Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Yovani Gallardo picked up for DUI

Lucky for Gallardo that drunk driving is not a crime in Wisconsin.

The Polish Sausage Racer Posted: April 16, 2013 at 11:45 AM | 56 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: brewers

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: April 16, 2013 at 12:55 PM (#4415687)
Kids taken away, etc.
   2. Bob Tufts Posted: April 16, 2013 at 01:01 PM (#4415697)
Considering this and yesterday's tragedy, perhaps we can be consistent and re-focus our energies on things that can actually kill and maim innocents as opposed to convulsive reactions regarding some nebulous "ick" factor and sanctity or records?

I'm not big on most gun regulations, but I'd rather spend the time debating that than which steroids or vitamins may result in a few extra home runs. And as for punishments regarding drunk driving and death, it should be a minimum of one year in jail (the same as if you possessed a gun during a crime)
   3. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 16, 2013 at 01:15 PM (#4415714)
He doesn't even play for the Cardinals.
   4. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: April 16, 2013 at 01:17 PM (#4415716)
:( A friend of mine from band in college is one of Gallardo's cousins and we normally exchange a few happy Facebook posts any time I post a link on her page about something he did.

I don't think I'll be sharing this one.
   5. Blastin Posted: April 16, 2013 at 01:19 PM (#4415717)
I wonder if my friend the steroid zealot will be sending me a link about this.
   6. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: April 16, 2013 at 01:20 PM (#4415720)
sentencing guidelines in Wisconsin for vehicular homicide
(as a frame of reference)

First conviction: Class D felony, not more than 25 years and/or not more than $100,000.
Subsequent conviction: Class C felony Not more than 40 years and/or not more than $100,000.
   7. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: April 16, 2013 at 01:22 PM (#4415724)
Just so I'm not missing something; Gallardo didn't hit anyone right? Not saying it makes it OK but after reading Bob and Harveys' posts I wanted to be sure.
   8. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: April 16, 2013 at 01:28 PM (#4415733)
jose

correct.

since bob is advocating a year in jail for drunk driving I thought I would post the sentencing guidelines for a vehicle related felony
   9. Bob Tufts Posted: April 16, 2013 at 01:32 PM (#4415736)
Harvey - I want at least one year minimum - no negotiations or please bargains to let someone avoid serving at least some time.

Forget the community service BS - put Gallardo through a "Clockwork Orange" style psychological conditioning program that makes him abstain from alcohol.

And while we're at it, we should test all fans leaving Miller Park after a game. Random DUI tests to enter and leave the game will save more people than blood and urine tests for illegal or banned PED's. It would probably result in empty stadiums at your average NFL game.
   10. Drexl Spivey Posted: April 16, 2013 at 01:37 PM (#4415745)
And as for punishments regarding drunk driving and death, it should be a minimum of one year in jail


The state of Wisconsin would have to build more jails.

The most concerning part about this is that he had a .22 BAC on a Monday night.
   11. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 16, 2013 at 01:41 PM (#4415748)

Harvey - I want at least one year minimum - no negotiations or please bargains to let someone avoid serving at least some time.


A one year minimum for DUI manslaughter or one year minimum for DUI?
   12. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: April 16, 2013 at 01:48 PM (#4415756)
The most concerning part about this is that he had a .22 BAC on a Monday night.


The .22 is pretty impressive but I don't see it being a Monday night as a big deal. Given the schedules these guys keep the day of the week is pretty irrelevent. Tuesday was a day off for Gallardo (he isn't scheduled to pitch until Friday) so really Monday was his "weekend" for all intents and purposes.
   13. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: April 16, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4415764)
The most concerning part about this is that he had a .22 BAC on a Monday night.

agreed. I am no longer deeply connected into the tavern owner network so have limited ability in finding out if this behavior is deemed out of character. I certainly have not received word that Gallardo had any such issues nor has he exhibited any of the signs you associate with not being able to manage one's consumption of alcohol. and I know my booze having been a functional alcoholic for a long time.

but it could be he has managed around it deftly and now was finally busted. or it's a one time event from getting thrashed again by st Louis, the bane of Gallardo's career

hope it's the latter but not oblivious to it quite possibly being the former
   14. Drexl Spivey Posted: April 16, 2013 at 01:53 PM (#4415767)
Tuesday was a day off for Gallardo (he isn't scheduled to pitch until Friday) so really Monday was his "weekend" for all intents and purposes.


