.05 Blood Alcohol Limit for Driving?

[DaNewf]

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

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.

 

[dstranger99]

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......

 

[JDGator]

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.

 

[ricksam]

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.

 

[JDGator]

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.

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.

 

[kombat]

This crap of nailing someone under .1 is exactly that...crap. These people are not your problem, it the .2+ crowd that needs attention.

+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.

This smells of a revenue enhancer to me.

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.

 

[dstranger99]

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.

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......

 

[JDGator]

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.

 

[Yooper]

I don't drink and drive, but at my size 1 pint would put me over .05.

That means never ever having one glass of wine with dinner at a restaurant.

I totally agree that no one should ever get into a vehicle and drive impaired whether it's prescription painkillers or pot or alcohol. Or drive distracted (cell phones).

What I'm concerned about is "incidental" arrests if the limit drops to .05. I mean, if someone pulls in front of someone my size who had half a glass of wine with dinner and there is an accident, the person who was not at fault may be charged with DUI.

I believe that impaired drivers should be off the road, no ifs, ands or buts! The sad thing is that I've seen many DUIs be repeat offenders, and those were just the times they got caught. Far too many people get into a car after imbibing and they are a risk to society. A petite female who drank 1/2 glass of wine with dinner at a restaurant doesn't scare me.

I've seen people who blew a .08 not fail a field sobriety test (I use to work in EMS). I don't think a .05 would be impaired at all. They wouldn't be swerving, crossing the center line, etc. I don't think they would have slowed reaction time.

I don't see the advantage to dropping the limit and why it would save lives.

 

[unionrdr]

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...

 

[Slainte-brew]

My buddy works for LifeSafer here in Ohio, they make breathalizers for automobiles for multiple offense drivers, and he said that there is talk of making it mandatory to have ignition interlock devices in all cars (in the future, years away). Car wont start if you have had a drink! I dont think that restaurants and bars would ever let this happen.

 

[unionrdr]

It all comes back to certain people wanting someone else to blame for their lack of vision. I think it's just a new version of prohibition being forced on the many by the few. Grow the F up & teach your kids common sense & what it'll be like if they drink to much & what to expect.

 

[YNOT2K]

so the change is designed to "catch" those between .05% and .08%? those aren't the folks on the road i'm worried about. dropping the limit will only "catch" those who probably really aren't impaired.

 

[SharonaZamboni]

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 like that labeling! It definitely gives you more information about the alcohol content of your drink.

I don't condone impaired driving, and don't drive if I feel any effects. That means maybe one BMC on an empty stomach, or whatever the circumstances are. You ever have a day when just one drink feels like two or three? Or have a nice beer with a big dinner and feel nothing? I do, so I can't use a set number of drinks as my driving limit.

I think that BAC levels are not necessarily the best way to determine how impaired a driver may be. I know a long-time alcoholic person who I'd rather see have a drink to control his DTs before trying to drive. I also know someone who shouldn't drive after a couple of ounces of wine. Their BAC levels effect each of them quite differently.

 

[looneybomber]

In KS, if you're carrying a concealed firearm (we're a concealed firearm, not weapon state), anything over 0.00 is a felony, driving or not. That's one way to keep drunk driving down.

As for if they should change it, no, it won't do much good. If it was changed, I would not be able to finish my second beer at the restaurant.

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

As far as this goes, I'm against it.

First off I'm 100% against drunk driving. Never done it but I am the person who'll drive after having a few beers or enough time to sober up.

I think though there are many things on the road that are a much bigger threat than drunk driving. People putting on makeup while driving, people talking on their phone while driving. People staring at their GPS while driving, etc.

Face it some people just shouldn't be driving. I'm a very good very safe driver. I do things that aren't 100% in the rules of the road (speed being the biggest) but I do it knowing I'll have enough space to avoid an accident.

 

[kombat]

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

Ever drive tired?

Ever drive after having a heated argument with someone?

Those can be just as dangerous - if not more so - than driving after a beer.

 

[fuzzy2133]

I do not think we are getting a full and complete story; I can understand if it was simply making the arrest and guilty point the same at 0.05.

What I am curious about is what are the BAC statistics when there is an incident. What is the percentage over 0.08, between 0.08-0.05 and under 0.05.

Hell lets put this in perspective with driving distracted incidents. If it is just a money grab they could make plenty of money enacting and enforcing hands free cell phone use laws or no cell phone use while driving.

 

[aubiecat]

Ever drive tired?

Ever drive after having a heated argument with someone?

Those can be just as dangerous - if not more so - than driving after a beer.

Doesn't justify driving while intoxicated.

 

[mb82]

Hell lets put this in perspective with driving distracted incidents. If it is just a money grab they could make plenty of money enacting and enforcing hands free cell phone use laws or no cell phone use while driving.

Handsfree does not take away the fact most people can not concentrate on two tasks that need as much thinking power as talking on a phone and driving. No cell phone use while driving is nearly impossible to enforce when there is handsfree phones, how could a police officer tell if the person is talking on their phone handsfree or just singing to the music in their car? Well besides the occasional air guitar solos

I am not sure what the dropping of the legal BAC to .05 would accomplish. Of course I am sure if the feds made it law that my state would argue the rule and take the hit on transportation funds just to be a thorn in the side of the Feds at the expense of its citizens.

