NationStates Jolt Archive

I heard this on a radio program this morning. They were talking about (US) DUI laws and how they should be changed depending on if it is a holiday or not. They had proposed instead of the standard of .08% it would be .10%. I personally think the .08% rule is a joke because people are perfectly fine at .08%.
I know there are exceptions to that. What do you think?

The reason it's set so low is so that there are very very few people who will be truly drunk below that level. The idea is to have as few exceptions as possible I think.

Your numbers (0.08) are so high that anyone with that percentage is already dead.

Edit:
I've now looked it up. Estimates are as follows:

0.001 you start getting difficulty coordinating your movements.

0.002 you have difficulty moving.

then follows unconsciousness.

0.006-0.008 you have death.

Or, if you want it in percentages:

0.1%
0.2%
0.6-0.8%

Depends on what the current DUI laws are in whichever country you're referring to.

Your numbers (0.08) are so high that anyone with that percentage is already dead.

Edit:
I've now looked it up. Estimates are as follows:

0.001 you start getting difficulty coordinating your movements.

0.002 you have difficulty moving.

then follows unconsciousness.

0.006-0.008 you have death.

Or, if you want it in percentages:

0.1%
0.2%
0.6-0.8%

I think whatever source your looking up is wrong. Actually you are just making a error in how you were writing the first part. The legal limit in the US is .08% for alcohol.

Depends on what the current DUI laws are in whichever country you're referring to.

fixed. ;)

I heard this on a radio program this morning. They were talking about (US) DUI laws and how they should be changed depending on if it is a holiday or not. They had proposed instead of the standard of .08 it would be .10. I personally think the .08 rule is a joke because people are perfectly fine at .08.
I know there are exceptions to that. What do you think?

It depends on the driver. I'd rather have a limit that is too low for all people than one that is too low for most people (and not high enough for others).

You seem to have dropped a zero,Seathornia -- going by your numbering, the US limit (.08%) would be .0008

Why yes, they should be changed on the holidays - to an even lower limit, preferably plus additional controlling those days.

0.2‰ is the limit here. The USA's 0.8‰ limit is ludicrously high, but it does reflect in their accident statistics, so they pay for it.

0.2‰ is the limit here. The USA's 0.8‰ limit is ludicrously high, but it does reflect in their accident statistics, so they pay for it.

.08% not .8%. Did you mean .02%?

fixed. ;)

Better ;)

.08% not .8%. Did you mean .02%?

Not %. ‰! Don't they teach you maths in the USA any more?

Not %. ‰! Don't they teach you maths in the USA any more?

I see your using a different symbol. You have to be different all the time don't you? :p

Yes, they do teach mathematics in the US. Calculus was the high end while I was in public schools. At least when I was in school years ago.

I think whatever source your looking up is wrong. Actually you are just making a error in how you were writing the first part. The legal limit in the US is .08% for alcohol.

No, I was not making any error:

Seeing as how these things are not measured in percentages, but in promilles, they would indeed be written as 0.001, 0.002, 0.006-0.008.

Please, don't reinforce the idea that Verizon's math is right, because it just isn't.

I see your using a different symbol. You have to be different all the time don't you? :p

I guess they don't teach maths over there any more. Educate yourself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permille)

You seem to have dropped a zero,Seathornia -- going by your numbering, the US limit (.08%) would be .0008

well, let's find out, shall we?

1/100 = 0.01

0.08*0.01 = 0.0008

So yes, indeed, they ARE 0.0008, what a pleasant surprise!

No, I was not making any error:

Seeing as how these things are not measured in percentages, but in promilles, they would indeed be written as 0.001, 0.002, 0.006-0.008.

Please, don't reinforce the idea that Verizon's math is right, because it just isn't.


When someone says the legal limit is .08 it is basic that it means percentages. I did not write this for a math class. I changed what I had written to include a percentage at the end for one's like you that want to make something out of nothing. BTW you were making in error in basic common sense when you read the OP.

I guess they don't teach maths over there any more. Educate yourself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permille)

Well Fass I wasn't giving you a hard time just clarifying what you meant. I didn't really pay attention to your symbol rather then you decimal placement as most people would. The symbol you are using is not a widely used one in daily life.

I know it's your game to use little used words or in this case symbols and then try and make someone look dumb for not knowing. If you care or not it does make you look like the dumb one for doing it. 99% of people that read your posts know it is just a petty move. Keep it up if you like but it looks dumb. If you are trying just to be a smart ass in your own way then it is working.

