Recently, headlines have been made by a Sydney woman who was caught drunk driving (referred to as drink driving here is Oz) and yet had her charges dismissed because she does not live near public transportation. What an interesting precedent to set. As someone who grew up in a small country town I cannot possibly imagine this excuse working where I am from. "Oh, yes officer I have been drinking and driving - but it's not like you can hold me accountable or anything - it's not my fault there is no available public transport for me to take home." Guess what? If that were the law where I am from the roads would be a lot less safe! I'd like to think the laws deter a lot of the drunk driving that would occur otherwise. If you are going to drink - you need to have a plan on how you are getting home before you start drinking. If your only option is to drive home, perhaps it is not your night to be drinking.
However, I would like to point out if this young woman had been driving in Michigan with a blood alcohol level 0.067 she would not have been considered to be drunk driving at all because she was under the legal limit of 0.08. Just to make things clear I am not condemning this young woman for "drunk driving" - I am attempting to condemn the court that set this precedent. Honestly, I feel like this young woman was probably fine to drive - as I said she was below the legal limit for Michigan. However, I do not believe this is the message that should be sent to people. It is okay to break drunk driving laws if you live outside of public transport?
Just for fun estimate your blood alcohol level here.