.05 Blood Alcohol Limit for Driving?

[thood6]

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

Congress doesn't have the authority. Doesn't mean they can't make it happen. Just like they did with the national drinking age and the national speed limit. Bye bye 10th Amendment

 

[RyeGuy]

I understand dot does and would try that. I'm just saying they shouldn't an the states should stand up and say, no were a sovereign state and we're not sending you your precious tax money

 

[kombat]

I'm just saying they shouldn't an the states should stand up and say, no were a sovereign state and we're not sending you your precious tax money

Great idea! Who's first?

 

[CreamyGoodness]

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.

You bring up some interesting points, but truly, I think this (like most if not all laws) is a measure to keep law abiding citizens from engaging in a certain behavior. Criminals and scoff-laws will likely still not follow the law (the very definition of criminal) but the soccer mom who had 2 glasses of sangria for the first time in 6 months and now plans to drive her kids home will think twice. The thing is, the soccer mom is as likely as the criminal to cause an accident and cause grievous bodily harm to herself or others. Maybe, arguably, even more so, seeing as a repeated drunk driver is more practiced at staying between the lines.

Just think, Im sure there has been at least one instance in your life that you were a micrometer from punching that one *******'s teeth down his throat... he sure would have deserved it... and the only reason you didnt was because of the legal trouble you would have gotten into.

Speaking to your last point, I honestly dont see that happening. I just dont. We are in a country that will put you in jail for 20 years for having a little baggie of drugs, but then give your kids back to you more or less the moment you get out of jail. Nevermind that your kid was using hypodermics instead of darts to play cricket when they arrested you.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Great idea! Who's first?

Going out on a limb and guessing South Carolina. Always goes swimmingly.

 

[MNDan]

There is a lot of BS in the news release, with quoted statistics that are in no way correlated with alcohol. For example - "The number of alcohol-related highway fatalities, meanwhile, dropped from 20,000 in 1980 to 9,878 in 2011, the NTSB said." Well, the overall incidence of traffic deaths dropped from 52,000 in 1980 to 32,367 in 2012, and that combined with a change in how they classify "alcohol-related death" equates to no change at all in the number of deaths as they relate to alcohol. It's sad that we have to let outliers like the members of MADD set public policy. I'd be crazy, too, if my child died.

This is the article I'm referring to:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol/index.html

 

[xjmox14x]

There is a lot of BS in the news release, with quoted statistics that are in no way correlated with alcohol. For example - "The number of alcohol-related highway fatalities, meanwhile, dropped from 20,000 in 1980 to 9,878 in 2011, the NTSB said." Well, the overall incidence of traffic deaths dropped from 52,000 in 1980 to 32,367 in 2012, and that combined with a change in how they classify "alcohol-related death" equates to no change at all in the number of deaths as they relate to alcohol. It's sad that we have to let outliers like the members of MADD set public policy. I'd be crazy, too, if my child died.

This is the article I'm referring to:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol/index.html

I suppose next you're going to tell me that global warming is not due to the decrease in pirate population?!?!

Of course, sarcasm aside, I'm with you. Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[billl]

I'm sure MADD is never going to admit it, but none of the laws they pushed have had any impact on drunk driving fatalities. Since we dropped the limit to 0.08 nationwide, the percent of alcohol related traffic fatalities has stayed constant.

That really should have been an obvious result, but everyone wanted to "get tough" on drunk drivers. The problem is that the vast majority of drunk driving deaths are caused by people at over 0.24. These people have absolutely no business behind the wheel, but are too drunk to make a rational decision. Arresting a bunch of people at 0.08 has no impact on the people above 0.24. ie the dangerous ones. Likewise, arresting people in the 0.05 to 0.08 will have no impact on fatalities.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Im not sure I fully agree that someone at .24 is dangerous and 0.08 is not. If my reaction time is slowed, it is slowed.

 

[Desvio]

The news was covering this the other day talking with the local PD, funny thing was the police were against the change to .05 due to the increases it would cause across the board. However they backed it up by saying you can still blow a .05 and if you are visibly intoxicated, you will be arrested. And sure, a good lawyer can get you off that one, but you are still going to be forking our a ton of money in legal fees, impound, and others regardless.

