Simon Jester

I'm probably gonna be the wet blanket here. I'm death on drinking and driving. My sister was killed by a drunk driver that blew only 0.11. He spent only ONE night in jail.

I'm not trying to slam anybody here, but perhaps we should consider....

I'm all for going out and having a good time. But sometimes we forget that driving on a public highway is not a right. It's not a freedom thing, it's a responsibility thing. If a cop has a reasonable articulatable suspicion that you're committing an infraction, he can pull you over. If out of an abundance of caution (for example, you admit drinking) he administers a sobriety test, he's not being a jerk. He's just doing his job.

When you get together with the boys and have a couple of beers is the worst possible time to be driving over the speed limit. When we go fast, we should be dead sober.

heinrich

Simon, agreed drunk drivers should stay off roads. However our buddy here was not drunk. Not only that, but the copper could simply have said "Good evening, I need you to breathe into this device please" and that would have been much better. If he was not able to use the human detection methods, why then bother? I know why ... just to incomvenience the driver.

Personally I think that driving fast after some beers is not what I would do. But again, he was sober. Btw I view driving as a right. I pay for the roads, so I will drive on them.

Simon Jester

Why doesn't a cop just ask you to blow a test? Because he can't. Hell, he has to have an excuse to even pull you over. Before he can ask you to submit a sample, he has to suspect you've been drinking. In this case, admitting to drinking any amount at all will get you tested.

The thing I'm concerned about was even Andrew didn't know if he was legally drunk or not. I wouldn't be so unreasonable to say that a guy can't have a couple of beers and drive himself home. I'm just saying that that's a good time to be extra cautious on your drive home.

Why are some cops such jerks about sobriety testing? Every cop I've ever met has cleaned up after a traffic fatality involving a drunk. Some guys don't cope with it as well as others.

While you may see driving as your right, the state and the cop that pulls you over correctly see it as a privilege. You must qualify for a license, obey traffic laws and posess a legally licensed vehicle. Yes, you pay for the highways. Just like every other driver you share the road with. If you become enough of a hazard your "right" to drive will evaporate like smoke.

AO

Thanks for the vote of confidence Heinrich!

I am totally opoosed to driving intoxicated - but the cop was a dick. I thought it best to tell him that I had had some beer, and be straight with the guy, but not to admit to anything that would incriminate me (i.e. speeding). If I had said no and the guy smelled it, then I'm looking to get a ticket for lying to the cop. Or worse get hauled off to the station for testing - in which case I would have lawyered up right away. I was confident in my Blood alchohl level because I hadn't really had much at all. I drank 2 beers between 6:30 and 7:30, then had a coke and burger, then had my last beer at 10pm till 10:30ish. Cop pulled me over at a little after 11pm. But the mear fact that I had any in my system pretty much freaked me out, and I think the cop knew it. I wanted to get on his good side as much as possible, to avoid the ticket.

You see eventhough he could not prove I had done anything illegal, that in and of itself does not prevent him from writing me a ticket and messing with me. If I had been totally sober (i.e. 0.00) i think I would have acted very differently. But then, who really knows. I'll have to consult the magic 8-ball on that one.

I'm just happy that things worked out the way they did and that nobody got hurt and I didn't get a ticket, and the wife doesn't know about it (i'll fess up to her if anyone even thinks about blackmail!). I will deffinately be even more careful next time - assuming there is a next time

heinrich

Our buddy here TOLD him right up front he had been drinking. Could have taken a whole 5 miutes. Didn't.

About rights ... is life a right? If you rape, pillage, murder, abuse .. your right to life will be taken away. Yes it is a right.

928autobahndreamer

OK this is not what I wanted my first post to be about on this forum. I just can't congratulate Andrew for his actions that night. You are right, he was not legally drunk, but even a small amount of alcohol impairs quick decision making and reaction time, and typically the person who has had the alcohol can not tell the difference. But it is there, it is testable, and has been proven again and again, source. The legal limit is for regular driving not the high speed stuff you are describing. While I enjoy the "kill" stories as much as the next guy, mixing them with alcohol even in modest levels is a very bad idea. Even for a very skilled driver and a fantistic car that is rock stable at speed. As for the cop, cut him a little slack. You admitted a few beers and for those whose business it is to ask, the general rule is that you can typically double what was admitted to(I'm not a cop but do work in the medical profession and frequently have to ask that question). It would have been irresponsible for him to not check you. I'm he was well under the legal limit, but I'm also glad he was fully evaluated including a breathalyzer.
That being said I hope this doesn't brand me as an outcast here. I'm really going to need everyones help here in the future as the long careful look for the right 928 is underway.

heinrich

No. Like I said, drinking at all and driving fast is a baaaaad idea. Not an outcast.

dcmelik

First, going 125 mph on any public highway is completely irresponsible. If you had gotten a ticket for speeding, you would have deserved it. Second, if the officer were in Iowa, and I realize he wasn't, his questions and tests would not have been "illegal" as someone suggested. And, yes, I understand fully that he wasn't an Iowa law enforcement officer. And, third, he asked you whether you knew why you were pulled over to test whether YOU thought you were speeding. And then he would write that up in his report and your admissions would be used against you. Miranda? Not necessary at a traffic stop in Iowa as it is not a custodial interrogation. Whether you answer such questions is between you, your priest, rabbi, minister, and lawyer of your choice in your home state.

heinrich

DC, 125 on a public roadway is definitely horribly insane, and will kill everyone around you if you do it on a public roadway ..... except in Germany, where if you do 125, people will honk at you to MOVE OVER slowpoke ... somehow there, it's not dangerous.

