NTSB recommends cutting DUI threshold to .05

Either way, it isn't a practical option in many good-sized cities here, and non-existent in rural and small-town America.

 

Practical option?

It seems *not* drinking and driving is a fairly practical solution.

 

So that means about 5 percent of male drivers and 2 percent of women in fatal crashes had BACs of .01-.0799.

http://www.edgarsnyder.com/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-statistics.html

 

Lowering it to .05 sounds good. Definitely for the good of public safety. DWI penalties should be increased, too.

If you're stupid enough to drink and drive then you should get hit with the hammer if caught. Don't like it? Tough shit. Don't drink and drive.

 

Works for me.

 

We have a tremendous commitment to the living in this country -- but only so far in terms of lowering speed limits and legal BAC limits, restricting access to firearms, providing universal health care, helping to preserve the planet and the life of its resources or, you know, doing anything too much like any European country does (and has done with proven success rates).

 

So where are all the empty jails we're going to put these new DUI offenders in?

 

Most of it is done with fines.

 

Would there be more offenders? Were there more arrests after .10 to .08? Police would be looking for the same signs of impairment. Presumably, someone wouldn't be pulled over at .05 or .06 if they weren't actually impaired, right? Theoretically, the extra number of people arrested between .05 and .07 would be offset by the number of people deterred by the new limit from drinking and driving in the first place. Right?

 

All for it.

The NTSB says it expects this measure would save 500-800 lives per year, out of the approximate 11,000 annual traffic deaths caused by drunk driving.

Sorry if you can't enjoy that second or third drink with dinner, but the convenience of your buzzed driving isn't worth 800 lives per year.

 

How are you measuring this?

If 800 deaths is too many, how many is ok? Is your answer "one life"? Should we change the law if it will save ONE LIFE?

How many lives would be saved if we dropped the speed limit to 50MPH, or even just back down to 55? I'll bet it's as many as 800.

Are you for that? Is it worth 800 lives -- or even ONE LIFE -- for you to arrive at your destination a little earlier?

 

I posted this email I just received from the AAA on the politics thread to make another point (which didn't work out so well), but it applies here too:

Please call or email your State Representative and urge them to vote no on Senate Bill 2356, legislation that would increase the speed limit to 70 M.P.H. for cars and large trucks on Illinois' highways.

Senate Bill 2356 has already passed through the Illinois Senate and will go to the House of Representatives for a vote this week. Ask your Representative to VOTE NO on this bill because it has the potential to drastically increase the risk of injury and death on Illinois' highways.

While going faster may seem more convenient, it comes with very dangerous consequences. Already in Illinois, more than half of the state's 900+ roadway fatalities are due to speeding. Fatalities involving large, speeding trucks are also on the rise. AAA does not believe the answer to these problems is to increase the speed limit.

AAA strongly opposes Senate Bill 2356 and we ask you to join us in opposing the legislation.

Please contact your state representative and ask them to keep our roads safe and vote against higher speed limits.


So, should we lower the speed limit in states where it is higher than 55MPH. Look a all the fatal accidents that occur just in Illinois involving someone who is speeding.