If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   If a cop swears he smells alcohol on your breath, then you will be pinned down in five point restraint and the rubber-stamp warrant will be hypodermically executed   (sacurrent.com) divider line 189
    More: Asinine, rubber stamps, constraint satisfaction, Bexar County, Hereford, crime lab, search warrants, warrants, Texas District  
•       •       •

10501 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2012 at 1:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-20 05:11:51 PM

fredklein: ennuie: Raoul Eaton:
Or, more likely, "I observed the suspect's vehicle travelling erratically on the roadway, crossing over the center line several times. He also had was driving at night without his headlights on. When I approached his vehicle and he rolled down the window, I smelled a strong odor of alcohol."

Here's what I don't get -- why isn't the erratic driving enough? Who cares whether a person had alcohol in their system or not unless we want to bust people who are technically over the limit but not inebriated? From a practical standpoint, why do we care why someone was weaving around in the road? Whether they are drunk or just a crappy driver, their weaving is no more or less dangerous.

That's what I said earlier- punish the bad driving (whatever the cause), instead of trying to punish each and every possible cause of bad driving ('drunk' is already illegal, 'texting' recently become illegal in many places, but 'tired', 'just had a fight', 'just received bad news', 'playing with the radio', and 'talking to passengers' are still perfectly legal).


So one level of punishment to cover all "bad driving" right?

Here is your $45 ticket for running the stop sign, your $45 ticket for speeding, and here is your $45 ticket for running over those two children playing in the backyard of their house when your car left the roadway after running the stop sign while speeding because you were intoxicated"


That sounds great, where do I sign up
 
2012-12-20 05:13:11 PM
TheWhoppah:
 
Look, there are legitimate complaints about the breathalyzer and determining BAC vs impairment.  Look at the conversation DROxINxTHExWIND and I were having earlier. That's a legitimate concern. Look at the variability of the blood/lung partition coefficient for breathalyzers. That's a legitimate concern.  Or the differences between males and females.  That could be a legitimate concern.  Some of these concerns can be handled by getting a blood test.  Others, like what DROxINxTHExWIND brought up, is simply a part of the legal system that we have to deal with for now, because we currently don't have something better.
 
But claiming that the machine works "like magic" and pretending that we have no idea how a farking infrared spectrometer works is just silly.
 
/And don't tell me that we don't have access to the programming code, because if we didn't, we wouldn't be seeing articles like this.
 
2012-12-20 05:25:33 PM

Solaris: So one level of punishment to cover all "bad driving" right?

Here is your $45 ticket for running the stop sign, your $45 ticket for speeding, and here is your $45 ticket for running over those two children playing in the backyard of their house when your car left the roadway after running the stop sign while speeding because you were intoxicated"


That sounds great, where do I sign up


I never said anything about 'one single level of punishment'.
 
2012-12-20 05:31:08 PM

ennuie: Here's what I don't get -- why isn't the erratic driving enough? Who cares whether a person had alcohol in their system or not unless we want to bust people who are technically over the limit but not inebriated? From a practical standpoint, why do we care why someone was weaving around in the road? Whether they are drunk or just a crappy driver, their weaving is no more or less dangerous.


Because $$$.
 
2012-12-20 05:35:21 PM

fredklein: Solaris: So one level of punishment to cover all "bad driving" right?

Here is your $45 ticket for running the stop sign, your $45 ticket for speeding, and here is your $45 ticket for running over those two children playing in the backyard of their house when your car left the roadway after running the stop sign while speeding because you were intoxicated"


That sounds great, where do I sign up

I never said anything about 'one single level of punishment'.


Disregard, I misread your statement because I'm reading fark on my tiny phone screen

/not because I'm intoxicated
 
2012-12-20 05:36:50 PM
Forced blood draw went to SCOTUS in 1996, and the citizen lost.  The key in that case was that 2 hours elapsed after the stop and there was no time to get a warrant before the evidence would have dissipated.  The guy was hurt and had to be taken to the hospital.
 
A different forced blood draw case is headed for SCOTUS right now.  It will decide whether warrants are ever necessary.
 
2012-12-20 05:45:12 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Yeah, or insist on using machines from different companies, or a breathalyzer and a blood test. A single test should not be enough to prove intoxication.


Why bother with the breathalyzer? "No refusal" means you have the right to insist on a much more accurate blood test instead. So I guess that's exactly what you want.
 
2012-12-20 05:53:13 PM

ignacio: Uchiha_Cycliste: Yeah, or insist on using machines from different companies, or a breathalyzer and a blood test. A single test should not be enough to prove intoxication.

