This will make your blood boil.

[Belmont Resident]

Important information for those wanting to drive with a cold.
Live free or Die.

http://www.eagletribune.com/newhamps...-effect-in-N-H

[songkrai]

There are wide implications to this new law passed by the previous legislature.

The authorities can pull you over for any reason or just about no reason.

I was pulled over coming home from work at 2:00 AM on a Sunday morning. No cars on road. Zero. I stopped at a stop sign. Complete stop. Directional on. Then proceded. A half minute later blue lights. License/registration. Polite person had flashlight out. Looked all through car. Viewed my plastic lunch container. Asked me if I was coming home from work.

Then advised me as the why I was pulled over. The reason as stated by uniformed person. At the last stop sign, my car went 7' over the white line.
Could or did I go over the white line? Sure. Or was this trumped up?

Many do a rolling stop. That is a clear offense. Many do not use turn signals everywhere. That is a clear offense. I came to a complete 3 second stop.

I hear the others screaming now. If you live a good clean Judeo-Christian life then you have nothing to worry about. OK. Good Luck.

[HellRaZoR004]

I want to know what percentage of accidents are caused by over the counter meds as described here: "In the last three years, he said, 41 percent of all fatal crashes have been caused by an impaired driver."

I agree that this synthetic stuff should be consider, but cold medicine taken by law abiding citizens, come on.

[fatlazyless]

Crossing the white lines, stop line or right side line is probably considered to be a lane control issue. If you go to take the CDL test for driving a truck, crossing a white line will get you flunked.

A standard 53' van trailer is 8'6" wide. The tractor on a semi-tractor trailer rig is eight feet wide, and a New Hampshire driving lane is usually twelve feet wide. Truck drivers are supposed to keep their semi-tractor trailers within the 12' wide lane and that is called lane control. If the truck drivers with large trucks can accomplish this safe driving practice, then it is definately not too much to ask that four-wheeled automobiles drive with lane control too.

Worst case - real example: In about June, 2005, or 2006, one guy driving a car crossed the white line for maybe two or three seconds while driving along the s-curve on Route 49 in Thornton, and he struck two Harley Davidsons, and he killed three of the four riders, two married couples in their 50's from Indiana, on their motorcycles due to his lack of lane control so lane control should be taken seriously.

If you drive Route 49 in Thornton today, you can see the three small white crosses, maybe three feet high, immediately close to the accident spot, by the side of the road there.

[HellRaZoR004]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Crossing the white lines, stop line or right side line is probably considered to be a lane control issue. If you go to take the CDL test for driving a truck, crossing a white line will get you flunked.

A standard 53' van trailer is 8'6" wide. The tractor on a semi-tractor trailer rig is eight feet wide, and a New Hampshire driving lane is usually twelve feet wide. Truck drivers are supposed to keep their semi-tractor trailers within the 12' wide lane and that is called lane control. If the truck drivers with large trucks can accomplish this safe driving practice, then it is definately not too much to ask that four-wheeled automobiles drive with lane control too.

Worst case real example: In about June, 2005, or 2006, one guy driving a car crossed the white line for maybe two or three seconds while driving along the s-curve on Route 49 in Thornton, and he struck two Harley Davidsons, and he killed three of the four on the motorcycles due to his lack of lane control so lane control should be taken seriously.

I don't think any disagrees with you...

[Belmont Resident]

Originally Posted by songkrai

There are wide implications to this new law passed by the previous legislature.

The authorities can pull you over for any reason or just about no reason.

I was pulled over coming home from work at 2:00 AM on a Sunday morning. No cars on road. Zero. I stopped at a stop sign. Complete stop. Directional on. Then proceded. A half minute later blue lights. License/registration. Polite person had flashlight out. Looked all through car. Viewed my plastic lunch container. Asked me if I was coming home from work.

Then advised me as the why I was pulled over. The reason as stated by uniformed person. At the last stop sign, my car went 7' over the white line.
Could or did I go over the white line? Sure. Or was this trumped up?