 

[skw]

I've seen people who blew a .08 not fail a field sobriety test (I use to work in EMS). I don't think a .05 would be impaired at all. They wouldn't be swerving, crossing the center line, etc. I don't think they would have slowed reaction time.

I don't see the advantage to dropping the limit and why it would save lives.

First, BAC is the only way I want to have it in the law. It's a clearly defined measurable number and leaves no room for interpretation. All other sobriety tests, well intended as they may be, leave too much room for chance and interpretation. Whether you get a DUI or not should depend on a fact and not on whether you seem sober to someone.

Most people I know have no idea about BAC - they just go by guidelines, such as "two beers and you're still in the legal limit". Now if the BAC limit gets lowered and the media makes a bit of a stir about it, everyone will now know it's lower than it used to be - so without knowing the actual numbers, people will probably say "now that it's more strict, I won't have more than one". That I would hope is going to keep at least some people from driving while intoxicated.

Personally, I don't drink and drive. For me it's strictly one or the other. I wish that everybody should do the same, but that doesn't mean I think this should be the law.

 

[zmad2000]

To me this is just a political move nothing more nothing less. Some guy wants the "bitchy women with nothing better to do" vote.

For the texting argument. PUT THE PHONE DOWN!!!
Now talking on the phone. Well have you seen what cops are doing in the patrol cars. Here is Jersey i have seen more cops on their phone than reg drivers. Its a little disturbing. I was told its so that they can have a private talk to the dispatcher. BS. I have never seen a cop ever have that good of a talk with a dispatcher.

I say just teach the people to be better drivers. Go to almost any country in the world and look what they have to learn before they can drive. When i was getting my license i showed my EU friends what i had to "study". It was a joke. Being in New Jersey I think we have the worst drivers in the country and teaching people to drive better would improve the WHOLE situation. No politician though is going to get elected on "Lets relearn how to drive"

 

[kombat]

Doesn't justify driving while intoxicated.

Sure it does (assuming by "intoxicated" you meant "any alcohol at all in your system").

It's not black-and-white, it's a spectrum. It's not like you're perfectly fine at 0.07 BAC, but at 0.09 you're all over the road.

The limit is set where it is because the powers that be have decided that at 0.07, you're not a danger. 1 beer will not put you even close to 0.07 (unless it's a bomber of Eisbock, and you're Kerri Strug). You won't be quite as alert as if you hadn't had any beer at all, but you're still within the "safe" zone, according to the law.

Likewise, it's legal to drive tired, even though you're not at 100%. It's legal to drive angry, even though you're not at 100%.

Unless you're claiming you only ever drive when you haven't had anything to drink in the preceding 2 days, you're well rested, in a good mood, and without any distractions (radio is off, cell phone is on vibrate and out of reach, etc.)?

 

[GarageDweller]

Ban driving while late for work. Join my group BALD. Bitches Against Late Drivers

This whole country is going to $hit. you are telling me that this is what our government is focusing their time on? I want to be free, not micromanaged to death with minor details of where someone else says the bar for every damn choice I have in my life should be set. Its endless and completely ridiculous. We don't need politicians in washington to deal with crap like this. balance the budget before you make anymore restrictive laws. I guess the F.O.P. is complaining about needing raises and more cashflow, so congress better get on restricting us even more. Those of you who take the moral high road and say "oh i never drink and drive" thats great for you, but don't just sit there and let people's rights be eroded because you can't be bothered to think past yourself. I agree with the sentiment that its not the folks between .05 and .08. those are the people trying to be careful. beat the fed!

quit legislating morality in washinton dc and state capitols across the country. you bastards!

 

[RyeGuy]

Is they trying to make this a national law or up to the states? If national I don't see how congress has the authority to do that.

Plus how soon is it before we wind up with pre cogs predicting that we may drive and arresting us before we do it

 

[bob1852]

Is they trying to make this a national law or up to the states? If national I don't see how congress has the authority to do that.

It'll probably be the same as now. The states can have whatever level they want, but if they want federal highway dollars, it has to be set at 0.08.

 

[kombat]

Is they trying to make this a national law or up to the states? If national I don't see how congress has the authority to do that.

It's up to each state to set their own speed limits and DUI limits.

However, the federal government influences such decisions by witholding highway funding unless the states - of their own free will - choose limits the feds "approve" of.

 

[RyeGuy]

True. Federal highway dollars is how they get you. Hopefully some state soon will say screw you feds, we're just not gonna send you the taxes in the first place just to have you hold us ransom.

 

[mcl]

In KS, if you're carrying a concealed firearm (we're a concealed firearm, not weapon state), anything over 0.00 is a felony, driving or not. That's one way to keep drunk driving down.

Do you have a link for this. I thought it was a misdemeanor.

 

[xjmox14x]

Is they trying to make this a national law or up to the states? If national I don't see how congress has the authority to do that.

Plus how soon is it before we wind up with pre cogs predicting that we may drive and arresting us before we do it

They don't have the authority and can't do that. They can, however, pass incentives along to the state level to persuade them to implement it as law. Much like how there is no national drinking age, but every state's age is at 21 because the DOT would skull**** any state should they lower it.