.05 Blood Alcohol Limit for Driving?

I head today it is being considered to reduce the US blood alcohol limit to .05 (from .08).

I'm more curious what your feelings on it, than to start any huge arguments, so please be nice.

Do you think it will pass? Do you feel this is too low? Too high?

 

honestly, I don't care what the limit is. if I have 1 beer, I won't drive. I don't care if it's 2.3% or 14.3%.

 

Most states already have .05 as the limit at which you can be arrested, .08 is the limit at which you are presumed guilty without any other evidence.

The thing is they still don't really want to stop DUI, or they would be a lot tougher on enforcement (not announcing checkpoints, cops outside big events pulling people over for any small thing, etc)

 

In terms of .08 & .05. I don't exactly know if .08 is a beer? A drink? A swallow? I keep getting sacrcasam from everyone when I ask. Beats me what .05 would be a sniff? A drip on your shirt?

Just get a cab. Trust me. I'd maybe spend $20.00 round trip in Ft. Collins, Co. it was well with in my budget. Sometimes, I'd catch a ride home with a sober friend. Or call one. So. Get a cab. Just about every friend I have has had a D.U.I. Paying thousands for it, in some cases, losing driving privliges for X amount of time. Getting that annoying phone call. "Hey, can you come pick me up?" Get a cab. I had two friends die in a D.D. Crash 11 years ago. I've been involved with two, myself. Not driving of course. Been puled over once. Got beyond lucky. Killers lurking the streets of Denver on a Saturday night in 2002 takes precedent over hauling my young dumb ass in for stupidity. I have too much to lose. Think I'm fine either or. Tell you the truth.

 

All 50 states currently have the .08 limit

 

As presumed guilty, but a lot of states you can be charged at .05 if there is other evidence (field sobriety test, weaving, etc). Under .05 you are presumed innocent

 

I was listening to Sean Hannity today and heard the same thing. He brought up a good point. Personal responsibility. I'm not getting on a high horse by any means but he had a point. 0.05 or 0.08. Really not much of a difference. It's a deterrent as all laws are.

 

Colorado used to be .08 DUI .05 DWAI(driving while ability impaired). Still getting arrested.

 

I think what would be useful is to find out at what level are most of the high dollar accidents and fatalities occuring. Do they happen with someone who had a glass of beer or wine, or do those happen at blackout levels?

What are they going to achieve from dropping it from .08 to .05. Doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not sure what's driving the minor drop from .08 to .05. Incrementalism? Do they just want a no tolerance .00 rule?

 

When Arizona went to .08 from .10 several years ago, the biggest increase in DUI arrests was from soccer moms going to happy hour after work and having a couple glasses of wine.

It's definitely a touchy subject. I'd be more interested in more enforcement of distracted driving (texting, cell phone use, etc.), as my gut tells me those groups cause more wrecks and deaths than those driving between 0.5-0.8.

 

I'm a DWI attorney, the difference between .08 and .05 is about 1.5 beers in an hour, on average. As noted earlier, the real issue isn't blood alcohol level, it's enforcement. Being "tough" on DWI is great for the politicians to talk about, but in general, the law is not "brought down" on anyone, unless you kill someone. It's highly unlikely you'll face jail time on even your 2nd DWI as long as no one was hurt or killed. They can make it .05 or .08 or .02, but it only really matters if they enforce it correctly.

 

Arizona has mandatory jail time for a first offense DUI, if convicted. The latter being key. Lots of people that are probably are getting off on proceedural issues, uncalibrated equipment, improper search, etc.

 

Mandatory jail time probably helps with enforcement out there. Here in the Midwest, very unlikely you'll see a jail cell past the couple of hours to complete the booking process. You're right on procedural issues, I'm constantly fighting defense attorneys who are grabbing on to any tiny mistake an officer makes. I had one guy trying to argue that the police report should be thrown out because of the grammatical errors. Ridiculous stuff.

 

I blow .08 when I wake up in the morning and see drivers all over the road who shouldn't have licenses. I wish this DUI craze would die and they'd start targeting bad drivers in general.

I drive 25K miles per year and have never had an accident. At 150 lbs I'm not legal to drive after 1 drink as it is. Stupid law. It should be based strictly on field tests, not blood alcohol.

 

As a firefighter I can vouch that way more accidents are caused by distracted driving than "drunk" driving. But we see someone causing an accident while driving drunk as a "moral failure" and that they should know better. Someone causing a serious accident due to distracted driving is usually let of the hook pretty easily...probably because we have all done it at some point. So it is much easier to pass stricter DUI laws....even if they are less effective.