Why bother with the breathalyzer? "No refusal" means you have the right to insist on a much more accurate blood test instead. So I guess that's exactly what you want.


I'm not sure how you misquoted me, but I didn't write what you quoted.
Regardless I agree with what you said and would always go for the blood test, if I ever was suspected of a DUI. Which I can all but guarantee would never happen to me =D
 
2012-12-20 06:11:37 PM

fredklein: WeenerGord: If you know your whole life depends on being able to drive 20 miles to work...maybe you shouldn't drive while impaired?

I think you mean "I shouldn't drive while the cop thinks I'm impaired".



Why would a cop think you were impaired if you were not? Were you speeding? Weaving? Do you have a bumper sticker that says Fark the Police?

Don't speed, or weave, and get rid of the bumper sticker, now why would a cop pick you out of the crowd to fark over?
 
2012-12-20 06:24:35 PM
So can anyone confirm or deny the 'get out of the car, open a beer and slam it' defense as working or not working?

Because the beer you just drank got you drunk..not the previous 9 shots at the bar...?
 
2012-12-20 06:28:27 PM
I will leave this here. Every time a cop makes the news in my area on DWI charges, they have refused to blow.

I bet none of them were restrained. But I don't know.
 
2012-12-20 06:29:57 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: ignacio: Uchiha_Cycliste: Yeah, or insist on using machines from different companies, or a breathalyzer and a blood test. A single test should not be enough to prove intoxication.

Why bother with the breathalyzer? "No refusal" means you have the right to insist on a much more accurate blood test instead. So I guess that's exactly what you want.

I'm not sure how you misquoted me, but I didn't write what you quoted.
Regardless I agree with what you said and would always go for the blood test, if I ever was suspected of a DUI. Which I can all but guarantee would never happen to me =D


Yeah, it was me. :)
 
I'd rather have a blood test done, as well.  Not only is it more accurate, but you also still have the blood sample, so you can get it tested from a private lab of your choosing (provided you can afford it) if you don't trust the state's report.  However, some people don't like the idea of their precious bodily fluids being taken, so in that event, at least get two breath tests from two different machines.  And if you're worried about the code, then use machines from two different companies.
 
2012-12-20 06:33:43 PM

WeenerGord: fredklein: WeenerGord: If you know your whole life depends on being able to drive 20 miles to work...maybe you shouldn't drive while impaired?

 
I think you mean "I shouldn't drive while the cop thinks I'm impaired".
 
 
Why would a cop think you were impaired if you were not? Were you speeding? Weaving? Do you have a bumper sticker that says Fark the Police?
 
Don't speed, or weave, and get rid of the bumper sticker, now why would a cop pick you out of the crowd to fark over?
 
Driving while black*?
 
*Or some other minority the cop happens to hate
 
2012-12-20 06:49:49 PM
Here in San Antonio, its pretty bad as far as driving while intoxicated goes.

I've been stopped twice while coming home around 2am on a weekend. Completely sober. Not a drink in me. Nothing. The reason I was stopped? "You didn't use a turn signal (in a turn only lane that is protected by a median)." The other time I was stopped, "I didn't come to a complete stop (while leaving a restaurant, no stop sign, nothing)."

Both of those times I happen to be on the "wrong side" of town. West Avenue and 1-10.

When I come home from Flying Saucer up 1-10 near Huebner however, I see people swerving and being drunk as balls, nothing.

Its all profiling.
 
2012-12-20 06:54:21 PM

mgshamster: WeenerGord: fredklein: WeenerGord: If you know your whole life depends on being able to drive 20 miles to work...maybe you shouldn't drive while impaired?

I think you mean "I shouldn't drive while the cop thinks I'm impaired".


Why would a cop think you were impaired if you were not? Were you speeding? Weaving? Do you have a bumper sticker that says Fark the Police?

Don't speed, or weave, and get rid of the bumper sticker, now why would a cop pick you out of the crowd to fark over?

Driving while black*?

*Or some other minority the cop happens to hate


Did you read the comments?

spikespeigel and 14 more Reply
Based on the photo, the cop also looks African American. So, was this really a racist thing? Or just a cop quota thing? It is the end of the month after all.

Cheneysheart Reply
I just invested portable/reusable white-face driver's mask for people of color. Only $19.95 plus shipping and handling. You're welcome.
Sherlock Homey Reply
Atlanta is over 50% black. If the cops are pulling people over just for being black, they've got their work cut out for them.

