.05 Blood Alcohol Limit for Driving?

[highgravitybacon]

When you've seen a person split into 10 pieces with their intestines hanging out like ropes across the interstate thanks to a drunk driver, your opinion changes. I've seen that any many other things drunk drivers have done to people. It's really eye opening.

Texting and messing with the phone are just as bad, if not worse, in terms of distraction potential. But that's another story.

 

[BrewerBS]

I say that if its going to .05 may as well make it no tolerance. Lets make it black and white and see how much the accident and death numbers change? The police can't handle the # of DWI's that are being discovered now. How are they going to arrest that many more with a lower threshold? Have the death numbers really dropped from the .10 to .08 move? The only thing I see changing with a lower BAC is more DWI's.

 

[BrewerBS]

Dear fellow brewers: The politically correct are slowly making your pastime/hobby illegal, WHAT? So lets look at the case of tobacco smoking in the US. Once accepted, then tolerated, then contained, and now ostracized and illegal in most places. Tobacco suffered a death of a thousand cuts. Brothers, we need to police our own, but we need to watch what the politically correct spin out our way. .05 is silly We need to enforce existing laws. No easy passes. No winks, no nudges, just the facts. .05 is just a way of making law abiding folks criminal. There is no data, there isnt a study to back it up, just a bureaucrat opining, SAY NO!

Listen if you can, the magic 8 ball has spoken.

I don't think they're trying to make it illegal. That was already tried once.....and it didn't work for very long. They are making it illegal for you to enjoy your hobby a lot and then go and endanger everybody's life that is on the road with you. You can smoke all that you want when you are in your own vehicle, house or yard where you aren't endangering others. Unfortunately it's the person that has a few beers over a few hours and gets in his car to drive that is going to get hit if the BAC drops. The a-holes that drive hammered all the time probably won't change one bit. Kinda like how it's the guns fault......

 

[Accidic]

When you've seen a person split into 10 pieces with their intestines hanging out like ropes across the interstate thanks to a drunk driver, your opinion changes. I've seen that any many other things drunk drivers have done to people. It's really eye opening.

Texting and messing with the phone are just as bad, if not worse, in terms of distraction potential. But that's another story.

Live in a Doctor or Nurse's family and you guarantee the above. I've also seen several instances where seat belts took lives and the petson not wearing them survived but it doesn't mean I think seat belt laws should be eliminated. BAC reduction from .08 to .05 is said to reduce fatalities by 1-3% according to some estimates and as much as 11-16% by some of the more bold predictions. The problem I have with this is the presumed predictions (regardless of which you believe) never attribute any of the reduction to improvements in car safety. This matched with inability to differentiate the true cause of wrecks (i've seen, albeit only once, an officer write up an accident as being due to an intoxicated driver when the two blown tires looked to be a far more likely cause). I still think the, bigger portion is to perpetuate further fearmongering and the additional revenue potential but being fair, that may vary state to state.

Gotta agree on the texting tho. Can't see how that can be done safely. I still wonder about radios and cigarettes as a catalyst tho.

 

[bobmcstuff]

Texting while driving is illegal here. They get you under "driving without due care and attention".

Speaking of other catalysts, I was knocked off my bike (pedal not motor) by a woman with a young child in the back, she was distracted by the kid and pulled out right in front of me without looking. Had I sustained any serious injuries (I escaped with scratches and bruises) or been of particularly libellous nature I could have pressed charges against her as well. But it's not like you can legislate for kids in the back seat.

 

[Accidic]

You could actually. The backlash is what they're afraid of. Driving impaired by alcohol is much easier to legislate, however, and while I'm not saying you might not save an occasional life, I can't help but wonder how many lives you'll ruin of people who were legitimately not impaired enough to hinder their ability to drive safely. And I'm not buying the "If it just saves ONE life" argument when there are countless other distractions costing greater than that one life that they're blatantly ignoring.

In the tone of fun catalysts though... I once had a lady hit me because there was a police officer handling a wreck up the street with the lights on his cruiser on. The lady was watching the officer down the street and drove her car straight into the turning lane as if to merge after an oncoming car passed which would have been fine had I not been in it waiting to turn into that parking lot. I simply couldn't get out of her way fast enough.

 

[Accidic]

You can smoke all that you want when you are in your own vehicle, house or yard where you aren't endangering others.