Many do a rolling stop. That is a clear offense. Many do not use turn signals everywhere. That is a clear offense. I came to a complete 3 second stop.

I hear the others screaming now. If you live a good clean Judeo-Christian life then you have nothing to worry about. OK. Good Luck.

It has gotten ridiculous, that is why I have absolutely no respect for officers of the law in this state.
I understand they have a job to do and I understand it isn't easy, but your not being paid to do an easy job now are you.
I go by the motto, respect is earned not freely given, weather your in uniform or not.
Watching the news and reading reports it is sometimes hard to distinguish which is worse those upholding the law or those braking it.
FYI I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record so I do not have any axes to grind.

[Belmont Resident]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Crossing the white lines, stop line or right side line is probably considered to be a lane control issue. If you go to take the CDL test for driving a truck, crossing a white line will get you flunked.

A standard 53' van trailer is 8'6" wide. The tractor on a semi-tractor trailer rig is eight feet wide, and a New Hampshire driving lane is usually twelve feet wide. Truck drivers are supposed to keep their semi-tractor trailers within the 12' wide lane and that is called lane control. If the truck drivers with large trucks can accomplish this safe driving practice, then it is definately not too much to ask that four-wheeled automobiles drive with lane control too.

Worst case - real example: In about June, 2005, or 2006, one guy driving a car crossed the white line for maybe two or three seconds while driving along the s-curve on Route 49 in Thornton, and he struck two Harley Davidsons, and he killed three of the four riders, two married couples in their 50's from Indiana, on the motorcycles due to his lack of lane control so lane control should be taken seriously.

FLL a lot of the white stop lines are not in the proper place for you to see traffic coming. Many a time I've had to go well over the white line to be able to see oncoming traffic weather it be due to overgrown tree's which is very common or in some cases vehicles parked that block your view. It isn't always a clear cut.
Also FLL I ride a motorcycle and for what it's worth I see many more motorcycles riding on or over the yellow line especially on corners then I do car's and trucks.
Maybe the cops should start setting up check points on sharp corners like they do on the snowmobile trails.

[ITD]

Having been corrected on all my driving flaws by newly minted drivers, the rule down here in hell (Massachusetts) is that you must stop before the white line, then if necessary move forward to see if it is safe. The rule I found more troubling is that if there is no white line, you are supposed to stop before the sign, which around here are sometimes 6 to 10 feet short of where you need to be to see.

[BroadHopper]

Back in 2008 on Amherst St in Nashua, NH, I am waiting for a red light to make a left turn. Because of a huge snow bank on the left, I had to cradle a white line. Before I knew it an SUV smashed into the right rear quarter of the car, spinning me around. Obviously the other guy was not paying attention and speeding. He kept going another 100 feet after the accident.

When I got the insurance quote, the insurance company says I have to pay the deductible. The guy was speeding and he rear ended me!

According to the police report, I wasn't to the right of the white line so therefore I am at fault! Even though a snowbank was in the way!

So be aware folks!

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

If there was a loophole that allowed you to drive 10 times more impaired and avoid being prosecuted, I'm glad they closed it.

"In New Hampshire, the law previously only punished drivers who drove under the influence of controlled drugs. Now, if it is determined that over-the-counter medicine such as antihistamines or ibuprofen caused the driver to be impaired, that’s cause for arrest."

As it should be.
Key word, determined. The cop doesn't determine impairment, the blood urine or breath test does.
Any substance you take IN EXCESS that causes you to become impaired, be it alcohol, sleep aids or Benadryl, should be cause for arrest and subsequent blood urine or breath tests. You can be pulled over for anything at any time. Be smart about what information you divulge to the officer.
I don't know why they mentioned ibuprofen, there are so many other OTC substances that will mentally alter you if taken in excess.

[AC2717]

so you mean to tell me if I take a extra strength Sudafed for my sinus ( i have cronic sinus problems and had surgery twice) and I get pulled over and they pull my blood then I could get introuble?????

