I agree, they are shit. If a LEO lets someone go who is over the limit but passes the SFST''s, and that person is involved in an accident down the road, the LEO is now on the hook. The laws handcuff the LEO from making a proper decision. The only option I had was to let the driver call a cab, and for me that was reserved for those who were borderline.
Which country was it, where if you get a DUI, you lose your license for life? I like that one. don't drink and drive btw, there's already penalties for .05, it's just called something different
This may or may not help http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-and-dwi/elements-a-dui-case/dui-dwi-dwai-per-se.htm
There's another. If you speed maybe you should lose your license for life. Ya, that's the ticket. Sheeze.
Nope, FSTs are good and all but don't judge the persons ability to react. Just because you can walk a straight line or touch the tip of your nose doesn't mean your reactions aren't delayed if someone has to slam on their brakes in front of you or a pedestrian steps off the curb in front of you. Alcohol also has a proven effect on decision making which should be an ongoing process while driving. Its simple, if you drink more than a beer or two then don't drive.
^this. I remember when NC first tightened up their laws in about 1985 it was often referred to as the attorneys' relief act. There was not much they could do for you, but the penalties were so severe relative to the previous laws that few dared go before the judge without representation. I think most of what they did boiled down to continuances hoping to get a judge that might not hurt you too bad. It didn't require much of their time, but they got well paid for the "work".
Because the breathalyzer is unreliable and will routinely read up to 20% higher than your actual BAC and you're fucked... $$$
Alcohol is a depressant, and the body reacts accordingly. This is not the problem that is debatable. The problem is how it affects each person differently. There's times where I'll have a couple of beers and not feel a thing, other times I'm halfway to being drunk. Everybody is different, and because of that, a unified law on what impaired is, is flawed. Of course the smart thing for a person to do is hand the keys over, even if drinking one beer. Not because one beer will impair them or they are a danger on the road, it's the way the laws are written that could potentially fuck that person over.
Here's my proposal. You take your driving test alcohol free. IF you pass then they give you a celebratory drink. Then you take the test again. If you pass they take your blood alcohol level and hand you another drink. Repeat until you fail. Then back up one test and print that number on the license. This is your legal limit. That gives those with the ability to drink a little more the ability. Here's the penalty section. If you get caught driving beyond your specified limit then you lose your driving privileges for 1 year on the 1st offense and permanently on the second offense. If you get caught a third time we remove you from the population.
Let's add to the list those on prescription medication where the bottle says, "Use caution when operating vehicles or heavy machinery". And, yeah, tiered licensing with appropriate limitations for the type of road and the conditions. It's a privilege, right? To me, that means it can be removed, no questions asked. "Oh, you podium with WERA? Well excuuuuse me. Have a nice day!"
I would be in too if they stiffened up the initial requirements too. No way people who were driving burros and rickshaws last week should be getting behind the wheel of a car.