If you want to engage in a fun exercise, ask a mechanic just how many cars he repairs with seats that appear to be freshly burned (not weathered, no dust in the burn, etc). My father kept a log of those for a HS project I did years ago and at least back then the sample showed very nearly 20% of all wrecks (sample size 318 over the fall/early-winter months). Don't get me wrong, it's not guaranteed as the cause of the accident but I'm curious how much attention you'd be paying to the road if you dropped a lit torch into your lap. Heck, I won't ride with one of my very best friends to this day as he tried to kill us in exactly that situation several times when I was younger.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

I miss driving like I miss my virginity (ie. not one iota).

If I trusted the 11% number, which I honestly dont, I would be a lot less wishywashy about the whole thing. 11% fewer fatalities? No brainer. Thing is I think the reduction in fatalities (and accidents on a whole) will be annecdotal at best.

Once again, much like much of the gun control legistlation that has been discussed, I think this movement is well-meaning but misplaced and mistaken. I DON'T think there is some sort of conspiracy from the state and local politicians and police forces to ruin lives while collecting tax revenue. And this is coming from me, a dedicated cynic.

 

[befus]

I think the issue is largely political. When someone registers .008 they are not a danger to themselves or anyone else. The guy driving down the wrong side of an interstate who hits a. family of 6 returning from vacation is not .008. People in an accident at the lower level are people who had a drink and had an accident, not caused an accident. I am 64 and those under 40 could probably be at .01 and have faster reaction time than I completely sober, and I am not a danger behind the wheel. It is just a way for prosecutors and local law enforcement to generate press.Just my opinion.

 

[PistolsAtDawn]

But it's not like you can legislate for kids in the back seat.

I believe you can and they have: careless/reckless driving and endangerment laws, not just to you and the driver but to the child. Unfortunately, I don't think those laws are enforced enough to make them truly effective.

This has been a really good thread so far. I've enjoyed reading everyone's take on this issue.

At least one poster here mentioned that our driving tests are far too easy to pass. I have to agree with this. In my state at least, we next-to-never have to retake any test at the DMV. Charleston has become a hard place in which to drive. I think that's from the culture clash we're experiencing (as in Charleston is now a "destination city" for most people and I get lots astonished responses when I tell people, "Actually, I was born here.").

You have some families here who've lived here for generations upon generations. They're not in any hurry as all of their family members are within a short drive, or they just have that relaxed, Southern attitude about not being in a hurry all the time (as opposed to the "hurry up" nature of many Northerners). Those people are a problem because they are inconsiderate to everyone else (as in they drive far below the speed limit, becoming a hazard in the process).

And then you have the rest of the country mingling with the native population. That brings in a lot of different - an opposing - driving styles. The person in a huge hurry darts around those who aren't and puts everyone in danger. This is a FAR bigger problem in Charleston than drunk driving. Granted, I think most of the drivers here are reasonably okay, but far too many are not.

So I'm in favor of revamping our laws regarding tests for drivers licenses as I believe that we're far too lax about that and far too many careless/aggressive/inconsiderate/brain dead drivers are on the road who will never have to retake that drivers test. One of them (driving on an already-suspended license, no insurance, car wasn't hers as well as the loaded gun in the car that wasn't hers) totaled my car back when I was 18 and permanently injured my left hand. She spent one night in jail. One. How is that not a more flagrant disregard for the law than a DUI?

 

[Accidic]

I think the issue is largely political. When someone registers .008 they are not a danger to themselves or anyone else. The guy driving down the wrong side of an interstate who hits a. family of 6 returning from vacation is not .008. People in an accident at the lower level are people who had a drink and had an accident, not caused an accident. I am 64 and those under 40 could probably be at .01 and have faster reaction time than I completely sober, and I am not a danger behind the wheel. It is just a way for prosecutors and local law enforcement to generate press.Just my opinion.

I wish my grandfather could say the same. That man scares the @#$% out of me behind the wheel and of course... It's everyone else's fault. There is a very real issue with younger female drivers in this particular area however. It's like they flip a coin and decide they're either going to follow you at 60-70mph 10 feet from your bumper, or they have an utter fear of being passed in which they'll speed up to re-pass you then slow back down. It's like they've turned into 16 year old boys or something.

I'd most definitely advocate tougher driving tests though but then again I personally also believe drivers should be required to test with Manual transmissions rather than Automatics. But as my life was saved once by a manual transmission I'm a little biased.

 

[DrunkleJon]

I held off until today from reading this thread. I honestly was expecting a much larger S-show and far more accusational posts. Congrats on keeping it civil all.

Alcohol, like guns and personal privacy are, in my opinion, all of the same cloth when it comes to polotics and polite conversation. I see people who have never held a gun advocating banning them. I, being a computer guy who has a 'healthy level of paranoia' about being tracked online, constantly get asked the question "If you are doing nothing wrong, why do you have a problem with it?". This lowering of the requirement seems to me to be in the same vein.

