.05 Blood Alcohol Limit for Driving?

[unionrdr]

It just goes to prove the phylosophical arguments I've had with cops. It's the folks that don't drink much deciding to go out with the gang on Friday & aren't used to handling a certain level of buzziness. I'm not saying alcoholics are better,but they do drink to get normal (to a point),where the rest drink to get all happy.

 

[Billy-Klubb]

it's starting to sound like some of you just want to drive buzzed. argue all you want, but no one has to drive after they've been drinking. if you can't get back home from the bar without driving, stay the flocc home. too tired to drive, then don't drive. can't stay off your cell phone while driving, then quit floccing driving. too bad all the fancy arguing couldn't bring all the dead back from the incidents.

 

[thood6]

it's starting to sound like some of you just want to drive buzzed. argue all you want, but no one has to drive after they've been drinking. if you can't get back home from the bar without driving, stay the flocc home. too tired to drive, then don't drive. can't stay off your cell phone while driving, then quit floccing driving. too bad all the fancy arguing couldn't bring all the dead back from the incidents.

I think anyone who has said anything against the law has prefaced it by saying something like "I am against drunk driving". The points they are making is that the overall effect would be largely negative.

The overall effect on bar business is hugely negative. Someone already mentioned the liability issue with serving someone past the legal limit of intoxication. Now that limit is .05? A point where some people show no effects and get there after one drink?

I think they are just making a point that as a society, MADD has made us crazy to where now one beer and then driving is awful. It's obviously not ideal but until they cut down on other less ideal driving circumstances I don't want to hear it. Anything from elderly people with reduced reactio time, to people messing on their phone, to people driving angry or tired is potentially worse than driving after a beer.

I don't need to speak for them as they can do it themselves but to characterize us as just wanting to drive drunk is not the point I want to hold. In fact I think that to really cut down on this drunk driving issues it should be a 2-3 strikes and your out policy. I have coworkers who have 5 dwi's and still have a vehicle and license. That is INSANE. They are the issue. Crappy drivers in general. It's not just alcohol.


Rant done.

 

[motobrewer]

Looking up the source of this statistic, it turns out that based on a survey of approx 7000 people, it is estimated that about 4 million adult Americans would admit to having driven, "when they had perhaps too much to drink." It is not clear to me how they extrapolate from that 4 million people to 112 million incidents. I can come up with several ways, but can't determine exactly how they did.

All quite valid statistics, but I'm not sure we can reliably decide that there were 112 million legal violations based on the language of the survey question.

I would also point out that while these statistics can support the view that 99 out of 100 drunk driving incidents are not caught, an equally valid interpretation is that about 1 in 3 drunk drivers were caught. (1.4 out of 4 million.)

that's a fair assessment.

i guess I was more agreeing with his point that we need to enforce the law we have.

in wisconsin, the DUIsituation is ridiculous. people with 5 DUIs are still on the road. the penalty here is very minimal.

 

[unionrdr]

Another thing to concider is that driving is a privledge,not a right.

 

[Zuljin]

It's not about drunk vs buzzed driving. There's even a PSA going around now about that. Some guy gets in a DUI wreck and his girlfriend is lying in the hospital near death. He says he wasn't even drunk. He was just a little buzzed. When he says that, his girlfriend makes a miraculous recovery. He's all like, What!? Really!? And the doctors says, no, and she dies on the spot. Then the PSA announcer comes on and tells you buzzed driving is drunk driving. It'd be foolish to argue for driving while just a little drunk.

One reason we have a BAC limit is that everybody knows different people get different drunk on different amounts of booze. So'k, we have a limit. One limit to rule them all. Fine. Great. .08. Leave it there.

We shouldn't feel paranoid or be prohibited from driving after having a drink or two at the bar, beer fest, diner, homebrew club meeting, concert, friend's house or whatever else. If one wants that as their personal standard, fine. Great. The entire rest of the country is not going to abide. People are going to have a drink or two somewhere and drive. And they're going to be just fine to do it. There's no good reason to make a law against doing something that isn't damaging.

Now, regardless of one's feelings toward the police. Love em, hate em, you are them, F da police; whatever. We must understand that driving in a car is damn near a free pass for the police to stop and investigate us. We must be careful with how much more power is given there.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

I'm going to say that while I think the idea that one has a right to drive impaired (no matter what their choice in footwear might be) is ridiculous, I also think some of the open container laws in vehicles are ridiculous. In college we used to return empties to the store for spending money (we were rather broke) and on one occassion we were pulled over for no seatbelt. The trooper was actually pretty cool, let us off with a warning on the seat belt and the several hundred open containers in the lawn and leaf bag in the back seat, but I was absolutely shocked to find out that we could have gotten a ticket for each and every one of them. Thats absurd.