Starting pitchers have four day weekends?
   15. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: April 16, 2013 at 02:02 PM (#4415785)

Starting pitchers have four day weekends?


Not quite but damned close. Obviously there is an expectation of keeping himself in shape (hence the shared concern over .22 BAC) but he still has three nights to get a good night's sleep before his start. I don't think the fact that it was a Monday should be of any concern.
   16. The Polish Sausage Racer Posted: April 16, 2013 at 02:05 PM (#4415789)
The longest sentence in Wisconsin for vehicular homicide while intoxicated that I'm aware of was 23 years (on a personal note, for the guy who burned my little sister to death, fled the scene and then had his family members hide him for months). He actually served 13 years since he was a less-than-model prisoner, but is now out. Disgracefully, there is no minimum, and most offenders get nowhere near that---some are even let off with probation.
   17. Spectral Posted: April 16, 2013 at 02:19 PM (#4415812)
The state of Wisconsin would have to build more jails.


I'd wager that extremely strict laws would result in higher compliance rate rather than more jailing, but experience with drug crimes says otherwise. I can't fathom being stupid enough to go to jail for DUI, but many people are very stupid indeed.
   18. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: April 16, 2013 at 02:22 PM (#4415817)
That picture of Gallardo is the most melancholy mugshot I've ever seen.
   19. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: April 16, 2013 at 02:31 PM (#4415835)
   20. Jay Z Posted: April 16, 2013 at 02:31 PM (#4415836)
sentencing guidelines in Wisconsin for vehicular homicide
(as a frame of reference)

First conviction: Class D felony, not more than 25 years and/or not more than $100,000.
Subsequent conviction: Class C felony Not more than 40 years and/or not more than $100,000.


Hopefully they listen to this when they sentence the bishop of my church for this.
   21. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 16, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4415847)
I can't fathom being stupid enough to go to jail for DUI, but many people are very stupid indeed.

I think the issue is that very few people (besides the hard core drunks who create most of the danger) leave their house intending to drive drunk.

They drink more than they planned, and/or more than they realize, and then make a decision to drive while their judgement is already impaired.
   22. zonk Posted: April 16, 2013 at 02:43 PM (#4415863)
This is really why I love living in a crowded urban environment... I'm sure I've clocked a 0.22 a number of times in the past month, but if I get the urge to be somewhere else or need to get home - I have the El and cabs at my disposal.

I have come to terms with the idea that I either need to become more anti-social when I drink or stop drinking in order to ever move to a suburban or rural environment.
   23. The Polish Sausage Racer Posted: April 16, 2013 at 02:45 PM (#4415866)
That is the main point. If you're going to be drinking, give someone else your keys before you start. Once you start, you begin to think of yourself as indestructible.
   24. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 16, 2013 at 02:50 PM (#4415875)
That is the main point. If you're going to be drinking, give someone else your keys before you start.

Concur. But not everyone who ends up drunk plans to get that way. If you plan to go to dinner and have a glass or two of wine, there is no reason not to drive.

If you then go on to have 5 or 6 drinks at the bar, and never get around to eating, you need to adjust your plan. I think that's where a lot of the failures occur.
   25. Spectral Posted: April 16, 2013 at 02:51 PM (#4415877)
I think the issue is that very few people (besides the hard core drunks who create most of the danger) leave their house intending to drive drunk.

