NTSB wants ,05 DUI level

Quote: FleaStiff

Great fun, go out, have two beers and stare at the clock for an hour.

Option #1: go out, have two beers and stare at the clock for an hour.

Option #2: go out, drink, drive while intoxicated, maybe get arrested, maybe injure/kill yourself or others.


OK, everyone, which sounds like the better plan?

I think the issue here is common sense. No one is pro drinking and driving. I think we can all agree on that. Having said that. I think most full size grown ups can have a glass of wine with dinner(or a beer after work, or whatever) and drive home without being a risk to others. If the current .05 proposal becomes standard law. There are going to be people caught up in the legal system at great cost to themselves and/or society and their only "crime" will be blowing a .05...which all the data I've seen would not really impair anyone's driving ability. Many more people are injured/killed by people driving while tired...by senior citizens behind the wheel who shouldn't be, by people distracted by texting/talking on the phone. We as a society should apply the limited resources of the police and court system where they will do the most good. Having a .05 DWI law is not that place.

Just as a real world example...My parents were recently almost killed in a very serious accident with a 91 year old man who crossed the median on a divided highway on a sunny day at noon, and hit them head on at high speed; because he lost control of his car for no apparent reason. It was a brand new $50,000 Lincoln and he said he must have stepped on the wrong petal. Give me someone who's had 2 beers any day over this clown.

Quote: rxwine

Yes, some things are similar. But others aren't. You are potentially impaired 100% of the time once you've been drinking. For instance, reaching for something in the back seat while driving is likley unwise, but it usually isn't done for the entire drive.

Yes reaching into the back seat is a 1 off. The scenerios I mentioned are all for 100% of your trip but you are not treated as a criminal.

Quote: Doc

Option #1: go out, have two beers and stare at the clock for an hour.

Option #2: go out, drink, drive while intoxicated, maybe get arrested, maybe injure/kill yourself or others.


OK, everyone, which sounds like the better plan?

They both sound equally bad......can you give us other options?

Quote: FleaStiff

Yeah, just sit there and do nothing for an hour or two. The bartender will be in favor of that ...taking up his space but not drinking...sort of makes him raise his prices too. Great fun, go out, have two beers and stare at the clock for an hour.

What are you doing while drinking the beer? Staring at the clock? Or talking to folks, or watching the game? Just stop early, have a soft drink, drive. No bar I know complains if you have a couple of beers and wait out an hour. How rammed are the places you drink?

What about all the drivers with poor driving habits? It's extremely irresponsible not to take the time, effort or interest in becoming a safe driver. Poor drivers are responsible for tens of thousand of deaths annually. It could be argued that piss poor drivers are just as irresponsible as "impaired" drivers.

Quote: treetopbuddy

What about all the drivers with poor driving habits? It's extremely irresponsible not to take the time, effort or interest in becoming a safe driver. Poor drivers are responsible for tens of thousand of deaths annually. It could be argued that piss poor drivers are just as irresponsible as "impaired" drivers.

Why all the whining and moaning about -other people-. Finger pointing at another group.

31% of traffic fatalities had a driver involved with a 0.08% blood alcohol content.

This about the same as speeding (also illegal). 11% is the number quoted for dsitraction related accidents (texting while driving). Good thing that is also illegal.

So, if something is the cause for around 1/3rd of the deaths on the road, what do YOU think is the right way to deal with this? Driving at 0.05 BAC causes significant impairment :

"Scientific investigations have produced 50 years of accumulated evidence showing a direct relationship between increasing blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in drivers and increasing risk of a motor vehicle crash. There is scientific consensus that alcohol causes deterioration of driving skills beginning at 0.05% BAC or even lower, and progressively serious impairment at higher BACs. " (1986 paper, but this has been repeated often in other papers).

I've seen it's around 2-4 times as likely to have an accident (not necessarily fatal) at 0.05 as it is a stone cold sober. The populace in general is more impaired at 0.05 than 0. You may not be, good for you. However, the law doesn't work that way, where YOU get special privileges cos your a good driver after 2 beers.

