.05 Blood Alcohol Limit for Driving?

[bob1852]

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

Anyone else bothered by this statement?

A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has estimated that 7,082 deaths would have been prevented in 2010 if all drivers on the road had blood alcohol content below .08 percent.

To me it's as hypothetical as saying "7,082 traffic deaths would be eliminated if no one drove."

I mean, do they seriously think that the changing the law to 0.05 is going to prevent anyone above that from driving?

 

[fosaisu]

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.

I don't get this argument. Would you go on to say there's no point in having laws against murder because those that are going to murder are going to murder regardless of the law? Of course it's true that no matter how severe and sure the punishment someone will always break the law (there were more than 16000 homicides in the US last year even though it's illegal to kill people). But I think most people would agree that any law that is enforced has at least some degree of deterent effect. Of course if the law is never enforced (like state laws requiring self reporting and payment of online sales taxes due) then almost no one will comply.

It's another question whether shifting from .05 to .08 makes sense -- you'd have to balance the number of lives likely saved vs. cost of implementation and impinging on people's right to enjoy a drink at a bar/restaurant.

But I do think if you change the law, you'll change people's behavior. Will the people who were already breaking the .08 limit continue to do so if it drops to .05? Of course. Will at least some of us who currently attempt to obey the .08 BAC limit by having only the X drinks an hour that we believe keeps us under .08 keep doing exactly what we've been doing if the limit goes down (and probably end up somewhere between .05 and .08 in the process)? Absolutely. But speaking personally, if I know that doing what I'm doing now might line me up for tens of thousands in fines and fees, and the temporary loss of driving privileges, I'm going to start having one beer instead of two at happy hour. I think lots of others would do the same.

 

[fosaisu]

I mean, do they seriously think that the changing the law to 0.05 is going to prevent anyone above that from driving?

Do you seriously think that the threat of jail, tens of thousands in fines, and loss of a driver's license (and potentially your job if you need your license to work) isn't going to change at least some people's behavior? Plenty of people will still have a drink or ten before they drive even under a zero tollerance regime, but plenty of others would change their behavior if the penalties are sufficient and enforcement is sufficiently probable, whether or not they agree with the policy arguments behind the law. I know I would!

 

[bob1852]

Do you seriously think that the threat of jail, tens of thousands in fines, and loss of a driver's license (and potentially your job if you need your license to work) isn't going to change at least some people's behavior?

Between 0.05 and 0.08?

I think the responsible ones have already made that choice that a DUI at any level isn't worth it.

I don't feel that changing it from 0.08 to 0.05 is going to cause already irresponsible risk taking people to change their driving behaviors.

 

[PistolsAtDawn]

I don't get this argument. Would you go on to say there's no point if having laws against murder because those that are going to murder are going to murder regardless of the law? Of course it's true that no matter how severe and sure the punishment someone will always break the law (there were more than 16000 homicides in the US last year even though it's illegal to kill people). But I think most people would agree that any law that is enforced has at least some degree of deterent effect. Of course if the law is never enforced (like state laws requiring self reporting and payment of online sales taxes due) then almost no one will comply.

This isn't an apples to apples comparison, but thanks for the sensationalism. Obviously I'm advocating abolishing laws against murder.

Have you run for political office yet?

It's another question whether shifting from .05 to .08 makes sense -- you'd have to balance the number of lives likely saved vs. cost of implementation and impinging on people's right to enjoy a drink at a bar/restaurant.

Yeah, if you believe that there is a statistically significant level in harm reduction by further dropping the legal limit. Over and over and over in this thread alone there have been plenty of statistics quoted that the most harmful drivers are those over .10, so dropping the legal limit to below that will accomplish something. It's already there. No need to drop it further.

But I do think if you change the law, you'll change people's behavior. Will the people who were already breaking the .08 limit continue to do so if it drops to .05? Of course. Will at least some of us who currently attempt to obey the .08 BAC limit by having only the X drinks an hour that we believe keeps us under .08 keep doing exactly what we've been doing if the limit goes down (and probably end up somewhere between .05 and .08 in the process)? Absolutely. But speaking personally, if I know that doing what I'm doing now might line me up for tens of thousands in fines and fees, and the temporary loss of driving privileges, I'm going to start having one beer instead of two at happy hour. I think lots of others would do the same.

Yes, moral people will obey the law but nobody else. And as I said, you can't legislate morality into people. It isn't the moral, law-abiding folks that are the problem to begin with.

So I reiterate: such a change in the legal limit will bring more cons than pros.

 

[Magic8Ball]

We are proposing to tighten the BAC so that a 140 lbs female cant even have a single beer and drive. However we have legalized (medical ha) pot with no legal THC threshold in many states for operating a motor vehicles. That blows the stupid meter!

 

[McBrewskie]

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.

Hannity should care since he's a belligerent mick alcoholic.

 

[McBrewskie]

Don't drink and drive, yeah that's just smart, but this **** is more about government taking money out of mofo's pockets. Cops will stake out nice restaurants and pull people over at random knowing that hey this poor bastard probably had a glass of wine with his dinner and at .05 I'll get to **** him up the ass to make quota!

 

[bob1852]

Cops will stake out nice restaurants and pull people over at random knowing that hey this poor bastard probably had a glass of wine with his dinner and at .05 I'll get to **** him up the ass to make quota!

Without cause for a stop will easily get thrown out in court. Doesn't matter if he's drunk as a skunk. That's why many DUI charges never result in conviction. It doesn't matter if you're above the limit; it's due process that matters.

And quotas are a thing of the past.

 

[McBrewskie]

Without cause for a stop will easily get thrown out in court. Doesn't matter if he's drunk as a skunk. That's why many DUI charges never result in conviction. It doesn't matter if you're above the limit; it's due process that matters.

And quotas are a thing of the past.

Bull, cops make excuse up all the time for cause. Your word against a cop with any traffic stop and you lose. Quotas may be a thing of the past but I guarantee you they are leaned on like a mother ****er to write as many tickets as possible to increase local funds.

 

[Zuljin]

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!

Oh those damn cameras! Half the time they are just flashing people like some kinda perv in a trench-coat.

But yeah, follow the money. And look for the real agenda. All the cards aren't laid out at once.

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

I've become so much more aware of what people (and myself) do in cars since getting on a bike. I can usually tell what they are going to do before they move their car. It's like some kind of ESP.

 

[Magic8Ball]

I was off on the numbers it takes two drinks in one hour for a 140 lbs female to hit .05. If you want to see what it would take for you, see the charts here:
http://bloodalcoholcalculator.org/bac-charts/

 

[fosaisu]

Between 0.05 and 0.08?

I think the responsible ones have already made that choice that a DUI at any level isn't worth it.

I don't feel that changing it from 0.08 to 0.05 is going to cause already irresponsible risk taking people to change their driving behaviors.

I guess that begs the question of who the "irresponsible risk taking people" are. If that's anyone that has anyone with any alcohol in their system when they drive, then you'd need to go zero tolerance. The point of having a BAC limit at all is to say the law is going to presumptively view anyone who exceeds that limit as an "irresponsible risk taker" (and that means that some of us who are now technically law abiding when we drive after two beers would be transformed into "irresponsible risk takers" if the legal limit changes to .05 or zero and we don't change our behavior).

Whenever you make a new law some people will go on doing what they were doing before. But if it's enforced and if it's painful, some people will change their behavior to comply. I'm no criminologist but I think the research would back me up that most laws that meet these two criteria have some level of deterrent effect.

 

[McBrewskie]

I was off on the numbers it takes two drinks in one hour for a 140 lbs female to hit .05. If you want to see what it would take for you, see the charts here:
http://bloodalcoholcalculator.org/bac-charts/

That cannot be right. I'm 200 lbs and male and if I drank 5 beers in an hour I'd be significantly ****ty beyond .08.

 

[bobmcstuff]

That cannot be right. I'm 200 lbs and male and if I drank 5 beers in an hour I'd be significantly ****ty beyond .08.

The definition of a "drink" appears to be quite a low ABV...

But yeah, me too!!

 

[fosaisu]

Yes, moral people will obey the law but nobody else. And as I said, you can't legislate morality into people. It isn't the moral, law-abiding folks that are the problem to begin with.

So I reiterate: such a change in the legal limit will bring more cons than pros.

And I have to respectfully disagree with you again about the way people respond to changes in the law. It's a question of basic human behavior that's as applicable to jaywalking as it is to murder. The whole point of punishment is to deter "immoral" people (people who disagree with the policy and aren't going to comply with it just because it's written down somewhere) from acting in the way they otherwise would. If the punishment is sufficiently unpleasant and the law is enforced then some people will "fall in line" to avoid punishment rather than because it is the "right thing to do." And you will drive down the rate of the "undesireable" behavior, which is presumably why the law was passed in the first place.

