Drinking and Driving, a Quick Question

[thacker8394]

I have not posted much here mostly lurking and learning. But on this subject i have some insight. Not as a LEO but as a guy that has had a couple of DUI's. Im sure i will get flamed but if i help one person think twice before they drink an drive it is worth it.

I am in the Navy and started drinking when i was 19. The first time i got behind the wheel of a car i only had 2 beers like the op post. Well those 2 beers might not impare you enough to hurt yourslef or anybody else. But as time goes buy your comfort level with drinking and driveing goes up as well as your tolerance. The next thing you know you are getting pulled over for doing 68 mph in a 65 zone and you blow a .29 this is what happened to me twice. I have since gotten help and no longer drink but it took me taking a serious upset im my careir loosing my wife and house because of drinking and driving.

Long story short if you play with fire long enough you will get burned. I have nothing against drinking and i have nothing against driving but they do not go together perioud. I was lucky and never wrecked or killed anybody.

I think it is just best to not drive even if you only have one drink.

[harleybass47]

When I was alot younger I almost got a DUI riding a horse at the least I could have got a open container charge. I didn't know the law applied to horses. My wife and my buddy's wife had to come and get the horses.

[TRICKSTER]

When I was alot younger I almost got a DUI riding a horse at the least I could have got a open container charge. I didn't know the law applied to horses. My wife and my buddy's wife had to come and get the horses.

It doesn't apply to horses in CA, but Fremont PD tried booking some guy for it a few years back.
I think it was amended to drunk in public. The way things are today, I wouldn't be surprised if some DA would go for an animal cruelty charge.

[Jonathan Doe]

Actually, I have arrested someone who was under .08%, driving a boat in a harbor.

[DannyInSoCal]

To the OP -

Once you have lived long enough to lose someone you care about to a drunk driver -

You will impose a "zero tolerance" on yourself.

Until then - Play stupid games - Win stupid prizes....

[biochembruin]

I have not posted much here mostly lurking and learning. But on this subject i have some insight. Not as a LEO but as a guy that has had a couple of DUI's. Im sure i will get flamed but if i help one person think twice before they drink an drive it is worth it.

I am in the Navy and started drinking when i was 19. The first time i got behind the wheel of a car i only had 2 beers like the op post. Well those 2 beers might not impare you enough to hurt yourslef or anybody else. But as time goes buy your comfort level with drinking and driveing goes up as well as your tolerance. The next thing you know you are getting pulled over for doing 68 mph in a 65 zone and you blow a .29 this is what happened to me twice. I have since gotten help and no longer drink but it took me taking a serious upset im my careir loosing my wife and house because of drinking and driving.

Long story short if you play with fire long enough you will get burned. I have nothing against drinking and i have nothing against driving but they do not go together perioud. I was lucky and never wrecked or killed anybody.

I think it is just best to not drive even if you only have one drink.

I don't see why you would get flamed for that. Good insight.

[FourLoko]

Never fear! The odds are in your favor. This data is aging though as it's from 2006. It's still worth looking at though:

http://www.popcenter.org/problems/drunk_driving/

Perhaps the single most significant factor in explaining why people drive while impaired is that they believe that there is little risk that they will be caught by policeand statistically, they are correct. By some estimates, the average drunk driver will drive while impaired between 80 and 2000 times for every time he is apprehended, depending on the enforcement capacity of the local police. 28 In fact, most drivers believe they are more likely to be involved in a crash than they are to be stopped by police.29

Even the most committed police agencies and officers can stop or arrest only a very small percentage of the impaired drivers who are on the road at any one time probably less than one percent. There are several reasons this is so.

-At least in the United States, police must ordinarily reasonably suspect a driver is impaired or has committed some other traffic violation in order to stop and detain the driver, and some drunk drivers are able to operate a vehicle without displaying obvious indicators of intoxication such as weaving or crossing the center line of the road.
-There are far fewer police officers on duty at any one time than the public commonly imagines.
-There are many competing priorities for police attention, particularly at times when drunk driving is at its peak.
-Processing a drunk driving arrest is time-consuming, typically taking two to four hours.

The low probability that they will be stopped or arrested by the police on any particular trip undoubtedly leads many drivers to conclude that they can drink and drive without getting caught.

Detecting drunk driving is not as easy as it might seem. Those without specialized training in detecting alcohol impairment even medical professionals are notoriously poor at estimating alcohol impairment. For police, detecting drunk driving typically requires two separate judgments: first, that a vehicle is being operated by an impaired driver; and second, that the driver is impaired by alcohol or another controlled substance. Each judgment is in turn subject to two kinds of errors: first, that the driver is impaired by alcohol when in fact he is not (false positive); and second, that the driver is not impaired by alcohol when in fact he is (false negative).

[Mikeed]

Why even take the chance?Even under, you can still be charged with a wet reckless and holds same weight as the DUI with insurance company. As well as DMV.

[1-M-42]

I have not posted much here mostly lurking and learning. But on this subject i have some insight. Not as a LEO but as a guy that has had a couple of DUI's. Im sure i will get flamed but if i help one person think twice before they drink an drive it is worth it.

I am in the Navy and started drinking when i was 19. The first time i got behind the wheel of a car i only had 2 beers like the op post. Well those 2 beers might not impare you enough to hurt yourslef or anybody else. But as time goes buy your comfort level with drinking and driveing goes up as well as your tolerance. The next thing you know you are getting pulled over for doing 68 mph in a 65 zone and you blow a .29 this is what happened to me twice. I have since gotten help and no longer drink but it took me taking a serious upset im my careir loosing my wife and house because of drinking and driving.

Long story short if you play with fire long enough you will get burned. I have nothing against drinking and i have nothing against driving but they do not go together perioud. I was lucky and never wrecked or killed anybody.

I think it is just best to not drive even if you only have one drink.

No reason to think you'll be flamed, you deserve to be commended. You recognized destructive behavior, had the strength to make a change and because of it, you've become a better person. Thank the Big Boss that no one was ever injured and continue on the path you are now traveling.

[Blue]

What about impairment not involving alcohol? That dude sucking on a bong in the #1 lane of the freeway? that fits under 23152(a) VC.

I see that all the time, how's the field test go for that? If they do a blood test isn't it in their system already?