Talk:Drunk driving in the United States

message: Alcohol does not have a scent.  As such, in case reports you are never to state that you smelled alcohol on the subject's breath.  Instead, state that there was an odor of an alcoholic beverage, as that is the scent that is recognized.
:Alcohol most definitely does have a scent.  In my forensics lab, we use laboratory-grade 200 proof ethanol as a solvent, and it has an unmistakable odor.  One of my co-workers used to carry a small vial of 200 proof ethanol to court when he had to testify so if an attorney tried to claim alcohol doesn't have an odor, he could pull out the vial and prove it does. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This page should be moved to one called Drunk driving (USA). Its content relates almost exclusively to the USA jurisdiction. It has limited use in the global Wikipedia. I will move the page after a suitable time if there are no objections. Arcturus 08:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Page moved. I've created a new page called Drink driving for the international perspective. The new page has a See also link to this page. Arcturus 19:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: USA only

message: User:GCarty proposes merging this article back into Drink driving. That seems counterproductive to me, since the whole reason it was split off in the first place is that it has a lot of encyclopedic content that doesn't apply to "drink driving" in Europe and abroad.
However, it's true that Drink driving is a stub. Who knows anything about the relevant laws in Europe? Add some content!
I'm minorly afraid that leaving the merge notice up too long might lead to somebody actually merging before a consensus is reached, since there's no apparent procedure for discussing merges the way there is for deletions. Ideas? --Quuxplusone 16:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the merge. I agree that most of the content was US-specific, but the proper solution would have been to add information on other countries, not to split the article. The topic of drunk driving shouldn't be segregated into "US" and "elsewhere". Rhobite 18:49, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Clarification: I definitely support the creation of new articles about dr[iu]nk driving in countries other than the U.S.  But it would be silly, IMHO, to create one blanket article that tries to deal with drunk-driving laws in every single country on earth. Much as we currently have History of Britain, History of France, etc., we'd have Drunk driving (USA), Drink driving (France), etc.  The reason we don't have that at the moment is a lack of either interest in, or else interesting material about, drink driving outside the U.S.  In the U.S., drunk driving is understandably an interesting topic. Basically, I predict that if the articles are merged this week, they'll just have to be laboriously unmerged in a month or two, when somebody tries to expand the non-U.S. coverage. --Quuxplusone 00:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with "[[Drink driving]]" 

message: "Breath Test" was redirected here, but should have gone to Driving under the influence. I've fixed that now, so no problem with NPOV. --Couttsie 01:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Breath Test Redirect

message: Why does the first line include [bacon] ?
:It's gone, but probably was a typo of blood alcohol concentration (BAC).  Still not kosher but could have been the result of drunk editing in the United States. Unitacx (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bacon? 

message: I did some re-wording. "probable casue" and "reasonable suspicion" seem to be used interchangebly inparts of this article. I reworded where I've seen it so far. I will do more if I spot it.  There is a significant evidentiary difference between the two.EMT1871 21:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: also key to the US process, and key to understanding the process.   For example, the implied consent law needs probable cause to sustain a conviction based on an evidentiary chemical test (full evidentiary breathalyzer or blood alcohol test).  Unitacx (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: "Probable cause" and "Reasonable suspicion"