They drink more than they planned, and/or more than they realize, and then make a decision to drive while their judgement is already impaired.

This does not contradict my claim that many people are very stupid indeed. I don't find it terribly difficult to count the number of drinks I've had, plus or minus a couple. If it's fourteen, that's probably just a couple too many...
   26. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 16, 2013 at 02:57 PM (#4415887)

I can't fathom being stupid enough to go to jail for DUI, but many people are very stupid indeed.


Considering the odds of being caught (and light punishment) or getting into an accident versus the hassle of making alternate transportation, its not a completely irrational decision.*

The problem is we need to change that equation. Most people focus on the punishment, but I think the key is making it so easy to get alternate transportation that no one thinks the small risk of jail or severe accident is worth it.

*-just googling around it sounds like the estimates are about 116 million car trips a year are estimated to be alcohol-related (MADD). 10,000 result in deaths. 900,000 result in DUIs (how many of those ever serve jail time I don't know, but probably very few). So if you drink and drive your odds of being in a DUI homicide are 1 in 116,000. Your odds of being caught are about 1 in 145.
   27. The Fallen Reputation of Billy Jo Robidoux Posted: April 16, 2013 at 03:05 PM (#4415900)
Lucky for Gallardo that drunk driving is not a crime in Wisconsin.


Just in case anyone thought this statement was a joke, it is literally true in Wisconsin for the first offense.
   28. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 16, 2013 at 03:11 PM (#4415913)
Just googling around it sounds like the estimates are about 116 million car trips a year are estimated to be alcohol-related (A HREF="http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/about">MADD</a>). 10,000 result in deaths. 900,000 result in DUIs (drinkinganddriving.org)(how many of those ever serve jail time I don't know, but probably very few). So if you drink and drive your odds of being in a DUI homicide are 1 in 116,000. Your odds of being caught are about 1 in 145.

Check my math, I could be off. But anyway, that's why people do it. The odds are pretty low.
   29. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 16, 2013 at 03:12 PM (#4415914)
This does not contradict my claim that many people are very stupid indeed. I don't find it terribly difficult to count the number of drinks I've had, plus or minus a couple. If it's fourteen, that's probably just a couple too many...

You can lose count, and the issue isn't 14, it's 4 or 5, where you're impaired, vs. 2 or 3, where you're fine. Add in the presence or absence of food consumption, how large and strong the drinks are, the time over which you consume the drinks, and there's a fair numbers of variables that could lead to roughly same amount of drinks putting you at 0.06 one night, and 0.12 another.
   30. Drexl Spivey Posted: April 16, 2013 at 03:31 PM (#4415952)
This is really why I love living in a crowded urban environment... I'm sure I've clocked a 0.22 a number of times in the past month, but if I get the urge to be somewhere else or need to get home - I have the El and cabs at my disposal.


I've always wondered whether extremely strict DUI punishments would cause the drunkards to move to large cities.
   31. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 16, 2013 at 03:45 PM (#4415964)
This is really why I love living in a crowded urban environment... I'm sure I've clocked a 0.22 a number of times in the past month, but if I get the urge to be somewhere else or need to get home - I have the El and cabs at my disposal.


In general, denser cities with more extensive public transportation systems have lower automobile fatality rates (including drivers and passengers but excluding pedestrians): 2.65 per 100,000 population in New York, 6.98 in Philadelphia, 5.57 in Chicago, 2.54 in San Francisco, and 4.17 in Portland, compared to 9.97 in Houston, 12.55 in Phoenix, 11.53 in Dallas, 10.65 in Tampa, and 11.21 in Atlanta.