Steven Simmons Reply
Sounds bullshiat. I live outside of Atlanta and am Caucasian. I am pretty sure there are far more black people than white in this area, including cops. Every time I've been pulled over inside of Atlanta it has been a black cop (at least three times).
I'm also sure his relationship with local police is pretty one sided. Could be a racism thing but I am sure its a more of a "bored police officer looking to fill time or fill a quota".

Centrocampista and 2 more Reply
anyone who doesn't understand that black cops can racially target black drivers needs to read ta-nehisi coates' article from 2001 about prince william county, maryland:
The violence perpetrated by the P.G. cops is a curious development. Usually, police brutality is framed as a racial issue: Rodney King suffering at the hands of a racist white Los Angeles Police Department or more recently, an unarmed Timothy Thomas, gunned down by a white Cincinnati cop. But in more and more communities, the police doing the brutalizing are African Americans, supervised by African-American police chiefs, and answerable to African-American mayors and city councils.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0106.coates.html

TurbelWeezo and 1 more Reply
Whoopdie-do. A police car pulled over someone. Welcome to life. Quit being a pussy and trying to make every thing that ever happens to you about race. You got your President. Race card over with. It's nothing but a pathetic excuse to continue to act like critters. Man up and take care of your women and children. Quit breaking the law. Stay out of jail so you CAN take care of your women and children. They need you. Have you seen the statistics on prison demographics in relation to overall population demographics? They're sad. Really sad. This country should be better than this. And it starts with people taking personal responsibility and ceasing to blame others (read: "whitey") for........everything.
 
2012-12-20 06:58:53 PM

rockforever: Here in San Antonio, its pretty bad as far as driving while intoxicated goes.

I've been stopped twice while coming home around 2am on a weekend. Completely sober. Not a drink in me. Nothing. The reason I was stopped? "You didn't use a turn signal (in a turn only lane that is protected by a median)." The other time I was stopped, "I didn't come to a complete stop (while leaving a restaurant, no stop sign, nothing)."

Both of those times I happen to be on the "wrong side" of town. West Avenue and 1-10.

When I come home from Flying Saucer up 1-10 near Huebner however, I see people swerving and being drunk as balls, nothing.

Its all profiling.


And both of those times you violated the transportation code. You forgot to include the part where the officers pulled you out of the car and beat you senseless.
 
2012-12-20 07:01:31 PM

rockforever: When I come home from Flying Saucer up 1-10 near Huebner however,



You fly Saucer for a living? Can we call come for a ride?
 
2012-12-20 07:08:47 PM
In TN you can be convicted of DUI if there is ANY trace of canabis in your system. Now..according to popular propaganda, one could have eaten a brownie one month ago and still be impared (or have enough trace metabolites in ones system) enough to get convicted for DUI.

I would like someone to tell me why this is fair or just.
 
2012-12-20 07:10:14 PM

WeenerGord: Did you read the comments?


No, I didn't. Wow.
 
I just grabbed the first article that popped up.  There are other incidences, though.  This one is a good* story: The Fat Blue Line.
 
*For different definitions of "good."
 
2012-12-20 07:14:48 PM

Solaris: rockforever: Here in San Antonio, its pretty bad as far as driving while intoxicated goes.

I've been stopped twice while coming home around 2am on a weekend. Completely sober. Not a drink in me. Nothing. The reason I was stopped? "You didn't use a turn signal (in a turn only lane that is protected by a median)." The other time I was stopped, "I didn't come to a complete stop (while leaving a restaurant, no stop sign, nothing)."

Both of those times I happen to be on the "wrong side" of town. West Avenue and 1-10.

When I come home from Flying Saucer up 1-10 near Huebner however, I see people swerving and being drunk as balls, nothing.

Its all profiling.

And both of those times you violated the transportation code. You forgot to include the part where the officers pulled you out of the car and beat you senseless.


Depends on the area. In California, there are no laws stating that you have to use your turn signals (depending on the jurisdiction).  The only reason I know that is because an old friend of mine, who is a deputy, got a citizen complaint against him for not using his turn signal.  When the department went to cite him for it, he demanded they show him the regs that require the use of a turn signal. Turned out that they didn't exist (for that particular city, county, and state; there may be regs like that for other counties or cities).
 
2012-12-20 07:19:21 PM

mgshamster: Solaris: rockforever: Here in San Antonio, its pretty bad as far as driving while intoxicated goes.