message: "The accuracy of breath, blood and urine testing is a subject of some dispute, with various scientific studies indicating unreliable results.[4]"  The citation noted is an article that quotes sources from 1985 and 1987.  The technology used in 1985 and 1987 was highly disputed and as a result Breath Test Operators had to testify at trials not only as to the proceedures for the test but as to the operation and scientific principles behind the test. This is no longer true. Today's technology is not nearly as disputed, and most machines use more than one technology to determine BAC. Furthermore, the technology now has Judicial Notice (inmost states), eliminating the need for operators to testify as to scientific principle and the "inner workings" of the machines. EMT1871 22:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: # "Breath testing, as currently used, is a very inaccurate method for measuring BAG. Even if the breath testing instrument is working perfectly, physiological variables prevent any reasonable accuracy.... Breath testing for alcohol using a single test method should not be used for scientific, medical or legal purposes where accuracy is important. [Hlastala, Physiological Errors Associated with Alcohol Breath Testing, 9(6) The Champion 19 (1985).]"   This is a quote from the article listed as a source for the statement quoted in the accuracy dispute. As you can see it clearly references a dispute in 1985.EMT1871 22:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: "Its clear from comparisons with Australia, the UK and Europe that the US attempt to reduce drunk driving by restricting alcohol access and draconian sentence regimes is a failure"
::This statement has no factual basis and quotes no sources. using terms like "draconian" clearly shows a POV and the statement that the approach is a failure is unsupported. EMT1871 22:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wording is pov and it needs sources, but the gist of it is definitely true. needs a rewrite —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.90.252.76 (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the "gist" of this statement is true than it needs to cite facts in support of it's statements and the sources of those facts. Otherwise it is just a statement of opinion.EMT1871 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Along the lines of what EMT1871 said, if terms like "draconian" are frequently used, I think they can still be stated as issues (e.g., "criticisms" sections) and descriptions used by advocates (e.g., "describe the measures as 'draconian'", with proper attribution.  As with most "criticisms" sections, this addresses the NPOV issue. Unitacx (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: That depends on whether you are going to do about 2 minutes search on the internet. 
For a start DUI Manslaughter is a law unique to the USA - all other systems based on Anglo Saxon law regard the causing of a death in a motor accident as just that 'an accident'. The ruling is that the causation death is unrelated to the accident. That is to say there is no intent to cause an accident or harm so manslaughter cannot apply. The very maximum sentence in British law is 14 years and very rarely employed - a common sentence for DUI Manslaughter would be 4 years or so.
It's also why you cannot merge this article with that of other countries - the approach in law  and methods of reducting drunk driving death in the USA is completely different to most other countries in the developed world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_dangerous_driving
http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=675
Drink Driving Casualites UK (population 60 million)
http://www.cadd.org.uk/facts.htm
simplyDrink Driving Casualties Florida (population 16 million)
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-florida.html
That's difference of around a factor of 4
Alcohol Consumption
http://christianparty.net/alcoholconsume.htm
So, as I said, 
Its clear from comparisons with Australia, the UK and Europe that the US attempt to reduce drunk driving by restricting alcohol access and draconian sentence regimes is a failure 
What does work are DUI road blocks and 'raids' outside bars and places licensed to sell alcohol, which make it impossible to drink and drive without being caught. It's also clear from watching programs like 'Cops' that many people in the US drive in condition in which the general public (and bar owners) would report them to the police in Europe and the UK.
::ok, well, my first question is from who's comparisons? yours? second, is while the statement may be true, the term "draconian" shows a clear POV and has no place in this article. Next your last comment about watching shows like "cops", is part of the problem and also shows your slanted POV. If you are getting your impression of American laws, law enforcement, and people from TV you definatly are not getting any FACTS about these topics. If you would like to discuss deterrents and tactics for enforceing DUI laws in the United states I gladly will, but have all your facts first. EMT1871 23:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: obviously hyou have a vast knowledge of US DWI laws that my mere 8 years of Law enforcement experience, 100's of DWI arrests, and Expert witness credentials in this area cannot possibly compete with.  You are actually comparing Law Enforcement in two countries using TV shows.  I can not, and will not, discuss a topic with someone who draws their research from television. You have no conception of DWI laws, sentencing, arrest proceedures, or any other area of this topic other than what you have read or scene on TV.EMT1871
You are correct - my knowledge of the effectiveness of DUI laws in different juristictions is far superior yours - I am aware that DUI deaths in the USA currently run at about 3-4  times that of the UK, even though per capita alcohol consumption is higher in the UK. All this is obvious to anyone who takes the times watch reality TV police shows in the UK and USA. It's simple, obvious stuff - the TV completely reflects the statistics, both on alcohol consumption and DUI.
Anyone interested in reducing the horrific death toll on the USA's roads due to DUI should be taking an active interest in the way DUI laws and law enforcment operate other juristictions.
No one in the rest of the developed world, and particularly the UK, has anything to learn from the legislative measures the USA uses to manage DUI driving in the USA - clearly the US methods ARE A FAILURE.
It is only by making the US public aware that the DUI legal and road safety regime in the USA is a conspicous failure compared to other countries will the political pressure for change occur.
Any discussion of the DUI Driving in the USA MUST point this out - if only the save some of the 26,000 or so lives that are lost uneccessarially on the USA's roads every year.
This is NOT opinion. There is no way the 3-4 times US death rate due to DUI, in spite of lower alcohol consumption rates, can be explained without highlighting the unusual legislative regime in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanaich (talk • contribs) 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.204.139 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: : Just because you disagree with a neutrality dispute does not give you the right to remove the tag. The tag has been replaced because no consensus has been reached and the dispted language is still in place. I didn't just remove your wording, I palced the tag so it could be discussed So do not remove the tag until the dispute is settled. EMT1871 23:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag removal