[HellRaZoR004]

^^So what is the legal limit for when someone has blood taken after consuming cold medicine? I don't see that anywhere.

As with alcohol the amount is going to effect people differently, but that's why they have an arbitrary set limit.

[dpg]

Originally Posted by AC2717

so you mean to tell me if I take a extra strength Sudafed for my sinus ( i have cronic sinus problems and had surgery twice) and I get pulled over and they pull my blood then I could get introuble?????

Yup...If you take it in excess.

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

Originally Posted by AC2717

so you mean to tell me if I take a extra strength Sudafed for my sinus ( i have cronic sinus problems and had surgery twice) and I get pulled over and they pull my blood then I could get introuble?????

If you get pulled over and appear impaired and then fail a field sobriety test, you can, and should be arrested. Only after "legal" arrest can they test you to determine if their suspicion is right. Obviously you'd pass a breathalyzer. If you took a blood or urine test which showed extreme levels of pseudoephedrine (amphetamine), you'd be in trouble.
But, if you take this dose daily, you would never have the elevated levels to say you were impaired. This isn't about taking cold or sinus medication as directed, it's about people buying OTC substances, taking them in excess, be it purposely or accidentally, and driving impaired.

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

Originally Posted by HellRaZoR004

^^So what is the legal limit for when someone has blood taken after consuming cold medicine? I don't see that anywhere.

As with alcohol the amount is going to effect people differently, but that's why they have an arbitrary set limit.

Great question...I only know alcohol .08. If you've ever seen your blood work after a physical, every substance has an "acceptable" range. I'm sure there is legal standing as to the legal limit of each substance.

[songkrai]

Originally Posted by HellRaZoR004

^^So what is the legal limit for when someone has blood taken after consuming cold medicine? I don't see that anywhere.

As with alcohol the amount is going to effect people differently, but that's why they have an arbitrary set limit.

You will have to prove a negative.

In other words will it be your word against theirs? How do you prove anything?

Will your car be towed and impounded? Then taken to a lab under orders from authorities? And if innocent who pays the towing or impound fee?

Maybe a big to do about nothing. Or not.

[AC2717]

what's the limit?

I do not agree with this unless they use an abnormally high limit to prove "excess". I think it has good intentions but there has to be a better way to shape this law.

[gillygirl]

Originally Posted by ITD

Having been corrected on all my driving flaws by newly minted drivers, the rule down here in hell (Massachusetts) is that you must stop before the white line, then if necessary move forward to see if it is safe. The rule I found more troubling is that if there is no white line, you are supposed to stop before the sign, which around here are sometimes 6 to 10 feet short of where you need to be to see.

I have a friend who successfully fought this scenario. She stopped at the line, then stopped where she could actually see what was going on. Where the cop was positioned, he couldn't possibly tell whether or not she stopped at the line, so the judge found in her favor.

[gillygirl]

Some studies have shown that driving while sleep impaired is worse, and more common, than driving drunk. So when will that come on the books, and how will they determine that one?

GG

[ITD]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

If you get pulled over and appear impaired and then fail a field sobriety test, you can, and should be arrested. Only after "legal" arrest can they test you to determine if their suspicion is right. Obviously you'd pass a breathalyzer. If you took a blood or urine test which showed extreme levels of pseudoephedrine (amphetamine), you'd be in trouble.
But, if you take this dose daily, you would never have the elevated levels to say you were impaired. This isn't about taking cold or sinus medication as directed, it's about people buying OTC substances, taking them in excess, be it purposely or accidentally, and driving impaired.

My non-lawyer understanding is that there is absolutely no benefit nor requirement to participate in roadside "field sobriety test" and that the only purpose of these tests is to provide more proof against you in your court case. The only thing you are required to do is blow into a breath machine and that if you are asked to do this you do it only with the machine that is used for court, not the little field units. Also remember that it is perfectly legal for the officer to lie to you to get you to incriminate yourself. There are some good videos on youtube on how you should interface with police who have stopped you.