When someone says the legal limit is .08 it is basic that it means percentages. I did not write this for a math class. I changed what I had written to include a percentage at the end for one's like you that want to make something out of nothing. BTW you were making in error in basic common sense when you read the OP.

No, because you seem to have missed the very important part in which alcohol is not measured in percentages.

It's measured in promilles, because of the very small numbers involved.

Well Fass I wasn't giving you a hard time just clarifying what you meant. I didn't really pay attention to your symbol rather then you decimal placement as most people would. The symbol you are using is not a widely used one in daily life.

I know it's your game to use little used words or in this case symbols and then try and make someone look dumb for not knowing. If you care or not it does make you look like the dumb one for doing it. 99% of people that read your posts know it is just a petty move. Keep it up if you like but it looks dumb. If you are trying just to be a smart ass in your own way then it is working.

Unfortunately for you, his symbol is a widely accepted standard in alcohol measurements and science everywhere.

Meanwhile, 0.08 =/= 0.08%

No, because you seem to have missed the very important part in which alcohol is not measured in percentages.

It's measured in promilles, because of the very small numbers involved.

If it is measured in promilles then why is it listed as .08% on government websites? Is that an error?

Permille is how the BAC is measured in most of Scandinavia, correct?

0.08% seems to be if anything too high. It was lowered from .10% in several states a while ago, and the evidence seems to suggest it had a positive effect on drunk driving. (See here (http://www.discoveret.org/ridorac/summer01/bac.php)and here (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/808-892.PDF).)
The effects of a 0.08 BAC can be seen here (http://www.alcohol.vt.edu/Students/alcoholEffects/index.htm).
As you can see, people go from being "Joyous" to "Extroverted," and everyone knows the outgoing make lousy drivers.

Well Fass I wasn't giving you a hard time just clarifying what you meant. I didn't really pay attention to your symbol rather then you decimal placement as most people would. The symbol you are using is not a widely used one in daily life.

I know it's your game to use little used words or in this case symbols and then try and make someone look dumb for not knowing. If you care or not it does make you look like the dumb one for doing it. 99% of people that read your posts know it is just a petty move. Keep it up if you like but it looks dumb. If you are trying just to be a smart ass in your own way then it is working.

I don't care about your insularity. The permille sign is widely used throughout the world - in fact, most of the world measure blood alcohol content in permille and not percent as permille is much more suitable for such high dilutions than percent is. That the USA's primary school system is woefully sub par and has failed you is not my fault, nor my concern. Next time you come across a word you don't understand or a symbol you were never taught rectify your ignorance instead of lashing out at those that caused you to make it apparent. You know, be an adult.

If it is measured in promilles then why is it listed as .08% on government websites? Is that an error?

Since Fass has already covered this, I can only make this simple statement:

For the same reason that Verizon can list 0.01 cent as being the same as 0.01 dollars: Your High School education doesn't teach nearly as much maths as it should.

Unfortunately for you, his symbol is a widely accepted standard in alcohol measurements and science everywhere.

Naturally.

Meanwhile, 0.08 =/= 0.08%

Of course. 0.08 = 8%.

Of course. 0.08 = 8%.

People rarely bother saying 0.08% when referring to BAC, just as they rarely say they received a 75% on the maths test. They'll say they got a 75. But since people use different ways of measuring BAC here, it makes sense to put the percent sign at the end.

I don't care about your insularity. The permille sign is widely used throughout the world - in fact, most of the world measure blood alcohol content in permille and not percent as permille is much more suitable for such high dilutions than percent is. That the USA's primary school system is woefully sub par and has failed you is not my fault, nor my concern. Next time you come across a word you don't understand or a symbol you were never taught rectify your ignorance instead of lashing out at those that caused you to make it apparent. You know, be an adult.


Fass I have had this conversation with you before. As an adult you would know that different places do things differently. Just because they do it one way in your country does not mean that another nation that does it differently is wrong or those people are ignorant. This applies to words used or anything else for that matter.


Also, if you didn't care you wouldn't respond now would you?

Since Fass has already covered this, I can only make this simple statement:

For the same reason that Verizon can list 0.01 cent as being the same as 0.01 dollars: Your High School education doesn't teach nearly as much maths as it should.