 

[Varmintman]

BAC laws are kind of silly at least for me. I brewed last night and after the first beer I was buzzed. It was a low gravity beer and I had eaten a nice dinner. It just goes to show that alcohol will hit you differently sometimes.

If I feel to buzzed I do not drive pure plain and simple. And drunk driving never no matter what BAC I am at

 

[bobmcstuff]

Here it's .08, and .05 in most of the rest of Europe.

Personally I won't drive if I've had more than one beer, I'm not really sure how that relates to blood alcohol but I don't feel any different after one drink of (average strength) beer compared to normal. I also tend to try and leave it as long as possible after drinking, say an hour or so, if I can.

I'd guess that .05 or .08 are below the level where most people would feel "buzzed" anyway, but that would depend on the person - maybe you yanks are all lightweights

 

[TopherM]

then quit floccing driving

I love the juxtoposition of curse words and brewing terms! It's floccing awesome!

Back on topic, though. Can you imagine a world where a responsible bartender serves you ONE Stone Ruination (or insert your favorite imperial here), then cuts you off, because they don't want the liability of overserving you? Or a world where you can go sue the bar because they served you two pints of beer with lunch prior to your "drunk driving" accident.

Everyone just needs to be completely honest and recognize that this proposal has nothing to do with the practical public good. It's a mix of political correctness run amuck and the new police politics where revenue matters much more than public safety.

This 0.05 business smells an awful lot like the RED LIGHT CAMERA endevour to me, and red light cameras have been proven to do exactly TWO things:

#1 Cause more accidents and injuries
#2 Produce millions in revenue for local police

When the police are selling the idea of red light cameras to the public, they do it under the guise of public safety, just like they will with this 0.05 thing, but in the end, it's all about #2 (pun intended)

They started the red light camera experiment here in my town about a year ago. Rear end accidents are up big time. The fee to fight a red light camera ticket is also conveniently about $50 more than the ticket itself. Tricky.

When a reporter asked the chief of police "What are your goals for the red light cameras for 2013," the chief answered "We hope to increase revenue by 20%." Think about that a second. A Public Safety organization that wants violations to increase over time. The more people running lights, the better.

THAT is what this 0.05 business is about. The police want to increase violations. They are making it so that drunk driving violation are in their best interest as an organization! They have people who work from them that are responsible for figuring out new ways to legally make drunk driving incidents INCREASE. They might as well just give out free beer coupons at XX bar, then stake out the joint.

Think about it. When it comes down to it, that's what all this is about, and you are literally giving up civil liberties under the illusion of public safety in order to increase police revenue.

Don't fall for it! This proposal isn't about drunk driving or public safety! As with most political agendas, just follow the money!

 

[emjay]

BAC laws are kind of silly at least for me. I brewed last night and after the first beer I was buzzed. It was a low gravity beer and I had eaten a nice dinner. It just goes to show that alcohol will hit you differently sometimes.

If I feel to buzzed I do not drive pure plain and simple. And drunk driving never no matter what BAC I am at

There's no doubt some people can drive (mostly) just fine with .08 BAC. But BAC is a necessary standard. Field sobriety tests are failed by completely sober people all the time.

 

[emjay]

I love the juxtoposition of curse words and brewing terms! It's floccing awesome!

Back on topic, though. Can you imagine a world where a responsible bartender serves you ONE Stone Ruination (or insert your favorite imperial here), then cuts you off, because they don't want the liability of overserving you? Or a world where you can go sue the bar because they served you two pints of beer with lunch prior to your "drunk driving" accident.

FFS, enough with the alarmism. None of that is happening with .08 so it has no relevance in the argument against .05. Bartenders can and regularly do serve people well past .08... they don't generally know if you have a DD, are taking public transit or cab, or are in fact driving.

 

[kombat]

Not to drift too far off topic, but to the "revenue" point, there may be a higher-level conspiracy to fleece otherwise innocent folks who've made the mistake of having 1 beer then driving home, there certainly isn't buy-in from the front line police officers.

Police officers despise doing drunk driving stops. I've been on a couple of ride-alongs, and if a report comes in about a possible drunk driver, the officers do their best to find another, closer call they can be dispatched to and avoid getting stuck with the drunk driving call.