[songkrai]

The whole thing is a pandoras box for abuse.

Here we are in the Live Free or Die state.

And the authorities can do whatever and whenever you are driving.

People should be outraged at the authority given to to our protectors.

Good intentions. Yes. The outcome is less then desirable.

What's the half life of that medicine you are taking?

Going to be tough for those who just had a tooth pulled or recovering from an operation. Better not drive.

Probably time to consult with your attorney and find out what they legally can do and what they are not supposed to do.

I smell a good court case on this one.

Won't happen to you? Not to worry?

Good Luck.

[tis]

I had no idea you could get high on Ibuprofen!! Really?? Pretty soon it will be illegal to walk out our door. Let's bring on some more laws.

[Belmont Resident]

Originally Posted by tis

I had no idea you could get high on Ibuprofen!! Really?? Pretty soon it will be illegal to walk out our door. Let's bring on some more laws.

Sad to say this state is going down the tubes fast. They are regulating everything and slipping a lot of things through that we do not even know about.

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

Originally Posted by ITD

My non-lawyer understanding is that there is absolutely no benefit nor requirement to participate in roadside "field sobriety test" and that the only purpose of these tests is to provide more proof against you in your court case. The only thing you are required to do is blow into a breath machine and that if you are asked to do this you do it only with the machine that is used for court, not the little field units.

That's excellent advice for someone who gets pulled over and knows he's possibly impaired.
Not so good advice if you're cold sober and want to go home.

[Winnisquamguy]

They say this is closing in loophole in the language. Although if you do nothing wrong you should be all set. I see this as clogging up already over crowded court rooms and lawyers making good money defending this ridiculous law.Any good lawyer can get you off almost any DWI case(if you want to pay) or get the charges reduced.Again just don't look suspicious and you should be all set...tell that to every 17-20 year old around the state.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by ITD

My non-lawyer understanding is that there is absolutely no benefit nor requirement to participate in roadside "field sobriety test" and that the only purpose of these tests is to provide more proof against you in your court case. The only thing you are required to do is blow into a breath machine and that if you are asked to do this you do it only with the machine that is used for court, not the little field units. Also remember that it is perfectly legal for the officer to lie to you to get you to incriminate yourself. There are some good videos on youtube on how you should interface with police who have stopped you.

Below is NH Law 265-A:14 for refusing to take a test when requested by a law enforcement officer:


265-A:14 Refusal of Consent. –
I. If a person under arrest for any violation or misdemeanor under RSA 265 or RSA 215-A refuses upon the request of a law enforcement officer, authorized agent, or peace officer to submit to physical tests or to a test of blood, urine, or breath designated by the law enforcement officer, authorized agent, or peace officer to as provided in RSA 265-A:4, none shall be given, but:
(a) If this is the first refusal with no prior driving or operating while intoxicated or aggravated driving or operating while intoxicated convictions:
(1) The director shall suspend his or her license to drive or nonresident driving privilege for a period of 180 days; or
(2) If the person is a resident without a license or permit to drive a motor vehicle in this state, the director shall deny to the person the privilege to drive and the issuance of a license for a period of 180 days after the date of the alleged violation.
(b) If the person has a prior driving or operating while intoxicated or aggravated driving or operating while intoxicated conviction or a prior refusal of consent under this section:
(1) The director shall suspend his or her license to drive or nonresident driving privilege for a period of 2 years; or
(2) If the person is a resident without a license or permit to drive a motor vehicle in this state, the director shall deny to the person the privilege to drive and the issuance of a license for a period of 2 years after the date of the alleged violation.
II. Except as provided in paragraph VI, the 180-day or 2-year suspension period or denial of issuance period imposed pursuant to this section shall not run concurrently with any other penalty imposed under the provision of this title. Any such suspension or denial of a license or privilege to drive shall be imposed in addition to any other penalty provided by law, subject to review as provided in RSA 265-A:31.
III. A refusal of consent for both post-arrest physical testing and testing of blood, urine, or breath following any one arrest shall be deemed one refusal for the purposes of this section.
IV. The provisions and penalties of this section, relative to the refusal of consent, shall apply to any person under arrest for any violation or misdemeanor involving the operation of a boat and upon satisfactory proof of the following:

[ITD]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

That's excellent advice for someone who gets pulled over and knows he's possibly impaired.
Not so good advice if you're cold sober and want to go home.