.01 cent is not the same as .01 of a dollar. That is not taught to be the same thing. That is fairly clear.

Fass I have had this conversation with you before. As an adult you would know that different places do things differently. Just because they do it one way in your country does not mean that another nation that does it differently is wrong or those people are ignorant. This applies to words used or anything else for that matter.

Just because your country's school system doesn't educate you, doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to adapt to your lack of knowledge. In fact, you will see that it doesn't lower its expactations just because of the USA, no matter that you wish it did, be it in matters of human rights or systems of measurement.

Also, if you didn't care you wouldn't respond now would you?

I said I didn't care about your insularity, not that I don't care about my obviously being right and not letting you forget it.

Fass I have had this conversation with you before. As an adult you would know that different places do things differently. Just because they do it one way in your country does not mean that another nation that does it differently is wrong or those people are ignorant. This applies to words used or anything else for that matter.


Also, if you didn't care you wouldn't respond now would you?

Just because your country's school system doesn't educate you, doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to adapt to your lack of knowledge. In fact, you will see that it doesn't lower its expactations just because of the USA, no matter that you wish it did, be it in matters of human rights or systems of measurement.



I said I didn't care about your insularity, not that I don't care about my obviously being right and not letting you forget it.

Guys, guys, no fighting. This is a noble thread about how wasted someone can get before the fuzz snaps on them, your bickering ruins it.

*hoping that someone cleans up all this urine on the floor*

it doesnt make any sense to have a higher holiday alcohol limit. if .1 is OK on a holiday than its OK on a normal day. if it must be .08 to be safe, then it needs to be .08 on a holiday.

.01 cent is not the same as .01 of a dollar. That is not taught to be the same thing. That is fairly clear.

You haven't seen the whole Verizon issue, have you?

.01 cent is not the same as .01 of a dollar. That is not taught to be the same thing. That is fairly clear.
It's clear to us, not to Verizon.

It's clear to us, not to Verizon.

Maybe. But maybe Verizon knows people will see its sign and think, "Wow, this costs less than one cent! I'm going to buy it." Then they get the bill, and Verizon says, "Oops, our mistake! You still owe us one-hundred times what you thought, though."
Just a theory.

Maybe. But maybe Verizon knows people will see its sign and think, "Wow, this costs less than one cent! I'm going to buy it." Then they get the bill, and Verizon says, "Oops, our mistake! You still owe us one-hundred times what you thought, though."
Just a theory.

If Verizon admitted their mistake, they'd be beholden to honour the printed offer.

No, Verizon continues to claim that there is no difference between 0.02 cents and 0.02 dollars, and thus they can advertise one and charge they other and they will have done nothing wrong.

It should be lowered to like any alcohol and you're DUI.

The allowable BAC is 0.05 here. I think 0.08 is too high.

No. Drunk driving doesn't become magically safer just because it's a holiday.
They could probably lower the legal BAC.

The legal definition of a blood alchohol content ("BAC") is "the concentration of alcohol in one’s bloodstream, expressed as a percentage." As such saying a "BAC of .08 is illegal" is sufficient, because the definition of "BAC" includes the idea of a percentage.

"a BAC of .08%" is as redundant as ATM machine, PIN number or knots per hour.

No. Drunk driving doesn't become magically safer just because it's a holiday.

This says it all. It's stupid to pander to drunks and liquor manufacturers.

The only ones who stand to gain from this are stupid radio programs trying to be outrageous. Change the channel. Deny them their Arbitron ratings. Dumbasses.

This says it all. It's stupid to pander to drunks and liquor manufacturers.

The only ones who stand to gain from this are stupid radio programs trying to be outrageous. Change the channel. Deny them their Arbitron ratings. Dumbasses.

Changing the limit from .08% to.1%should not be considered pandering. Most people can drive just fine at .1. In fact I had heard of this but found an article with the fact that police can still give a citation for someone being impaired even below the current .08%. If that were the case then it wouldn't be a stretch to go back to the old limit. Don't you think?

http://blog.totaldui.com/archives/dui-questions-dui-charges-below-the-legal-limit.html

snip....(Same old garbage) .

Ahh yes keep thinking your superior then others if that makes yourself feel better.

It also entertains us.

If it's unsafe to drive at blood alcohol X, it's unsafe to drive at blood alcohol level X on holidays. Having an exception to the law completely ignores the point of the law which is to reduce dangerous driving. As to what an appropriate maximum BAL is, I think the current level is fairly reasonable.

