Driving drunk used to mean just that – just as being a racist meant you disliked a set of people on account of their race. Nowadays, the latter means anyone who questions or disagrees with anything racialists say must not be questioned or disagreed with.
And the former now means having had anything alcoholic to drink prior to driving.
This is the gist of the push to characterize as “drunk” driving a person having a blood alcohol level (BAC) of as little as 0.05 percent, which is about half as much as it used to take to reach the bar, so to speak, when drunk driving had some meaning. This was about 40 years ago, when the maximum-permissible BAC threshold correlated with having had too much to drink before driving – but even in those days, the standard was not erratic driving or loss of control, per se.
It was whether the driver’s BAC was established to be over the legal limit, often at a roadside “sobriety checkpoint.”
In other words, drivers were no longer pulled over (exclusively) because they were driving erratically – or had given some other objective reason to suspect them of being impaired by alcohol, such as having lost control of their vehicle and caused an accident. Instead – to widen the net – all drivers are pulled over and required to prove they were not “drunk,” either by cursory examination or something more involved, such as a BAC test.
This has greatly increased the catch – which then becomes the justification for more roadblocks. And ever lower BAC thresholds.
But it begs at least one inconvenient question: How many of these “drunk” – in the legalistic sense – drivers were actually impaired – by alcohol, that is? Some will insist upon a tautology – that having “x” BAC – whatever it is – amounts to being “drunk.” But there is an obvious problem with this, especially in light of recent-pending developments. 
A number of states – including New York, Washington and Hawaii – are on the cusp of lowering the BAC level at which a person is considered (by the law) to be “drunk from 0.08 percent to 0.05 percent.
Utah – a state dominated politically by abstemious Mormons – has already enacted the 0.05 percent threshold.
But is this not like the old 55 MPH speed limit?
In 1974 – and just like that – the federal government decree that driving any faster than 55 was now “speeding” and “unsafe” – even though the limit was initially touted as an energy-saving measure. However, drivers were not fined for using “too much” energy (i.e., gasoline). They were fined for “speeding” – which meant driving at speeds that had been legal prior to 1974 but which were – just like that – transformed into “unsafe speeding” by arbitrary decree.
One day, 70 is legal and so – presumably – “safe.” The next day it’s neither.
Well, how is it that a driver who isn’t “drunk” – according to the 0.08 BAC standard – and the law – instantly becomes just that, solely on account of the lowering the standard to 0.05? Keeping in mind that the driver who “blows” a 0.08 today would not have been considered “drunk” as a matter of law when the standard was 0.10 BAC.
This is not a defense of drunk driving. It is the opposite. Turning everyone who has had a drink into a “drunk” cheapens the currency of the charge, just the same as shrieking “racism!” does when someone raises a question about a policy (or a person, such as a politician who happens to be black) that has nothing to do with race.
Defenders of the faith – and that is what we’re dealing with here – will say that no one should drink – even a glass of wine or a beer with dinner – before they drive. Many insist that any alcohol whatsoever in a person’s system constitutes “impairment” and so it is justifiable to arrest people on that basis alone, even in the admitted absence of any other reason to suspect their capacity to control their vehicle has been . . . impaired. As by erratic driving, for instance. Or loss of control. 
It is enough that they have been “drinking.”
This is zealotry, of the religious variety. It is about doctrinaire obedience – for the sake of obedience, as such.
It is the same, in its essential assertion, as the assertion that driving even 1 MPH faster than whatever the sign by the side of the road says is the maximum legally allowable speed constitutes “speeding” and is by definition both illegal and “unsafe.”
That is certainly what the courts and insurance mafia say. Yet there is no direct evidence to support the “unsafe” claim beyond generalities that have no bearing on specific actions. Indeed, the contrary is often true – as in the case of the impaired (by low skill) driver who does not “speed” but nonetheless loses control, wanders over the double yellow – or something like that – and causes what is styled an “accident” (but isn’t, because it was avoidable).
On the other hand, the driver who is skillful and in control of his vehicle who does not have “accidents” is pulled over and ticketed for “speeding” – and dunned by the insurance mafia for “unsafe” driving.
Or arrested for “drunk” driving – because he had a drink before he drove.