I agree with both sides. Yes, this will not stop those that habitually drive over the limit from changing their practices one iota. If they are over the limit now, they will still be over the limit when it is lower. No question there. True, no one should drive impared (regardless of what it is due to). The problem with the whole thing is self identification. I am sorry, when I have a few I am unable to know "Okay, I have had X beers of Y abv in Z oz servings over the pasn N hours which were all equally spaced out with not having had a drink in P amount of time. Since I weigh L, I am now officially under the limit and okay to drive." Hell, I can't do that math now in my head.

The biggest problem is that public education of the problems is not efficient. You can ask anybody if they should drive drunk and they will say no. The problem lies in where people realize learn their limits and where they fall on the scale. As many have said before, after a dinner with a beer or 3, where is my intoxication level? I may feel below the limit, but still fail the tests.

My personal opinion is that before considering this, we need to fix our existing rules about it. No tolerance for repeat offenders. Period. Especially if someone is injured due to the drunks actions. I would also support tiered punishment levels for those just over through those blatantly over the limit. If i have 1 too many and get a DUI why should I not get a lesser punishment than somone who is a 4 time offender who ran into someone's house?

And lastly, I saw an amazing posting in the mens room at a local bar last year. It was a cab service, ilbeit one that costs a little more, that comes with 2 people. One drives you home, and the other drives your car home for you. Brilliant. Your car gets home so that problem is solved (and no towing or parking tickets from those parking enforcement Nazis), and so do you, and that to me makes it worth the little extra.

 

[Paps]

Not to split hairs, but the cop can't lie on a breath test. The on-scene breath-test is probable cause only and needs to have printouts from the breathalyzer machine and is only used for probable cause to arrest. The evidentiary one taken later needs to have printouts too, though typically blood or urine are taken because they are more accurate and hold up better in court.

You obviously have not spent time in Indiana.Sure maybe what you say holds true in California but i have been arrested for P.I. (on my own private property) from strictly the reading of the field officers breathalyser.When being `booked` i asked to be tested by the machine at the jail of which the officers denied me. A persons best bet is to avoid LEO's like the pluage.

 

[DrunkleJon]

You obviously have not spent time in Indiana.Sure maybe what you say holds true in California but i have been arrested for P.I. (on my own private property) from strictly the reading of the field officers breathalyser.When being `booked` i asked to be tested by the machine at the jail of which the officers denied me. A persons best bet is to avoid LEO's like the pluage.

I have been told by some boys in blue that you are 'technically' in public if you can be seen from public property (read, the road). I also seem to remember a news report from 9-10 years ago or so where a woman was pulled off a bar stool and breathalyzed and arrested for drunk in public. technically she was in public. The current alcohol laws really need to be fixed before they start saying the fix for something like this is a lower BAC.

 

[seigex]

You obviously have not spent time in Indiana.Sure maybe what you say holds true in California but i have been arrested for P.I. (on my own private property) from strictly the reading of the field officers breathalyser.When being `booked` i asked to be tested by the machine at the jail of which the officers denied me. A persons best bet is to avoid LEO's like the pluage.

Public Intoxication and DUI in California are two different things and hold two different extremes for punishment. Technically in California you can be arrested for drunk in public as long as you are in public view and you are "unable to care for yourself" (647(f) PC):

PC 647 (f) Who is found in any public place under the influence of
intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any
combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, controlled substance,
or toluene, in a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care
for his or her own safety or the safety of others, or by reason of
his or her being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any
drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any
intoxicating liquor, drug, or toluene, interferes with or obstructs
or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public
way.

no breathalyzer results are needed and can be based purely off of the officer's observations. This arrest in CA is typically for when someone fights, or is causing problems and the police had been called on the person and they are taken in for detox and never filed on. Not sure about the details of your case though or whether you took it to trial or not if you were charged.

DUI is under much more scrutiny and officer's observations are not enough to pass the test, and would not be filed on if it didn't include any evidentiary breathalyzer. And that doesn't change the fact that the officer's breathalyzer still can't be manipulated unless he is using one he purchased no the internet and not one provided by his department.

 

[seigex]

I have been told by some boys in blue that you are 'technically' in public if you can be seen from public property (read, the road). I also seem to remember a news report from 9-10 years ago or so where a woman was pulled off a bar stool and breathalyzed and arrested for drunk in public. technically she was in public. The current alcohol laws really need to be fixed before they start saying the fix for something like this is a lower BAC.

Bars are specifically identified in California as a place where you have to be able to care for yourself. Cops do "bar checks" all the time to make sure nobody is causing a ruckus, and a bartender is required to cut off patrons who are "obviously drunk" out of fear of losing their licenses.