Changing the limit from .08% to.1%should not be considered pandering. Most people can drive just fine at .1. In fact I had heard of this but found an article with the fact that police can still give a citation for someone being impaired even below the current .08%. If that were the case then it wouldn't be a stretch to go back to the old limit. Don't you think?

http://blog.totaldui.com/archives/dui-questions-dui-charges-below-the-legal-limit.htmlYeah, if you show significant impairment you can be cited no matter what your BAL. If anything that's an arguement for the lower standard rather than promoting reverting to the .10 standard. It shows that impairment can be significant enough to be dangerous and noticable at lower levels.

Just because your alocholic ass has developed such a tolerance that you can function and slip through at a .10% BAL doesn't by any means mean that you "can drive just fine". You're impaired... you're in no state to decide what "just fine" is. Bottom line the lower standard and tougher laws save lives. Compromising them just to pander to acoholic beverage companies and the addictions of irresponsible individuals is just wrong.

0.8 ‰ is bit too high.

I'm more comfortable with 0.5 ‰ - It allows for that one or two glasses of wine without degrading one's ability to drive by too significant percentage.

I also wonder why they haven't come up with in situ drugs tests (eg. for marihuana) - Keeping artificially impaired people off the roads is important for road safety.

i think the principals of mass and inertia don't really give a rat how or why someone's judgement is empaired!

and people driving with empared judgement aren't going to be doing so more or less, reguardless of where you set the defining level, as long as recreationally consumed neurotopic substances are sold by the dosage in places where the only way to get there and back is by driving a motor vehicule!

and those principals of mass and inertia don't really give a rat whether anyone is a little empared or a lot, or how much they or anyone else thinks they are.

amounts of emparement that wouldn't make diddly doing anything else, can and do kill people opperating typically 3 or more tons of metal and other substances at any speed faster then they could walk.

the problem isn't the stupid thing the're doing to their bodies, half so much, as much as the opperating of vehicules and the inadiquacy of alternatives to doin so.

if they didn't have to drive, it wouldn't make jack, to anything but their own physical health, what they recreationally consumed, nor how much of it.

=^^=
.../\...

8 ‰ is bit too high.

I'm more comfortable with 5 ‰ - It allows for that one or two glasses of wine without degrading one's ability to drive by too significant percentage.

I also wonder why they haven't come up with in situ drugs tests (eg. for marihuana) - Keeping artificially impaired people off the roads is important for road safety.THC is fat soluable and remains retectable in Blood and Urine for weeks after use, long after any discernable effect is gone. That's the roadblock in developing a test that would hold up to any legal challange.

THC is fat soluable and remains retectable in Blood and Urine for weeks after use, long after any discernable effect is gone. That's the roadblock in developing a test that would hold up to any legal challange.

What about saliva or exhaled air?

Technically though...as long as using marihuana is illegal in the first place... :D :p

In the end though, I'm pretty sure they would come up with a quick in situ test if marihuana would be legalized - I certainly would hope so.

I think whatever source your looking up is wrong. Actually you are just making a error in how you were writing the first part. The legal limit in the US is .08% for alcohol.

No kidding.

My dad was arrested with a .26% years back. By those stats, he's a walking bottle of Parrot Bay...which isn't too much from the truth. :(

So, when people are more likely to break the law, they should get some lenience because, what? Becauase everyone else is doing it? I really don't see why one would suggest this.

DUI shouldn't even be illegal. Damaging property or hurting people with your car should be illegal, but since the DUI on its own doesn't cause harm I don't see how anyone can justify criminalising it.

Just don't get caught.

DUI shouldn't even be illegal. Damaging property or hurting people with your car should be illegal, but since the DUI on its own doesn't cause harm I don't see how anyone can justify criminalising it.It increases the risk of causing harm.
Certain things that increase the risk of causing harm should be criminalized.

Ahh yes keep thinking your superior then others if that makes yourself feel better.

It also entertains us.

Actually, at this point you are the one who looks silly.

It increases the risk of causing harm.
Certain things that increase the risk of causing harm should be criminalized.
And I disagee, partly because risk is often hard to assess. To protect individual freedom, we need to place limits on society's power to forbid things, and harmless activities strike me as something we should keep beyond their reach.