It’s a racket – and an injustice – that has as much to do with “safety” as “masks” had to do with “health.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If that fails, email me at [email protected] and I will send you a copy directly!
Boy, what a profound and timely article for me. My state of Connecticut is one of those states contemplating legislation to reduce the BAC from .08 to .05. And, almost as if by fate, one of my dear “caring, respectful, and responsible” state legislators just got arrested for DUI. Not just a little over the limit, mind you. No, State Representative Robin Comey crashed her car near the capital building in Hartford, flipping it over ON IT’S ROOF doing well over the speed limit, and then failed field sobriety tests with a BAC around .14. And isn’t it great because she, as Democrat Asst Majority Whip, gets everyone (every Democrat that is) in line to vote “yes” on this moronic legislation. So far, her only punishment is that she has lost some committee assignments. How thrilling.
Hi Plymouth,
Many facets of this “drunk” stuff annoy me. Among them, the imbecile one-size-all’ing. Some people are marginal – if not outright terrible – drivers completely sober, in possession of whatever modest capabilities they have. Others are much better drivers even when – technically, per the legal standard – “drunk.”
I have driven with Bob Bondurant (RIP) as well as some others in his league after they’ve had a few and I would trust them on the road far more than my ex mother-in-law, for instance. She was a very nice lady but a terrible driver. Yet she had noting to fear from the “checkpoint” polizei while a guy like Bondurant – who was “safer” (by dint of his ability) was at risk of being arrested for nothing more than having a BAC above an arbitrary threshold.
There is no doubt this is nothing but a money-grab by the Criminal Justice [sic] System and the Insurance Mafia.
In advertising you cannot make false statements. You can, however, give someone a nudge to infer something other than what is stated.
Back in the mid-70’s an insurance company (Nationwide, All-State? I’m not sure) ran an ad in National Geographic. It stated (and this I’m sure of) “Nearly 40% of Traffic Fatalities Involve Alcohol”.
What does this actually say?
First of all, it is LESS THAN 40%. How much less? I don’t know. Let’s say its actually 39%.
OK, what is does “involve alcohol” mean. According the the State of North Carolina about 10 years ago, it means anyone in the deadly crash that has any measurable amount of alcohol in their system. .01 is all it takes. It doesn’t mean the driver that caused the accident had alcohol or was even drunk or impaired.
For argument sake let’s say 2/3 of the collisions were caused by the person that had any measureable alcohol in their system. That means 26% of fatalities are caused by the person with measureable alcohol. Were they drunk or impaired? Again, we don’t know. Let’s be generous and say 75% were over .08. That takes us down to 19.5% are caused by someone impaired. However, That also means 80+% are caused by SOBER people. So, over 80% of the time someone screws up and causes a fatal crash. Who is to say that these 19.5% would not have made the same mistake had they been sober? Again, to be generous to our tea totaling friends, let’s say only half that time that would have been the case.
So, that leaves us with less than 10% of fatalities are due to the fact that someone was drunk behind the wheel.
Building a Police State based on less than 10% of fatalities would be a pretty hard sell. But then, the Criminal Justice System isn’t about criminals and it’s not about justice. It’s ALL about The System and keeping those in it fully employed.
Heck, an empty beer bottle or can can get you a DUI now-a-days. No actual drink necessary.
I watched some video of drivers having their blood forcibly taken in Texas some years back, even had a magistrate on hand at the checkpoint to sign a warrant for the blood. Held a guy down as he tried to resist. One of the more messed up things I’ve seen done to a citizen who had not harmed anyone. It is a violation to the human body to do that against someone’s will IMO.
The luciferion control group/politicians grabbed control a long time ago…….time to fix the problem…
The pyramid of power how it works by real law…..
1st level at the very top… the little people, the common people
the people are the highest power on the planet…the sovereign…not the government…NOTE: the government always says/ acts as if it is the sovereign….which is false….they are faking authority…
2nd level the king or their representative….the governor general…or the president… who works for the common people only… the common people control them
3rd level the politicians
4th level the enforcers…
This somehow got twisted around….the government say they are the top authority the sovereign…they aren’t…. the people are…the government is on the bottom…
The government says they are sovereign not the people…that is inversion…the opposite is true…
the double-speak involved is intensely characteristic of the reversal of reality practiced by satanists…..black is white….. up is down….bad is good….
