I guess Robocop comes with a breathalyzer function. neat.

I just lightly skimmed the thread so I apologize if this has been covered but can't you be given a 24 hour or be charged for being in between .05 and .07 under one of these newer laws from the last handful of years?

Could have been worse, at least it was just his face he asked him/her to blow...

In practice, 215's (24 hour suspensions) are issued for breath readings between .06 and .09...unless you are a L or N when any reading results in either a 12 hour for under .05 or a regular 215 for over .05.

Maybe I'm just tired but with the missing punctuation, I can't for the life of my decipher that sentence. If I'm reading that correct, you're saying that under .05 you can get you a 12 hour suspension and .06 to the "legal limit" of .08 is still a 24 hour suspension? ALSO, do these 12 and 24 hour suspension show up on your record as being guilty for driving under the influence?

At least he didn't make you blow through his "straw"

:ifyouknow:

For first time offenders:

Class 5:
0.00-0.05 = most likely nothing
0.06-0.09 = 24 hour driving prohibition
0.09+ = 90 days driving prohibition

Learners/Novice:
0.01-0.05 = 12 hour driving prohibition
0.06-0.09 = 24 hour driving prohibition
0.09+ = 90 days driving prohibition

I believe penalties increase for multiple offenders

And what exactly IS a 24 hour, is that putting a driving while under the influence of an intoxicant on your driving record? And what about zulutango pointing out you can get a "12 hour" for .05 or under. There is so much grey area in this, which will make people want to answer "no" to being asked if they've had anything to drink if they think they're anywhere between 0.01 and 0.08.

From what I understand from zulutango, the 12 hour only applies to Learners and Novice license holders. There is no grey area if you hold a class 5 driver's license.
If you blow between 0.00 to 0.05, you will likely drive through the road block as if nothing happened. Blow a 0.06-0.09 and you will have your license suspended for (minimum, for first time offenders) 24 hours and your vehicle may or may not be impounded since the officer cannot let you bring the vehicle home with a now suspended license. Blow over 0.09 and you will receive a 90-day driving ban, your vehicle impounded for 30 days, and hefty fines as well as possibly requirement to participate in the Ignition Interlock and Responsible Driver Program.

Alternative source

Sure, your opinion that lying to the officer may hold true in making life easier, and I'm sure many share a similar opinion (myself included). If you do not have even the slightest hint of liquor on your breathe and do not look or act the slightest bit intoxicated after drinking and tell the officer you have had nothing to drink, I am sure the officer will just wave you through. However, what are the chances of this happening aside from the times you may have had a drink hours before, stopped drinking, and perhaps had eaten a large meal before hitting the road, in which you would likely not be impaired to drive and therefore not dangerous anyway?

In short (and IMO), yes, lying will probably be less troublesome if you have had one or two drinks and do not the slightest bit look, act, or smell intoxicated, but at this point, you likely aren't intoxicated and therefore aren't showing any signs of it. However, less troublesome =/= correct. The laws are in place to help prevent injury or death as a result of DUI and condoning this type of behavior only adds to the problem, especially if those who are truly driving while intoxicated slip through the cracks. Seeing as alcohol affects everyone differently, and the same amount of consumption on different occasions can even affect the same individual differently, one day this could be any of us.

24 hr prohibitions are given for drivers who are suspected to be driving under the influence of alcohol OR drugs. Even prescription or over the counter meds.

12 hour prohibitions are given only to class 7 drivers as they are not to have ANY alcohol in their blood.

It's not grey. If you are class 7 and you drink, don't drive. If you are a class 5, if you drink and don't want to risk it, don't drive. People can give whatever answer they want. It just makes it that much better when someone tells me they had NOTHING to drink, and blows a WARN. Almost as good as those who tell me they had 2 drink about 4 hours ago and blow a FAIL.

But nobody ever lies to the Police....do they Spidey. You note that I did not use a question mark there as it is not a question as we expect to be lied to by the 5% who provide 95% of our job security.

I'm not sure why this whole thread has been spent talking about .08 then, when the limit is .05


I find this a bit contradictory given its common practice for police to lie to the public, no?

the Legal limit under the MVA is .05. The legal limit under the CCC is .08.

Please elaborate on your latter statement.

noob :lawl:

What are the stats on collisions for BAC levels of 0.01-0.04 and 0.05-0.07?

Don't get started with this, even if someone did manage to find stats on this there is so many different ways this data could be skewed that its almost completely irrelevant.

I say this only because people are going to go dig up stats on this now and try to justify how drinking and driving really isn't that dangerous even past .08.

If that wasn't your intention then I apologize, but there are many others in this thread trying to justify their drinking and driving and plain and simple, there is no justification.

On another note:

I was listening to AM980 the other day, and the wife of that guy who killed those two girls while driving impaird had phoned in saying that the punishment to her husband was so harsh, and that it was unfair and that the laws are too tough.

And I was like :fulloffuck:

Your husband KILLED two innocent girls, who had their entire lives ahead of them. You are trying to say the punishment is too harsh? If anything this bitch was lucky that we don't have the death penalty so they could drop that on his ass, and set a real good example.

And then she had the nerve to call it an "accident". I am sorry but that was so out to lunch that its not even funny. Drinking as much as he did (if I am not mistaken he blew .14) and then hopping in your car and attempting to drive home, is not an accident, it is downright criminal.

They should just make it a zero-tolerance policy across the board, so people wouldn't waste time and take risks like "oh well, one beer isn't gonna put me over". The BAC measurement is stupid anyways, at the "legal limit" of 0.04 me and my Asian flush are pretty much too sh*tfaced to drive... 6'2 and 210 lbs here too, don't tell me a person's size matters.

Sebberry isn't here to justify drinking and driving; he's here to question and deride every traffic law on the books, just because... you know... THE MAN.

In cases like this, I can't actually decide which is worse... :pokerface:

There are issues surrounding this including (but not limited to) hypoglycaemia in diabetics. The US C.D.C. has evidence to show that a person could possibly blow up to a 0.06 on an ASD even after consuming no alcoholic beverages simply due to ketoacidosis.

If a 0 tolerance policy were in effect, any person going through a roadblock and had a health issue which involved ketoacidosis would immediately receive a roadside prohibition etc etc etc.

In light of this, we should just get rid of drunk driving laws altogether... after all, people getting killed on the roads are nothing compared to the miniscule chance of a diabetic possibly getting an undeserved DUI charge.

Yeah okay buddy, cause there is no ways around this...

Much like those wristbands they used to give out for diabetics or people who used insulin, they could just print something on your DL. It is not like this is some common situation that affects 10% of the population, it is something that affect only the tiniest sliver of the the pie (less than 1%).

LOL

If there were NO indicators of impairment, no smell of alcoholic beverage consumption and a denial of drinking, I can't see why a diabetic would be requested to provide a breath sample. If the diabeltic was showing of diabetic distress, which can seem similar to impairment by drugs/alcohol, then they should not be driving anyway. A quick bit of sugar, along with a medic alert bracelet should have them on their way.

Remember, this is PARANOiA-R34's 0 tolerance hypothetical world.
I suspect that in his world, there would be random breath testing ala New South Wales, Australia's laws.

Acetone breath is not exclusively a symptom of poorly controlled type 1 diabetes. It could accompany a perfectly functioning person on a ketogenic diet (extremely low carbohydrate) for purposes including epilepsy control, cultural tradition (arctic first nations), or weight loss.

LOL. Yeah all those Arctic First nations at risk of being charged with DUI would be pretty upset...

In before everybody in the Workout/Training thread gets pulled over for DUI this spring while cutting for summer :badpokerface: