• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Income adjusted traffic violation fines

acbytesla said:
The problem of course with that is the subjectivity that gives police. Where they arrest people for DUI after blowing 0 on the breathalyzer.
Click to expand...
It's the totality of the circumstances. The driving behavior. The behavior during the investigation. A strong odor of alcohol or marijuana coming from the car or the driver. Glassy or bloodshoot eyes. Slurred or slow speech. Delayed response. Failure to maintain a coherent train of thought. Confusion over simple instructions. Inability to keep track of complex instructions. Lack of physical coordination. Excessive involuntary nystagmus. All these things make up a large part of the investigating officer's evaluation, before the breathalyzer even comes into play.

A number of these observations are made via standardized tests that are taught the same and administered the same across the country. City cops, county sheriffs, state troopers all administer the exact same tests in the exact same way. And this is identical to the way these tests were administered to me thirty years ago. Especially nowadays, with bodycams, the subjectivity isn't really as big a problem as you think.

A lot of people don't understand that a seemingly simple test like the Walk and Turn is also about your ability to stand still, listen to a series of instructions, and keep the entire series in mind as you go through each one.

"Stand with your hands at your side, right foot in front of left, heel to toe, like this."​
​
[Driver struggles to get it right.]​
​
"Okay, now I want you to stay in this position until I tell you to begin."​
​
[Driver wobbles, steps out of position, has to be reminded to get back in the starting postion.]​
​
"When I tell you to begin, I want you to take nine heel to toe steps-"​
​
[Driver starts attempting heel to toe steps, has to be reminded to stay in the starting position until told to begin.]​
​
"When I tell you to begin, I want you to take nine heel to toe steps. I'm going to demonstrate three, I want you to do nine, okay?"​
​
[Driver is out of the starting position again.]​
​
The script is always the same. The test protocol is always the same. There's nothing subjective about these observations. This driver is already going to jail on a DUI charge even if they refuse to do any more tests, and even if they refuse to give a breath sample.
 
Last edited:
Similar laws exist in some US sates. California has two crimes related to driving drunk. 1 is solely based on blood alcohol and the other is based on impairment. Which is quite subjective but kind of necessary. Tolerance is a thing.
theprestige said:
It's the totality of the circumstances. The driving behavior. The behavior during the investigation. A strong odor of alcohol or marijuana coming from the car or the

driver. Glassy or bloodshoot eyes. Slurred or slow speech. Delayed response. Failure to maintain a coherent train of thought. Confusion over simple instructions. Inability to keep track of complex instructions. Lack of physical coordination. Excessive involuntary nystagmus. All these things make up a large part of the investigating officer's evaluation, before the breathalyzer even comes into play.

A number of these observations are made via standardized tests that are taught the same and administered the same across the country. City cops, county sheriffs, state troopers all administer the exact same tests in the exact same way. And this is identical to the way these tests were administered to me thirty years ago. Especially nowadays, with bodycams, the subjectivity isn't really as big a problem as you think.

A lot of people don't understand that a seemingly simple test like the Walk and Turn is also about your ability to stand still, listen to a series of instructions, and keep the entire series in mind as you go through each one.

"Stand with your hands at your side, right foot in front of left, heel to toe, like this."​
​
[Driver struggles to get it right.]​
​
"Okay, now I want you to stay in this position until I tell you to begin."​
​
[Driver wobbles, steps out of position, has to be reminded to get back in the starting postion.]​
​
"When I tell you to begin, I want you to take nine heel to toe steps-"​
​
[Driver starts attempting heel to toe steps, has to be reminded to stay in the starting position until told to begin.]​
​
"When I tell you to begin, I want you to take nine heel to toe steps. I'm going to demonstrate three, I want you to do nine, okay?"​
​
[Driver is out of the starting position again.]​

​
The script is always the same. The test protocol is always the same. There's nothing subjective about these observations. This driver is already going to jail on a DUI charge even if they refuse to do any more tests, and even if they refuse to give a breath sample.
Click to expand...
Its a going to somewhat subject, sure they can do there best but there will always be a bit of judgement involved when it comes to a person observing another person. I doubt enough to get a clearly sober person arrested or let a clearly drunk person off but someone that is a little bit drunk but holding it together pretty well.
 
theprestige said:
It's the totality of the circumstances. The driving behavior. The behavior during the investigation. A strong odor of alcohol or marijuana coming from the car or the driver. Glassy or bloodshoot eyes. Slurred or slow speech. Delayed response. Failure to maintain a coherent train of thought. Confusion over simple instructions. Inability to keep track of complex instructions. Lack of physical coordination. Excessive involuntary nystagmus. All these things make up a large part of the investigating officer's evaluation, before the breathalyzer even comes into play.

A number of these observations are made via standardized tests that are taught the same and administered the same across the country. City cops, county sheriffs, state troopers all administer the exact same tests in the exact same way. And this is identical to the way these tests were administered to me thirty years ago. Especially nowadays, with bodycams, the subjectivity isn't really as big a problem as you think.

A lot of people don't understand that a seemingly simple test like the Walk and Turn is also about your ability to stand still, listen to a series of instructions, and keep the entire series in mind as you go through each one.

