Perhaps, but if the statistics the Op posted are correct, those people at the .08 level aren't showing up in the accident numbers at nearly the rate that the people with BAC above .14 are. So why put the same level of resource focus on the people with BAC of .08 if 90% of the problem is on the folks driving around with BAC of .14? The result would be catching more of the .08 people and fewer of the .14 people. Resource is finite and can only good. The point the Op made makes perfect sense. It's the 80-20 rule. Put your resources where it achieves the greatest results (reducing accidents). Having them go after the .08 pulls resources from going after the .14.
Silver cars in rain and fogI have noticed that percentage wise the drivers of silver vehicles are far less inclined to turn on any lights...
An economic reasoning isn't relivant and wouldn't have a place in a policy discussion.
Silver cars in rain and fog 2886Careful. You are buttuming a lot which simply isn't true. For the past few decades and well over a million (yes, million) miles, I have a perfect...
I don't have a problem with zero tolerance idea, per se. Especially since I don't drink alcohol at all and believe it's a root cause of other social ills that we all pay for. But, I'd rather the focus of enforcement be on where the largest risk is, not where the lowest risk is. If a .08 is stoped for some other reason then fine, nab them then. But don't put special-extraordinary effort in "seeking out" someone with the BAC of .08. I agree with the Op.
Bingo! So, if the .08 is handled the same as the .14, guess what?
The ACLU may want to talk to you. ;-) A firing squad huh?
You just said (a couple of paragraphs back) that the system can't handle what you just proposed. That means this is not plausable (by your own admission). Are you're saying that you're willing to pony up more txaes to add 80-90% more resources to handle the remaining 10-20% of the problem? There is a point of diminishing returns that makes "zero" a place that can never be attained.
Sounds regressive to me. Punishment for wealth, not for the crime itself.
