The National Transportation Safety Board voted earlier this month to encourage states to lower their current legal blood alcohol content limits for drivers from .08 to .05 percent, saying the change would save lives. Mothers Against Drunk Driving founder Candace Lightner, who led the successful national campaign in the 1980s to crack down on drunk driving after her daughter was killed in an alcohol-induced accident, doesn't support the proposal. "I don't believe it is a practical long-term solution," Lightner told U.S. News. "You could go to 0.0 and that would save lives. You could go to a 40 mph speed limit and that would save lives, but you have to look at what's realistic." http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/05/28/madd-founder-dont-lower-the-legal-bac-limit The NTSB is one of those government agencies that, yea there may be SOME Constitutional reasoning for them to exist, but they have far outgrown that reason, and have by their nature become tyrannical. If you stretch the Constitution you could argue there is a reason for the NTSB to safeguard interstate commerce, and the travel associated with THAT commerce. The NTSB has no authority to dictate, suggest, or entice with tax reward money any state to change any such law that is not directly related to interstate commerce, or the activity engaging in such. We do have something called Unalienable Individual Liberty in this country. That is, we have the RIGHT (God Given ) to exercise our individual Liberty until that liberty infringes on the RIGHTS of others. "Way Back When..." the government had to show a compelling reason to legislate. The original DUI BAC limit was .10. It was found physically and scientifically, that the human body at that level would start to lose its equilibrium (so they have trouble balancing) and their judgment would start to be become sufficiently impaired. As the graph clearly shows, the risk of a fatal crash is not significantly increased until someone is at a .10 BAC level. The current level for most states is .08. As the graph clearly shows there is little more chance of someone getting into an accident at a .08 level than a person with no alcohol in their system whatsoever. Lowering the level to .05 will do nothing to save lives, or make interstate travel (the only travel the government has really any authority to regulate) In any way safer. Such a lowering of the limit will put many bars and businesses out-of-business. What such a lowering of the limit and taking of Rights will do is cause more arrests for non dangerous behavior; creating more tax revenue for government as they violate MORE individual rights.
I can see some logic in the idea of reducing the legal drink-drive limit, even if the chances of crashing and injuring someone is negligible up until 0.10% BAC. Basically if you know that you're more likely to lose your license if you decide to have even ONE drink (if it's a strong one...), you're probably less likely to drink at all. Or, if you know that it leaves hardly allowance for a second drink, you're less likely to have a third, which could put you way over the 0.10% limit. I believe in countries that have reduced their DUI limit, there's been a slight reduction in alcohol-related accidents and deaths. So there is an element of logic behind these proposals, but it's a question of freedoms being impinged on I guess...
I agree.......we should completely destroy the food and beverage industry.......few will go out to dinner if you can't even have a glass of wine or sniff a cocktail without being dragged into prison and put through the "drunk driving" industrial complex that "Mommies Against Drunk Daddies" created.......its just becoming absurd. The vast majority of folks who are intoxicated and killing people on the highways are not close to .08 or .10.....they are off the charts and their behaviour will not change by lowering the "legal limit" to .05 or whatever. Just more of the silliness created in our "Mommydom" society where we also now "card" 80 year olds.....LOL at the stupidity.
Once again America trails Australia We did it and it worked. Now think on this - for every serious MVA out there there is someone needing either an Ambulance or a Hearse. The cost savings to the community in health are is enormous
You ADAPT We have a system where there is a "designated driver" that person does not drink that night.
Of course, but it should be based off of a voluntary system, not because of government interference. There is already a free drunk rides (Up to $30) in the DC, MD, & VA area. Folks just need to take care of themselves, not rely on others to provide what they need.
Depends on how fast you chug it down - and your gender of course this is even more telling Of course that is in mice but here is another graph to consider
A better adaptation would be just going back to Prohibition.....that way we wouldn't even have to "designate" a driver........just sitting around people drinking might pull you a .05 for the "designated drivers"......let's just get rid of evil alcohol.....it worked last time......and "Mommies against Drunk Daddies" would be happy and can move on to something else.
Eh I still don't agree. Its much too low and will only serve to ruin the lives of people who decided to have one beer and drive home.