"Stand with your hands at your side, right foot in front of left, heel to toe, like this."​
​
[Driver struggles to get it right.]​
​
"Okay, now I want you to stay in this position until I tell you to begin."​
​
[Driver wobbles, steps out of position, has to be reminded to get back in the starting postion.]​
​
"When I tell you to begin, I want you to take nine heel to toe steps-"​
​
[Driver starts attempting heel to toe steps, has to be reminded to stay in the starting position until told to begin.]​
​
"When I tell you to begin, I want you to take nine heel to toe steps. I'm going to demonstrate three, I want you to do nine, okay?"​
​
[Driver is out of the starting position again.]​
​
The script is always the same. The test protocol is always the same. There's nothing subjective about these observations. This driver is already going to jail on a DUI charge even if they refuse to do any more tests, and even if they refuse to give a breath sample.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. And you're right. The script of the officer is exactly the same regardless of how someone performs in the sobriety tests.
 
acbytesla said:
Of course it is. And you're right. The script of the officer is exactly the same regardless of how someone performs in the sobriety tests.
Click to expand...
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but it's always the same script, in the 100s of videos I've seen. Different jurisdictions, different states, every cop seems to get the same training on the same protocols.
 
theprestige said:
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but it's always the same script, in the 100s of videos I've seen. Different jurisdictions, different states, every cop seems to get the same training on the same protocols.
Click to expand...
I can also show you many videos of people being arrested who show no signs of being under the influence. Now you're right this isn't the norm. But police officers typically move up the ladder for writing more tickets which leads to some of them ignoring the facts.
 
acbytesla said:
I can also show you many videos of people being arrested who show no signs of being under the influence. Now you're right this isn't the norm. But police officers typically move up the ladder for writing more tickets which leads to some of them ignoring the facts.
Click to expand...
Those videos are interesting to me. If you have a few examples handy, or can recommend a channel that tends to have these kinds of videos, please share!
 
Here's another report of DUI fraud


Now don't get me wrong. Most police officers probably do it right. My best friend in a Seattle Police Officer, so is one of his sisters,one of his brothers, two of his brother in laws and his father in law. Plus half of his friends are cops. I am almost always around police officers. Police have a difficult thankless job. But I have also seen the dark side of police where they begin to think they are the law and not just flawed human beings enforcing the law.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
That Australian list of penalties starts at blood alcohol levels of "Over 0.00 but less than..." etc.

What's the threshold? How long after drinking a beer can anyone lawfully drive?
Click to expand...

The answer to this question is a little complicated.

There are circumstances where 0.00 alcohol is required.
(Examples include: commercial drivers including Uber, bus drivers, truck drivers etc., learner drivers, P plate drivers, people returning to driving after a recent suspension).

For anyone who is required to be zero alcohol while driving, a four hour wait after the 'a beer' would probably be sufficient.

More info:

However, that would depend on a lot of other factors, like the size of the 'a beer', the alcohol strength of the beer, the body mass of the person, presence of some medications in the body, etc.

For ordinary drivers, like myself, one beer is roughly equivalent to a blood alcohol reading of 0.01. Any reading of 0.05 or less is considered OK.

NB. I've scored 0.01 on a road side breath test and the officer administering the test said: "One beer, you're go to go Sir."

Note that calculations and estimates depend on 'standard drinks'.

I have some 'Cooper's Sparkling Ale' in the fridge at the moment, and one small bottle is 1.7 standard drinks.

The rule of thumb for men, is that two standard drinks in the first hour, and one standard drink per hour after that, will keep them below the legal limit for driving.
(Assuming that they are not a zero alcohol driver.)

So using the Cooper's ale example above, one stubby in the first hour, and one stubby per every two hours thereafter, would be low risk.

My rule of thumb for parties, was to drink one stubby in the first hour and then fill the bottle with water, which I'd sip over the following hour. I'd stick to that pattern for the night. No one would be 'offended' by me not drinking, and I'd still be sober by the time I was ready to leave.

The combination of the reduced consumption, and the water consumption would also mean that I had little, to no hangover effect the next day.

I'd contrast that with times that I wasn't driving, where the next day would be a write-off.

That loss of half a day or more of leisure time, was one of the first things that made me want to reduce my alcohol consumption.
 
acbytesla said:
Here's another report of DUI fraud


Now don't get me wrong. Most police officers probably do it right. My best friend in a Seattle Police Officer, so is one of his sisters,one of his brothers, two of his brother in laws and his father in law. Plus half of his friends are cops. I am almost always around police officers. Police have a difficult thankless job. But I have also seen the dark side of police where they begin to think they are the law and not just flawed human beings enforcing the law.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if it were the opposite. Over here we are in the midst of a penalty points scandal where penalty points notices* were torn up ajd cancelled up and down the country by ranks all the way up to Superintendent.

And I would bet a pound to a penny that the worst Irish peeler is a far far better police officer than the best American cop.

*Mostly for driving offences.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
I wouldn't be surprised if it were the opposite. Over here we are in the midst of a penalty points scandal where penalty points notices* were torn up ajd cancelled up and down the country by ranks all the way up to Superintendent.

And I would bet a pound to a penny that the worst Irish peeler is a far far better police officer than the best American cop.

*Mostly for driving
Click to expand...
That's happened in the US too. Corrupt officers using their positions for profit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom