.05 Blood Alcohol Limit for Driving?

[kombat]

Talking on the phone handsfree is no different than talking to a passenger.

Absolutely false. It's completely different.

A passenger sitting next to you has context. They will instinctively pause the conversation during maneuvers that demand more attention, such as when you're merging onto the highway. Someone on the other end of the phone, however, well badger you with "Hello? Emjay? Are you still there? HELLOOOOOO?"

There are many studies that prove that the problem with cell phones and driving isn't the hand (otherwise how would people manage to drive manual transmissions, or ever change the radio station?), it's with the increased cognitive demands imposed by having a conversation with someone who can't tell when you need to focus.

 

[emjay]

Absolutely false. It's completely different.

A passenger sitting next to you has context. They will instinctively pause the conversation during maneuvers that demand more attention, such as when you're merging onto the highway. Someone on the other end of the phone, however, well badger you with "Hello? Emjay? Are you still there? HELLOOOOOO?"

There are many studies that prove that the problem with cell phones and driving isn't the hand (otherwise how would people manage to drive manual transmissions, or ever change the radio station?), it's with the increased cognitive demands imposed by having a conversation with someone who can't tell when you need to focus.

Yes, that's why I give a polite "hold on" before doing anything that needs focus. If they're talking, you can ignore it just like the song you're singing along to (which is apparently okay). No different than talking to a kid who has no idea WTF is going on on the road.

 

[fosaisu]

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?

Like you say, if your reaction time is slowed, it's slowed! We all do countless things that make us less than perfect drivers, or have conditions that make us worse drivers than others might be. Some we ban entirely (kids aren't allowed to drive), some we limit (no cell phones but you can use a bluetooth headset or talk to your passenger), and some we ignore (driving on insufficient sleep). It's all somewhat arbitrary, just like most other laws relating to driving (why is the speed limit 65 instead of 60 or 70?) or anything else for that matter (why is the voting age 18 instead of 16 or 20?).

I think the point is that if you're going to regulated drinking and driving at all you have to draw the line somewhere. Unless you draw it extremely high you'll probably be punishing at least a few folks that are not noticeably impared, and unless you draw the line at or near 0 you will presumably be letting some folks who are impared drive (though since the .08 is only a legal presumption, police can still arrest you for impared driving if you have a low BAC but can't walk the line). Given that, it's just a question of weighing the costs (loss of freedom, administrative and social costs of administering punishment) against the benefits (expected savings in life/injury/property damage) of a particular BAC limit.

You could make the same argument for rest/focus/cough medicine use -- I'd imagine some of these are a significantly greater hazzard than lower levels of alcohol consumption, but they'd also be quite hard to measure effectively, unlike BAC (which would definitely matter to the police and prosecutors trying to enforce the laws).

 

[LeBreton]

I'm against this and also against drunk driving.

70% of drunk driving fatalities involve drivers with a BAC above 0.15.

This is typical political pandering. It's better politically to look tough on symptoms than do any real work on the cause of the problem.

 

[Weizer]

according to the national news tonight. 4 1/2 beers will put a 160lb man @ .080 and 2 beers will put him @ .050 and then they said something like deaths have decreased by 50% in the Netherlands with a .050

Your BAC is entirely dependent on how many beers you have in an allotted amount of time. You could have 4.5 beers in an hour and be over the legal limit, where as 4.5 beers over 4 hours you could be fine.

I generally have 2-3 pints and then grab beer to go, and take the back roads home. No worries about even getting harassed.

I do agree with King Bubba though. What exactly are they trying to achieve? They might as well make it zero tolerance.

 

[SharonaZamboni]

There are many studies that prove that the problem with cell phones and driving isn't the hand (otherwise how would people manage to drive manual transmissions, or ever change the radio station?), it's with the increased cognitive demands imposed by having a conversation with someone who can't tell when you need to focus.

Yes, that's why I give a polite "hold on" before doing anything that needs focus. If they're talking, you can ignore it just like the song you're singing along to (which is apparently okay). No different than talking to a kid who has no idea WTF is going on on the road.

I don't use the phone while driving because I can't focus on the conversation!

 

[Heavywalker]

I don't think it will do a damn thing to deter people from driving after a beer or two, those that do already will keep doing it and those that don't won't.

The people driving around with a .05 BAC are not the ones causing accidents. If they really want to go down this path of stupidity they might as well just get it over with and make it zero tolerance.

 

[Avocet]

I'm sorry but this is a cross between grandstanding politicians trying to drum up support (much like the calling most hunting rifles "assault weapons") for spineless do-gooders and the Nanny-State libs telling us we can't order a 32oz pepsi in NYC.