O.K......it's time for a zero tolerance policy........08 down to .0000000000000000000. Would that make you feel better? A better citizen/human being? After all your just trying to save lives. Your going to heaven sport!

Quote: treetopbuddy

O.K......it's time for a zero tolerance policy........08 down to .0000000000000000000. Would that make you feel better? A better citizen/human being? After all your just trying to save lives. Your going to heaven sport!

Reductio Ad absurdum, but 0.0 is the level in some countries. It's the level I personally use as well.

I highly doubt I will go to heaven.

sorry, your going to heaven too.....you'll fit right in.

Quote: thecesspit

I've seen it's around 2-4 times as likely to have an accident (not necessarily fatal) at 0.05 as it is a stone cold sober.

That's rather vague. "Accident" can include anything from hitting a car in the parking lot while backing out slowly (which I've done stone sober twice), to multiple fatalities. It's one thing to set a BAC limit to prevent the chances of deaths, and quite another to reduce the number of minor fender-benders.

You'd think serious studies on the issue would concentrate on rpeventing major accidents only. That would be the rational thing to do. if you focus on preventing all accidents, you'll find it can't be done. But is this the case here?

Quote: Nareed

That's rather vague. "Accident" can include anything from hitting a car in the parking lot while backing out slowly (which I've done stone sober twice), to multiple fatalities. It's one thing to set a BAC limit to prevent the chances of deaths, and quite another to reduce the number of minor fender-benders.

You'd think serious studies on the issue would concentrate on rpeventing major accidents only. That would be the rational thing to do. if you focus on preventing all accidents, you'll find it can't be done. But is this the case here?

You can look at the fatalities as well if you want. 2-4 times more likely seems quite plain and simple. Of course people have accidents sober. Of course people drive home without any incident when drunk as a skunk.

Serious studies on the issue DO look at preventing major accidents. There's a wealth of study on this. Drinking and driving increases the chance of having an accident. That's quite simple. Governments can decide at what point you want to reduce the risk to, and what is acceptable (ALARP principal). I'd suggest 0.05 is a good level, though I would personally be fine with lower level. Many countries agree with me on that.

Quote: treetopbuddy

sorry, your going to heaven too.....you'll fit right in.

If heaven exists, I've broken far too many of the commandments to get through the gates.

Quote: thecesspit

You can look at the fatalities as well if you want. 2-4 times more likely seems quite plain and simple.

Sorry, but it's not plain and simple. What kind of accidents? That's very important.

Consider what lowering the maximum BAC level entails for millions of people. It would be worth doing if the result is a reduction in deaths or serious injuries, not if it's a reduction in structural damages and minor injuries.

Quote: thecesspit

Why all the whining and moaning about -other people-. Finger pointing at another group.

31% of traffic fatalities had a driver involved with a 0.08% blood alcohol content.

This about the same as speeding (also illegal). 11% is the number quoted for dsitraction related accidents (texting while driving). Good thing that is also illegal.

So, if something is the cause for around 1/3rd of the deaths on the road, what do YOU think is the right way to deal with this? Driving at 0.05 BAC causes significant impairment :

"Scientific investigations have produced 50 years of accumulated evidence showing a direct relationship between increasing blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in drivers and increasing risk of a motor vehicle crash. There is scientific consensus that alcohol causes deterioration of driving skills beginning at 0.05% BAC or even lower, and progressively serious impairment at higher BACs. " (1986 paper, but this has been repeated often in other papers).

I've seen it's around 2-4 times as likely to have an accident (not necessarily fatal) at 0.05 as it is a stone cold sober. The populace in general is more impaired at 0.05 than 0. You may not be, good for you. However, the law doesn't work that way, where YOU get special privileges cos your a good driver after 2 beers.

The accident figures are all very suspect for alcohol because alcohol becomes the reason if present. If a deer runs in front of me and I drive off the road when sober it is not an alcohol related accident. In the exact same scenerio except I had 2 beer it is now recorded as an alcohol related accident. 100% of any incidents where the driver has alcohol in his system enter the alcohol related percentages you quote. There is no investigation and probably no definitive way of deciding whether the alcohol was a factor or not so IT IS ASSUMED TO BE A FACTOR.