Demons invert/reverse all that they touch. The psychopath uses the same trick.
leftist/communists = satanist.
The elite nobility, their billionaire friends and their we f…..
When you consider the positioning and branding of the W EF, with their certitude and paternalism, it all makes a lot more sense when viewed as a cult instead of a cabal. Cultists know all…. they have the inside track ……
and most importantly, they claim moral authority over us all by Divine Right
techno-utopianism was ultimately a Luc iferian construct. …… that the aspiration to “usurp God” was Lucif erian in character …..the wef/marxist/cultists see themselves as the new gods…. they claim moral authority over us all by Divine Right.
The people are the sovereign…..above the government in power and authority….
so the government to be a power above people say they are the new gods….so above the people….
this a Luc iferian construct….so they are evil….but they are satanists so they invert it and say you are evil….
you have been labeled evil
They call the people, the useless eaters on the bottom….. an invasive species now, destroying the planet…the government has convinced people they are a weak little, destructive, biosecurity threat…..soon to be herded into FMC 15 min cities/ghettos/prisons….which is justified….
Edward Fitzgerald wrote a book about this called…SMOKE & MIRRORS
see an interview here….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaAt-fVEgqM
BAC percentage is driven by the intersection of control freak moralizing and government and crony revenues. Ever lower to re-establish prohibition and get more and more people into a very expensive situation where tens of thousands of dollars can be extracted from them.
Meanwhile people on their morning commute to work with a BAC of zero drive far worse than many of these people charged with DUI were.
‘BAC percentage is driven by the intersection of control freak moralizing and government and crony revenues.’ — BrentP
When you eventually live in a utopian 15-minute city, you’ll be able to walk to a liquor store within two to three blocks, and return to quietly get destroyed in your own insular rabbit hutch without dangerously venturing out in a powerful automobiiiiiile.
What ever happened to that soothing, happiness-producing drug called soma, promised by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World a century ago? Neither alcohol, nor cannabis, nor fentanyl seem to quite fit the bill.
Doubtless CIA chemists are working feverishly to fine tune the knotty pharmaceutical problem of keeping the proles productive (but non-confrontational) during their working hours, while blissfully zombiefied during their brief ‘leisure’ hours.
Does a beaming portrait of Joe Biden grace your living room, comrade?
Lots of people never even bothered to vote, they paid no attention to what politicians were doing on the federal or state/provincial level or to the mayors in their cities….as long as they thought it didn’t effect their life they could care less……
the problem is if there is a source of power, like the politician’s power to make rules, regulations and laws….if you don’t take control of it a tyrant will….
the tyrants have taken complete control and are now…..
The leftist/globalists are using a fake science narrative about CO2 to completely re engineer your whole world for the worse and re engineer all the people in it to conform to their concept of how the world should be ….a marxist/globalist nightmare with a one world central government run by them…..they will control everything and everybody….
They are completely changing your world right now…agenda 2030, 15 min cities, banning cars and land ownership, C40 cities, UNDRIP, CBDC, mandated Digital ID in order to live, complete control of all food sources and energy sources…shutting down all small businesses and restaurants, their complete control of all media….
At the same time through propaganda/complete control of all media they are re engineering everyone’s mind……so they will think this is normal and a great idea……
cbdc 15 min city lockdown drones
The final lockdown….
@ 18:30 in video drones flying around as the new police, doing policing…. AI and tech will police the 15 min. city…
digital Id the ticket to the digital prison…
geofencing limiting moving around in the real world and the metaverse..
ignoring reality is not a good stategy for survival
smart city…no more rural living….off to the 15 min city……limited mobility, no cars…weaponized surveillance and control….water rationing…speech surveillance…..mobility tracking…rationing gas, heat, electricity…
control of food supply…no more cooking/food ownership…..no hoarding/stocking up or growing/independent supply…..it will be a service delivered daily by the government…with your meds included……..if your social credit score/cbdc balance is too low or cut off…no food for awhile…till you comply….
there will be no more food stores, restaurants or retail stores…everything will be supplied by the government…if you comply…
All the prisons will be closed…the prisoners will instead be housed with everybody else in the 15 minute city ghettos, they will be your neighbours in your soviet era, closet sized apartment…along with all the mental patients they turned out onto the streets years ago ……where it is easier and cheaper to watch/control them/you….every body will be drugged to make control easier….
going from a debt slavery system to an identity slavery system
AI is the beast….@ 59:05 in video….starve the beast…
Who funded, approved, installed, the smart city surveillance infastructure?
