Ah, a very relevant question and one who's answer is to my way of thinking very simple. But of course many would disagree. I see it like this. There are people on the road who sober cannot drive as safely as some others with X number of drinks in them. So the question is where do you draw the line. The simple answer is you can't. Just like all laws, drinking laws are "blanket" laws. That is to say, because theres no way to judge each case individually being that each individual is different, they have to go by what they feel is the max safe level.
Where i begin to get pissed is the fact that a person with 3 or 4 beers in him can be jailed and pay a couple grand in fines while a 90 year old who's incapable of driving safe can get a licence and do so. Not to mention the fact that people who drive while sleepy can crash into you and suffer little to no punishment. At 6 am there are people who drive to work 1/2 asleep. many are as or more dangerous as a drunk driver. But if they cause an accident they won't be spending any time in jail or paying a couple grand in fines.
But again, how do you determine who's driving in an unsafe condition or not? You can't give a breath test that determine your state of sleepiness or senility. But they CAN determine your state of drunkeness at least to a point. So therefore they have a measurement in that case and they use it to determine your ability to drive.
It's all very complicated, but it comes down to the fact that there are lobbyists like MADD who cannot be denied due to the times of political correctness we live in. And the fact that even if they COULD come up with a method to determine sleepiness or senility or whatever else, that would affect all people, not just those "bad" people who drive drunk. personally my feeling is that a few drinks should not be the crime it is at the moment. Fining people a couple grand and throwing them in jail for the nite for driving in a condition thats no worse than the 90 year old man in the car next to you or the truck driver with his eyes 1/2 open is unfair. I'm not sure what the answer is, but IMO the problem is aggrivated by the fact that the people who enforce the laws, the cops, don't use thier own disgression in determining whether or not the person is a danger. This comes back to what i said earlier about the problem of taking each case on an idividual basis. when stopped for suspicion of DUI, this is the only time when each individual case CAN be evaluated. But instead of using thier own disgression, most cops simply go by the letter of the law and cuff you if you fail a breath test. And a failed breath test is not a accurate way of determining whether you are safer or less safe than the 90 year old guy or the sleepy truck driver, both of which will pay no fine and won't go to jail.
I was popped years ago with just a few beers and i felt i was driving perfectly safe. Of course just saying that immediatly makes most people say yeah, right pal. But i have driven past the point at which i was dangerously impaired, and i knew it and admit it. I don't do that anymore thankfully. And the reason nis that i WAS arrested. Not when i was seriously impaired, but had i not been i would have done that again i'm sure. So looking at it from that perspective it's probably understandable. It still doesn't solve the problem of sober drivers who are a danger w/o ever taking a drink. And it is unfair. But once again, how can they take each case on an individual basis? so in the final anylisis, there is no perfect answer. But i think the real problem is not those who've had 4 or 5 beers and are use to that, but those who swerve all over the road. thats where the danger is, and those are the ones that kill people. Not the ones who had a few beers and got pulled over just because.
All that said, i never have and never would drive a motorcycle after drinking because i feel bikes are too easy to lay down even when sober. just my opinion, but i never have and never will.