Using the same rationale that is used for alcohol and trying to push it down to 0% works with any of the driving factors. Stats are solid that the slower you are going the fewer accidents and deaths occurr, that is why we have speed limits. We can also extend as is being tried with alcohol, if everyone was to drive at 0 mph then we would reduce accidents and deaths.

Quote: kenarman

There is no investigation and probably no definitive way of deciding whether the alcohol was a factor or not so IT IS ASSUMED TO BE A FACTOR.

Not in the real world, but you can test reaction times and hitting objects on a driving course where you could test a two beer in an hour vs none.

I'm going to take a giant leap of faith, and speculate that this has already been done.

Quote: FleaStiff

Yeah, just sit there and do nothing for an hour or two. The bartender will be in favor of that ...taking up his space but not drinking...sort of makes him raise his prices too. Great fun, go out, have two beers and stare at the clock for an hour.

Drink soda or water ,order something to eat,play pool I`m sure you can think of something to do. Oh sorry officer I drove drunk because I didn`t want to sit in the bar for an hour,I`d rather get arrested and have my insurance go up But what the heck it`s worth it.

What are the stats on drivers over the age of 60 and under the age of 30? I'm going to guess that if you eliminate granting licenses to those 2 age groups, then you will prevent more accidents than the drunks cause.

.....and what about people who have been involved in multiple accidents and weren't drunk. Let's take away the license from anyone who has more than one accident. That's probably going to be more than the drunks too.

Quote: thecesspit

31% of traffic fatalities had a driver involved with a 0.08% blood alcohol content.

Really? 31%? Does that mean that 69% of the fatalities are caused by sober people? Wow......maybe need to make everyone drink.

Quote: rxwine

Not in the real world, but you can test reaction times and hitting objects on a driving course where you could test a two beer in an hour vs none.

I'm going to take a giant leap of faith, and speculate that this has already been done.

I am not questioning that there is measurable effect in the lab for 2 beers vs none. What I am questioning is that stats include alcohol as a factor even if there is no proof that it was, if it is present alcohol is put down as a factor. Now these same stats are used as definitive proof about all the accidents that are CAUSED by alcohol. They are used improperly in that case because there is no proven cause/effect link in most of these cases. The same thing happens in medical studies all the time leading to many erroneous cause/effect implied relationships that are not proven by studies only show that 2 items are somehow linked.

Judging by my last post, it seems that I need to have a couple just to post correctly..........

No drinking and keyboarding could have long term consequences ;-)

I thought a would post a link Study to this new study. It shows that handsfree cell phone use is equivalent to .05 alcohol and that texting is worse than .08 alcohol. I realize that texting while driving is illegal in many juristictions including where I live. My point is though, as I tried to make in several other posts in this thread, that the legal consequences are no where close to the same. Thanks to the lobby effort of MADD a person who is blows over .08 is treated with the almost the same scorn as a sex offender. Just so everyone doesn't get the idea that this is personal, I have never had any kind of drinking and driving charge and drink very little now and don't drive if I have. I am would be a member of DAMM (drunks against mad mothers) if I could find a chapter though.

I am not advocating that all cell texters go to jail but I think that if they cause a death that the current laws allow for all kinds of severe consequences. The same is true for a drunk driver who causes a death but a lady who had 2 glasses of wine with a friend and blows over .05 while not exhibiting any reduced driving ability should not be a criminal.

One of the side effects of an impaired driving charge for a Canadian (and probably all foreigners) is that you are now not allowed entry to the USA because you are now have a criminal charge. I am sure that makes all of you Las Vegas residents feel much safer.

Quote: Doc

Option #1: go out, have two beers and stare at the clock for an hour.
Option #2: go out, drink, drive while intoxicated, maybe get arrested, maybe injure/kill yourself or others.
OK, everyone, which sounds like the better plan?

