1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

NTSB recommends cutting DUI threshold to .05

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by LongTimeListener, May 14, 2013.

  1. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member


    Down from .08, and in line with countries around the world. In Europe, DUI deaths dropped by half with the new limit.

    That's one drink for a 120-pound woman, two drinks for a 160-pound man. I'm all for it, but I don't think it has a chance in hell because we'll see the alcohol lobby in full force on this one.
  2. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Fuck, just go back to Prohibition.
  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    More like the restaurant lobby, right? I'd imagine that the beer and wine lobby might be agnostic about it - they could, conceivably, make up lost sales in restaurants, bars, and ball games with gained sales at package liquor and grocery stores.

    I'd like to see some more concrete empirical analysis, but my initial instinct is, "Yes, go for it." Now, if the economic and other costs of the new policy outweigh the benefits - presumably in saved lives - of dropping from .08 to .05, and this can be reliably demonstrated, then I reserve the right to change my mind.
  4. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Restaurant industry too, Dick, but the alcohol industry won't be silent. They have money and spend it huge. They're the ones who keep preventing the ignition interlocks for repeat DUI offenders.
  5. Not sure how much the lobbies will be able to affect this.
    It runs in my mind, the feds strong-armed states into lowering the limits last time by threatening to withhold highways funds for any that failed to roll back the limits.
  6. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    It's dumb, and unnecessary.

    The folks involved in auto accidents routinely have a BAC greater than 0.1%. The folks at 0.09% and 0.08% aren't the problem, let alone folks with a lower BAC.

    This is feel good legislation, and the best argument that will be made for it is that it will, "save one life."
  7. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    .05 seems pretty low. I am probably more impaired than that by looking at wildflowers.

    If it gets through, folks will have to hold it to 1 or 2 beers -- or a six-pack of Coors Light.
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    You're misunderstanding the effects. The problem isn't people who are at .05. It's the people who think they are at .05, but are really at .09 or .10. Trust me on this one. It happens.

    A .05 limit doesn't only eliminate .05 drivers from the road. It also eliminates the .08, .09, .10, etc., etc., drivers who will find it more difficult to convice themselves that they are "under the limit."
  9. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I'd love to know the number of accidents caused by someone in the .05 to .08 range. I'm guessing it's not high, but I could be wrong...

    It makes no difference to me since I rarely drink, but at first glance, it doesn't seem necessary.
  10. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    That's actually a pretty good argument.
  11. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    The story notes, and I mentioned too, that when Europe took this measure, it reduced deaths by half.

    That fact would seem to contradict your premise.
  12. It's also a great way to generate additional tax revenue!!!

    Ding. Ding. Ding.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page