That is why many states follow a positive breathalyzer test with a blood test. In my state, you can refuse them both, but you lose your license temporarily for doing so. I think that's fair. I understand some are skeptical about giving blood to the police, but if you can't prove you're not drunk or high after a positive reading on a less accurate device, then you aren't allowed on the road. The risk is too great for everyone else.
In Texas, you receive a mandatory suspension for refusing just a breathalyzer, even if you are found to not be over the legal limit, or are never convicted of a DWI. Blood tests are then often obtained via warrant (and it's typical to have a judge "on call" to sign and fax those orders on demand)
I personally think it's utterly disgusting that people are allowed to operate what are essentially giant weapons in public with extremely minimal testing or training, and with minimal limits on alcohol usage. I think it's totally reasonable to ask people to give up some of the rights they'd normally have, when those people want to operate heavy machinery in public.
My understanding is that GA pilots are not allowed to fly within 8 hours of consuming any alcohol (my understanding is that most commercial outfits have more stringent limits) - I personally think this makes a lot of sense for operating a motor vehicle, too.
It takes between 1 - 3 hours for a single mixed drink or pint of beer to be metabolized.
As a starting point I think you will agree that someone who has a BAC of zero ought to be able to drive.
The majority of drunk driving accidents are the result of people that are plowed. More disturbing by far those who ARE caught and jailed have driven hundreds of thousands of miles drunk as a skunk before actually getting taken off the road.
As BAC decreases accident rates decline towards normalcy at around 0.06 its difficult to distinguish the accident rate of those who have consumed and those who have not.
People at that point neither walk nor drive funny and are very unlikely to be discovered unless you stop and test everyone or you happen to be black or Hispanic.
Instead of tightening already reasonable standards to ridiculous levels we would save vastly more lives by actually enforcing the laws we have effectively.
>As a starting point I think you will agree that someone who has a BAC of zero ought to be able to drive.
Not if they are tired or hungover. I mean, I don't think people should drive when they are tired for other reasons, either. It's a dangerous thing, and something you should only do when you are at your best.
Alcohol is just an easy target (and an important target) because it both degrades your actual ability, while at the same time, increasing your opinion of your ability. Because of that second effect, it's especially difficult to tell when you have had too much to drive... because one of the common side effects of alcohol is an increase in confidence.
It should be difficult to drive, and it should be easy to lose the ability to drive.
>Instead of tightening already reasonable standards to ridiculous levels we would save vastly more lives by actually enforcing the laws we have effectively.
eh, we already have rules against driving tired. they just lack an objective test.
I think that if you think you can operate a motor vehicle or a gun in public at 0.06, you are not being nearly careful enough. (And I suspect the additional confidence that alcohol gives you might actually contribute much to accident rates. I know I certainly feel more confident one drink in, and confidence is deadly when you are operating weapons or heavy machinery around other people.)
It points very strongly toward intoxication. There is just enough false positives that they are required by the state to also take a blood test.
It's a confirmation, and when you're about to sentence someone on the spot with what is often a life changing, multi year disqualification from driving, the courts require the police to be absolutely sure.