I myself am responsible for what I consume-soda-beer-Jack Daniels-red meat-whatever. I thought the move from .010 to .080 maybe 20 years ago was a pandering cop-out to begin with. It's about personal responsibility folks. If you're honked-if your tipsy-if you buzzed-just don't drive. And don't put yourself into situations where you could.

Biggest thing that chaps my ass--I continually see some jack-ass, and I see it in the paper maybe 2-3 times a month-- some guy with 7 DUI's and license revoked since 1998---this is the guy who takes out a family of 5 --and we all wring our hands--"why wasn't this bastard UNDER the jail???"

Well why wasn't he? Pose that question to the cops, to the courts, to the criminal lawyers--then get back to me will ya??

 

[CreamyGoodness]

I'm sorry but this is a cross between grandstanding politicians trying to drum up support (much like the calling most hunting rifles "assault weapons") for spineless do-gooders and the Nanny-State libs telling us we can't order a 32oz pepsi in NYC.

I myself am responsible for what I consume-soda-beer-Jack Daniels-red meat-whatever. I thought the move from .010 to .080 maybe 20 years ago was a pandering cop-out to begin with. It's about personal responsibility folks. If you're honked-if your tipsy-if you buzzed-just don't drive. And don't put yourself into situations where you could.

Biggest thing that chaps my ass--I continually see some jack-ass, and I see it in the paper maybe 2-3 times a month-- some guy with 7 DUI's and license revoked since 1998---this is the guy who takes out a family of 5 --and we all wring our hands--"why wasn't this bastard UNDER the jail???"

Well why wasn't he? Pose that question to the cops, to the courts, to the criminal lawyers--then get back to me will ya??

Brohim, you had some really good points that I agree with, but you used words like "Nanny State" and "libs" and my favorite meaningless meaningful term "personal responsibility" and I basically tuned out. Think about that.

The language we use effects how others react to us.

 

[Shred]

the Nanny-State libs telling us we can't order a 32oz pepsi in NYC.

I myself am responsible for what I consume-soda-beer-Jack Daniels-red meat-whatever. I thought the move from .010 to .080 maybe 20 years ago was a pandering cop-out to begin with.

Maybe it's my .09 BAC or maybe it's because I happen to be from a Nanny-State, but this doesn't really make sense to me.

Last I checked .010 was 8 times lower than .080.

 

[corkybstewart]

Tne bottom line in NM and I bet most other states is that the arresting officer has complete discretion. If you're weaving and only test at .04 they can still arrest you.

 

[Avocet]

Yeah man meant .10 down to .08

Creamy-if I simply said "I don't need Big Brother any more involved in my life" does that work for ya? Cuz ultimately-that's the heart of it to me.

 

[seigex]

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

They do this by denying states money through the NTSB and other agencies.. basically "if you don't do what we want with regard to the BAC, you will lose a revenue stream." This is what happens when the states are in bed with the fed gov't.... and btw, the 10th Amendment has been gone since the FDR days...

 

[Shred]

I drvie think i can bettr durnk ne way n textng at the sme time. Comg get me offersir! :rockin:

 

[billl]

"I think I'd rather be hit by lightning than a ******* that doesn't know that he shouldn't be driving. "

With all due respect, that is a stupid position. Dead is dead.

" But I do wonder if it necessarially follows that there are fewer and fewer at the lower end of the spectrum "

Well, if you don't believe that increased alcohol consumption leads to increased impairment, then any policy other than zero tolerance would be illogical. Of course, 0.01 vs .24 is HUGE difference, so there has to be some middle ground.

Personally, I think we have already overshot the middle ground. 0.08 is too low. Most people aren't really threats to the public safety at that level. You can say they are 38% more dangerous than an non-dangerous person, but that still is a tiny, tiny risk. We are talking about 1 in 30 million. If you move that to 1 out of 20 million, it still isn't significant.

 

[NewBrewB]

Japan is .01

Then again, they have the public transportation, taxis, etc to back it up.

 

[Avocet]

Man I have to respect the civil and highbrow (well-mostly!!!) banter on this very galvanizing question. Seems to me most homebrew devotees I have met are a bit brighter and a whole lot more thoughtful and introspective than about any other board I've been on.

Well except those ---nah just kiddin' man!! lol!!!

And believe it or not-just as I type this-some local bozo with BAL of .040---but a bellyful of Xanax-is charged with a DUI after taking out 3 good people Christmas Eve.

I am willing to bet this SOB has had a fistful of priors too....I will try and find out.

 

[widsith]

Your BAC is entirely dependent on how many beers you have in an allotted amount of time. You could have 4.5 beers in an hour and be over the legal limit, where as 4.5 beers over 4 hours you could be fine.