I used to think this also, but it just isn't true. I want to say that I have been pulled over a few times and have always had the most professional conduct from LEOs and never had a problem. Most if not all police are honest sensible people. But there are horror stories out there, and understanding how to interface with police in a formal situation can be critical. I don't want to get too wordy here, but we are granted rights under the constitution that we all should know and exercise without reservation. There are many videos online on how to deal respectfully with police. I find this one to have great points and have had my kids watch it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Below is NH Law 265-A:14 for refusing to take a test when requested by a law enforcement officer:


265-A:14 Refusal of Consent. –
I. If a person under arrest for any violation or misdemeanor under RSA 265 or RSA 215-A refuses upon the request of a law enforcement officer, authorized agent, or peace officer to submit to physical tests or to a test of blood, urine, or breath designated by the law enforcement officer, authorized agent, or peace officer to as provided in RSA 265-A:4, none shall be given, but:
(a) If this is the first refusal with no prior driving or operating while intoxicated or aggravated driving or operating while intoxicated convictions:
(1) The director shall suspend his or her license to drive or nonresident driving privilege for a period of 180 days; or
(2) If the person is a resident without a license or permit to drive a motor vehicle in this state, the director shall deny to the person the privilege to drive and the issuance of a license for a period of 180 days after the date of the alleged violation.
(b) If the person has a prior driving or operating while intoxicated or aggravated driving or operating while intoxicated conviction or a prior refusal of consent under this section:
(1) The director shall suspend his or her license to drive or nonresident driving privilege for a period of 2 years; or
(2) If the person is a resident without a license or permit to drive a motor vehicle in this state, the director shall deny to the person the privilege to drive and the issuance of a license for a period of 2 years after the date of the alleged violation.
II. Except as provided in paragraph VI, the 180-day or 2-year suspension period or denial of issuance period imposed pursuant to this section shall not run concurrently with any other penalty imposed under the provision of this title. Any such suspension or denial of a license or privilege to drive shall be imposed in addition to any other penalty provided by law, subject to review as provided in RSA 265-A:31.
III. A refusal of consent for both post-arrest physical testing and testing of blood, urine, or breath following any one arrest shall be deemed one refusal for the purposes of this section.
IV. The provisions and penalties of this section, relative to the refusal of consent, shall apply to any person under arrest for any violation or misdemeanor involving the operation of a boat and upon satisfactory proof of the following:

Different states, different laws, in Massachusetts you are only required to take the breathalyser. So in NH does the cop get to pick which "physical tests" are done?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW0UhYfs1es

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by ITD

Different states, different laws, in Massachusetts you are only required to take the breathalyser. So in NH does the cop get to pick which "physical tests" are done?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW0UhYfs1es

Massachusetts Implied Consent:

Massachusetts law requires you to take a breath or blood test if you are arrested for a DWI. Massachusetts’s “implied consent” law says that if you are lawfully arrested by an officer who has probable cause to believe that you have been driving while intoxicated, then you consent to taking a chemical test of your blood or breath for the purpose of determining your blood alcohol content (BAC). The test must be taken as soon as possible from when you were last driving. The officer gets to choose which test you take, although he or she must take you to a medical facility to have your blood drawn. The law also gives a special exemption for diabetics, hemophiliacs, or anyone taking anticoagulants – they don’t have to take the blood test.