message: Since we seem to be going repeatedly around with someone constantly re-adding information to the page that doesn't belong here, I'm explaining here why it doesn't belong.
The standardized field sobriety tests have been validated repeatedly in a number of peer reviewed studies. Not one, MANY. In fact, the scientific consensus is strong enough that courts in all fifty U.S. states are required to take judicial notice of their accuracy and ability to reveal intoxication. Defendants are certainly allowed to call their own experts to challenge them if they want, but in absence of that, their accuracy is accepted as a given.
The material being linked to is a from the website of a paid criminal defense expert witness in Colorado who has written a few articles against the FST's. Great. That's not a scientific debunking of anything. Nor is there any real breakdown of his work or that it has appeared in any peer-reviewed journals. It's certainly possible that there could be something backing up what he's got on his website; anything is possible. But to take one person's unique stance (especially one that isn't peer reviewed) and present it here as the absolute, infallible, scientific truth is at best grossly misleading.
I could perhaps see adding a quick sentence to the article with a citation to that site as a challenge to the FST's. Maybe something like: "Blah blah blah, field sobriety tests generally accepted with scientific consensus, although their accuracy and predictive value has been questioned by some defense experts." That might work; the text that user Romanstone456 has been adding is not what belongs in an encyclopedia. Tuckdogg 20:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to agree with Tuckdogg here.  There is alot of things added to this article without any factual basis and with questionalble sources (please see the discussions involving me above), and alot are added by authors with only an IP address and no member name.EMT1871 13:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it would be useful if either the article or the reference at the bottom included what year this study was taken. (Was it before or after cell phones were widely used in the US?) I'm also wondering on some of these indicators whar those not drunk doing it were thinking. Jon 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Standardized Field Sobriety Tests have nothing to do with observing a persons driving, so talking on a cell phone would not have an impact on the predictive value of these tests.EMT1871 12:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Predictive Value" of FST's

message: I added quite a few  tags to the article on statements asserting facts and/or statistics but not providing sources per citation and verifiability guidelines.  I also added  tags due to weasel words.  Also important, please cite drunk driving incidents with a reliable source or news article on the "famous people" section, else it could be construed as libel and subject to immediate removal.  Cheers.  --slakr 01:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That brings up an interesting question.  When does it become "know", as per the section heading, that someone has driven drunk?  Should Lindsay Lohan, for example, be included because she's been arrested, or only after he case is resolved in court? 209.212.24.145 17:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How is putting a list of famous people convicted or arrested of DUI relevant to this article??  This is an encyclopedia article, not internet trivia.  The main reason I contest this is that while its public information they were arrested, they're being famous really has nothing to do with it, and adds nothing to the article unlike other articles with "references in the media/popular culture" sections.  I'm going to delete it but I'll leave the original text below in case someone can come up with a decent argument of relevance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.173.122 (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added lots of fact tags. 

message: I removed this section from the article.  This was a list-crufty unnecessary section that provided no understanding of the subject. Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 23:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Public figures arrested or convicted of ''driving under the influence''

message: Shouldn't there be information about the penalties for a DUI/DWI conviction, including jail time?(72.144.150.243 (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentencing for drunk driving? 

message: Washington DUI / DWI Laws:
'''
A first time DUI conviction requires 24 hours consecutive jail time, over $800 in total fines/costs/court fees, an alcohol evaluation and recommended follow-up treatment/classes. The court may suspend your license for 90 days, or up to a year if you refused the breath test or are found to have been above a .15 BAC.  Also, a .15 or greater BAC conviction has greater mandatory minimums of 2 days in jail and more fines.See Revised Code of Washington Sec 46.61
 
A second DUI conviction results in increased mandatory jail time of 30-45 days, in addition to increases in the fines and license loss issues (including a much longer requirement for an ignition interlock device).See Revised Code of Washington Sec 46.61
 
In addition to the criminal court proceedings, the Department of Licensing will also seek to suspend/revoke your license. See the DUI page at www.dol.wa.gov. For those who refuse, the Department will seek to revoke your license for a year or more.Wadui08 (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DUI Laws by State 

message: This is VERY misleading and not suited for an encyclopedia. It says "In the United States the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 17,941 people died in 2006 in "alcohol-related" collisions, representing 41 percent of total traffic deaths in the US.".
For those who do not know what exactly "alcohol-related" means, it means ALL cases that involved alcohol. So it includes cases in which the driver measured way below the legal limit (including, say, 0.0000001). It also includes cases in which the victim was found to have alcohol in his/her system, but the driver was fully sober. And it also includes the cases in which neither driver, nor victim, but some third party who was somehow part of it had consumed alcohol.
The term "alcohol-related" is NOWHERE near what it seems to imply, i.e. that someone in an impaired state killed someone else.
This needs clarification. Urgently. 68.200.239.84 (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcohol-related 

message: Does anyone have any evidence that drunk driving laws have actually improved highway safety? I don't see it mentioned in the article. --JHP (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness of laws? 