Is There Less Drunk Driving in the South, Or Just Less Data?
   32. Nasty Nate Posted: April 16, 2013 at 04:01 PM (#4415980)
A bigger deterrent than increased punishment would be an increased chance of being caught. Part of the reason that the chances of being caught are so low is that the vast majority of times that this crime (driving while above the limit) occurs there is no harm and no victims and therefore nobody knows that a crime even took place, and the driver has such a tiny risk of being caught.

edit: just to be clear, I am talking about DUI in general, not a DUI that results in death.
   33. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 16, 2013 at 04:05 PM (#4415984)
Part of the reason that the chances of being caught are so low is that the vast majority of times that this crime (driving while above the limit) occurs there is no harm and no victims and therefore nobody knows that a crime even took place, and the driver has such a tiny risk of being caught.

And, depending on how MADD is defining "alcohol-related", lots of these people may not be impaired much at all, or much of a danger. A lot of driver in the 0.08 to 0.12 range are not going to be particularly worse than many, many "unimpaired" drivers.
   34. cardsfanboy Posted: April 16, 2013 at 04:05 PM (#4415987)
Just googling around it sounds like the estimates are about 116 million car trips a year are estimated to be alcohol-related


That seems like an absurdly low number. I could see it being 116 mil in a month or two, but a year?
   35. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 16, 2013 at 04:09 PM (#4415990)

That seems like an absurdly low number. I could see it being 116 mil in a month or two, but a year?


Their number is 1 out of every 2000 car trips is alcohol-impaired. And they say there are 233 billion car trips per year. So check my math, I could be wrong.
   36. Nasty Nate Posted: April 16, 2013 at 04:16 PM (#4415996)
Just googling around it sounds like the estimates are about 116 million car trips a year are estimated to be alcohol-related


That seems like an absurdly low number. I could see it being 116 mil in a month or two, but a year?


Whatever the actual number is, you run the risk of injustice if punishments are severe, yet the vast majority of offenses are never punished.
   37. Joey B. Posted: April 16, 2013 at 04:17 PM (#4415999)
It never ceases to amaze me; Gallardo is making almost eight million dollars this year, and he can't afford to take a freaking cab? Hell, like most established players today, he can hire a full-time personal driver to be at his beck and call 24/7 and still have more than enough left over to live like a king.
   38. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 16, 2013 at 04:19 PM (#4416003)
Whatever the actual number is, you run the risk of injustice if punishments are severe, yet the vast majority of offenses are never punished.

The real focus should be on what improves safety most efficiently. Hasn't most research shown that it is a small fraction of hard-core drunk drivers, with very high BACs, that cause most of the deaths?

If that's true, enforcement should be extremely focused on those people.
   39. Ulysses S. Fairsmith Posted: April 16, 2013 at 04:23 PM (#4416007)
I have long thought that for a first-time drunk-driving conviction, the offender should have his license taken away for 16 years. For a second offense, he should lose his license permanently.
   40. Nasty Nate Posted: April 16, 2013 at 04:25 PM (#4416010)
I have long thought that for a first-time drunk-driving conviction, the offender should have his license taken away for 16 years. For a second offense, he should lose his license permanently.


It wouldn't bother you to have such a severe penalty when such a tiny percent of the infractions are punished? Wouldn't you want justice spread out better?
   41. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 16, 2013 at 04:27 PM (#4416015)

I have long thought that for a first-time drunk-driving conviction, the offender should have his license taken away for 16 years. For a second offense, he should lose his license permanently.


From the earlier MADD site:

About one-third of the drunk driving problem – arrests, crashes, deaths, and injuries – comes from repeat offenders. At any given point we potentially share the roads with 2 million people with three or more drunk driving offenses. Taking away their licenses isn’t enough; 50-75% of them drive anyway
   42. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: April 16, 2013 at 04:31 PM (#4416019)
My only contribution is that my fair city has seen fit to recently place several large electronic flashing signs along the busiest roads screaming out the dangers of distracted driving. Apparently no one at city hall can recognize irony.
   43. bfan Posted: April 16, 2013 at 04:34 PM (#4416025)
The real focus should be on what improves safety most efficiently. Hasn't most research shown that it is a small fraction of hard-core drunk drivers, with very high BACs, that cause most of the deaths?

