.05 Blood Alcohol Limit for Driving?

[Mozart]

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.

No, I would not be in favor of the BAC threshold being zero. That would, in my opinion, not be reasonable.

As I said, no law or set of them is going to be perfect. It seems we agree that impairment is subjective, or at least, difficult to objectively prove in every case, and that it is beneficial to have laws that are as objective as possible.

So it all boils down to reasonableness given conflicting goals that tug in opposite directions. That leaves a pretty wide swath of room for people, all with good motivations and even shared goals, to reasonably disagree.

Yes, this is a debate that will never end. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. I'd never call someone objectively 'wrong' for wanting to leave the BAC threshold at .08%, raise it to .10% where it was when I started driving, or even lower it below the proposed .05% threshold. I might disagree with them. I might think my opinion is 'better', for if it wasn't, why would I hold it? But there certainly is plenty of room for intelligent, reasonable people to honesty disagree with one another here.

The question was whether I, personally, would be in favor of the change.

I would.

And I fully admit my position is an opinion.

 

[techbrewie]

really its not the limit that needs to change its the severity of the punishment. obviously punishment for being caught DUI is an acceptable risk to many americans. not to me specifically, but the data on dui's each month speak volumes.

There needs to be a culture change, where personal responsibility and caring about the saftey of others as well as yourself is a priority. personally i think no amount of legislation can force that. It has to be a social movement.

 

[ricksam]

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.

Thats fine for you. I would not wish to live in such a country.

If you all believe that the b.a.c. issue is about saving lives, then it should be 0.00. While your at it, the speed limit should probably be lowered to say, 10 mph? And if you are on any medication, or not taking medication, you should not drive. You also shouldn't be allowed to drive if you are sensitive to light, or can't see well in the dark. Come to think of it, we shouldn't be allowed to drive east in the early mornings, or west in the late afternoons because of the sun in our eyes. All vehicles need to be equiped with the 'sleepy meter'. If you are determined to be too sleepy, as the soup nazi might say, no driving for you. Wait, you have a pet in your car?? They are way more distracting and dangerous than anyone under a .10. I could go on and on with this. But please, whatever you do, don't let the facts get in the way of your support for .05.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Thats fine for you. I would not wish to live in such a country.

If you all believe that the b.a.c. issue is about saving lives, then it should be 0.00. While your at it, the speed limit should probably be lowered to say, 10 mph? And if you are on any medication, or not taking medication, you should not drive. You also shouldn't be allowed to drive if you are sensitive to light, or can't see well in the dark. Come to think of it, we shouldn't be allowed to drive east in the early mornings, or west in the late afternoons because of the sun in our eyes. All vehicles need to be equiped with the 'sleepy meter'. If you are determined to be too sleepy, as the soup nazi might say, no driving for you. Wait, you have a pet in your car?? They are way more distracting and dangerous than anyone under a .10. I could go on and on with this. But please, whatever you do, don't let the facts get in the way of your support for .05.

Do you actually think that histrionics are valuable to the conversation?

 

[fosaisu]

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)?

Most of the stats in the NTSB report that started this whole discussion come from other countries that dropped from .08 to .05 BAC and saw some type of decrease in accidents (some very small, some up to 10-12%). Not having looked at those studies I couldn't say if they controlled well for other variables that might account for the decrease. Obviously that's different than individual reports of accidents where a driver was in the .05-.08 BAC range, not sure how you'd go about finding those.

 

[TrubHead]

Most of the stats in the NTSB report that started this whole discussion come from other countries that dropped from .08 to .05 BAC and saw some type of decrease in accidents (some very small, some up to 10-12%). Not having looked at those studies I couldn't say if they controlled well for other variables that might account for the decrease. Obviously that's different than individual reports of accidents where a driver was in the .05-.08 BAC range, not sure how you'd go about finding those.

I think it would be beneficial on this subject of BAC level if that data was accurately obtained and analyzed by the NTSB rather than just following other countries policies.

 

[fosaisu]

I think it would be beneficial on this subject of BAC level if that data was accurately obtained and analyzed by the NTSB rather than just following other countries policies.

I agree that before shifting policy it makes sense to look at any data available regarding accidents where the driver was b/w .05 -.08 BAC. I'll bet there's at least some data out there since some states already have a seperate classification for people that are caught driving within that range. In Colorado if your BAC is .05-.08 there's a rebuttable presumption that you are "Driving While Ability Impaired" (lesser penalties than DUI and you can try to overcome the presumption with other evidence that you weren't impaired).