I think we had this discussion in the thread about low limit BJ tables: Just as casinos have trouble making money on low limit tables, bars have trouble making money on "good drivers". Is there a parallel perhaps between the Minimum Bet at a BJ table and the minimum cost of a cocktail in a bar? Why are cocktails all getting exotic now and high priced? The bar would rather sell two exotic cocktails than two beers to those damned people what are going to socialize rather than guzzle.

Some bars are in areas where cabs are rare but even if cabs are available and fairly cheap, cabbies hate bar pickups. By the time the cabbie gets there, he has already left or he has found someone new to buy him a drink for awhile.

Meanwhile, why don't we all go to that new club, Light, at Mandalay Bay and order a round of My Cherry Amours? They are the latest and greatest cocktail and all the rage at two grand each! Your shout!!

Americans have become a bunch of sissies and tattle tails. The "impaired" driving laws are a prime example. A couple beers and your a criminal. Checkpoints? Are you kidding me? Why not a zero tolerance policy? Can it not be agued that any amount of alcohol in a drivers system impairs the driver?

Conservatives and liberals are not going to be happy until everybody is in jail. 2,000,000 plus and counting.

Joke..... where is the most dangerous place in the world? Answer....The space between Sheriff Joe Arpaio and a camera.

FOR THERE TO BE A CRIME, THERE MUST BE A VICTIM! I'll be the lone wolf on this one....

Quote: treetopbuddy

Joke..... where is the most dangerous place in the world? Answer....The space between Sheriff Joe Arpaio and a camera.

Funny, but wrong. The most dangerous place in the world is inside the womb of a pregnant American.

Quote: steeldco

.....and what about people who have been involved in multiple accidents and weren't drunk. Let's take away the license from anyone who has more than one accident. That's probably going to be more than the drunks too.

I agree that laws for multi-DUI offenders seem to have no teeth. How can these folks keep registering their cars after all their arrests? I think (hope) the day is coming where automakers put breathalyzers and lockout systems in the cars as standard equipment like seatbelts. This is already the law in France, where being pulled over without a breathalyzer in the car gets the driver a fine of $14.

The clever drunks who think they can have a passenger blow into the tube for them can be caught by tiny dash cameras that can record who is doing the blowing, and putting skin sensors on the shifter and steering wheel to measure BAC. Some sneaky drunks think they can blow into a plastic bag in the morning and carry it in the glovebox. Some think they can get around it by leaving the car locked but engine running while they're in the bar, but sensors can detect the engine's been idling too long and make them blow anyway. People with 5-speed trannys can pop the clutch on a hill to start the car, but that will show up on the report, as will tampering with the wiring or disconnecting it, which is a felony. Easier just rent a car without the device if you're that gung-ho to drink out at a bar.

I drink at home, at night, with nowhere else to go. I've never had a DUI that way. However, after 30 years of regular nightly drinking, I got curious what I'm doing to my body. In fact, a recent physical had my liver function numbers waaaaay up. So I took my bloodwork paperwork to one of those walk-in clinics for a second opinion. The doctor looked it over and in 3 seconds, he snorted "Well, you've been a drinker all your life haven't you?" Kinda embarrassing. Anyway, I finally bought a breathalyzer last month just to see the results. The instructions state the numbers cannot be used in court. I shouldn't eat, drink or smoke anything for 20 minutes prior to taking the test. The device only registers 0.00 – 0.40, no higher. I drank my usual amount of bourbon-n-cokes that night and blew a .18 before bed IIRC. Next night, I figured I could do better and sure enough, got it up to .23. So instead of this being a deterrent, I was treating it like a game where I try to break my previous record. It's a hoot to do a shot and immediately blow a .37. The novelty of it all wore off after a couple weeks, but at least now I have an idea of the damage I'm doing to myself. But I'm not doing any damage to others out on the road.

Quote: zippyboy

I agree that laws for multi-DUI offenders seem to have no teeth. How can these folks keep registering their cars after all their arrests? I think (hope) the day is coming where automakers put breathalyzers and lockout systems in the cars as standard equipment like seatbelts. This is already the law in France, where being pulled over without a breathalyzer in the car gets the driver a fine of $14.