If that's true, enforcement should be extremely focused on those people.


This is correct, and for these people, taking away their license does not diminish their driving time. I think drunk driving has a little bit of the air safety element in it; we do stuff to make us feel like we are addressing the problem ("has your bag been in your possession the entire time? Yes? Well then, welcome aboard"), as opposed to addressing the problem.

My guess would be that if we made it a capital offense for anyone who had lost their license for DUI to be caught driving, we would save more lives than doubling the number of traffic stops outside of every town's local wine bar.

Please understand, I do not give a whit about protecting those wine bar patrons, and their right to get slightly tipsy to get to .08 and then hit the road; I just do not think that is where the DUI fatalities are coming from.
   44. zonk Posted: April 16, 2013 at 05:16 PM (#4416063)
This is really why I love living in a crowded urban environment... I'm sure I've clocked a 0.22 a number of times in the past month, but if I get the urge to be somewhere else or need to get home - I have the El and cabs at my disposal.



I've always wondered whether extremely strict DUI punishments would cause the drunkards to move to large cities.


It certainly keeps me put... I generally only play a drunkard on weekends. I work in the burbs - I do occasionally have a drink after work with colleagues, but I set myself on a strict limit of one -- two if I eat. I also usually get up around 5 AM for work, so even grabbing a drink with friends in the city - I would probably be OK driving more.

However, on the weekends or even on rare occasions during the week when I can find a partner in crime to extend the evening (I have the good fortune of being able to telecommute on a hungover whim) - I just don't drive period if I think there's even a slim chance of 1-2-3 drinks becoming 4-5-6+.

Like Snapper said in 29 the issue is just those instances where you hit that limit. 0.08 is a low limit - but at the same time, I also look at it this way -- let's say I run someone over and end up testing at 0.075. Let's say the police investigation concludes that the victim/person I hit darted out from between two parked cars and I'm held to be not at fault.... I would still live the rest of my life wondering if this now dead person would be alive if I hadn't had anything to drink.

Consequently - if I'm going out for dinner or drinks or both, I'm either public transiting or cabbing it.

I mean, I'm sure perfect self-control is a wonderful thing.... but I find recognizing your frailties, vices, and limits of self-control then planning accordingly serves as a perfectly cromulent replacement plan. I don't take my ATM card into casinos, either!
   45. Drexl Spivey Posted: April 16, 2013 at 05:24 PM (#4416070)
At any given point we potentially share the roads with 2 million people with three or more drunk driving offenses.


This isn't true. Please stop quoting MADD. They're not the most objective source on this subject.

That statement is only true if "at any given point" means on Friday and Saturday nights.
   46. cmd600 Posted: April 16, 2013 at 05:51 PM (#4416094)
It never ceases to amaze me; Gallardo is making almost eight million dollars this year, and he can't afford to take a freaking cab? Hell, like most established players today, he can hire a full-time personal driver to be at his beck and call 24/7 and still have more than enough left over to live like a king.


I'm sure this point has been made many times already, but you are thinking about this completely logically on a sober mind. Put down double digit drinks, and you'll be convinced you can drive like Mario Andretti.
   47. Long Time Listener, First Time Caller Posted: April 16, 2013 at 07:08 PM (#4416143)
I can't imagine that cost is ever an issue as to why people don't take a cab. Everyone can afford to take a cab. It's $20-40. Anyone who has tried to get a cab at 2 a.m. at the bars knows the biggest deterrent to cabbing it is convenience. Period.

To the point though, Gallardo can afford to hire a driving service, which is the big mystery with athlete DUI's. Hell, the NFL provides a driving service for its players and knuckleheads still kill their passengers driving fitshaced
   48. Bourbon Samurai Posted: April 16, 2013 at 08:48 PM (#4416263)

To the point though, Gallardo can afford to hire a driving service, which is the big mystery with athlete DUI's.