As to your pro/con point, I'm definitely not convinced that the benefits of dropping to .05 outweigh the costs. That seems like a point worth discussing. But I simply don't buy the argument (as must be plain since I keep sqwaking about it) that making changes in the law is pointless because some people would never change their behavior no matter what punishment will result. Simply doesn't square with my understanding of human nature, which is that most people don't like being punished and will take steps to avoid it!

 

[bob1852]

Bull, cops make excuse up all the time for cause. Your word against a cop with any traffic stop and you lose. .

I'm sorry you're so skeptical of the justice system. I know at least a dozen people charged with DUI, but not convicted, because the judge felt like there wasn't cause for a stop.

I know at least a dozen cops that I've asked why they don't just sit outside the college bars and pull over everyone leaving. They respond that they have a lot better stuff to do with their patrol time than to get involved with questionable illegal stops.

 

[McBrewskie]

The definition of a "drink" appears to be quite a low ABV...

But yeah, me too!!

Ah good point. Their definition of beer is yellow, fizzy, slightly higher ABV than water, and 12 oz. So they are thinking Bud while I am thinking imperial pints and real beer.

 

[fosaisu]

The definition of a "drink" appears to be quite a low ABV...

But yeah, me too!!

Agreed, those charts are generally looking at a 12 oz can of 4-5% BMC, while many of us are enjoying 14-20 oz "pints" of 7% IPAs at a local bar or brewery. Makes a difference!

[EDIT: McBrewskie posted almost exactly the same thing while I was typing this, so well said McBrewskie!]

 

[McBrewskie]

I'm sorry you're so skeptical of the justice system. I know at least a dozen people charged with DUI, but not convicted, because the judge felt like there wasn't cause for a stop.

I know at least a dozen cops that I've asked why they don't just sit outside the college bars and pull over everyone leaving. They respond that they have a lot better stuff to do with their patrol time than to get involved with questionable illegal stops.

I see we live in different states. You live in Arizona where you are given the benefit of the doubt that at most times you act like a responsible adult. I live in California where the philosophy is if you drink, smoke, or hunt that you're evil.

 

[Magic8Ball]

That cannot be right. I'm 200 lbs and male and if I drank 5 beers in an hour I'd be significantly ****ty beyond .08.

5 drinks in a hour, you are 200 lbs male you would be at .09 But for every 40 min after you start you can subtract .01% sooo that's .08 ish. You are legally drunk

 

[McBrewskie]

Agreed, those charts are generally looking at a 12 oz can of 4-5% BMC, while many of us are enjoying 14-20 oz "pints" of 7% IPAs at a local bar or brewery. Makes a difference!

[EDIT: McBrewskie posted almost exactly the same thing while I was typing this, so well said McBrewskie!]

Ha. I got new pint glasses the other day that are 20 oz and I had a couple of days where I was thinking, "man I had 3 beers list night, why do I feel like I'm slightly hung over?" Turns out those 20 oz pints of 7% IPAs will do that.

 

[McBrewskie]

5 drinks in a hour, you are 200 lbs male you would be at .09 But for every 40 min after you start you can subtract .01% sooo that's .08 ish. You are legally drunk

If I drink 5 beers in an hour and decide to drive I can guarantee I am gonna Monty Clift the heck out of myself and some other poor bastard.

 

[Magic8Ball]

If I drink 5 beers in an hour and decide to drive I can guarantee I am gonna Monty Clift the heck out of myself and some other poor bastard.

Who is Monty Clift?

 

[McBrewskie]

Who is Monty Clift?

Actor from the 40s and 50s who got in a horrible car accident that completely crushed his face.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Clift

 

[bob1852]

I see we live in different states. You live in Arizona where you are given the benefit of the doubt that at most times you act like a responsible adult. I live in California where the philosophy is if you drink, smoke, or hunt that you're evil.

Like I mentioned in the other thread - you're in California, you're fecked!

 

[Magic8Ball]

Actor from the 40s and 50s who got in a horrible car accident that completely crushed his face.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Clift

You win for the movie actor reference that I should know but don't because I killed that brain cell with a IPA. But I have seen him in so many movies. Wow tragic.

 

[TrubHead]

Why not set the limit to .005 ? That way joe blow, politicians, cops, etc probably won't chance being pulled over then traffic will be reduced and gas supply increases.

 

[McBrewskie]

Why not set the limit to .005 ? That way joe blow, politicians, cops, etc probably won't chance being pulled over then traffic will be reduced and gas supply increases.

Alright hands behind your back son, gonna have to take you downtown for driving under the influence of NyQuil.

 

[TrubHead]

Alright hands behind your back son, gonna have to take you downtown for driving under the influence of NyQuil.

Forgot to mention that attorneys would absolutely love this.