I've been stopped twice while coming home around 2am on a weekend. Completely sober. Not a drink in me. Nothing. The reason I was stopped? "You didn't use a turn signal (in a turn only lane that is protected by a median)." The other time I was stopped, "I didn't come to a complete stop (while leaving a restaurant, no stop sign, nothing)."

Both of those times I happen to be on the "wrong side" of town. West Avenue and 1-10.

When I come home from Flying Saucer up 1-10 near Huebner however, I see people swerving and being drunk as balls, nothing.

Its all profiling.

And both of those times you violated the transportation code. You forgot to include the part where the officers pulled you out of the car and beat you senseless.

Depends on the area. In California, there are no laws stating that you have to use your turn signals (depending on the jurisdiction).  The only reason I know that is because an old friend of mine, who is a deputy, got a citizen complaint against him for not using his turn signal.  When the department went to cite him for it, he demanded they show him the regs that require the use of a turn signal. Turned out that they didn't exist (for that particular city, county, and state; there may be regs like that for other counties or cities).


You are making a separate argument. He's talking about being "profiled" when he was actually lawfully detained for violating an offense in the state he resides.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
 
2012-12-20 07:23:13 PM

Solaris: mgshamster: Solaris: rockforever: Here in San Antonio, its pretty bad as far as driving while intoxicated goes.

I've been stopped twice while coming home around 2am on a weekend. Completely sober. Not a drink in me. Nothing. The reason I was stopped? "You didn't use a turn signal (in a turn only lane that is protected by a median)." The other time I was stopped, "I didn't come to a complete stop (while leaving a restaurant, no stop sign, nothing)."

Both of those times I happen to be on the "wrong side" of town. West Avenue and 1-10.

When I come home from Flying Saucer up 1-10 near Huebner however, I see people swerving and being drunk as balls, nothing.

Its all profiling.

And both of those times you violated the transportation code. You forgot to include the part where the officers pulled you out of the car and beat you senseless.

Depends on the area. In California, there are no laws stating that you have to use your turn signals (depending on the jurisdiction).  The only reason I know that is because an old friend of mine, who is a deputy, got a citizen complaint against him for not using his turn signal.  When the department went to cite him for it, he demanded they show him the regs that require the use of a turn signal. Turned out that they didn't exist (for that particular city, county, and state; there may be regs like that for other counties or cities).

You are making a separate argument. He's talking about being "profiled" when he was actually lawfully detained for violating an offense in the state he resides.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.


I was just being ignorant of Texas law.  It is illegal there to not use a turn signal when making a turn? Or for failing to stop while leaving a parking lot with no stop sign at the driveway?  Are you supposed to assume that it's a stop sign in situations like that?
 
2012-12-20 07:29:02 PM

mgshamster: Solaris: mgshamster: Solaris: rockforever: Here in San Antonio, its pretty bad as far as driving while intoxicated goes.

I've been stopped twice while coming home around 2am on a weekend. Completely sober. Not a drink in me. Nothing. The reason I was stopped? "You didn't use a turn signal (in a turn only lane that is protected by a median)." The other time I was stopped, "I didn't come to a complete stop (while leaving a restaurant, no stop sign, nothing)."

Both of those times I happen to be on the "wrong side" of town. West Avenue and 1-10.

When I come home from Flying Saucer up 1-10 near Huebner however, I see people swerving and being drunk as balls, nothing.

Its all profiling.

And both of those times you violated the transportation code. You forgot to include the part where the officers pulled you out of the car and beat you senseless.

Depends on the area. In California, there are no laws stating that you have to use your turn signals (depending on the jurisdiction).  The only reason I know that is because an old friend of mine, who is a deputy, got a citizen complaint against him for not using his turn signal.  When the department went to cite him for it, he demanded they show him the regs that require the use of a turn signal. Turned out that they didn't exist (for that particular city, county, and state; there may be regs like that for other counties or cities).

You are making a separate argument. He's talking about being "profiled" when he was actually lawfully detained for violating an offense in the state he resides.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

I was just being ignorant of Texas law.  It is illegal there to not use a turn signal when making a turn? Or for failing to stop while leaving a parking lot with no stop sign at the driveway?  Are you supposed to assume that it's a stop sign in situations like that?


No assumptions are necessary when it's clearly stated in the Texas transportation code. Available to everyone.
 
2012-12-20 07:34:43 PM

Solaris: mgshamster: Solaris: mgshamster: Solaris: rockforever: Here in San Antonio, its pretty bad as far as driving while intoxicated goes.

