agreed Imagine if one drink was impaired in the eyes of the law. No grey area

Many places it is or close to is, which is why it's ridiculous for anyone to argue about the laws in America.


People should at least be prepared, if you can't find a DD, don't stay out so late or pay for the cab if you are going to. If you can't afford the cab, go to a closer bar.


Good resource:

http://www.taxifarefinder.com/

matt: i've mostly been on your side, but if i've had a few drinks and then cool off for 2 hours or so, i'm not going to [censored] call a cab. you must be a hoot to hang out with.

Assuming your city is one of the few supported..

You aren't drunk, dude. I've never once stated that one drink is dangerous to drive with. I've even stated that being at .08 isn't that big of a deal. If you had a few drinks (2-3) in 2 hours, you basically metabolized them. And I'm nothing like I am on the Internet irl.
You can do any city. You can do address to address.

OP is seriously out of touch with his body. As an experienced drunk driver, I know to get antsy and vigilant-alert after two. The problem with alcohol is not weaving, or stopping too slow -- that stuff isn't big until you are falling down drunk. The real problem is that you perceive novel situations more slowly, which you don't realize you are doing, again because you are perceiving more slowly. Sober, you drive at night with dark shades and you notice how extra long it takes to absorb images. After two pints, your eyes are straining into the dark to interpret what's coming, but you don't register, though you can notice if you are sufficiently old and wise. Drunks who can stop on a dime can't see the difference between a puddle and a wall if the lighting is weirded out.

I look forward to a bump in three months, wherein the OP asks, "should I fight it on principle, or get it over with and plead guilty?"

This is some horrific logic

This would only be horrific logic if there were no stats backing it up.

By the time I google the address to my bar, I could be AT that bar on my second beer.

I wonder if anyone posting here actually lives in the country or in the suburbs where there are no Taxi's/public transportation and everything is 5mi or further away.

I'm not condoning Drinking and Driving but I do understand why people do it. And I do see how it's just a money maker for localities.

Well why don't you give irl nittymatt a test drive on these forums so we can see what he's like and compare the two.

Yup. We have a taxi company that's really shady and sketchy and rarely reliable in my town. It's a big factor in my driving to the bars.

Oh yeah and I have a friend/acquaintance that is paralyzed from the neck down from drinking and driving on his 21st birthday. He wrapped his car around a tree driving home. So I guess its even dumber that most of his friends and his own brother still D&D.

Thats surprising where I live there is this little **** whole city I live in. I actually stay within a 5-10 block radius when we go out so in nice weather we may actually walk. But cops can and will still arrest and fine $300 you for public drunkenness (no it's not about the money though).

But I have friends that live in the country they have no choice but to D&D or try to stay at a friends house.

what would make you think i'm "seriously out of touch with my body" when i'm here trying to prevent a second dui. there seem to be a crowd who thinks that anyone over .00 is guilty. the law is .08 so i can go to .07 and be legal. im a safer driver when im <.07 i drive the speed limit the entire time and stop at every yellow light, something i rarely do sober

Those are actually things cops look for, abnormal driving most people don't stop for yellow lights especially not at night when there aren't many people on the road. Stopping to early for stop signs is a big one, driving to slow is another.(not necessarily swerving and the obvious ones)

Also I know in PA you can actually turn around if you see a check point ahead and the cops cant stop you for it. The reasoning is you could be turning around for any reason not necessarily to avoid the check point. This is probably true in most states.

Also .07 isn't legal it's just then they have to prove you were incapable of driving. (and they don't wanna have to do that when they can get another person 2min later) Anything .08 it's now on you to prove them wrong.

Regarding those breathalyzers on Amazon, they are a complete joke. Was at this tailgate last weekend for a Braves game, 15 kegs, full liquor bar. Someone had one and a bunch of people were blowing. I blew and it read .40 which is obviously lol******ed.