 

[billl]

"Im not sure I fully agree that someone at .24 is dangerous and 0.08 is not. If my reaction time is slowed, it is slowed."

Statistically, 70% of fatalities are the result of people with over a 0.24. The rest peters out very quickly. Almost none of the fatalities are caused by people at 0.08. You are as likely to get struck by lightning than to die in a "drunk" driving accident with someone blowing a 0.08 let alone a 0.05.

 

[rdann87]

Cant say i'de be too happy about that.

I understand the reasoning, but as someone young, who lives in a somewhat remote area... Taxi's arent really a possibility.

Last time i took a cab, it cost like 50 bucks each way... and it was gross.

I'de much rather just be mature and monitor my intake... or call a friend if I've had too much.

 

[unionrdr]

To be honest,it's not too much of a problem for me anymore. They outlawed smoking in public places a few years ago,including bars. So I quit going. Now I only drink when I know my day of runnin around is done.

 

[fosaisu]

Statistically, 70% of fatalities are the result of people with over a 0.24. The rest peters out very quickly. Almost none of the fatalities are caused by people at 0.08. You are as likely to get struck by lightning than to die in a "drunk" driving accident with someone blowing a 0.08 let alone a 0.05.

Since it sounds like you've looked at the stats, how many deaths are caused by drivers at 0.08 (or between .08 and .05) every year? If it's actually less than lighthing strikes (evidentenly there were 28 of those in the US in 2012), that's a pretty good argument against lowering the limit.

According to the CNN article, NTSB thinks dropping from .08 to .05 would save 500-800 lives a year.

 

[djt17]

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!

Where do I vote for post of the year!

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Seriously, if you think its your right to drink and drive continuing to talk to you on the subject is a complete waste of time.

 

[billl]

"Since it sounds like you've looked at the stats, how many deaths are caused by drivers at 0.08 (or between .08 and .05) every year? If it's actually less than lighthing strikes (evidentenly there were 28 of those in the US in 2012), that's a pretty good argument against lowering the limit.
"

Just to clarify, I wrote struck by lightning, not died from lightning. 400 or so americans get directly struck by lightning per year and someone around 30 die.

About 3000 of the drunk driving fatalities are caused by people under 0.24. I haven't seen a breakdown by individual points (just over/under), but even assuming a completely flat distribution, that would be 3000/16=188 at 0.08. The reality is certainly less than that since someone at 0.23 would be more likely to get in an accident then someone at 0.08. Those fatalities also include the driver themselves and something like a third of all those wrecks are just drivers running off the road and hitting a tree or lamppost etc. So anyway, we are talking about a very small number of incidents per year. We should all be leery of sending potentially hundreds of thousands of people to prison in the hope that some of those hundred or so people might decide not to drive.

 

[fosaisu]

Seriously, if you think its your right to drink and drive continuing to talk to you on the subject is a complete waste of time.

I have to agree with this. It makes sense to me to have a debate about what the BAC level should be set at to presume someone's too impared to drive and whether preventing an estimated X number of accidents a year is worth the change from .08 down to .05 (which impinges on people's freedom to have an extra beer before they drive, may lump less and more serious offenders together in undesirable ways, and will cost money to implement). But if you are opposed to any restriction on drinking and driving, then presumably you're also opposed to the entire concept of driving restrictions, meaning 5 year olds, alzheimer's patients and blind people should have unrestricted access to the road, and the "nonimpaired" drivers will just have to be extra careful to avoid them.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

"Since it sounds like you've looked at the stats, how many deaths are caused by drivers at 0.08 (or between .08 and .05) every year? If it's actually less than lighthing strikes (evidentenly there were 28 of those in the US in 2012), that's a pretty good argument against lowering the limit.
"

Just to clarify, I wrote struck by lightning, not died from lightning. 400 or so americans get directly struck by lightning per year and someone around 30 die.

About 3000 of the drunk driving fatalities are caused by people under 0.24. I haven't seen a breakdown by individual points (just over/under), but even assuming a completely flat distribution, that would be 3000/16=188 at 0.08. The reality is certainly less than that since someone at 0.23 would be more likely to get in an accident then someone at 0.08. Those fatalities also include the driver themselves and something like a third of all those wrecks are just drivers running off the road and hitting a tree or lamppost etc. So anyway, we are talking about a very small number of incidents per year. We should all be leery of sending potentially hundreds of thousands of people to prison in the hope that some of those hundred or so people might decide not to drive.