The problem is that there is so much paperwork and red tape involved in dealing with a drunk driving charge that it takes the officer off the road for the rest of their shift. It literally takes several hours. It's total drudgery for the officers. They'd much rather be chasing down real bad guys.

 

[TopherM]

None of that is happening with .08 so it has no relevance in the argument against .05. Bartenders can and regularly do serve people well past .08... they don't generally know if you have a DD, are taking public transit or cab, or are in fact driving.

It's the letter of the law, and SHOULD be happening if the law were seriously enforced. The only reason it's not happening today is because the letter of the law isn't practical to real life in most cases, and THAT is only magnified by this 0.05 business.

 

[+HopSpunge+]

Someone should add the poll thing to the top of this thread. For or against this dumb law.

 

[widsith]

Part of the disagreement here may stem from differing state laws. Moto above points out that in WI the penalties are quite minimal. In others they are fairly draconian: NJ for example is a 3 month suspension and thousands of $ in fines mandatory for the first offence with a BAC less than 0.10. By the third, you are spending 180 days behind bars and losing your license for 10 years. NYC confiscates your car.

What gets me is the disproportionality of it. Speeding 15mph over the speed limit increases your risk of accident equivalent to a 0.08 DUI, but one is 4 points on your license and the other is 3 month suspension, $thousands in fines and a possible 30 day jail sentence. The first is off your record in 2 years, the second follows you around for 10. Im all for making the roads safer, but when actions that increase your and others risk similarly are treated so differently, I start to suspect Neo-Puritanism rather than actual concern for safety.

 

[Jayhem]

The problem is that there is so much paperwork and red tape involved in dealing with a drunk driving charge that it takes the officer off the road for the rest of their shift. It literally takes several hours. It's total drudgery for the officers. They'd much rather be chasing down real bad guys.

Maybe some cops are different but our state troopers would rather write up equipment violation tickets than stop real bad guys like wreckless drivers or DUI's.

They go after citations that they are sure won't involve a court appearance. It's free money and an easy addition to their monthly quota.

Yes I was pulled over for no front tag while driving the speed limit and being passed by a Cadillac that was going 25 over the speed limit. To serve and protect means targeting those who are a danger to society, not cherry picking the easy citations.

State trooper rant over.

 

[weirdboy]

What gets me is the disproportionality of it. Speeding 15mph over the speed limit increases your risk of accident equivalent to a 0.08 DUI, but one is 4 points on your license and the other is 3 month suspension, $thousands in fines and a possible 30 day jail sentence. The first is off your record in 2 years, the second follows you around for 10. Im all for making the roads safer, but when actions that increase your and others risk similarly are treated so differently, I start to suspect Neo-Puritanism rather than actual concern for safety.

MADD has a better lobby and more politically acceptable message than the people who want to prevent speeding or driving while using your cell phone. Drinking is already associated with "sinful" behavior so it's an easy sell.

 

[fuzzy2133]

Maybe MADD needs to add another D?

MADDD - Mothers Against Driving Drunk & Distractions

 

[Jayhem]

MADD has a better lobby and more politically acceptable message than the people who want to prevent speeding or driving while using your cell phone. Drinking is already associated with "sinful" behavior so it's an easy sell.

Yup, not everyone drinks but almost everyone uses a cell phone in the car.

 

[Xpertskir]

Field sobriety tests are failed by completely sober people all the time.

Field sobriety tests are designed for failure to allow the real end goal, a breath test.

 

[motobrewer]

Even safety groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and AAA declined Tuesday to endorse NTSB’s call for a .05 threshold

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4471a8-bc6a-11e2-b537-ab47f0325f7c_story.html

 

[unionrdr]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4471a8-bc6a-11e2-b537-ab47f0325f7c_story.html

Maybe because that's the level they're driving home at?!

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Id also like to bring up the point that people who are impaired seldom think they are until they are falling or have the spins. My wife caught me repeating a story from work that I had already told her about an hour before last night, and that was on two cocktails. Obviously I was too impaired to drive, but almost everything else was working as normal.

Look, I dont know if .05 is too low or not. Since I dont drive, and I was too paranoid to have even one drink and drive when I was driving, I really dont have too much of a dog in the fight... but the idea that its one's god given right to drink a couple beers and get behind the wheel even if it means they are putting others in danger is asinine.

 

[weirdboy]

Wow, I didn't notice this bit before:

Even safety groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and AAA declined Tuesday to endorse NTSB’s call for a .05 threshold. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which sets national safety policy, stopped also short of endorsing the board’s recommendation.

