Actually, that's perfectly logical, what you just wrote. Maybe the law should be re-written to refer to number of drinks instead of BAC content. That way, people would have SOME way of knowing whether they were legal or not, without using a breathalyzer before they get behind the wheel. It could read something like . . . 2 drinks maximum in the past 12 hours. Hey, that might not correspond to any particular BAC level, but at least the law would be worded in such a way that a human being could KNOW in advance whether they were legal or not, without needing any particular device to tell them so. (If you've had 3 drinks today, don't drive . . . what could be more simple than that?)
BTW, don't mean to start a new argument here. Whether you agree with current DUI laws or not, I don't care. I'm just stating that the laws could be re-worded to make them easier to comply with. That would be a good thing, I think.
How this relates back to the topic of speedometers . . . well, without them, there is no way that a human being can know a particular NUMBER, like MPH or whatever, that his vehicle is travelling at any given moment in time. So it SHOULD be a good defense against a "speeding" charge, if your vehicle doesn't have a speedometer.
Is driving without a speedometer is dangerous? ONLY IF YOU HAVE NO FRICKING CLUE HOW TO DRIVE *WITH* ONE.
I've said it many times, and I'll say it again . . . speedometers have NOTHING to do with DRIVING. Nobody can refute that statement without referring to other things which ALSO have NOTHING to do with DRIVING. Such as roadside tax collection activity. -Dave
