
With that in mind, isn't BC the place that yoinks your licence, and impounds your vehicle,
for 24hrs from the roadside without the due process of a court date, judgement, etc...?
Whoops...based upon 0.04ml/l

I believe that is the level that MADD wants. Some countries if I recall correctly have a BAC of 0.00
Using a bluetooth while driving does cause impairment.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the real question is whether this impairment leads to accidents and/or deaths.

Yes, it would seem you do have comprehension problems today. The study I read a while back suggests that people with BAC between 0 and 0.10 compensate for their impairment in some way and are therefore not part of the problem. I've been asking if there is any statistical evidence that those under 0.10 BAC are a significant problem worthy of our society spending millions of dollars on.
The study I read a while back suggests that people with BAC between 0 and 0.10 compensate for their impairment in some way and are therefore not part of the problem.

1) Is this the same Thread?
2) Can we keep this civil before I have to start flushing chunks of this Thread?

Post it then. Besides, a suggestion is just that. Anything can suggest anything almost.

Nope.Post it then. Besides, a suggestion is just that. Anything can suggest anything almost.

Of course I have an argument. The Australian study is completely irrelevant to my position. You wish to have the legal system deal with people that drive with a BAC of 0.80. I'm merely asking for some statistical evidence that they are a danger to me. Assuming the Australian study did not exist, how would that change my argument or request?