 

[DrunkleJon]

Bars are specifically identified in California as a place where you have to be able to care for yourself. Cops do "bar checks" all the time to make sure nobody is causing a ruckus, and a bartender is required to cut off patrons who are "obviously drunk" out of fear of losing their licenses.

Oh I agree, you should be able to control yourself. This was not in CA, but it came out that the woman had one or two glasses of wine and the police officer said that they received reports that she was dancing on the barstools and taking her shirt off. The woman was still barely over the driving limit. Of course this is all what I remember from 10 years ago so I may be wrong.

 

[Paps]

Well like i had mentioned the laws are probably different from California To Indiana.
Certain states that i don't care for their laws i avoid,California is one such state and they get to lose out on any funds that they would get from my tax $$ or other things i `would` have bought while there.(my small version of the `free market` in action)

 

[seigex]

My problem isn't with the cops, in general they are just people doing their job to the best of their ability like anybody else. My problem is with the legislature. As long as we keep electing people who create ridiculous laws and we don't don't fight the laws we find ridiculous (like seatbelt laws), they will continue to walk all over us.

 

[TrubHead]

I have been told by some boys in blue that you are 'technically' in public if you can be seen from public property (read, the road). I also seem to remember a news report from 9-10 years ago or so where a woman was pulled off a bar stool and breathalyzed and arrested for drunk in public. technically she was in public. The current alcohol laws really need to be fixed before they start saying the fix for something like this is a lower BAC.

As I posted before lowering BAC appears to be monetarily motivated and political.

Here are a couple of article links where select police officers "abuse" their authority (DUI) at the expense of certain individuals. After reading, I'm cautious about drinking outside my residence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/lisa-steed-utah-state-trooper-fake-dui-arrests_n_2740623.html

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/23/5286298/ex-sacramento-police-officer-pleads.html

 

[shyanny]

I'm a DWI attorney, the difference between .08 and .05 is about 1.5 beers in an hour, on average. As noted earlier, the real issue isn't blood alcohol level, it's enforcement. Being "tough" on DWI is great for the politicians to talk about, but in general, the law is not "brought down" on anyone, unless you kill someone. It's highly unlikely you'll face jail time on even your 2nd DWI as long as no one was hurt or killed. They can make it .05 or .08 or .02, but it only really matters if they enforce it correctly.

Its not about jail time. Its about the fact that the law is not written to judge impairment. It Is written for entrapment. Its a revenue generator. It is written to make criminals out of otherwise lawful citizens. It is a flawed law. One person may be impaired with a BAC of .08 while another is totally functional at 1.0. The problem with being arrested for a DWI is not the jail time, it is the stigma attached to it and the sequelae that follows. I know people who have lost their jobs or been denied employment because of this flawed law. My brother is trying to get his Respiratory Therapist License for over a year now but even though he has passed his cirriculum and his state board exam the State will not allow him to become licensed until he completes a psychiatric review and is entered into an alcohol treatment program All at his expense. All this stemming from a DWI 1st offense from when he was 18. He's 22 now. And yes he had it taken off his record and no the State doesnt care.

 

[MNDan]

On the upside, cars will be driving themselves within 20 years. Then how will law enforcement generate revenue? Hehe.

I've already got a car that practically drives itself - adaptive cruise control + beeping when I leave my lane + automatic braking for obstacles. Set it to 60 and slow-roll home. Subaru FTW.

 

[fosaisu]

It is written to make criminals out of otherwise lawful citizens.

Couldn't you say this about every law in existence? Before their is a law against it, all conduct is lawful (or at least not unlawful).

I have to disagree that DUI laws and the use of BAC as a proxy for impaired driving is a money grab. I think people are genuinely and rightly upset when impaired drivers hurt and kill innocent people with their cars. Whether dropping BAC from .08 to .05 is the way to acheive the goal of decreasing accidents is a different question, but I think most people advocating the change have good motives.

BAC limits are a lot like speed limits. Mario Andretti could probably drive 90-100 on the freeway his whole life without massively increasing his risk of accident. The same isn't true for me or most others, so they set the speed limit lower and we all have to live with it, even though if you set it at 65 there are plenty who could safely do 75, and plenty more who should really never go above 50. If you set any "legal limit" higher than zero it will always be somewhat arbitrary (why 65 MPH instead of 60? Why have a bag limit of 2 fish instead of 1 or 3?) But it is much easier (and therefore cheaper) to enforce a concrete limit than a more generic standard (e.g. "recklessness" or "intoxication"), and if the rule leaves less to the enforcing officer's discretion then it arguably decreases the risk of arbitrary or abusive policing.