When even MADD and AAA are like, "Nah, that sounds a bit extreme" you KNOW you are fighting an uphill battle.

 

[1fast636]

Not to get off subject in a way but I would love to sit at a MADD event or what ever they do and right down how many drive In With a a phone to there ear or texting. I ride a motorcycle and the way distracting driving is any more is ridiculous I watch at least 10 car a day distracted and its scary. But just to confront the MADD memebers that I can be killed by you on your phone just like your little johny was killed by a drunk driver maybe they would consider adding that extra d to the end and realize that is the problem now a days

 

[ChemistBrewer]

Should it happen no! Will it happen yes! because the Feds will eventually force the states to do it through highway funds. The Citizens will also support it under the guise of safety. This is just another way to whittle away at liberty and demonize alcohol consumption.

The only people they will get off the streets will be overwhelming law abiding citizens that are just out having a few casual drinks. It will hurt the bar/restaurant business and drive drinking inside the home to become more clandestine.
When the limit dropped from .10 to 0.08 it criminalized a whole other segment of the population that normally wouldnt be breaking the law. Its statistically proven that most accidents involving alcohol that result in injury or death happen when the driver has a greater than .10 BAC.
In addition speeding kills more people than any other traffic violation combined but you dont hear anyone wanting to attach such strict punishment to it.

 

[PistolsAtDawn]

Maybe MADD needs to add another D?

MADDD - Mothers Against Driving Drunk & Distractions

What about MADVDA - Mothers Against Double Va... you know what? Never mind. :cross:

I'm against lowering the limit to 0.05 because this isn't going to solve any problems. Those that are going to drive after drinking are going to drive after drinking regardless of the law.

You can't legislate morality into people. They have to choose to act in a different manner for themselves. Granted, some laws do help some folks to choose differently, but I see more public harm than good coming from this.

 

[Clonefan94]

Not to drift too far off topic, but to the "revenue" point, there may be a higher-level conspiracy to fleece otherwise innocent folks who've made the mistake of having 1 beer then driving home, there certainly isn't buy-in from the front line police officers.

Police officers despise doing drunk driving stops. I've been on a couple of ride-alongs, and if a report comes in about a possible drunk driver, the officers do their best to find another, closer call they can be dispatched to and avoid getting stuck with the drunk driving call.

The problem is that there is so much paperwork and red tape involved in dealing with a drunk driving charge that it takes the officer off the road for the rest of their shift. It literally takes several hours. It's total drudgery for the officers. They'd much rather be chasing down real bad guys.

Right, but most officers I've talked to are in a catch 22 with this issue. They don't make the laws, they just enforce them. "How do we get more revenue" is rarely in any police officers job. Ask most of them, they didn't get into police work to give out tickets. It's the policy makers that are pushing these issues and it's usually for the sake of making a few extra bucks, because they are the onese worried about budgets and revenue.

On the other hand, you probably aren't going to see any police come out against any drunk driving laws or changes to them that tighten the limits. For one they know they are working against a strong lobby, so they can't come out and say, "Hey, we think drunk driving is fine where it is." because more than likely, MADD and the policy makers will turn that on them to more of a "They don't care" stance to get their side the support. Plus, the police are probably being sold the same lines we are. That dropping the limit will reduce incidents, therefore, reducing your time dealing with it. Which, and this is just my opinion, I just don't see happening.


People choose to drink and drive on how they feel, not what their Blood alcohol level is. People may cut back a little, but almost no one ever knew what they BAC was anyways before they left the bar and they still chose to drive. I just don't see that changing because they lowered the level a little.

I just wish we could find a solution that actually led to results, as opposed to shifting limits and toting that as a solution. If BAC really worked, then no one would ever be caught with more than about .08 as their level. It would be just a couple of people who misjudged their limit and made a mistake. But that's not it, too many are causing damage and death at 2, 3 times the limit. That says to me the number .08 doesn't really mean anything. There are just too many people that believe they can do whatever they want, when they want and nothing bad will ever happen.

 

[Beernik]

Wow, I didn't notice this bit before:

When even MADD and AAA are like, "Nah, that sounds a bit extreme" you KNOW you are fighting an uphill battle.

Utah's chapter of MADD has been in the paper endorsing this. On the other hand, 3 or 4 years ago they were on board with creating a State database of people who order alcohol at restaurants and bars.

Prohibitionism hasn't died here yet.