I get the stats and I get that blowing a point 05 or a point 08 might mean that person A is drunk as a skunk while person B is still sober as a lord. I get that BAC its not a one size fits all solution. Ive heard of college kids experimenting in order to gather data for thesis papers on the subject and blowing WAY over the legal limit and still passing sobriety tests that they developed themselves (dealing cards, walking straight lines, reciting the alphabet backwards, jumping on one foot, that sort of thing).

BUT....

How DO we set the bar for who is impaired and who isnt? .24 is a pretty high bar. Most people at .24 can barely walk, nevermind drive.

 

[daksin]

Ultimately, this is supposed to be about reducing the number of people hurt or killed in drunk driving accidents, and I think ultimately it's not going to do that.

Less than 6% of alcohol-related fatalities involved a driver with a BAC lower than 0.08, and almost none with BAC of 0.05 or below.

As for other countries, lowering the BAC limit has had mixed (read: statistically insignificant) success. I'll see if I can find some data on that, though.

Bar owners and alcohol manufacturers are going to be against it, so I'll be a little surprised if it actually goes through, but who knows? 0.05 is actually a pretty common number.

I'm personally concerned about my own liability as the owner of a beer tasting room. I know for myself (quick alcohol metabolism, very high body weight), although I would never get behind the wheel if I had been drinking, or ever suggest anybody else doing it, I can barely tell when I'm at 0.05 and, as Yooper mentioned, could probably pass a field sobriety test at 0.08.

Here are the descriptions of impairment levels at 0.05 and below:

BAC .02
Drinkers begin to feel moderate effects.
BAC .04
Most people begin to feel relaxed, mildly euphoric, sociable, and talkative.
BAC .05
Judgment, attention, and control are somewhat impaired. Ability to drive safely begins to be limited. Sensory-motor and finer performance are impaired. People are less able to make rational decisions about their capabilities (for example, about driving.)

If I can't judge 0.05% in myself, where I know my personal variables, how in the world am I supposed to judge 0.05% in the customers I'm serving? There's very little apart from making your customers blow a breathalyzer that can make that determination, and I can't see that being good for business.

That's a big risk for me, because if I "overserve" someone who has 2 glasses of beer in an hour and then runs into a bus, I could be held liable. People at 0.08 are usually visibly impaired, but 0.05 is a much thinner line to walk as a server.

 

[rgauthier20420]

In the state of Illinois, you can be arrested if the officer smells alcohol on you, you fail a field test, or fail and breathalizer test. The .08 specifically applies to the Sec of State suspending your license and for what amount of time. You can be convicted and found guilty of a DUI if your ABV is at or above a .05.

Generally, 1 beer, one 1.5 shot, one glass of 4oz of wine will equal .02 worth of ABV.

Advice.....plan ahead and just do drive.

Now ask me why I know all this ****!

 

[rgauthier20420]

You are as likely to get struck by lightning than to die in a "drunk" driving accident with someone blowing a 0.08 let alone a 0.05.

I think I'd rather be hit by lightning than a ******* that doesn't know that he shouldn't be driving. BTW, a .05 can make 1 guy/girl fall over and the next guy/girl be just fine. The problem is there's no way to specifically pander this type of law to everyone so they are only able to put a line across the board.

However, it has been medically proven that the ABV levels deteriorate specific parts of our motor functions and judgement regardless of how "Drunk" we feel.

 

[widsith]

As one tweet I saw put it: DUI levels have gone from Mid-Morning Lindsay Lohan to Buzzed and are now contemplating Minimum Necessary To Speak to Some Relatives.

 

[fosaisu]

Just to clarify, I wrote struck by lightning, not died from lightning. 400 or so americans get directly struck by lightning per year and someone around 30 die.

About 3000 of the drunk driving fatalities are caused by people under 0.24. I haven't seen a breakdown by individual points (just over/under), but even assuming a completely flat distribution, that would be 3000/16=188 at 0.08. The reality is certainly less than that since someone at 0.23 would be more likely to get in an accident then someone at 0.08. Those fatalities also include the driver themselves and something like a third of all those wrecks are just drivers running off the road and hitting a tree or lamppost etc. So anyway, we are talking about a very small number of incidents per year. We should all be leery of sending potentially hundreds of thousands of people to prison in the hope that some of those hundred or so people might decide not to drive.