Granted I got wrecked the night before, and pretty much woke up and started drinking, but there is still no way that was remotely close. This was even early in the day, maybe 3 o'clock and I'd had maybe 8 beers.

lol...awesome. northeast ohio must have an effect on people.

i actually own a pretty expensive breathalyzer, haha...mom bought one for my brother and i 2 years ago for xmas. pretty good knowledge knowing exactly what you'd blow over various spots..

for the record, i just drove home from the bar a couple hours ago now drunk enough to give the bartender $20 on a $50 tab to show my buddy and i her tits...both pierced, 8/10 total.

now...was i drunk to give her $20? prob. was i drunk to have a $50 tab in the first place? prob.

buuut, it's literally a 30 second drive. probably 4 minutes to walk.

but yeah, i wasn't responding because i care about the beer total/drunk, i only wish i had pics of these boobs. maaan. i asked her what kinda tip she wanted, and she said 20. i told her for that, she had to bend over the cash register (honestly, we had been trippin over her ass the whole time we were there, and that's what i wanted), but she said, 'how 'bout my tits....they're real?' of course that was followed with, 'yeah, i'm gonna have to feel 'em to know'. they definitely were, nipple rings were legit, **** it seems like since i've been married girls have gotten a lot easier...


what were we talking about again?

Reading comprehension fail:

"Winter driving can be treacherous and drivers should be prepared for the worst. Statistics tell us that approximately 70% of winter deaths attributed to snow and ice involve motor vehicles. "

First point is let's say your right and you can handle your drink, fair enough. Your buddy sees this and isn't able to handle it as well (but who admits this?) and has heard some bs information about how much he can handle and ends up making a huge judgement of error and killing someone because "well if he can I can".

Second point is your basically saying - "let people make a judgement on whether they are fit to drive". Well, guess what impairs judgement.

Third point I'd have thought you would be familiar with sample size. Long term statistics > your sample.

my mom paid $130 each (almost 2 years ago now) for me and my brother's breathalyzers...came with 2 free 'resets' or whatever they called it...recalibrations.

obviously i have no idea how exact they are, but i'd bet it's within .01 at any given time. when i'm .10 i know it, and it calls it .10. when i'm traashed, it calls that too. highest i've seen on mine is .29, and it was well deserved.

also, god bless epipen for being honest.

slowclap.jpg

Most interesting fact I see on the CDC page: notwithstanding all the emotional propaganda about drunks killing children, it's not actually a big problem. Using their own numbers there were 11,773 alcohol-impaired deaths in 2008, of whom only 216 were children (under 14, which is what they show). Further, 99 of those were children who were passengers in the car of the drunk driver — that's a different crime. That leaves 117 children killed by drunk drivers in other cars, or about one third of one percent of total traffic fatalities.

As has been noted, banning drunk driving isn't costless at all. Enforcement costs, court costs, costs to people who aren't very drunk but are inconvenienced, and the social cost of having laws that most people realize are stricter than they ought to be and therefore can be skirted at least some of the time, thus reducing respect for law while increasing acceptace of government's infringement on personal freedom... yet the most often touted reason for it is preventing about 100 child deaths per year in a country of more than 300 million people.

I still think the statistics should always be adjusted to remove the drunk drivers themselves, who are making their own decisions, and should probably be adjusted to remove passengers of drunk drivers, who are either making their own decisions (if adult) or are protected by other sets of laws (children). Those who would be far less impressive — but the organizations with anti-drunk driving axes to grind aren't in the business of presenting balanced, factually honest arguments...

And before VR says more about "soft defending" of drunk driving: This isn't a soft defense. It's a hard defense. Drunk driving, without passengers or with passengers who are willing adults, should either not be illegal at all, or should not be illegal except in cases of extreme intoxication. We should punish actions that cause damage, but not actions that alter slightly the probability of damage.

To be totally fair you should just remove anyone who is dead from the fatality lists.

this, i have never understood the willingness of many americans to drink/drive