message: Dalassa reverted my edit for lack of source. I Have reinstated with a additional link to Wickipedias own article on the subject  Driving under the influence . Such a link was already given and I thought an additional link redundent however it is apparently needed by some.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickifrank (talk • contribs) 13:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with other countries 

message: Drugs, not being volatile, would not show up on a breath instrument, so I question the section that says that "Breathalyzers" are used to test for drugs at roadside.  I have heard of saliva tests being performed, but not sure how widely used they are in the US.  I was always under the impression they were only widely used in Australia.  And no roadside test can test for "actual level" of drugs in a person -- they are only screening devices that test for the presence of a drug, generally by use of an immunoassay.
Besides, the term "Breathalyzer" is technically not correct, as the word "Breathalyzer" is a brand name.  More correct, IMO, would be a generic name such as "breath instrument" or "evidentiary breath tester." 206.194.127.112 (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I've seen roadside "tube kits" that are basically screening tests for drugs that use saliva, I'm not sure how widely used they are. Mostly I think if they want to find out the person just gets escorted to the nearest ER.Fuzbaby (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breathalyzer for drugs? 

message: I removed a section that was clearly non-NPOV and contained no sources.  If anybody wants to bring back that section, it will need some serious work before it comes anywhere close to meeting Wikipedia standards. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Removal: "International Comparisons" 

message: Depends how you define NPOV. The whole article might be considered NPOV because it makes assumptions about the effectiveness of drunk driving legislation that is not borne out by international experience.
In countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia drunk driving, and deaths caused by drunk driving are considerablly lower than the USA, yet alcohol consumption per capita is higher and the legal age for drinking lower. Research in the United Kingdom has show that the danger group for drunk driving is young men in their early 20's rather than teenagers.
Unlike the USA these countries do not see restricting access to alcohol as having any useful role to play in reducing drunk driving, and their lower drink drive deaths would seem to bear this out. Their experience is that random breath tests, severe penalties, including imprisonment for a first offence, combined with blanket public service broadcasting are the most effective strategy.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/1998/comdd/combatingdrinkdrivingnextsteps
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0847/is_n1_v14/ai_9356459/?tag=content;col1
It's notable that anti-drink driving adverts in Australia and the UK do not attempt to stigmatise drinking, in fact they make the point that it is a normal social activity - its when you mix it with driving that it becomes a problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfe5fUfXMxU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdZi-iJm3g8&feature=related
Australian and British Law also does not recognise the crime of DUI Manslaughter and sentences for causing death by drunk driving much lower - though  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.5.57 (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Europe's significantly lower prevalence of access to vehicles at younger ages might also explain the lower drink drive deaths. Int21h (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Also, advertising by government agencies is pretty minimal, and doesn't really stigmatize drinking. Much of the media adverts are from independent operations such as MADD, although such organizations do have unique relationships with the government within the certain legal systems, such as in California. Int21h (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Car ownership is significant. In a country where only 48% of your population own vehicles, it stands to reason that the number alcohol-related driving fatalities will be significantly lower than a country where 78% of the population own vehicles. Compare the 29.6 million car owners in the UK, to the (roughly calculated from the ownership rate) 28.6 million car owners in California. Actual drivers are a significant factor when it comes to the number of people killed by drunk drivers, a subset of drivers. In other words, how many people who make less than the median wage drive in the UK? It will be significantly lower than in the US, probably by several fold. Teenagers? Ditto. These issue make comparisons murky. Int21h (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, these "well known strategies" that are discussed usually discard the fact that there are thousands of different jurisdiction in the US, each with its own culture and history regarding alcohol. Kentucky, where there apparently are dry towns and people can own and operate automatic weapons and canons and such, is a different place than say Nevada where that will get you life in prison for such weapons and you can drink your bottle of vodka at McDonalds. As well as the fact that what held true in the 80s does not necessarily hold true today. I reiterate, at least here in California, neither the state, local, or federal government contend that alcohol is the problem. Int21h (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

text: And the highway design may be an issue. Keep in mind though, compare the UK to California, and when comparing the United States, compare it to the European Union. And as for roundabouts, they are really only in use in some of the richest countries in the world. I can go to Beverly Hills and say this or that is safer because there are only 1/500th of the deaths there compared to everywhere else, but this may be due to the fact that it's Beverly Hills, not to whatever design or attribute is in use there. Int21h (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Comparisons 