The longer term agenda for the countries with the 15 minute cities…who governs them?
A UN government…. The UN managing the land…the government for the indigenous owned land (the country given back to the indigenous)….in the whole country……..the army and police would all be UN soldiers….that was the reason for gun control legislation…UN the only armed force allowed….replacing the existing armed forces….
a great look at the high tech they will use in the 15 min prisons……
https://rumble.com/v1w1fcn-aman-jabbi-the-final-lockdown-street-lights-that-kill-in-smart-cities-cbdc-.html
Brent,
Indeed, in order to drive as badly as it seems most do, I would have to BE drunk.
“MADD” hijacked the drunk driving racket decades ago. What about the other 70% of morons that can’t drive whether they’re drinking of not?
MADD are thieves….95% of the money they raise as a charity goes to administration….they just steal the money through huge salaries….I knew somebody that raised money for their charity….they never got paid period….bloody leftist thieves
Why would anybody in their right mind trust a Californicator soccer mom named Candy Lightner?
*contemptuously flicks his BIC*
A point I’ve made many times. If half of traffic fatalities are caused by a drunk driver, are not the other half caused by sober drivers? Using their own logic, we should all be required to have a beer or a shot or more before we drive. Not to say one should drive drunk, but the variation in how one drives under variations of intoxication are rather, variable. I’ve seen folks fall off a bar stool after two beers, and others drink a half pint and show no apparent effect. Some handle it much better than others.
Some people (like me) don’t give a shit about what color someone is, but called racist by someone who does. Curious how that works.
Last time I read anything on it, “drunk” drivers caused about 35% of fatals. Surely they’ve adjusted their data by now?
50% was close enough to make my point, and I didn’t want to bother looking up the latest. But since you have more current numbers than I, 35% makes my point much stronger.
>variation in how one drives under variations of intoxication are rather, variable
Degree of impairment is not strictly correlated with BAC, for that matter.
If you are drinking on an empty stomach, or if dehydrated, you *will* get significantly more impaired on smaller quantity of alcohol.
That is why there is shandy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shandy
Also the difference in experience. One who drinks regularly is less affected than one who rarely does.
Talkin’ Wyoming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmrSOfoz0UY&list=OLAK5uy_l4XbZjJLSOcQXFHIaWUJDLcncVssr9z_g&index=3
Distracted drivers…texting while driving are 6X more dangerous then drunk drivers, but they get very small penalties compared with someone who had one beer two hours ago and drove…who they say is impaired…
and now these new cars with the huge screens….. that make it difficult to turn something on and off ….no more switches or easy to use dials…..are causing all these drivers to be distracted….
…and just when I thought I had seen it all, I spotted a female driver….brushing her damned teeth on her way into town! It explained why she was driving 20 miles under the speed limit…
It is remarkable that so many people, and it seems mostly women, can’t figure out how to get up half an hour earlier so they actually have time for such before leaving home.
Once upon a time, I saw a woman applying nail polish while pretending to drive.
Because John, as you well know, this criminal Justice System long ago jettisoned the old common law definition of crime in favor of statutory crime. Even back in Lysander Spooner’s day he was crusading for a legal definition of crime, and a definition of vices, in which crimes are only defined as actions that cause direct and provable harm against others, whereas vices are actions that only harm oneself.
Any action that does not cause a harm to another cannot possibly be considered a crime.
Not in America, I guess. Land of the free….free to obey. Statutory crimes are all the rage now.
During the 55mph regime, I was stopped when caught going 69mph on highway 50 in the middle of Nowhere, Nevada. The ticket was for wasting energy.
