I don't know the number of undetected drunk drivers, that's true. Maybe my observations are only true throughout my little corner of the world, and I imagine to some degree they are. But I know exponentially more people who would and have driven tired than I know people who would or have driven drunk, detected or undetected.
Yeah. You just have high standards in your circle of life. ;-)
amp.cnn.com
americanmotorcyclist.com
Speeding accidents are going to have a high fatality rate if for no reason other than the amount of impact when you hit something that hits back. But I suspect most speeding accidents are about other things. Distraction, incompetence, etc.
. . . and lots of drunk driving accidents also involve speeding. They can also involve fatigue, distraction and all of the other factors that happen to sober drivers. Drunk driving is the easiest of those to claim and record, based on anything from officer observation, blood tests, and anything else recognized by the courts. It could even show up as drunk driving when impairment wasn't the cause, e.g. stopped in traffic and rear ended.
I think what I saw once is that 18 hours without sleep is the equivalent of .1% BAC.
You would be almost always better off with someone who does know the system. But if there wasnt a particular protocol being followed, it would be chaos. Have you seen the people who try to represent themselves with zero clue of how things are supposed to proceed ? On a really really basic level - it would be like someone who has never spoken to ATC and trying to fly ifr through the system. You /can/ represent yourself - you just need to know how, what limitations, and how to go about it
One of the great pro se cross-examinations of all time. Guy is accused of assault and battery. His cross examination of the victim was targeted at the victim's ability to observe and identify him. That's pretty standard stuff. But the self-represented defendant's question wasn't:
About all the ones who crash are detected. So the undetected are not crashing therefore lowering the rate (by a lot more than we think?). Not sure what that does to the argument though.
Statistics like this are entertaining.
No, but the gas station probably has video of him doing whatever caused the witnesses to call the police on him...
Why does that matter if there were other witnesses?
So yes, obviously there are individual differences. And how does a .1%BAC actually drive? Is it normally bad enough to get noticed?
Same way they determine speeding. Physical evidence and testimonial evidence.
I agree that it's a problem. I recently saw a video in which an attorney was applauding efforts in his state to legalize allowing someone like a paralegal to help people fill out legal forms in some situations. As an example, he went through the form for initiating a small claims case, showing how confusing it could be for a non-lawyer.
Yeah, you just cited specific examples of physical & testimonial evidence. I never said it’s necessarily an easy thing to determine. But there are ways.
atlantaadvocate.com
www.businessinsider.com
I'm not convinced that a single number tells the whole story in that comparison. I don't doubt that sleep deprivation causes alertness and skills to deteriorate, but I find it hard to believe that it impairs judgment as badly as drunkenness does. For example, I suspect that it's easier for a sleep-deprived person to make the decision to not drive, or to stop and take a nap, than it is for a drunk to make appropriate decisions about whether to drive.
There were witnesses who can be called to testify.
I’m not convinced that a single number tells the whole story with regard to alcohol, either.
Uhhh...do you really think that is an appropriate analogy? Not even close. Mankind did not create the complicated human body; mankind did create a complicated legal system. For the record I have greatly valued the service that attorneys have provided for me. The unethical ones give the profession a bad rep but there are scumsuckers in every profession.
The ones I can think of off the top of my head are:
Probably because he never saw your face.
hmm, so every crime needs to be seen by the cop ? I imagine most murders and thefts arent seen by a cop either - they probably should never have been convicted either. ..
Couple points.
Do you practice law in Mayberry?
Look, I am sorry I posted that, I really don’t want anybody to feel bad about themselves, life is hard enough as is. But. To answer your question. I can understand about someone being enraged about the FAA making up evidence (i am). I can respect somebody defending it. What i CANNOT understand ir respect is someone who meekly, passively posts, “thats just what they do”. Just shoot yourself. Avoid the suspense. Your life is is over.
I was referring to jurors believing cops. You wouldn't have to do much of anything to get many jurors around here to mistrust a cop on the stand.