Friday, December 16, 2005

Read this link that demonstrates . . .

that much of current DUI enforcement is driven by revenues rather than safety. Read the whole blog and discover some of the problems that the government consistently and purposely ignores with respect to the inaccuracies inherent in many breathalyzer machines.

And don't believe for a second that our complicated registration and licensing laws for vehicles, not to mention general traffic enforcement, is not primarily instituted to raise revenues for cities, states and counties.

Also, read this article that I found linked on Instapundit:

Despite the laudable .04 percent change in the standard for acceptable BAC in
Washington (before “police discretion” can be evoked), the city is still left with a rather draconian DUI law. The Cato Institute’s Radley Balko puts all this another way:

But when two-thirds of alcohol-related traffic fatalities involve blood-alcohol levels of .14 and above, and the average fatal accident occurs at .17, this move [changing the legal limit from .1 to .08] doesn't make much sense. It's like lowering the speed limit from 65 to 60 to catch people who drive 100 miles per hour. In fact, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reviewed all the statistical data and concluded "the evidence does not conclusively establish that .08 BAC laws by themselves result in reductions in the number and severity of crashes involving alcohol." (Emphasis added.)

The prima facie argument for a single BAC standard is that there is no other fair standard available for police to make a determination. BAC was introduced because many thought that police discretion and sobriety tests were too subjective on their own, and people were thus vulnerable to abuse by cops looking to fill a quota. BAC was to be an objective standard upon which the law would rest -- with subjective sobriety tests becoming a supplement. It turns out that while the BAC standard is an objective standard for measuring the percentage of alcohol in the blood. It isn’t an objective standard of someone’s ability to drive safely. The very term DUI stands for “driving under the influence.” But the breathalyzer and other BAC measures can’t determine the influence of alcohol on one’s reaction times, faculties, and motor skills. If we were trying to determine whether someone is actually impaired, aren’t reaction times, faculties and motor skills what we ought to be looking at?

It's all about revenue my friends - and you have no rights when the government
wants your money.

Kid H.


Post a Comment

<< Home