message: From the article:
" German police forces may also obtain blood for testing if they suspect an individual of DUI without reasonable cause or a search warrant. "
That's wrong / confusing. German police can only obtain blood for testing without a judge, if the suspect agrees. Unfortunately, I can only find German sources for that.
77.11.146.123 (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  DUI in Germany 

message: This article really needs a chart for comparisons of each state instead of the five or so state descriptions. 
What is the vernacular the state uses (OWI, DUI, DWI)? Code provision citation. 
What class of crime is it? (Ex.: C Felony, misdemeanor;) Maybe when multiple offenses elevate the class of crime.
Statutory punishment scheme? (How long is license suspended? Mandatory Fines? Rehabilitation?) [Could be split up into checkboxes or listed as prose so long as there would be a consistent form.]
Does anyone have a suggestion on whether it makes more sense to set up the table first even if it is incomplete (by >40 states) or whether to collect and source the information and then compile the complete table all at once? This information could be compiled under the section titled "DUI Laws by State" as there is already a short description of Washington State's laws with citations. RedDarling (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart for Easy State-by-State Comparison.  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Drunk driving in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130814121613/http://www.uscgboating.org:80/statistics/accident_statistics.aspx to http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/accident_statistics.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408113313/http://www.oregon.gov:80/ODOT/DMV/driverid/sr22.shtml to http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/driverid/sr22.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927013549/http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/dwi/dwihtml/cues.htm to http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/dwi/dwihtml/cues.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721034222/http://www.adp.cahwnet.gov/FactSheets/DrivingUnderTheInfluenceStatistics.pdf to http://www.adp.cahwnet.gov/FactSheets/DrivingUnderTheInfluenceStatistics.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Drunk driving in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221100901/http://abcdriveronline.com/dui-laws-of-nevada/ to http://abcdriveronline.com/dui-laws-of-nevada/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/accident_statistics.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129113805/http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/homegarden/11310931.html to http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/homegarden/11310931.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151029224040/http://inform.com/article/Puerto%20Rico%20OKs%20one%20lowest%20drunk-driving%20limits to http://www.inform.com/article/Puerto%20Rico%20OKs%20one%20lowest%20drunk-driving%20limits
*Added  tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0847/is_n1_v14/ai_9356459/?tag=content%3Bcol1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Drunk driving in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721035217/http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/TSF2004.PDF to http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/TSF2004.PDF
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What it says.   It seems that the details of this are best covered in the Field sobriety testing.  In part, the details (number of clues, etc.) distract from the subject matter of the present article.  Since there is a separate page on the subject, discussion of FSTs (and SFSTs) on this page should be limited to the tests being requested, the tests being used to establish probable cause, and their legal status as voluntary. Unitacx (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: One minor matter is the "partisan sources" status of the criticisms section, which carries over to the Field sobriety testing page.  (This should be easy enough to cure, since this is a single reference and the source material for the reference can probably be found.) Unitacx (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

text: "partisan sources" issue fixed on the Field sobriety testing page, and maintenance template removed.   (That section can be copied back to this page, as the substance of the text is largely unchanged.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitacx (talk • contribs) 06:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

text: The substance of the FST section has been copied to the FST page, with formatting edits, combining the material from the 2 pages.   At this point, we could take advantage of the hatnote cross-reference and reduce the "in the weeds" details on this page.   As a side note, it seems that FSTs are limited to a few countries, notably the US, Canada, Australia. Unitacx (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move the details of ''Field Sobriety Testing'' to the [[Field sobriety testing]] article? 

message: I'm not sure if there is an easy way to address this.   The subject matter combines:
*sociology
*criminal justice
*interaction of criminal justice with constitutional law
*technical issues as applied by the impaired driving laws
*technical aspects of testing
By moving details of the FSTs to some obscure place (looking at the hatnote, that would be the FST page) we deleted some of the details such as how "clues" are counted, as well as FST instructions, and I think that helped reduce the "Microsoft technical support" nature of this page.  I also tried to distinguish between the "investigative phases (NHTSA)" and "legal stages", describing how the "investigative phases" relate to the legal stages.
The real problem here is similar to many tech documents - providing salient information without getting too far "in the weeds" with people who do not have criminal justice or technical backgrounds.  (But that's the purpose of Wikipedia.)   I think getting rid of the "technical" template will be an ongoing project.
:As an aside, for a pathetic example of how to describe the process, see:
https://aizmanlaw.com/field-sobriety-testing-in-california/ "I don't know what I'm talking about" Law Firm (except for the "true suspect" and "probable cause to stop you")
Unitacx (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: REQUEST for someone familiar with use of the "Technical" template to review the article (with the FST details removed), and remove the template if appropriate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitacx (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Technical" template ("may be too technical for most readers to understand")