 

no, the difference between .08 and .05 is more like 9 oz of beer in an hour. 1.5 beers in an hour, on an average man, will put him at .06 by itself. as far as facing jail time, it depends on the state. in many states, you face jail time immediately. dwi attorney :rockin: uh huh

 

Will this law also apply to cops, or will they still get their "professional" (drinking) courtesy?

Also, you can get a DUI at .000. The cop just has to arrest you and you're paying for it. It doesn't matter if you're actually guilty.

Final thoughts: Norway has a zero tolerance law. Any alcohol while driving and you're in big trouble. I don't know what their DUI rates are though.

 

In Arizona you can be charged with a DUI below .08 if the officer can prove you are impaired. This also includes golf carts, atvs, boats, etc. it is also not limited to booze either.

 

This is the same in California (23152(a) CVC). The problem isn't with the person who is .08 and under, the problem is with the person who is well above that, say .24. The point is, it's already illegal to drive impaired in most states to a point where you can't safely operate your vehicle, including any accident will typically be your fault civilly if alcohol is present in the system. so it's pointless to lower the legal limit.

 

I would be fine with it...... so long as the exact same punishments were handed out to morons on their cell phones. "Distracted" driving has essentially been shown to be as bad as low level "Drunk" driving..... I find it curious that the exact same punishment is not handed out for the exact same effect. I am not condoning "drunk"driving, by any means. But, to be honest, I would rather meet someone on a highway that has had 2 beers than someone texting.....

 

Don't drive after you've been drinking, and it's not an issue.

 

In Sweden it's .02.
If the police make a test you will lose your license for at least a year

 

Here in Australia it's 0.05. For our younger drivers it's 0.00, and ever since that became law it has reduced our road toll hugely. Our labels on alcoholic beverages tell us how many standard drinks are in each one. As pictured. But really these laws only stop honest people. Too many people die or seriously hurt themselves or others after getting on it.
Bottom line really is don't drink and drive.

 

I just wonder if the accidents will go down at all. People who drive impaired now are not going to stop because the limit has changed but the revenue going into the police will increase.

I also think the personal responsibility angle will not work. Some people need just need laws. It is almost as if they do not understand or have a moral compass to follow and with out the laws they are lost.

I also wonder when the limit will be zero but not limited to driving. When will we get a ticket for tending our kids and having a few beers at home.

 

It is illegal for cops to randomly setup road blocks without announcing them in some forum. The paper work has to be done as well. At least in MS that is how it works. You can typically check the paper and see exactly where they will be. Targeting a specific venue is a dick move on the cops part as well.

 

More than likely...money. They need more of it and this is an easy way to get more of it.

 

I have no problem with it. However, I think it is utterly useless and a waste of time and money trying to pressure states into implementing it. I heard on the radio yesterday during an interview that between 500-800 lives will be saved by doing this. Exactly how so? If that's the case, let's just make it 0.00 and everyone will be saved! Death by drunk driving will be a thing of the past! Because we all know everyone follows the rules, right?

Not to mention it's an invisible finite level. In other words, it's not like changing the posted speed limit from 65 to 55. We know exactly how fast we are going and we can adjust. With BAC, no one TRULY knows their level unless they take a calibrated Breathalyzer... which almost no one has unless they've had a serious reason to.

So what does lowering the limit really accomplish? Will it limit drunk driving more? How? No one has any idea when they're at 0.08. And they'll have no idea when they're at 0.05 too. Is it one drink per hour? That's what they said about 0.08%. I heard yesterday it's 2 drinks per hour to reach 0.08%. Which one is it? Gender, weight, rate of consumption, amount of alcohol, type of alcohol (30% ABV flavored vodka vs. 40% ABV unflavored), amount/type of food already in the stomach, etc. all play a role and can effect one's BAC. So when you don't accurately know what your BAC is to begin with, how is lowering it from 0.08 to 0.05 going to affect anything or anyone and help them adjust?

That being said, I'm 100% for drunk driving laws and think they need to be in place, for good reason. But like I said, lowering the BAC from one arbitrary (arbitrary in the sense that it could be 0.08 or 0.20, it doesn't matter considering we have no idea what the exact number is at that time, nor what we've done to affect it, or how it's truly been effected by said actions) number to a different arbitrary number is utterly useless and a waste of time.

 

Not sure about Sweden, but a lot of pmaces (germany and Australia for ex) have really good public transportation. Would be a lot more people taking a bus or train if they new it would be on time and not send them an hour out of the way to get somewhere.

