[notheguyouthink]

That's an interesting viewpoint, but I'm not sure margin of error matters, does it?

Ie, if 0.08 is the limit with a margin of error of 0.01, and you allow people to be in the margin of error, doesn't the limit simply become 0.09?

What if 0.08 was decided as the limit with a margin of error from 0.07?

At the end of the day, don't we always have hard limits? Whether the hard limit is before or after the margin of error seems to be a moot point in this discussion. And deciding that margin of error is a different discussion entirely, one mainly involved with the individual BAC testing units, effectiveness of BAC, etc.

edit: I feel like the down voter(s) are missing the point of my post. I was replying to someone in context of them saying that you cannot set a hard limit on which something is illegal. That is just silly. If a speed limit is 30mph with a margin of error of 2mph, than 33mph is over the speed limit. That is a hard limit you can absolutely set.

[uhhhhhhh]

>but I'm not sure margin of error matters, does it?

It does in terms of "reality overrides perception" and "what we want doesn't change whats real". Our ability to set hard limits in law doesn't change the fact our ability to actually test for those limits always have some margin of error.

In this case, the argument is the devices may be wrong because they're up to 6-10% off in some cases. Is that enough to invalidate measurements because of the margin of error? That's something the law doesn't deal with properly, but it really should.

What is the maximum margin of error allowable in a device used to determine legal status of an individual (in terms of drunkeness in this case)? without that being specified in law, what is the biggest margin of error socially acceptable? 0 is not practical or possible, so it has to be some sort of number.

[notheguyouthink]

I agree completely, but the point of this discussion (that I replied to) was that you cannot set a hard limit. I say you can, you just include a margin of error.

You are completely correct, margin of error exists. That doesn't change the fact that if you blow beyond the margin of error, you are guilty.

There will always be a hard limit beyond the margin of error. I feel like you're arguing against that. It's confusing to me.

> 0 is not practical or possible, so it has to be some sort of number.

No one said that, myself included. This feels like a straw man.

[shkkmo]

It is absolutely not a moot point.

The actual legal limit matters. You don't have a legal expectation as to the margin of error of the measurement.

You should have Legal expectation that whatever measurement is used, will only be considered evidence of a crime if the measurement exceeds the legal limit by more than the margin of error for that measurement.

[dragonwriter]

> You should have Legal expectation that whatever measurement is used, will only be considered evidence of a crime if the measurement exceeds the legal limit by more than the margin of error for that measurement.

No, you should have the legal expectation that the measurement error data will be available to you as a defendant, and usable as exculpatory evidence. OTOH, generally the law does not require each piece of evidence to be highly dispositive in isolation, only that it tend to show the fact for which it is offered is more likely to be true than it would be in the absence of the piece of evidence.

And in many (most?) jurisdictions being over the BAC limit is a sufficient but not necessary condition for DUI. E.g., in California it is illegal to be either under the influence of alcohol, or over the BAC limit, when driving. A BAC over 0 but under the limit is supporting but not dispositive evidence of being under the influence, so certainly a BAC above but with the MoE of the limit would also be.

[notheguyouthink]

> You should have Legal expectation that whatever measurement is used, will only be considered evidence of a crime if the measurement exceeds the legal limit by more than the margin of error for that measurement.

I agree completely, and that is exactly what my point was.

If the hard limit is 0.09 because it's 0.08 with a margin of error of 0.01, then you're getting a ticket at 0.09.

Are you saying anything different?

[shkkmo]

It's not a hard limit though, it's a per measurement device / configuration / conditions limit. If the margin for error for a breathalyzer is .01 normal but .03 in cold conditions, then you should only use it as evidence with it measures a .11 in cold conditions rather than the .09 you would use in regular condidtions.

[notheguyouthink]

That's fair, but again though, you have to remember the context of the discussion, of which I think half of you are missing lol.

The OP I replied to (originally) was saying that a 0.7 was "close enough", that you are in the wrong for doing that, etcetc. Of which, you cannot write laws around.

This conversation has nothing to do with measurements, this conversation has nothing to do with margin of error, this has to do with written laws vs moral laws.

I'm having to defend a nothing debate lol.

[shkkmo]

> This conversation has nothing to do with measurements, this conversation has nothing to do with margin of error, this has to do with written laws vs moral laws.

... This conversation is ENTIRELY about measurements and their margin of error. This conversation is specifically about how the margin of error relates the legal limit.

The parent was making the argument that the acceptable margin of error for a measurement device should be encoded in the law and measurements outside and thus a .08 limit with a .01 margin becomes an effective .07 limit.

You made the erroneous claim that margin of error didn't matter. It does: the margin of error needs to be codified in law if the limit is the limit as measured (as "uhhhhhhh" suggests). If the margin of error is not codified in law, then the limit must be exceeded by the margin of error for the measurement to provide evidence of law breaking.

You then made the erroneous claim that it doesn't matter if the margin of error is applied "before or after" the limit. (basically my stance vs "uhhhhhhh" ?)

I think it matters a great deal. If you mandate the margin of error in the law, then you make it impossible to make measurments in certain sub-optimal conditions (like in the cold) even when the subject is well beyond the limit. If instead, measurements come with an associated margin of error depending on the measurement device, it's configuration, and the measurement conditions, then you can use a variety of measurement techniques and make sure you can chose those, and only those, who you have clear evidence violated the law.

[notheguyouthink]

> ... This conversation is ENTIRELY about measurements and their margin of error. This conversation is specifically about how the margin of error relates the legal limit.

I disagree. The person I was replying to was indicating that 0.7 should make you feel bad. They were not saying that because your 0.7 might actually be a 0.8, they were saying that because morally you're playing with fire.

Margin of error does not matter in the discussion we were having, of morals vs law. Morals and margin of error are two completely different discussions.

> You then made the erroneous claim that it doesn't matter if the margin of error is applied "before or after" the limit.

How does this matter to morals? I said it doesn't matter before or after, in the context of how it affects the morals of 0.7 being morally incorrect.

This was a moral discussion, ya'll went sideways with it.