Yeah. Fuck Nevada. I was ticketed for 70MPH a few days after I legally drove the same highway at 130MPH. Now, that corrupt, money grubbing State has fines as high as $1000 for driving over a mind-numbing 70. I’m only registered there is because there is no State Income Tax. The only reason I step foot into that High Desert Dump is for SEMA.
In the grips of one of the coldest winters in many years.
Gettin’ so you can’t drink and drive anymore, always somebody spoiling the fun.
A friend ditched his pickup on the highway due to icy road conditions. Long time ago now, going on 45 years, had some beer in the truck. The highway patrol had to investigate, no injuries, luckily, the highway patrolman provided transportation for my friend and myself back to town. The highway patrolman collected the full beer bottles at the scene, he gave back the beer when he dropped us off. Nobody was dead or maimed, so it was a good day for the highway patrolman.
In Canada, if you are arrested for drinking and driving while drunk, it is a felony. Stays on your record forever.
“The brewery bottles 10,000 beers a day, I drink 45 of them and I’m the asshole.” – Land Phil, from the movie Beerfest
I thought driving was a privilege? Informed consent and all that rot? So why cant they just say, hey, you choose to drive, you accept the fact of drunk drivers, bad drivers, bad roads…and just forget about it. and let the chips fall. sign a waiver. done
Hmmm….? Why not drop the limit to .01? or .001? or .00001? At what arbitrary point is does impairment occur? Ans-none.
So, the question is not impairment, the blood alcohol number only proves one thing; that blood *contains* a substance. The positive argument is if it *contains* the substance, then it is illegal. So, mouthwash, cough syrup, or even rubbing alcohol used externally are illegal. My blood my may contain other things that are none of anybody else’s business and may be for my own health’s sake or maybe not. But can the government without my consent test for what my blood contains for any substance whatsoever? Roadside mass spectrometers to be issued to every AGW prowler? Let’s take negative argument, blood may *not* contain a substance. The government will now mandate that my blood be tested for what it *should* contain and deemed necessary for the good of society …a vaccine?
Off to the gulag with you!
My brother had a dui years ago. He barely met the threshold & even the cop said the only thing that got his attention was that my brother did a rolling stop instead of a complete stop. And it was 2 am.
He’s a law abiding strait laced person. It shattered him. The friend with him said he wasn’t drunk at all and was driving just fine.
The attorney managed to get it reduced to reckless driving or something like that. First time offender and all. In the end it cost him a ton of money via an vis attorney fees, fines, insurance
No one was harmed yet it caused him great grief. He jumped on board my temperance bandwagon. Thankfully that’s all in the past now.
2am. That’s when one must drive absolutely to the letter of the vehicle code.
1-3am is where I would have to pay the game with cops. They would follow me looking for a tiny deviation from the vehicle code that they wouldn’t bother anyone for at 7am or 5pm. I won when the cop tailing me got frustrated and raced off back to his hidey-hole when I got home.
The 2am activities are almost all driven by money, especially DUI money. The lawyers are part of the equation. The entire racket makes a lot of money for those involved.
There is very good lawyers that can get you off a dui charge for around $10,000….so all they are doing is robbing the poor again…the rich walk away…the leftist/marxists always rob the poor people….lol
C’mon, Texans.
Live up to your reputation and history.
Clean up your gene pool.
Run over a politician today.
I recall circa 1995 when they raised the interstate speeds in Idaho from 65 to 75 and the highway fatalities in the state dropped for 3 straight years, it never “impaired” the safety cult from screaming that speed kills.
Recalling back to the 90’s is when the safety cult was coming out of its infancy. They screamed again when the limit was raised from 75 to 80. Statistically, there has been no increase in percentages of fatalities, but every time there is, it’s always because “speed” to the faithful cultists.
When Jack Yantis was murdered on an Idaho highway several years back–and coincidentally all 5 of the police cameras on site “malfunctioned”, weren’t “on”, or were turned the “wrong way”–after coming to shoot his stricken bull it was satisfactory for the cult to be told the cop’s story that it was justified because “drunk”.
For the safety cult, reason is the only unreasonable idea.