As I posted a second ago I don't automatically assume that a drop from .08 to .05 makes good policy sense -- it would have to be supported by evidence suggesting that it really would save enough lives to justify the costs (adminstrative costs of punishing drivers in the .05-.08 zone, but also the intangible cost of loss of freedom on those who follow the new rules and don't enjoy a beer they might have otherwise).

I took a look at the NTSB report just now (located here). They cite some studies showing some elevation in the risk of crashes between .05 and .08 BAC (1.38x more likely to get in a crash at .05, rising to 2.69x more likely at .08), and an 8%-12% drop in traffic deaths in several places that went from .08 to .05 BAC limits. But I didn't see specific stats on deaths caused by drivers between .05 and .08 BAC.

I followed your math above and don't question that most deaths are caused by the severely impaired drivers (i.e. above ). But I do wonder if it necessarially follows that there are fewer and fewer at the lower end of the spectrum (e.g. if drivers at .1 are much more dangerous than drivers at .05, but there are many more drivers at .05 on the road, it's possible the drivers at .05 could be causing a similar number of accidents). At any rate, using NTSB's estimate of 500-800 saved lives a year (which I understand you may not agree with) you'd be looking at a 5%-8% reduction in drinking-related deaths.

They mention that Canada has lesser penalties (civil fines rather than criminal) for driving between .05 and .08 BAC. I still don't know if I see a need for the change but I would support a tiered punishment approach (in the same way that many states have stiffer punishments for super-high BACs now, they could have lesser punishments for low-end infractions).

 

[fosaisu]

As one tweet I saw put it: DUI levels have gone from Mid-Morning Lindsay Lohan to Buzzed and are now contemplating Minimum Necessary To Speak to Some Relatives.

That's an awesome tweet. Of course some other relatives require mid-morning Lohan intoxication levels to interact with ...

 

[TopherM]

Here are the descriptions of impairment levels at 0.05 and below:

Quote:
BAC .02
Drinkers begin to feel moderate effects.
BAC .04
Most people begin to feel relaxed, mildly euphoric, sociable, and talkative.
BAC .05
Judgment, attention, and control are somewhat impaired. Ability to drive safely begins to be limited. Sensory-motor and finer performance are impaired. People are less able to make rational decisions about their capabilities (for example, about driving.)

The problem is this same chart likely had the same text with higher BAC numbers on it 20 years ago, and 20 years from now, those numbers will have magically lowered again.

No one condones drunk driving, but there are civil liberties issues all over this proposal. It's a slippery slope!

 

[emjay]

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?

How absurd. Talking on the phone handsfree is no different than talking to a passenger. Yeah, I think people can manage.

Going out on a limb and guessing South Carolina. Always goes swimmingly.

I'm not even American but this was funny

 

[lemy]

Agreed! My 96 year old grandmother drives every day. I can be smashed beyond control and still drive better than her. They really go too far on this stuff and there a lot of cops who take advantage of the system.

The problem is this same chart likely had the same text with higher BAC numbers on it 20 years ago, and 20 years from now, those numbers will have magically lowered again.

No one condones drunk driving, but there are civil liberties issues all over this proposal. It's a slippery slope!

 

[kombat]

Im not sure I fully agree that someone at .24 is dangerous and 0.08 is not. If my reaction time is slowed, it is slowed.

So people should only get behind the wheel if they are certain they are at 100%? Well-rested, mentally focused, haven't taken any sleep aids in the past 72 hours, no radio or cell phone in the car? After all, if you're reaction time is slowed, it's slowed, right?

 

[kombat]

In the state of Illinois, you can be arrested if the officer smells alcohol on you

It's 2013. You can be arrested for ANYTHING.

Welcome to the Post-9/11 World. Police can arrest you for whatever they want, whenever they want. They might not decide to charge you with anything, and cut you loose, but they can stop, detain, and arrest you just because the mood strikes them.

If you object, well, I hope you've got your lawyer on speed-dial, 'cause you just earned a pair of Resisting Arrest and Obstruction of Justice charges.