I generally have 2-3 pints and then grab beer to go, and take the back roads home. No worries about even getting harassed.

I do agree with King Bubba though. What exactly are they trying to achieve? They might as well make it zero tolerance.

AIUI, one can absorb about 1 drink an hour. Most of the time they quote #drinks to BAC, it's in two hours. So if you take three hours, add one drink, if four hours, add two, etc.

 

[emjay]

.08 is the legal limit in Ontario (though roadside breathalyzers only actually register a fail at .10)

However, .05 is also a significant number. The breathalyzers register a "warn" above that. If the cop has cause to believe you're impaired and you get a "warn", your license gets suspended for three days. No courts, no jail time, no arrests, and no fines - but obviously your vehicle could get towed and impounded at your cost.

I don't mind the compromise.

 

[Billy-Klubb]

I still don't see what the argument is about. if you're ingesting anything that can impair your ability to drive, then don't drive.

 

[kombat]

However, .05 is also a significant number. The breathalyzers register a "warn" above that. If the cop has cause to believe you're impaired and you get a "warn", your license gets suspended for three days. No courts, no jail time, no arrests, and no fines - but obviously your vehicle could get towed and impounded at your cost.

I'm also in Ontario and I don't understand this new law.

Is the limit 0.08 or is it 0.05? Is it OK to drive at 0.05 or not? If it's not, then let's just make the limit 0.05. Why the two limits? Is it only bad to drive at 0.05 if I get caught? And why do the police - in this one, narrow instance - get the discretion to act as judge, jury, and sentencer, without any due process whatsoever? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Why do I lose my license for 3 days if I blow a 0.05? Is it illegal or not?

 

[kombat]

I still don't see what the argument is about. if you're ingesting anything that can impair your ability to drive, then don't drive.

The argument is because that's an impractical, black-and-white position to take.

If you're going to take such an absolutist stance, then you cannot limit it to merely products you "ingest." You must include anything that impairs your ability to devote anything less than 100% attention to your driving. Including cough medicine, inadequate sleep, being in an aggravated state, passengers, cell phones, radio in the car, food in the car, and so on and so forth.

After all, all of those things "impair" your ability to drive, to at least a minor degree. Therefore a position such as yours would suggest they should all be eliminated from driving, which, again, is simply impractical.

We accept that some degree of impairment is OK. As it turns out, very few accidents are caused due to the "impairment" of having a radio or a passenger in the car, so we accept those. It also turns out that very few accidents are caused due to the slight "impairment" of having a small amount of alcohol in your system. So we accept it (up to a limit of 0.08% BAC, which as it turns out, is actually pretty darn buzzed).

It's about being practical. People want to be able to have a glass of wine or a beer with dinner, and it turns out the risk of letting them do so is negligible, so it's OK.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

The argument is because that's an impractical, black-and-white position to take.

If you're going to take such an absolutist stance, then you cannot limit it to merely products you "ingest." You must include anything that impairs your ability to devote anything less than 100% attention to your driving. Including cough medicine, inadequate sleep, being in an aggravated state, passengers, cell phones, radio in the car, food in the car, and so on and so forth.

After all, all of those things "impair" your ability to drive, to at least a minor degree. Therefore a position such as yours would suggest they should all be eliminated from driving, which, again, is simply impractical.

We accept that some degree of impairment is OK. As it turns out, very few accidents are caused due to the "impairment" of having a radio or a passenger in the car, so we accept those. It also turns out that very few accidents are caused due to the slight "impairment" of having a small amount of alcohol in your system. So we accept it (up to a limit of 0.08% BAC, which as it turns out, is actually pretty darn buzzed).

It's about being practical. People want to be able to have a glass of wine or a beer with dinner, and it turns out the risk of letting them do so is negligible, so it's OK.

Thing is it IS pretty black and white. If you are knowingly not able to drive for whatever reason, and you cause harm to another, you are liable for it. Havent slept in 48 hours and slam into the guy in front of you at a red light? Youre liable. Have had one too many and hit a kid at a crosswalk? You are liable. Texting with the old lady and slam into a telephone pole and the electric goes out in the surrounding area? You are liable. There are no shades of grey here.

What IS up for debate is just how much is too much, and if a brewdog or two and a burger would make the average person a dangerous driver.

 

[Jayhem]

Sounds like a cash cow for the government to me.

In no way is making the limit 0.05 instead of 0.08 going to decrease the number of drunk drivers on the road.

