Editor’s note:Monday’s opinion piece on legal blood alcohol limit laws has gained a lot of attention, and I believe the author’s point was missed: Your local laws are only the upper limit of what’s acceptable, and your own limit must be set below that. For many of us, that limit is zero BAC, period. That’s my personal policy (I’m a non-drinker), and that of my riding buddies. Even at press launches, where the booze often flows freely in the evenings at the manufacturers’ expense, I know at least one guy who won’t even drink the night before the ride, and good for him. However, I have ridden events with other guys who had a beer at lunch; the law allowed them to do so, and they suffered no ill results. But, that doesn’t mean it was a good idea for them to have a tipple, either; here’s Mike’s thoughts on the issue, from his own perspective — ZK.

A recent ADVrider article about drinking alcohol and riding motorcycleshas me upset and, frankly, sad. I was surprised at the viewpoint and felt it contained misinformation. To me, the article seemed more appropriately placed in ADVrider’s Basement. Judging by the comments that follow the article, many of you feel the same way. In my opinion, alcohol and motorcycles just don’t mix. Unlike the earlier write-up, this is not under a pen name, because from my perspective, if you have an opinion and want to broadcast it to the world, you get both the credit and responsibility for it.

Some truth

With that out of the way, I have to say that the article has a kernel of truth. As the author points out, alcohol affects people differently. Some could be severely impaired at a .05 blood alcohol content (BAC), while others may exhibit much less impairment. However, I disagree with some of the other statements

Alcohol and riding safely

的author disputes a study that says, “research suggests that a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08%* means the risk of being involved in a traffic crash is double that of a person who has not been drinking at all.” A Google search later, I found that statement word for word on theWestern Australia Police Force’s website. It is true that that is an averages based standard; however, if you’re able to hold your liquor and you’re only 25 percent more likely to crash because of a mid-day drink, does that mean it’s a good idea? Interestingly, I also found several different studies that indicate that with a .05 BAC, the risk of a vehicle crash is even greater than what the author and the Western Australia Police Force’s website stated. For example, theNational Library of Medicine (NLM) says that the risk of a crash is 7 – 21 times greaterthan for drivers with a 0.00 BAC.

的author does not point that other studies say that the crash risk实际上是更高的than the study they state in the article.

More risk for motorcyclists?

Also remember, the word “vehicles” used in both studies could include tractor-trailers, automobiles, and motorcycles. Suppose we suggest that most of the vehicles were four-wheeled. In that case, the crash rate is potentially higher for motorcycles, since they require an operator to balance the vehicle just to stay upright.

Law enforcement

Let’s move on to the statements on law enforcement. While not explicitly mentioning the police’s use of field sobriety tests, the piece suggests that police no longer perform them and go straight to the use of chemical tests to make an arrest and gain a conviction. Specifically, it states (with my emphasis added):

Back in the old days, your level of impairment due to the ingestion of alcoholic beverageswas establishedby seeing how impaired you were at the time. Amazing, right? Youwere assessedon whether you could get off your bike without falling flat on your face, whether you could walk a straight line or touch the tip of your nose or spell the current pope’s name backwards. Whether you could convince the coppers that you were sober enough to ride, in other words.

记住,你的位置是重要如果你on a RTW trip, you’ll see the different laws regarding blood alcohol content with different enforcement in different countries. But in the US, at least, there are a number of things that must happen before the police administer a driving under the influence (DUI) chemical test (at other than a roadblock). It’s not just breathalyzer-or-nothing.

I have personal experience in this area from both a law enforcement and legal background. I also have experience with DUI enforcement and experience and with the court system. From this perspective, I can offer the following:

To stop you, the police must have at least reasonable suspicion.To develop probable cause for an arrest, the police must have evidence that a crime has been or is being committed. So how do they reach a level of probable cause in a DUI case? They do a number of things:

1. Observe the operation of the vehicle by the operator. Is the vehicle being operated erratically?
2. Observe the vehicle’s operator. Are there signs that the driver is impaired? For example, are the operator’s eyes bloodshot/glassy, is speech slurred, do motor skills seem impaired, is the smell of an alcoholic beverage coming from the operator’s breath?
3. If it is safe for both the operator and the police, conduct a field sobriety test that will help to confirm or dispel that the operator is impaired.
4. Conduct a chemical test

的intent of the chemical test is to confirm or disprove the police’s observations. Depending on the jurisdiction and that jurisdiction’s policies, even if the officer believes the operator is under the influence and that person passes a chemical test, theymayrelease that person on the spot. In such cases, the chemical test helps the alleged offender; it does not hurt them.In the USthe chemical test is just another piece of evidence generally given after other police observations that can support or disprove the police’s conclusions.

Next, we get this:

Back in the old days, your level of impairment due to the ingestion of alcoholic beverages was established by seeing how impaired you were at the time.

的se words seem to indicate a preference for a DUI case to be decided solely by the police’s statements versus the alleged DUI operator’s statements. I don’t think that most operatorswho know that they are under the legal limitwould want to return to those times.If an operator believes that they are above the limit, then they might think differently because a failed chemical test is another piece of evidence helping make the police’s case.

If the defendant has a chemical test result showing they were under the legal limit, it will support the defendant’s argument that they were not under the influence at the time. And frankly, if the chemical test results were below the legal maximum, the defendant likely wouldn’t be in court unless there are some other extenuating circumstances (e.g. a vehicle crash).

How the author arrives at the following statement is beyond me:

法律的守护者是not happy with this, despite it being a meaningful test. It took too much time, it was hard for them to administer, hard to assess in an unbiased way and all too easily challenged in a court of law.

警察本身并没有改变法律。的police don’t write laws; they enforce them. Politicians write laws and they react to public opinion.

Interestingly, the author also says the field sobriety test is meaningful, yet in the same sentence says that it’s hard to assess in an unbiased way. If it is “hard to assess in an unbiased way,” then why is it meaningful? If bias changes the test’s results, why is it “meaningful.” You can’t have it both ways.

Conclusion

I have read the author’s article several times and have tried to take it in the best light possible.的author does encourage people to stay under the legal limit, saying, “The law says you must stay under 0.08%, so that sets an upper limit you need to obey…” But then it says “…even if you think it is too low for you.” Are those people whothinkthey are safe riders over the .08 BAC limit are being unfairly treated and oppressed?

We’re motorcycle riders. We don’t sit in a cage enclosed by steel and aluminum when riding. We have to use our brains and bodies to keep our machines upright, never mind operating them safely. And if our own safety isn’t enough to keep us sober, then we need to consider the safety of others around us.

I disagree with the idea that some people can ride as safely at .08 BAC as they would at a 0.00 BAC. Motorcycles, like aviation, are unforgiving ofanyincapacity, carelessness, or neglect. As I said earlier, in my opinion, alcohol and motorcycling do not mix. And whining about still having the capacity to operate a motorcycle with more than a .08 BAC is absurd.

Ride safely, everyone, and make the best of your very short time on this planet.