I remember that drunk driving really started to make the headlines when MADD, mothers against drunk drinking was screaming to the press and beating down the politicians doors. I’d bet if the Chappaquidick incident had happened in the 80’s instead of the 60’s, that group would’ve chalked it up as a “tragic accident” instead of calling it out for what it was. That shows it was more political than anything. In defense of drunk driving, at least you’re looking at the road with both hands on the wheel instead of holding an iPhone and looking at that.
I have a friend who is a retired state trooper from rural Minnesota. He says that in his experience, mildly drunk drivers are usually better than your average driver. They know they are impaired, and do not want an encounter with the cops. Therefore, they try real hard to pay attention and be real careful. More than you can say for the average sober idiot playing with a cellphone.
Hi Allen,
Busybodies such as MADD, Ralph Nader, and Joan Claybrook have done more than anyone to make driving a miserable experience these days.
Just yesterday, a was on the right lane of two left-turn lanes. It’s a good thing that I don’t ever trust the braindeads, especially in left turn lanes. The dumb ass to my left came so far into my lane that I had to drive WAY onto the right shoulder to avoid them.
Usually, I have the opposite experience, i.e., I’m on the left side and the guy on the right cuts the corner of the turn into my lane, giving me nowhere to go. So I’m always on the lookout but that was very special.
But point being, I’d bet anything they weren’t drinking. That was “leaving work” traffic. Could have been anything but knowing how the average braindead drives, that was just a typical example of their “skill”.
But anyway, I just think the whole “anything to drink means you’re ‘drunk'” is a crock of shit. The fuck if it does. They just want to get more people caught up in the system and have more control.
A friend of mine told me that’s why marijuana will never be legalized at the federal level, i.e., because they can’t determine if someone is currently high with a breathalyzer or other field test. I don’t know if that’s true but it wouldn’t surprise me. I think there’s other huge reasons why they never will — at least not in my lifetime — but that’s probably in the mix.
Let’s be honest. With the average car having as much saaaaaaaaaafety bullshit going on, you have to be either smashed/high out of your mind (i.e., WAY THE FUCK over 0.08) or just plain old stupid (i.e., BAC == 0.00) to cause any serious damage.
And OBTW, just like I did yesterday, it’s part of driving to be on the lookout for dumb asses doing stupid shit. If I just insisted on my lane, that moron would’ve probably damaged my A4 Allroad to the tune of many thousands of dollars.
Every safety device and all the draconian laws anyone could ever dream up will never stop dumb ass people from doing stupid shit.
Here’s one developed country example of where MADDness leads:
‘If you are pulled over in Japan and are found to have a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.03 or above, you are considered legally intoxicated and guilty of drunk driving. The criteria for driving under the influence of alcohol are 0.3mg in 1ml of blood or 0.15ml in 1L of breath.
‘If you are over the 0.03 limit, you could be sentenced up to five years in prison or subject to a fine up to $10,000 (1 million yen) depending on the concentration of alcohol in your body. Additionally, the passengers in the car will be prosecuted and fined for being irresponsible. The bar that served you could be fined for allowing you to drive as well.’
https://englishlawyersjapan.com/what-is-the-legal-limit-for-drunk-driving-in-japan-and-what-happens-if-i-drive-under-the-influence/
Bear in mind that in Japan, the cops can simply hold you in jail until they obtain a confession. There is no bail, no right to remain silent, no ‘Miranda right’ to counsel.
A buddy in Kyoto was arrested for DUI in the more lenient pre-2007 regime: lost his license; heavily fined; put on probation. Don’t recall his BAC, but probably in the 0.05 to 0.08 range. He was never a drunk.
Japan — otherwise a polite, non-threatening country — displays the ‘disinterested disposition to punish’ of government gone feral. The US fedgov went feral in 1861 and never stopped. ’20 Years After U.S. Invasion, Iraq Is a Freer Place, but Not a Hopeful One’ brags the New York Slimes today, celebrating the million killed by bloodthirsty neocon yankee fanatics.
While the Texas law prohibits *texting* behind the wheel, the Austin standard for a person being “irresponsible” with a sail phone while driving is just touching the device with the vehicle in motion.
$500 fine with court costs extra. Plus points for the insurance mafia. Tougher than “wreckless” speeding.
The higher standard was very lucrative when first enacted so other communities along the I35 corridor in the state have followed the Austin example.