Personally I have a cop friend who let me use his breathalizer one night just to get an idea how many drinks it takes to blow over and after 1 big beer breathalizing within 15 minutes is >.08! I'm sure a blood test would say otherwise but the point is if you just have a beer or two and have a BAC of maybe 0.03 you may still blow over the limit if you hit a checkpoint as soon as you leave the restaurant.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Sounds like a cash cow for the government to me.

In no way is making the limit 0.05 instead of 0.08 going to decrease the number of drunk drivers on the road.

Personally I have a cop friend who let me use his breathalizer one night just to get an idea how many drinks it takes to blow over and after 1 big beer breathalizing within 15 minutes is >.08! I'm sure a blood test would say otherwise but the point is if you just have a beer or two and have a BAC of maybe 0.03 you may still blow over the limit if you hit a checkpoint as soon as you leave the restaurant.

Again, THIS is an actual argument. The level they are proposing does not necessarily coincide with impairment or drunkedness. The idea some have brought up that this is just a way for the scary government to take away my rights isnt an argument.

 

[Jayhem]

Again, THIS is an actual argument. The level they are proposing does not necessarily coincide with impairment or drunkedness. The idea some have brought up that this is just a way for the scary government to take away my rights isnt an argument.

at 0.05 most people who drink in moderation often would be 100% functional. That's like 2 miller lites for me.

I remember reading a study of the effect of BAC on different people. On an alcoholic 0.05 is what he needs just to function normally! To someone who doesn't drink, they are stumbling around @ 0.05 BAC.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

I just dont see what a better indicator of impairment would be. Field tests leave a lot of discretion to the officer(s) on the scene, breath tests can vary wildly (I've heard of bad breath spray making someone fail a breath test, even though the subject wasnt truly impaired.) With BAC you have a more hard and fast reading.

The most responsible thing, for one's own self preservation if nothing else, is to either drink nothing before driving or to monitor your consumption and wait after your last drink. If you havent slept for a protracted period of time, get some rest before you drive. Do nothing with your hands that isnt driving. Don't text, dont hold a cell phone, don't fondle your wife's knee and keep your screwing with the radio to an absolute minimum. This is pretty simple stuff, and has nothing to do with people's rights. Its my "right" to have a reasonable expectation that I can cross the street at a walk sign to get a get a cup of coffee and not have some yahoo plow into me because he's talking to his mother in law on his smart phone.

 

[unionrdr]

at 0.05 most people who drink in moderation often would be 100% functional. That's like 2 miller lites for me.

I remember reading a study of the effect of BAC on different people. On an alcoholic 0.05 is what he needs just to function normally! To someone who doesn't drink, they are stumbling around @ 0.05 BAC.

This is true. An alcoholic drinks to get normal. Normal people drink to get buzzed & happy. I remember that one from AA years ago. Although there are happy drunks as well as obnocious drunks. Weight & metabolism def come into play. but that's a whole lot harder to measure with some portable device in the field...atm anyway.

 

[kombat]

Thing is it IS pretty black and white. If you are knowingly not able to drive for whatever reason, and you cause harm to another, you are liable for it.

Right, but you're talking about two different things.

You don't seem to be recognizing that there is a big difference between being "not able to drive" and "not at 100%."

There are many factors that can cause your driving ability to be less than 100%. That does not mean you are not still safe to drive.

If you believe people should only drive when they're 100% focused, then you're saying that cell phones, radios, food, and passengers should all be illegal in cars. It's just not practical. We accept that people will drive when they are at somewhat less than the peak mental acuity. That does not mean they are "not able to drive."

 

[Jayhem]

I just dont see what a better indicator of impairment would be. Field tests leave a lot of discretion to the officer(s) on the scene, breath tests can vary wildly (I've heard of bad breath spray making someone fail a breath test, even though the subject wasnt truly impaired.) With BAC you have a more hard and fast reading.

The most responsible thing, for one's own self preservation if nothing else, is to either drink nothing before driving or to monitor your consumption and wait after your last drink. If you havent slept for a protracted period of time, get some rest before you drive. Do nothing with your hands that isnt driving. Don't text, dont hold a cell phone, don't fondle your wife's knee and keep your screwing with the radio to an absolute minimum. This is pretty simple stuff, and has nothing to do with people's rights. Its my "right" to have a reasonable expectation that I can cross the street at a walk sign to get a get a cup of coffee and not have some yahoo plow into me because he's talking to his mother in law on his smart phone.

If we crack down on BAC then we need to crack down on distracted driving. Distracted driving is easily a greater problem than DWI as the #1 cause of motor vehicle fatalities. It should be jail time if you cause an accident while texting or even talking on a non-hands free device. It should be a primary offense if you are caught eating, reading, putting on makeup, etc. while driving.