 

You say it's a Dick move because you don't want to be hassled, but if they really wanted to stop DUIs that is all it would take. How many people do you think would drink and drive if the new the cops would be pulling anyone and everyone over after the game/concert/beerfest/etc. But they just direct traffic and only stop the really obvious ones. It is more important to make everyone feel good than stop drunk driving and cutting off the funding they get from it.

And yeah I agree it would be crappy, but it would stop dui very shortly.

 

Or if we even had a public transportation system. Nothing even comes close to where I live.

Not that it matters to me so much since I do not drink and drive.

 

It's a deterrent. Hopefully it will scare people from not drinking at all if they are going to be driving. IMO that's the best personal policy anyway.

 

It will indeed pass to the new .05 but it will take years........I don't drink & drive anyway, but if it keeps even more morons from behind the wheel, I'm all for it......

 

i lost my license (2.5 years total) for drinking and driving 11 years ago. total cost of "that great night out" is over $50,000 by the time i paid lawyers fees, fines, remedial programs, taxis, insurance, license reinstated etc. it was the most costly mistake of my life. only lucky thing was no one got hurt. just my pride!!! now i don't even go out drinking. if I'm gonna have a beer, it's at home.

now, lowering the limits likely wouldn't have made a difference in my case. i was plain stupid. but toughening the laws now means that if i get caught again, i can be sent to jail for some time. not worth it at all.

BAC is hard for the public to understand because it affects each person differently and from day to day. the average man can safely drink (4-5%) 1 beer/hour. (yes there are a ton of things that can effect that) and by lowering it down makes it almost impossible to have 1 beer/hr. that's there idea of saying "we aren't saying you can't have a drink and drive, but if you do, you are guilty and there's a hefty fine"

I can go on and on about this topic since I've been there and done that.

don't drink and drive, it's just not worth it.

 

This smells of a revenue enhancer to me. You really want to make a difference in drunk driving, make the penalties for the 2nd offence drastic, and make the penalty for someone over a high amount extremely nasty. This crap of nailing someone under .1 is exactly that...crap. These people are not your problem, it the .2+ crowd that needs attention. And keep in mind, those statistics about alcohol related accidents and fatalities...they are very misleading as even in cases where the person with alcohol in their system was at zero fault in the accident it still goes in the books as an alcohol related incident. I have even been told if there are alcohol containers around the site, whether or not anyone registered, still is considered alcohol related.

 

they do ride programs all the time in ontario. they post a lot on the radio and in newspapers. but they will sit outside bars and watch people get in there car. if you look drunk, they wait for you to start driving, then pull you over.

 

+1

The vast, vast majority of people driving around with a BAC of 0.08 or less make it home perfectly safely, with no incident.

Very few drivers at 0.24 get home without bumping into something, or at least having a close call.

I think it's more political than revenue-based. MADD is a temperance lobby group who won't be satisfied until prohibition is revived. You take a few moms whose underage kids got drunk and wrapped their car around a tree, and combine them with a bunch of busybody conservative tee-totalers who don't think anyone should be allowed to drink, and let them wrap their ideology in the irreproachable motivation of doing it "for the children," and politicians can't help but be swayed (particularly the right-wing churchgoing ones).

It's a do-nothing, feel-good move that serves no purpose other than to harass us responsible folks who just want a beer with our steak dinner.

 

Jesus dude !! It reminds me of how lucky I am, On my 21st B-day years & years ago, I'm 43 now. Me & a buddy shared a 5th of Jack. ( I didn't even drink then). Anyway, I drove home in lunchtime traffic drunk as hell, So drunk I pulled over to the side to puke, glasses fell off my face, I puked on the glasses and put them back on covered in vomit. Amazingly, I made it thru all the traffic and got home using backroads......

 

it was a very costly event in my life that I'll never forget. November 11th (remembrance day in Canada) i now stand for a minute of silence for all the troops and sit down and have a beer at home.

 

I think they should absolutely STOP groups like MADD from running our lives. Ok,they had some misfortune in their lives. It's not our collective fault tha there kid went to a party & drove home with the drunkest one forced to drive. Been there,done that with my vision like a kalidoscope. They were being lazy I thought at the time. But I got us there in a '61 Lesaber cherry car. Not a scratch. It's mind over matter in the end. I love driving,so it always sobered me up a little. bu that's me.
They needed to be better parents & teach there kids about what & how much to drink & how quickly or slowly. We did. Made them stand back & look at how the other noob young adults were reacting. Not my damn fault you have no forsite to teach common friggin sense. I guess they're staying in denial (MADD,etc) & need someone to blame other than themselves. Nah,just couldn't be their fault their child is gone...