 

[ricksam]

"BAC limits are a lot like speed limits."

What a totally disingenuous argument. In order to make that comparison you would have to accept that everyone who is driving is drinking. Not only that, I don't care it you are a race car driver, if you are driving those speeds outside the controlled and consistent environment of a race track, you ARE massively increasing the risk of an accident.

I am also sure that there are many who are advocating for the change have good motives and intentions...and the road to hell is paved with them.

 

[fosaisu]

"BAC limits are a lot like speed limits."

What a totally disingenuous argument. In order to make that comparison you would have to accept that everyone who is driving is drinking. Not only that, I don't care it you are a race car driver, if you are driving those speeds outside the controlled and consistent environment of a race track, you ARE massively increasing the risk of an accident.

I am also sure that there are many who are advocating for the change have good motives and intentions...and the road to hell is paved with them.

I'm sorry if my argument strikes you as totally disingenuous, but why would I have to accept that everyone who is driving is drinking to compare BAC limits to speed limits? Everyone who is driving has to comply with the BAC limits (or be in violation of the law), which they can do by not drinking at all or by monitoring their intake. I don't follow your logic.

As far as people's intentions go, I agree that plenty of terrible laws have been passed with good intentions. But many in this thread have argued that this is all just a money-making scheme of some kind, and that doesn't seem likely to me to be the case.

 

[fosaisu]

"BAC limits are a lot like speed limits."

What a totally disingenuous argument.

And in the interest of moving the debate along, are there any driving rules/limits that you believe CAN be fairly compared to BAC?

 

[Mozart]

I have no problems with the idea of changing the BAC to .05% from .08%. It's generally .05% over most of Europe already.

As far as the 'impairment' argument, and that the laws should be based on this than an arbitrary BAC level, I do understand the argument, but I nevertheless support the BAC threshold.

To put it simply, under the impairment rule, one is impaired at 'first buzz'. For some of us, that can be a very small amount of alcohol. The problem with impairment rules is that impairment is much more difficult to determine. Sure, if someone is completely hammered, it's easy, but what about that fine line where one is just a little buzzed?

Ever been a little tipsy, to the point where someone you know really well can tell from the slight affect it has on your speech, but a complete stranger wouldn't notice? Field sobriety tests? Some people simply have better coordination and balance than others do.

Again, if we want to draw the line at impairment, that's 'first buzz', and it's darn hard to objectively prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law based on any kind of field sobriety test. BAC, however, is cut and dry, black and white. You're either above the legal threshold, or you're not. This, not a 'money grab', is why the BAC thresholds were put in place to begin with.

No law, or set of them, is going to be perfect, but in general the clearer and cleaner and less vague we make our laws, the better, and if lowering the BAC threshold from .08% to .05% encourages fewer people to get behind the wheel who are buzzed, then I personally would be in favor of it.

 

[TopherM]

if lowering the BAC threshold from .08% to .05% encourages fewer people to get behind the wheel who are buzzed, then I personally would be in favor of it.

So, by that logic, you would be AOK with the BAC threshhold being 0.00%, correct?

It's not like there's an arguement here that anyone DOESN'T want to save lives or DOESN'T think that drunk driving is wrong. It's a matter of "at what point is someone impaired?" and unfortunately that question is very dependent on the individual, yet there is this law that applies equally to all. It's the way it has to be, because laws need to be as objective as possible, but this arguement will NEVER end because it's an objective law that applies to a very subjective matter.

 

[Grippe]

Nothing significant to contribute other than having lived in a country with a zero tolerance for BAC and driving I found it really wasn't that bad. After a while I grew to appreciate it.

 

[TrubHead]

"BAC limits are a lot like speed limits."

What a totally disingenuous argument. In order to make that comparison you would have to accept that everyone who is driving is drinking. Not only that, I don't care it you are a race car driver, if you are driving those speeds outside the controlled and consistent environment of a race track, you ARE massively increasing the risk of an accident.

I am also sure that there are many who are advocating for the change have good motives and intentions...and the road to hell is paved with them.

Not the best comparison/analogy (had a chuckle after reading) so over looked that one.

Statistics has shown that the lowering to .08 BAC has noticeably reduced accidents. The .05 may further dissuade some to not over indulge and get behind the wheel. It has been well publicized the higher BAC levels (2x, 3x, etc) of drivers involved in accidents. Have there been any publicized accidents where the driver is at or below .08 BAC and if so what was that BAC? To add was the BAC the contributing factor (no texting, other distractions, etc)?