To that point, with the amount of money involved I'm sort of amazed every team doesn't have a Harvey Keitel from Pulp Fiction on staff, who will drive you home drunk or clean up your dead hooker, no questions asked.
   49. Bowling Baseball Fan Posted: April 16, 2013 at 09:18 PM (#4416304)
This reminds me of the site that was dedicated to the highest BAC levels recorded. The stories in the top 5-10 were mind boggling. Woman with the .53 sitting passed out in a stolen truck next to a corn field. Or the .45 who could have passed for the wicked witch of the west's brother. People that managed to make their blood 0.5% alcohol. These are people that defy laws of physics AND the land.
   50. McCoy Posted: April 16, 2013 at 09:49 PM (#4416363)
I can't imagine that cost is ever an issue as to why people don't take a cab. Everyone can afford to take a cab. It's $20-40. Anyone who has tried to get a cab at 2 a.m. at the bars knows the biggest deterrent to cabbing it is convenience. Period.

To the point though, Gallardo can afford to hire a driving service, which is the big mystery with athlete DUI's. Hell, the NFL provides a driving service for its players and knuckleheads still kill their passengers driving fitshaced


Hell, they have driving services now that you contact via a smartphone app and they'll be there to pick you up in 5 or 10 minutes. Last week I went to the Nats game and then went to the Ugly Mug afterwards. Stayed until about 1:00am and that was when I realized we had stayed there so long that the metro was closed. My friend told me not to worry as he whipped out his phone and paged a car. Got to us in about 5 minutes and took us home no problems.
   51. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 16, 2013 at 09:52 PM (#4416368)
So if you drink and drive your odds of being in a DUI homicide are 1 in 116,000. Your odds of being caught are about 1 in 145.

The latter seems very high. Someone who goes out to drink every weekend night gets a DUI every three years? A chronic bar drinker gets nailed more than twice a year? I don't think that's likely.

My only contribution is that my fair city has seen fit to recently place several large electronic flashing signs along the busiest roads screaming out the dangers of distracted driving. Apparently no one at city hall can recognize irony.

Same with police car flashers. Over the years they've become more and more distracting to the point now they're a real hazard at night. Coming up on them when they've pulled someone over means I can't see shite in the road, and they give me mild night blindness for half a minute after passing them.

As for the 2 million drivers with 3 or more convictions who might be on the road at any given point, that's a silly fear tactic. Sure, maybe (if that doesn't include the dead, for instance, or some skewed studies estimate of the number, extrapolating from the number of drunks in a town with a DUI rehab center--something that would not particularly surprise me) if every single one of them decided to drive at the same time, but it's this kind of claim that does us more harm than good, imo.
   52. McCoy Posted: April 16, 2013 at 09:56 PM (#4416373)
The latter seems very high. Someone who goes out to drink every weekend night gets a DUI every three years? I don't think that's likely.

Seems about right to me. The drinkers I know who go out drinking a lot and in copious amounts and then drive tend to lose their licenses rather quickly. Hell, half the bartenders I knew in Philly had DUIs and about a fifth of the servers did as well.
   53. Squash Posted: April 16, 2013 at 10:02 PM (#4416383)
This reminds me of the site that was dedicated to the highest BAC levels recorded. The stories in the top 5-10 were mind boggling. Woman with the .53 sitting passed out in a stolen truck next to a corn field. Or the .45 who could have passed for the wicked witch of the west's brother. People that managed to make their blood 0.5% alcohol. These are people that defy laws of physics AND the land.