Simon Jester

I'm sorry, Heinrich, but this is a strawman argument.

All I was pointing out was the fact that the State that licenses you to drive and the cops that enforce traffic laws hold your driving privileges as just that, a privilege.

This isn't a semantic argument. The reason it isn't is the difference between your rights and a privilege. Your driving privilege can be revoked without resorting to due process. For example, in many states (like Colorado and I believe Washington) you WILL lose your driving privileges automatically for refusing to surrender a sample for a sobriety test. This is because when you got your driver's license, you made an agreement with the State to abide by certain rules so as to maintain your privileges. If you don't meet the requirements, you lose your license, no due process involved. If the right to drive actually existed, it would be unlawful for the State to require you to have a license to do so.

The reason your strawman argument is specious is because to deprive you of your life, the State must use due process to take that right away.

BTW, Andrew, the pictures are great. I gotta get mine online.

heinrich

specious strawaman .... hmmm ... law student? It's been a while since I got my law degree, but I bet I can successfully argue that a road user, by virtue of his performing in paying taxes and licence fees, has a legal right to use public roadways. That right is subject to laws as is everything else in life.

There is no such thing in law as "privilege". That word was concocted by those liberals who believe incorrectly that their views are de facto, law. Btw, straw man is not used in this context. It means, someone who would offer no financial value if sued.

Simon Jester

Heinrich, you're a lawyer and you don't know what a strawman argument is? You don't have a clear idea of the legal definition of a privilege and due process?

Wow, I wasn't trying to start a pursefight, but if you're gonna resort to allusions of authority, you should at least talk the talk. If you're gonna claim some sort of expertise, you ought to at least sound like an expert.

Here is the Washington State legal definition of the driving privilege WRT driving without a license from their own site. http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?...tion=46.20.345 As you can see, Washington regards driving as a privilege, just like Colorado does. I doubt that you could make any successful argument to the contrary.

While I never attended law school, I did study logic and semantics. From freshmen logic a strawman is a fallacy committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. Trying to use hyperbole to move the discussion of the "right to drive" into a bumper-sticker slogan is a strawman argument.

heinrich

<yawn>

bigs

Well, I think I gotta vote in favor of Simon Jester's view on this one.

On the one hand, I would disagree that going 125 on any public highway is irresponsible. If the car is engineered for high-speed driving and is well-maintained; if it's daylight with good visibility; if the road is empty of traffic; and if the driver is not impaired... go for it!

On the other hand, just because one is not legally intoxicated doesn't mean one isn't impaired to some degree.

Plus, I'm not sure high-speed driving at night is ever a real good idea. Visibility just isn't very good - especially peripheral vision outside the headlight beams or distant vision beyond the headlight beams. And those areas are where we pick up many potential dangers early enough to avoid them. At 125 mph at night, I think you're driving well beyond your visibility - even stone cold sober.

As far as the right vs. privilege debate. I'm not a lawyer, but it occurs to me that even though my taxes pay for the F-16 fighters up at Hill Field, that doesn't give me the right to go fly 'em. Same with the White House or the new Utah Governor's Mansion. My taxes go to build and/or maintain those buildings. Doesn't give me the right to live there.

So I don't think that the mere fact of paying taxes confers an automatic right of usage.

Plus, it seems to me if you have to apply for a license (basically permission) to do something, that disqualifies it as an individual right.

Much like a medical license. In general, anyone has the "right" to become a doctor. But no one has the right to actually and legally practice medicine without a license - i.e. permission that must be applied for, accompanied by some degree of evidence that the applicant is qualified to perform the task.

Seems like a driver's license would place driving in much the same category.

And I think the policeman's attitude, one way or the other, really isn't the issue here.

Bill Ball

Frankly, from what Andrew wrote I didn't think either party was that far out of line. If anything Andrew was. He admitted to us doing 80 in 40. I think Andrew lucked out. The cop (and Andrew) KNEW he was clipping along at a fast rate, but the cop couldn't prove it. So, he went real far to see if he could document inebriation. Andrew says he passed all the tests with flying colors, but he was 0.03 and may have shown some signs, like nystagmus (the follow the light or finger test). Nystagmus is not specific but it is very sensitive to certain drugs and alcohol. Frankly, everything I read sounded about right. Andrew deserves credit for admitting to having had a few drinks and the officer for investigating and then giving Andrew credit for that as well in the end. The fact that the cop eventually became friendly and curious about the car doesn't sound like anything the cop should have been criticized for doing. Andrew just wasn't in a receptive mood, thinking he had been jerked around. From a different angle, this cop sounds OK to me. I once had a cop question me at length about my job at the time (anticancer drug research) and we became really involved in discussing our personal experiences with cancer, and I gave him some good advice on where he could take one of his relatives with a rare tumor for better treatment. He still gave me a ticket.