct.
>hours, you should have a .08 BAC. The thing that gets me about the whole BAC
>thing is that BAC levels can affect people different. So by having laws that
>are latched to BAC, it's not going to apply to everyone equally.
No, the law is going to apply to everyone equally. The law saya
nothing about your level of impairment. It simply states that if you
have > 0.1 BAC, you're DUI. Make it 0.08 if the new law passed.
What you meant to say was that not every person is equally impaired at
a given BAC. This is probably true. However, the law needs a
yardstick to measure impairment and, for most people, BAC is a good
indicator. It's a matter of legal simplicity.
Dead horse.
Timothy Melton
J. Lower <jlo...@home.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Good grief! I have to suspect these numbers. If I ever drink 10 beers in
Well, you can't expect a group like MADD to have much in the
scientific credibility department, now can you? Kind of like our
resident expert witness loon.
>2 hours you'd better hope I don't get behind the wheel of a car.
Well, assuming that you are a 170 male who had 3550 ml of typical, OTC
beer that runs about 2.7 weight % alcohol (~3.2 by volume), I show the
following:
tavern:~/bac$ baccalc
usage: baccalc weight(lb) sex(0=m/1=f) volume_drunk(ml) v%EtOH time(hours)
tavern:~/bac$ baccalc 170 0 3550 3.2 2
Instantaneous BAC: 0.16176 (g/100 ml)
BAC after 2 hours: 0.12776 (g/100 ml)
So, you'd be illegal to drive after 2 hours. Now, let's look at Joe
Sixpack. He gets his real 3.2 weight % beer (nothing light for him)
which is about 4% by volume. Let's look at his BAC assuming that he
chugs the 6 pack very quickly (in say 15 minutes):
tavern:~/bac$ baccalc 220 0 2130 4.0 1
Instantaneous BAC: 0.0937475 (g/100 ml)
BAC after 1 hours: 0.0767475 (g/100 ml)
BAC after 2 hours: 0.0597475 (g/100 ml)
BAC after 3 hours: 0.0427475 (g/100 ml)
BAC after 4 hours: 0.0257475 (g/100 ml)
BAC after 5 hours: 0.00874749 (g/100 ml)
BAC after 6 hours: 0 (g/100 ml)
Yea, Joe's a bit tubby. But all of this assumes that he metabolizes
the EtOH at the average rate of 0.017 g EtOH/hr/100 ml. Some folks
and ethnicities have higher and lower metabolisms.
There are a plethora of good references on the web. Try:
http://www.intox.com/Drink_Wheel.html as a start and browse around
some. If anyone is interested, I could make the source code to
baccalc available.
Jerry Morgan
Melton) wrote:
<snip>
>Dead horse.
>
So THAT'S what that smell is...
I thought that "doc" had returned to ok.general.
Whew!!!
Someone open a window, quick!!!