That said, I don't think it's accurate to say that NTSB is simply "following other countries policies" -- they rely on studies of what happened to accident rates after other countries did what they suggest the US do now, i.e. drop from .08 to .05 BAC. Assuming those studies are statistically valid (you'd hope so if they were published in reputable journals, but if not I bet we'll hear about it from the opponents as states start considering changes to the law) that seems like a pretty good way of predicting what the outcome of a drop to .05 would be.

 

[ricksam]

Do you actually think that histrionics are valuable to the conversation?

Its called perspective.

 

[OldWorld]

The stupid betties at MAAD want to make alcoholics lives a living hell. .08 is not impaired

The legal limit should be raised to .10

At slightly above .10 the repeat offenders who can afford dui lawyers will have less of chance using the rising blood alcohol defense.

 

[shyanny]

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.

So why dont you write your legislator and ask them to change the limit to 0.01? It sounds like you would sleep better at night. Where is the study that shows that drivers with a BAC of 0.08 are suddenly no longer able to drive a vehicle? What was discovered to warrant a change to 0.05? As for me, I believe the individual should be judged on his/her level of impairment based on sobriety testing. As for your analogy to speeding, I suppose you don't believe in speed traps either... I guess there is truth in blissful ignorance.

 

[mike_in_ak]

I don't disagree with the substance there, but will add my two cents that sobriety testing as it currently stands is pretty much crap science and way too subjective.

Granted, they are called Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, but although the tests may be standardized, the testers are not.

 

[Accidic]

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)?

Assertions of what the data says have done that but they are incredibly one sided to begin with and neglect to recognize any other advancements and instead attribute all improvements to that one variable. Statistics are typically used to push people to a desired response. It's actually rather frightening to see someone assess them with a specific statement in mind and their ability to repeatedly produce that stance regardless of what the data says. In the same breath, prior studies have shown that certain amounts of alcohol actually increase driver's alertness even though it doesn't entirely make sense unless your claiming that the slight depressant effect triggered a more alert response to counteract. You don't see them broadcast that fact though.

Personally, I think they should set the BAC to .02 and allow for tested response above that with a reasonable cap. I still maintain their primary drive for doing this is for feel goodism and revenue creation. My suggestion would allow both.

 

[fosaisu]

So why dont you write your legislator and ask them to change the limit to 0.01? It sounds like you would sleep better at night. Where is the study that shows that drivers with a BAC of 0.08 are suddenly no longer able to drive a vehicle? What was discovered to warrant a change to 0.05? As for me, I believe the individual should be judged on his/her level of impairment based on sobriety testing. As for your analogy to speeding, I suppose you don't believe in speed traps either... I guess there is truth in blissful ignorance.

I have tried to make clear that I don't necessarily support a drop to .05 - I'd want to see more data than what I found by looking at the NTSB report (it's worth a look if you are truly interested in this topic). You won't find a study saying that people are incapable of driving at .08, but you will find studies suggesting that accidents and deaths decreased in countries that dropped from .08 to .05 BAC limits. I don't find that unbelievable given what little I know about the impacts of alcohol on driving performance (seems like more of a curve of increased impairment as you drink more rather than a cliff you suddenly drop off at .08 or .10 or whatever). But I haven't read the underlying studies and there could be other data suggesting a much narrower benefit. It's perfectly reasonable in my opinion to, after considering the data, reach the conclusion that saving X lives a year isn't worth the cost and loss of freedom the change to .05 would require. People can disagree in good faith about where to draw that line. But people often seem inclined to ignore the data entirely and just argue from their gut, often demonizing the other side in the process (reckless alcoholics vs prudish prohibitionists). I think that's a lousy way to make public policy decisions.

As for speed traps, I always thought that's where the police camp out where it drops from 65 to 55 and try to catch people well over the posted limit. If that's what you're talking about I've experienced it and haven't enjoyed it. On the other hand I was breaking the speed limit, and was certainly more cautious for a good while thereafter. If your point was that speeding tickets are a huge source of revenue to the police and that they have ticket quotas and so forth (and probably hand out tickets to maximize fines incurred rather than accidents prevented, which probably isn't what the lawmakers had in mind) then I agree. But I wouldn't move from that point to the assumption that the "55 saves lives" folks were just looking to line the pockets of local govt and didn't believe their own arguments and data about safety.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

I think fosaisu brings up a valid point.

Its all but impossible to argue against the idea that this country has a segment of the population that would live life in a sterile bulletproof bubble rather than risk the most basic hazards in life, but its also true we have a segment of yahoos who would rather see pure anarchy than ANY infringement on personal liberty. Its almost as if a scientist could formulate the perfect equation for judging loss of freedom to gain in public safety.

Lets not forget, some older Italian men consider it an infringement on their personal liberty to demand they not rub up against or grab a woman's posterior on public transportation. The use of the word "freedom" must not be allowed to disrespect the word itself.

All that said... .05 seems too low.