Not necessarily. Many things can affect the results including smoking, mouthwash, and many flavorings/extracts.

One isn't going to get nipped on a field sobriety test because one used mouthwash.

The rationale provided previously is about how to retain your rights when getting tested for drunk driving. Dont' drive drunk, don't drink and drive, and it's a non-issue.

Drinking and driving is so intertwined into our culture, and that's the real problem. How many people have 1-2 drinks and think they are "ok"? Then they drive home. Then there is the 2-4 crowd. Maybe sub 2 "real" beers in there at 8-10% alcohol. This isn't a "well, there are those 'serious drinkers' over there" situation, there's an entire spectrum, and there are a lot out there, many that feel they are special and can have a few drinks and then drive. We don't have the public transportation infrastructure and for the most part, people expect to drive to a restaurant, have drinks, and drive home. Or, I could probably sit outside of any restaurant that serves alcohol after 1pm and "bust" 40% of the people coming out for driving intoxicated/impaired driving. That's the problem. How do we change it?

A few posts above: Money grab? Yeah right, the powers that be probably know full well this will cost money to implement. Thinking it's an attempt to "get more money" by the federal government is very shortsighted.

The BAC is a lot like the Air Force's cycle ergometry test of yesteryear. If the only thing that affected your heart rate was VO2-Max, it would be an accurate test. However, since your heart rate is affected by all manner of things, physical and psychological, it was a horrible test for accurately determining fitness.

If the goal is to reduce traffic fatalities, we need to talk about the actual ability to drive from a performance perspective. There are many factors which affect performance and, as such, performance-based testing would be the ideal. Since we don't have that, we whittle it down to a simple and arbitrary BAC number which does nothing for safety other than make people feel good.

The simple truth is alcohol affects people differently. Fatigue impacts/impairs drivers. Cold medicines, distractions, kids, you name it - all go to performance behind the wheel. There needs to be a performance standard, not an arbitrary number. Now that CO & WA have legalized pot, how do they measure impairment for driving? Is there a THC level above which you cannot drive? Or is it zero tolerance? If so, how is it determined? Is there an equally arbitrary baseline as there is for alcohol?

I've been told, but cannot find any reference to it, nor can I find anyone who will confirm it, that Canada used to have a drunk driving license back in the '50s-early '60s. Supposedly, you could take the test at up to .10 and if you passed, you got a note on your license saying you were legal to drive up to whatever you tested at. Sounds ludicrous today, doesn't it, but (if true) it speaks to the fact that alcohol affects people differently from a performance perspective.

Some industries whose employees regularly work with dangerous machinery are trying to find a performance-based test they can use to evaluate their personnel prior to beginning their work. The challenge with simple reaction-time testing or something similar is that people can 'sandbag' the test endangering themselves and others if they 'pass' while 'performance impaired'.

There's so much more to drinking and driving, but it's been boiled down to an arbitrary number that is far from uniform in its effect on any number of individuals. Truly, reaction time is a huge portion of safe driving and reaction time is nothing more than the ability to process information and respond to it. In the fighter-pilot jargon, it's the OODA loop. Folks with a fast OODA loop while driving are generally better drivers than those whose OODA loop is slower or less developed. If you think on this concept, you'll see why inexperienced drivers, as well as elderly drivers, are in more accidents - their OODA loops are either not fully developed, or are decaying. Folks who are just sick, even if not medicating, are not 'on top of their game' and therefore, unsafe behind the wheel.

There is the rationale that everyone is impaired after 1, 2, 4, 10 drinks. The real challenge is impaired down to what? If there was a performance standard, would it really matter how much you'd had to drink so long as you could still perform at the required level?

It's a rabbit hole, I admit, but it's far more palatable than some random and arbitrary BAC number.

Not going to jump into the very relevant and appropriate transportation infrastructure and drink/drive culture in the US discussion but I would like to put out some accurate info: The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test is not admissible in court in most (maybe all?) jurisdictions. It can be an "indicator" to the officer but he can't testify about it and he will need other evidence. Also the portable breathalyzers cannot be accurately baselined and can be used to indicate, not to prosecute. The Draeger at the station is the gold evidence standard. Of course they can still lie to you to induce a confession or agree to a plea deal.

I have this question. Why not lower the limit to 0.01 or 0.02, where all the "experts" say impairment starts? Think of all the lives that would be saved.

You're a better man than the rest of us John.

I don't think so Dude.

My advice was how to PROTECT YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Sad, you don't know the difference.

Dan

Smart words LowSlow.

There is no constitutional right to drive drunk. How unfortunate that you don't recognize it.

One has no fear of constitutional infringement if one isn't stupid enough to drive impaired.

What a pathetic state it is in which we live that one would think a person who refused to operate a vehicle while impaired is somehow "better" or exceptional. It should be the standard, and there is no valid reason why anyone involved in the operation of an aircraft should ever be found drinking and driving. One should clearly know better.

Do you not know better?