Both yours, and the post before it are asinine. What if someone has a couple of glasses of wine with dinner, and does the responsible thing by checking their BAC before getting behind the wheel?
Why are their comments asinine?
In the scenario you describe wouldn't the 'responsible' thing to do is to not drink the couple of glasses of wine in the first place?
In the UK if you get caught driving over the limit you loose your licence for a minimum of a year unless there were exceptional circumstances. Go to court and get a criminal record for the rest of your life which you may then have to inform your employer and all future employers. When you get your licence back the cost of your insurance triples as you are deemed to be a high risk. This is all in addition to the increased risk of having a serious accident or killing somebody. Why take the risk all for a few drinks?
Although this device would be handy to check alcohol levels the next day as it can stay in the system for a lot longer than people think my understanding it all depends on the individuals metabolism and efficiency of their liver.
It's asinine because they make the assertion that there would be no legitimate use of this device.
Your logic is pretty screwed up, also. My statement wasn't a discussion of the penalties and pitfalls of driving drunk. My statement was that this product would have a legitimate use to verify that I was not breaking the law before I get behind the wheel of my car.
If I'm sitting down for a dinner and I have two glasses of wine, I know for a fact that I am fine to drive. But, given the relatively low limit of BAC that is illegal in most states, a legitimate use of the product would be for me to blow before I drive, to make sure that I don't get a DUI should I get pulled over.
I'm in no way trying to say that this product could be used to break the law.
Not really sure what part of my statement you find illogical.
Its just my personal opinion its not worth consuming any alcohol before driving. Not only because of the breaking the law aspect, if someone has a couple glasses of wine and they are unfortunate enough to have a serious accident that results in the death of someone. Then they will have to live with that for the rest of their life not knowing whether the alcohol was a contributing factor even if legally they are under the limit. Whether their reaction time could have been quicker to avoid the accident or could they have seen the child running into the road earlier if they didn't have the wine.
I drive for a living so i'm seeing this from a different perspective to you as i'm very protective of my licence and I have seen enough serious accidents at the side of the road to last me a lifetime but its your life you do whatever you feel best for you.
I suppose it would be useful for peace of mind, especially if you were out trying some new beers or ales with unknown alcohol content.
Not everybody at 0.08 or the old standard of 0.1 is impaired to any real degree. There's some interesting YouTube videos of people testing their driving with objective standards and it really varies from person to person.
If I blew a 0.04, and 20 minutes later saw it drop to 0.03, I'd feel pretty comfortable about driving and not risking a DUI. Theoretically I can still be arrested, but the likelihood of conviction greatly decreases when the state can't prove you hit the per se limit. If it climbed to 0.05, I'd wait longer and test again.
"Breathometer will be FDA approved.."???
Ok so they did't actually have the FDA approval. So, why are they taking preorders??? They cannot!!!![]()