The clever drunks who think they can have a passenger blow into the tube for them can be caught by tiny dash cameras that can record who is doing the blowing, and putting skin sensors on the shifter and steering wheel to measure BAC. Some sneaky drunks think they can blow into a plastic bag in the morning and carry it in the glovebox. Some think they can get around it by leaving the car locked but engine running while they're in the bar, but sensors can detect the engine's been idling too long and make them blow anyway. People with 5-speed trannys can pop the clutch on a hill to start the car, but that will show up on the report, as will tampering with the wiring or disconnecting it, which is a felony. Easier just rent a car without the device if you're that gung-ho to drink out at a bar.

I drink at home, at night, with nowhere else to go. I've never had a DUI that way. However, after 30 years of regular nightly drinking, I got curious what I'm doing to my body. In fact, a recent physical had my liver function numbers waaaaay up. So I took my bloodwork paperwork to one of those walk-in clinics for a second opinion. The doctor looked it over and in 3 seconds, he snorted "Well, you've been a drinker all your life haven't you?" Kinda embarrassing. Anyway, I finally bought a breathalyzer last month just to see the results. The instructions state the numbers cannot be used in court. I shouldn't eat, drink or smoke anything for 20 minutes prior to taking the test. The device only registers 0.00 – 0.40, no higher. I drank my usual amount of bourbon-n-cokes that night and blew a .18 before bed IIRC. Next night, I figured I could do better and sure enough, got it up to .23. So instead of this being a deterrent, I was treating it like a game where I try to break my previous record. It's a hoot to do a shot and immediately blow a .37. The novelty of it all w.ore off after a couple weeks, but at least now I have an idea of the damage I'm doing to myself. But I'm not doing any damage to others out on the road.

Zippy this post is not aimed at you for being responsible but I think you are an example of another side effect of the drinking and driving laws. You now stay home so you can have the alcohol you want at night. You don't mention whether you are alone or have a family but I know many people that do the same as you that live alone. So now these people have considerably less social interaction then they would have had before at a bar. They often drink more than they would have at a bar when they would often want to be somewhat responsible. This increases the costs to both their physical and mental health, these costs will often filter down to costs to society for not allowing drinking socially which are never acknowleged by MADD since they actually want prohibition.

Bars and pubs traditionally have been hubs of social interaction, political discussions and (when I was young) places to get a job. Overly strict drinking and driving laws have taken this part of our social fabric away.

So the new French rules will involve everyone being required to carry a personal breathlizer. They estimate that there are 1000 drinking and driving related deaths a year out of a total 540,000 deaths per year or a little under .02% of deaths involve drinking drivers. The policing expense, court time and the cost of the disruption to the lives and families of otherwise law abiding and productive citizens could likely save more lives if expended on other causes of death.

Quote: kenarman

The policing expense, court time and the cost of the disruption to the lives and families of otherwise law abiding and productive citizens could likely save more lives if expended on other causes of death.

Flag on the play. Personal Foul; using logic in a debate about government. 15 yards and loss of down.

Quote: kenarman

Zippy this post is not aimed at you for being responsible but I think you are an example of another side effect of the drinking and driving laws. You now stay home so you can have the alcohol you want at night. You don't mention whether you are alone or have a family but I know many people that do the same as you that live alone. So now these people have considerably less social interaction then they would have had before at a bar. They often drink more than they would have at a bar when they would often want to be somewhat responsible.

Yes, I can see how that situation develops. I'm divorced, childless and live with my girlfriend, and she only likes to drink sake. I'm generally antisocial, and spending $6 per beer at a bar goes against my thrifty nature. I abhor wasteful spending on something I can do myself cheaper, like drinking at home. Bars have watery drinks anyway IMO, compared to mine at home. I drink to pass the time and alleviate boredom while I peruse the various forums like this one. I don't have family...you guys are my family!