I and some friends had a fun evening recently at a dinner party with one of those pocket-sized breathilizers you can buy nowadays. Surprisingly, .08 is pretty drunk - you can definitely feel it and looking at .08 people you can tell they've had a few. Around .04 seemed to be the point where you know you've had a drink. If they really wanted to strap it down and define it as no influence whatsoever, I think they could make a pretty honest case of dropping it to there from where we are now, which is really surprising considering .08 already seems low compared to where it used to be.
   54. Spivey Posted: April 16, 2013 at 10:06 PM (#4416388)
The latter seems very high. Someone who goes out to drink every weekend night gets a DUI every three years? I don't think that's likely.


You're assuming they're drinking until they are drunk 100% of the time, and driving 100% of the time. That's not likely. There is also a difference between someone who is drinking regularly to the borderline, like .08-.10, and someone pulling a Gallardo and being hammered.
   55. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 16, 2013 at 10:11 PM (#4416394)
@54: correct on both counts. Most people don't drink like that, and surely one is more likely to be nabbed at .15 than .08-.10.

I sit corrected.

edit: One thing, though. The quote said 'if you drink and drive'. That includes not only the .15 guys, but the .02 guys. It's difficult for me to see how one gets picked up for drunk driving once for every 145 times one drinks literally one or more drinks) then drives. That suggests that when getting drunk (and not just drinking, but getting drunk), the odds of getting caught are significantly higher than 1 in 145. Perhaps 1 in 50, or 1 in 70. That's what I was intuiting, I think, but did a brutal job of expressing.

Or, what am I still missing?
   56. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: April 17, 2013 at 02:39 AM (#4416545)
I and some friends had a fun evening recently at a dinner party with one of those pocket-sized breathilizers you can buy nowadays. Surprisingly, .08 is pretty drunk - you can definitely feel it and looking at .08 people you can tell they've had a few. Around .04 seemed to be the point where you know you've had a drink. If they really wanted to strap it down and define it as no influence whatsoever, I think they could make a pretty honest case of dropping it to there from where we are now, which is really surprising considering .08 already seems low compared to where it used to be.

Most places in Europe these days are at 0.05. I think the UK is just about the only place left where it is at 0.08, and Scotland is currently debating whether it should be moved down there.

Germany also has a zero limit for new drivers (bear in mind that legal driving age is 18 there, and legal drinking age is 16). They also have automatic 1 year ban for anything over .11, and for over .16 you need to pass a psych eval to get it back at all.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
dirk
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9280 - 10:44am, Dec 22)
Last: Joey B.

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(5275 - 10:43am, Dec 22)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-22-2014
(1 - 10:41am, Dec 22)
Last: Dan Lee is some pumkins

NewsblogRuben Amaro Jr. says it would be best if Phillies move on from Ryan Howard
(52 - 10:40am, Dec 22)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(779 - 10:40am, Dec 22)
Last: Moses Taylor, Moses Taylor

NewsblogYankees will pay for education of children of NYPD cop Ramos - NY Daily News
(11 - 10:38am, Dec 22)
Last: Chip

NewsblogFree Agent Spending By Division – MLB Trade Rumors
(1 - 10:37am, Dec 22)
Last: John Northey

NewsblogMurray Chass On Baseball » THE PIONEER AND THE GAME TODAY
(32 - 10:33am, Dec 22)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogGetting ready to gamble on Jung-Ho Kang | FOX Sports
(9 - 10:24am, Dec 22)
Last: AROM

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(185 - 10:14am, Dec 22)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogMarty Noble's HOF Ballot
(48 - 10:05am, Dec 22)
Last: TJ

Hall of Merit2015 Hall of Merit Ballot
(100 - 9:57am, Dec 22)
Last: rawagman

NewsblogOT: Soccer December 2014
(348 - 9:54am, Dec 22)
Last: I am going to be Frank

NewsblogThe Yankees’ plan in case A-Rod can’t play at all
(27 - 9:48am, Dec 22)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogThe Jeff Jacobs HOF Ballot: Keep The Voting Serious And Fair
(57 - 9:44am, Dec 22)
Last: zonk

Page rendered in 0.4887 seconds
48 querie(s) executed