Once you are arrested, the officer should tell you that if you refuse to take the test, then your license will be suspended for at least180 days and up to a life-time loss. At that point, if you decide to refuse the test then the officer can’t force you to take one. He or she will, however, take your license, give you notice that your suspension is now in effect, and will send your car to impound. Your car will be stuck in impound for 12 hours after your refusal and you will have to pay for the towing service and storage costs.

You can find the implied consent law at Massachusetts General Laws 90-24(f).

[Skip]

Originally Posted by ITD

Different states, different laws, in Massachusetts you are only required to take the breathalyser. So in NH does the cop get to pick which "physical tests" are done?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW0UhYfs1es

Yes, they do.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Massachusetts Implied Consent:

Massachusetts law requires you to take a breath or blood test if you are arrested for a DWI. Massachusetts’s “implied consent” law says that if you are lawfully arrested by an officer who has probable cause to believe that you have been driving while intoxicated, then you consent to taking a chemical test of your blood or breath for the purpose of determining your blood alcohol content (BAC). The test must be taken as soon as possible from when you were last driving. The officer gets to choose which test you take, although he or she must take you to a medical facility to have your blood drawn. The law also gives a special exemption for diabetics, hemophiliacs, or anyone taking anticoagulants – they don’t have to take the blood test.

Once you are arrested, the officer should tell you that if you refuse to take the test, then your license will be suspended for at least180 days and up to a life-time loss. At that point, if you decide to refuse the test then the officer can’t force you to take one. He or she will, however, take your license, give you notice that your suspension is now in effect, and will send your car to impound. Your car will be stuck in impound for 12 hours after your refusal and you will have to pay for the towing service and storage costs.

You can find the implied consent law at Massachusetts General Laws 90-24(f).

Ok Rusty, actually I believe it is a chemical test which could consist of breath, blood or urine for Massachusetts, I could find nothing about physical tests and if a cop suspects you are intoxicated I see no benefit of the physical tests since you will probably end up chemically tested anyway. If I found myself in that situation then I would say I am not feeling up to the physical test but opt for the chemical test, or maybe take the license loss were I stupid enough to be driving knowingly intoxicated. Watch the first video, it may save you some aggravation someday for something you would never think was a problem.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Skip

Yes, they do.

From a list of approved tests, or can they make it up as they go?

[tis]

All of us reminds me of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnO95yM-eSk

The guy is amazing, he says the alphabet backwards, has great balance, can dance, but then blows it all! I just think it is so funny!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by ITD

From a list of approved tests, or can they make it up as they go?

There is a standard set of tests officers are taught at the Academy and later if they attend Intoxilyzer Training or advanced training in HGN techniques for testing for drug impairment. There are a number of tests to choose from and each particular officer will choose those they feel comfortable with depending on their particular training and sometimes on Department protocols.

I received training on different testing over the years, first at the Academy, and later when I was certified as in Intoxilzer Operator.

Whatever test you perform you best be well prepared to clearly articulate it to a Judge, Prosecutor and Defense Attorney. Defense Attorneys key in and hammer away at the tests officers perform as usually the roadside test is the evidence the officer is submitting that allowed him to develop the probable cause to effect the arrest.

If the Defense Attorney can discredit the roadside test most likely the Prosecutor will lose the case.

[NoBozo]

I suggest that if you have an AR-15 propped up over on the passenger seat...You will NOT have a problem with "Driving Under The Influence" of Advil. NB

EDIT: OF Course I am just kidding....

[songkrai]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[RailroadJoe]

I lke that, but who said it?

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by songkrai

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

This quote and other similar ones are attributed to Benjamin Franklin.

[RailroadJoe]

Thanks. Both Ben and Thomas Jefferson have the best quotes on freedom.

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

Originally Posted by RailroadJoe

Thanks. Both Ben and Thomas Jefferson have the best quotes on freedom.

So true. Jefferson was the noted author of the Declaration of Independence and Franklin was one of the best when it came to logical input for Jefferson. Franklin wrote part of the Declaration AND Constitution.
Benjamin Franklin is the only person to sign all four documents that helped create the USA. No other individual was more involved in the birth of our nation.