[funny side story] I'm so out of touch with bar prices that a couple years ago at MGM Grand in LV, after having been getting served free drinks at the poker table, I went up to the bar and I asked the bartender for a Corona and shot of Jager. I gave him a $20 and he gave me a dollar in change. I was dumbfounded. "Seriously? A beer and shot is NINETEEN DOLLARS???" He rolled his eyes and said "Where you been? We haven't changed our prices in ten years."[/story]

Anyway, getting back to the topic of driving and the .05 BAC. I'm living in Washington now, where you may or may not realize cannabis is now legal since last November. It's been decriminalized for a couple years already, but buyers needed to get their "green card" from a "doctor" for a $150+, the kind of doctor who advertises in the back pages of subversive newspapers and set up clinics in stripmalls where they see "patients" for 5 minutes before granting the legal green card (aka...medical marijuana card). That's 12 patients an hour, @ $100-$200 apiece, and some "clinics" have several "doctors". ("Oh, you say you have irritable bowel? or a bruised kneecap? or a hangnail? Here's your card. That'll be $150". No one ever gets turned down as far as I know.) So the voters decided just to legalize and tax it. Nearly every day now, the papers or TV newscast highlight the status on the legalization process, which should be finished by fall, with state-run stores opening up to the public for legal purchase of a variety of buds sold by the gram, and "medibles" like cookies and suckers. It's been quite a story, with Washington looking to Colorado for guidance in regulation, permits (who should get them, how much to charge for permits, etc), what the pricing will be, pot-growing operations, brand recognition, distribution so minors are excluded, whether to allow out-of-state tourists to buy, and on and on and on especially...wait for it!...Driving Under its Influence.

Colorado has just passed a law that states drivers with 5 nanograms of THC in their systems will be charged similarly to drunk drivers. Some say that's way too low, since regular users and medical marijuana patients always have that level in their bloodstreams, and would therefore immediately lose their licenses if caught. Washington already has this law in place for the same 5 nanogram level.

It's interesting to watch this historic legal story unfold.

Yes since I live next door in BC it will be fun to watch how it unfolds. Decriminalization is probably not that far away here. I think a lot of our BC Bud is filling the demand right now as your capacity ramps up. Glad to hear you have company at home. Sitting and drinking by yourself has never been a lot of fun for me.

It's arbitrary using BAC as science when it is not. It proves nothing as far as impairment goes and because it's total bs, I'm against it.
The thing is someone can be drunk at .05 and someone else not drunk at .08. They might as well increase all drinks $1 and let anyone drunk get a ride home and cut the lawyers and cops out of the money game.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

and cut the lawyers and cops out of the money game.

Heresy. Why do you think there is a multi-year backlog in rape kit testing but no backlog in blood alcohol testing. DUIs make lots of money for the cops, the lawyers, the courts and the counselors. Some broad gets raped? What fees will that generate? Let the sample lie on a shelf for a few years!

Quote: zippyboy

Anyway, I finally bought a breathalyzer last month just to see the results. The instructions state the numbers cannot be used in court. I shouldn't eat, drink or smoke anything for 20 minutes prior to taking the test. The device only registers 0.00 – 0.40, no higher. I drank my usual amount of bourbon-n-cokes that night and blew a .18 before bed IIRC. Next night, I figured I could do better and sure enough, got it up to .23. So instead of this being a deterrent, I was treating it like a game where I try to break my previous record. It's a hoot to do a shot and immediately blow a .37. The novelty of it all wore off after a couple weeks, but at least now I have an idea of the damage I'm doing to myself. But I'm not doing any damage to others out on the road.

Reminds me of the famous Sushi Pants story (warning: language, possibly NSFW)

Quote: zippyboy

I don't have family...you guys are my family!

Oh boy, that's scary.

Quote: zippyboy

Colorado has just passed a law that states drivers with 5 nanograms of THC in their systems will be charged similarly to drunk drivers. Some say that's way too low, since regular users and medical marijuana patients always have that level in their bloodstreams, and would therefore immediately lose their licenses if caught. Washington already has this law in place for the same 5 nanogram level.

The way it was sold to us in WA state is that they have some kind of more accurate blood testing that should determine whether you have smoked in the past couple of hours, i.e. are actually impaired, and that whatever method they use will not have false positives for medical maryjane patients, etc. That's how it was sold at least...