I've been stopped twice while coming home around 2am on a weekend. Completely sober. Not a drink in me. Nothing. The reason I was stopped? "You didn't use a turn signal (in a turn only lane that is protected by a median)." The other time I was stopped, "I didn't come to a complete stop (while leaving a restaurant, no stop sign, nothing)."

Both of those times I happen to be on the "wrong side" of town. West Avenue and 1-10.

When I come home from Flying Saucer up 1-10 near Huebner however, I see people swerving and being drunk as balls, nothing.

Its all profiling.

And both of those times you violated the transportation code. You forgot to include the part where the officers pulled you out of the car and beat you senseless.

Depends on the area. In California, there are no laws stating that you have to use your turn signals (depending on the jurisdiction).  The only reason I know that is because an old friend of mine, who is a deputy, got a citizen complaint against him for not using his turn signal.  When the department went to cite him for it, he demanded they show him the regs that require the use of a turn signal. Turned out that they didn't exist (for that particular city, county, and state; there may be regs like that for other counties or cities).

You are making a separate argument. He's talking about being "profiled" when he was actually lawfully detained for violating an offense in the state he resides.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

I was just being ignorant of Texas law.  It is illegal there to not use a turn signal when making a turn? Or for failing to stop while leaving a parking lot with no stop sign at the driveway?  Are you supposed to assume that it's a stop sign in situations like that?

No assumptions are necessary when it's clearly stated in the Texas transportation code. Available to everyone.


By "assumption" I meant that if you come to an intersection that has no signs, are you supposed to pretend it's a stop sign?  Are you supposed to assume there is one there?  Because otherwise you'd just be able to drive through.  I wasn't asking if you had to assume the law existed in the code, but rather if the code requires the driver to assume a stop sign when at an uncontrolled intersection.  There are actually a lot of those near where I live, so I should go look it up for my state.
 
/I also figured that since you already knew that he was violating transportation codes, you'd be able to answer my question with something a little more specific than "look it up."
 
2012-12-20 07:37:54 PM
Found it for my state (California). You assume a yield sign to the first person in the intersection, and then to the person on your right. Otherwise, drive on through.
 
2012-12-20 07:42:15 PM

mgshamster: Solaris: mgshamster: Solaris: mgshamster: Solaris: rockforever: Here in San Antonio, its pretty bad as far as driving while intoxicated goes.

I've been stopped twice while coming home around 2am on a weekend. Completely sober. Not a drink in me. Nothing. The reason I was stopped? "You didn't use a turn signal (in a turn only lane that is protected by a median)." The other time I was stopped, "I didn't come to a complete stop (while leaving a restaurant, no stop sign, nothing)."

Both of those times I happen to be on the "wrong side" of town. West Avenue and 1-10.

When I come home from Flying Saucer up 1-10 near Huebner however, I see people swerving and being drunk as balls, nothing.

Its all profiling.

And both of those times you violated the transportation code. You forgot to include the part where the officers pulled you out of the car and beat you senseless.

Depends on the area. In California, there are no laws stating that you have to use your turn signals (depending on the jurisdiction).  The only reason I know that is because an old friend of mine, who is a deputy, got a citizen complaint against him for not using his turn signal.  When the department went to cite him for it, he demanded they show him the regs that require the use of a turn signal. Turned out that they didn't exist (for that particular city, county, and state; there may be regs like that for other counties or cities).

You are making a separate argument. He's talking about being "profiled" when he was actually lawfully detained for violating an offense in the state he resides.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

I was just being ignorant of Texas law.  It is illegal there to not use a turn signal when making a turn? Or for failing to stop while leaving a parking lot with no stop sign at the driveway?  Are you supposed to assume that it's a stop sign in situations like that?

No assumptions are necessary when it's clearly stated in the Texas transportation code. Available to everyone.

By "assumption" I meant that if you come to an intersection that has no signs, are you supposed to pretend it's a stop sign?  Are you supposed to assume there is one there?  Because otherwise you'd just be able to drive through.  I wasn't asking if you had to assume the law existed in the code, but rather if the code requires the driver to assume a stop sign when at an uncontrolled intersection.  There are actually a lot of those near where I live, so I should go look it up for my state.
 
/I also figured that since you already knew that he was violating transportation codes, you'd be able to answer my question with something a little more specific than "look it up."


An intersection in Texas is different than leaving a private drive or parking lot that was stated.

In Texas, if there is no traffic control device (stop sign, stop light) at the intersection, then you can proceed without assuming you need to stop.
 
