|
|
|
|
|
by dpark
2962 days ago
|
|
> What's happening in this thread right now is simply a difference of moral frameworks. That’s not what’s happening at all. No one here is asserting that .08 is some moral boundary. What’s happening is that some people here think that people convicted of criminal acts should be guilty of those acts as defined in the law. Other people think that pretty close is enough to declare someone guilty of a crime. .08 is the legal boundary. If you’re driving at .07, you have not broken the law. > I'm firmly in the second camp on this particular issue: I don't care that the law says that anything up to .08 is okay; if you're close enough to .08 that a marginal error in a device could make it illegal, then I wish you weren't driving. That’s lovely but “I wish you weren’t driving” is not the law. |
|
Usually, it's the boundary between “defintiely DUI [or DWI, where these are distinguished] by BAC” and “quite probably DUI by being under the influence, for which BAC may be supporting evidence”.
> If you’re driving at .07, you have not broken the law.
That's inaccurate.