wth since when?? they change the laws? not that i am against it but damn.. .01. how is anyone gonna pass???

 

where did you find this info from please post it.

 

Damn I just saw a hella bad accident on SB 80 at around 3AM near San Pablo Exit in El Cerrito... An old school Mazda van got slammed by Monte Carlo... Wonder who's at fault...

 

it was on the news as California's new zero tolerance policy

 

.01? That is bull****! So you cant even enjoy a nice dinner with a glass of wine without having to run the risk of being over the limit...

Is this a temporary change because of New Years or will it be in effect from now on?

 

0.01 is for persons under the age of 21... it has always been like that.

 

This.



Also, don't read into those arrest statistics too much. Those stats include "warrant" arrests of people with DUI offenses. So, if someone got a DUI ticket a while back and hasn't paid the fine or they skipped out on court they had a warrant issued for their arrest. Throughout the last few days cops have been going out in special enforcement teams to those people's houses and arresting them. Those arrests count in those stats.

~Jon

 

My bad. This law applies to convicted DUI offenders. You guys are safe

 

At least its better than "click it or ticket" If people are retarded and don't want to wear a seatbelt, I say go for it. We're spending good money on this crap. "people die from not wearing seatbelts" And that stupid commercial that goes like "gosh if only jimmy had worn his seat belt he would be with us today."

It's all a choice.

Drive drunk.

Wear a seatbelt.

Choose your own adventure.

 

I disagree with the seatbelt thing. If people don't wear their seatbelts, then my insurance goes up. Without seatbelts you have a LOT more injuries and that costs everyone money.

Take this scenario: Driver 1 pulls out in front of Driver 2 on accident. Oops..my bad. Driver 1 agrees that they are at fault. Driver 2 wasn't wearing their seatbelt and suffered severe injuries that would have been substantially mitigated otherwise. Should Driver 1 still be liable for the additional cost? I don't think so...but where do you draw the line at costs like those? By that logic you could also say "you're the dumbass with the $200,000 car, so it's your fault my $25,000 liability won't cover it." I feel that there needs to be a "line" somewhere, and the seatbelt is a pretty good spot.

 

Damn I musta barely missed that one, didnt see nuthin when I drove by on the NB side.