2012-12-20 07:51:46 PM

Solaris: n intersection in Texas is different than leaving a private drive or parking lot that was stated.

In Texas, if there is no traffic control device (stop sign, stop light) at the intersection, then you can proceed without assuming you need to stop.


Yup. I found it in the regs.  Good call; he violated the code both times.
 
2012-12-21 12:06:19 AM

WeenerGord: Why would a cop think you were impaired if you were not?


As an excuse to stop me and search my car.

There are plenty of examples of this happening.
 
2012-12-21 01:55:47 AM
I still find it amusing that so many people still live under the delusion that they actually still have any civil rights.
 
2012-12-21 02:05:22 AM

fredklein: WeenerGord: Why would a cop think you were impaired if you were not?

As an excuse to stop me and search my car. There are plenty of examples of this happening.



OK but why would he want to search your car?
 
2012-12-21 04:37:00 AM
A five point restraint is only one step away from rape. Anyone who thinks this is okay has never been in a five point restraint.
 
2012-12-21 09:37:36 AM

Moonlightfox: A five point restraint is only one step away from rape. Anyone who thinks this is okay has never been in a five point restraint.


Are you suggesting that BDSM is rape?

/snickers.
 
2012-12-21 09:50:33 AM
Have no fear the DWI Dude is here!
 
2012-12-21 09:54:06 AM
Unless they have asthma or other conditions that make a breathalyzer a bad idea, why would someone refuse a breathalyzer other than to avoid getting caught for DUI? I understand the distrust of accuracy of those things, but even if they are a bit inaccurate, indicating more than that's actually in your blood, it still seems like that if one does blow a 0.08 or more, there's going to be enough in their blood that they really shouldn't be driving, even if their actual BAC is 0.079 or less.
 
2012-12-21 10:09:54 AM

WeenerGord: fredklein: WeenerGord: Why would a cop think you were impaired if you were not?

As an excuse to stop me and search my car. There are plenty of examples of this happening.


OK but why would he want to search your car?


Because he hates [insert description here: ie: blacks, latinos, hippies, etc]? Because he is getting pressure to bust more people from his chief? Because he 'honestly' thinks there might be a chance there's drugs in the car, and -damn the Constitution- he's gonna search it no matter what?
 
2012-12-21 10:38:33 AM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Unless they have asthma or other conditions that make a breathalyzer a bad idea, why would someone refuse a breathalyzer other than to avoid getting caught for DUI? I understand the distrust of accuracy of those things, but even if they are a bit inaccurate, indicating more than that's actually in your blood, it still seems like that if one does blow a 0.08 or more, there's going to be enough in their blood that they really shouldn't be driving, even if their actual BAC is 0.079 or less.


Because some were shown to be incredibly sloppy in how they reported the results.

There's a concept called "partition ratio" that's also worth reading about. What the device really measures is alcohol vapor on your breath. Different people apparently have different rates at which alcohol diffuses(?) from their blood into their breath.
 
2012-12-21 11:00:56 AM

pedrop357: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Unless they have asthma or other conditions that make a breathalyzer a bad idea, why would someone refuse a breathalyzer other than to avoid getting caught for DUI? I understand the distrust of accuracy of those things, but even if they are a bit inaccurate, indicating more than that's actually in your blood, it still seems like that if one does blow a 0.08 or more, there's going to be enough in their blood that they really shouldn't be driving, even if their actual BAC is 0.079 or less.

Because some were shown to be incredibly sloppy in how they reported the results.

There's a concept called "partition ratio" that's also worth reading about. What the device really measures is alcohol vapor on your breath. Different people apparently have different rates at which alcohol diffuses(?) from their blood into their breath.


If that is the case, then someone needs to do a study on what the average of that difference in alcohol from blood into their breath is to establish a margin of error for breathalysers
 
2012-12-21 12:27:22 PM
They've been done. The standard ratio used is 1:2100, and the population varies between 1:1100 and 1:3900. If you're above the 1:2100 ratio used, it'll actually under report your true BAC. According to wiki (which is always right and never wrong, and also doesn't provide a citation), about 1.8% of the population are below the 1:2100 ratio. So the majority of the population will either be accurately reported or underreported.

I'd look it up to give you a better source, but I'm using my phone to post.
 
2012-12-21 08:42:19 PM

WeenerGord: Maybe you should just blow into the breathalizer? or not drive drunk?


People shouldnt oppose perceived rights violations?  You have a "thing" for authority figures, dont you?
 
Displayed 39 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report