Colorado is even looking into regulating the legal driving limit for marijuana: Agreed that driving while not sober could cause accidents, my problem comes down to the government enforcing more non-violent laws. DUI/DWI dings you with a hefty fine, probably a ton of points, and the possibility of having your license suspended. All this talks of 'saving lives' when no one can honestly give a clear estimate on how many lives will be saved by lowering the legal limit. They can only assume it will save lives, as they suggest the persons ability to drive, at a higher limit, would be worse and could lead to terrible accidents. My firm belief is that folks should be educated on better behavior. Too many times it comes down to pushing for legislation, assuming folks will know all laws & legislation, and penalize them for breaking them. If folks want to save lives, it starts with the individual, not some law.
We actually have free bus/taxi's at our main drinking holes here (and this is a mining town). They will pick you up and drop you off for free. As I said the community ADAPTS and it is no great hu hu to have a "designated driver" or to catch a Taxi in the city, which most do anyway. Bars a doing a trade often in "mocktails" as well - - - Updated - - - Want me to look up the Aussie stats for you?
That's really the purpose of DUI laws. To punish drinking. There are plenty of dangerous drivers out there, yet only those who drink are punished in a way that no others are. Even reckless driving carries less of a penalty in most places.
Nah! Again you adapt - have one beer but with a packet of chips or better beef Jerky to slow down absorption then wait - or drag out the beer over 30 mins instead of chug-a-lugging it.
That's fantastic and more of it should be made available. However, government rule doesn't need to dictate when these type of things should pop up. No need. One of the contributing reasons behind this is the massive amounts of penalties, random breathalyzer tests, and a ton of TV ads that talk about drunk driving. The Australian government, in my opinion, is literally pummeling it's citizens into submission. When you say, 'You ADAPT', it basically means that you have to find ways of dealing with the laws the government hands you. I don't accept that inevitability.
The chances of one beer putting you over 0.05% BAC are minuscule believe it or not, even if you're a woman. But a second almost certainly would. 0.8% creates a situation where "one and a half" or "just under two drinks" makes you borderline illegal. And since many people believe current law allows for 2, they are more likely to push it to a third. A reduction would make most people stop at one, IMO. I know I would.
Hey! Government laws have stopped me from fertilising my backyard with the bodies of people who have !@#@ me off - so........... - - - Updated - - - Or you make it a shandy (for the ladies) or.............. now here is a thought try NON alcoholic. No I am not teetotal - just not addicted to alcohol and drink it more for flavour than effect
In a society that allows 2nd-3rd-4th-5th etc etc time violations, I don't think this is really going to help. Make the punishment for drunk driving alot harsher, and you might make a worthwhile impact.
That's where you and I will differ. I don't need government laws to explain to me that killing folks are wrong. Just because something is law, it doesn't mean that I automatically assume it so. - - - Updated - - - Most people don't even know how much .05 or .08 BAC is. It could be two, three, four, five, even a whole case in their eyes. They simply know drunk driving is against the law, so they know if they do it, there's a chance they'll get in trouble. They can lower it all the way down to 0.0%, it isn't going to change anything. This is trying to cure the symptom, not the cause.
there shouldnt be a limit regardless, all the limit is is a simple way to make money off people who have been drinking. point of the matter is that everyone reacts differently when it comes to alcohol, or any kind of mind altering substance. all that is needed is sobriety tests, if the son of a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) cant walk or talk straight then he shouldnt be driving, period. and if someone has had a few drinks but they are still in complete control of their body then let them be. you shouldnt be punished because of a damned breathalizer that doesnt even truly tell if you are drunk , but only that you have so much in your system. Ive seen guys and gals who down 8-12 beers in a 2 or 3 hour period and they are fully aware and physically capable as any sober person in the building. that .08 is nothing but a scam used to make money. its not hard to tell someone who is truly drunk and someone who just had a few drinks and is just fine to go home or whatever.
It is very simple. Bribe the DC police. Pull over more members of congress... and their interns... and their lobbyists... Drunk driving 'safely' will end up adding points to your license, not taking them away. You could do it in DC...
doesnt take much at all to blow a .05 , .08 is easily done as well. breathalizers dont tell the whole story anyways, they are far from the truth. Ive seen people who get drunk after 1 drink, and others who are still sober after 5 .
I could comment, really badly, on the above quote. However, I'll leave it to the imagination of those on this board.
