NTSB recommends cutting DUI threshold to .05

[LongTimeListener]

http://www.sfgate.com/news/medical/article/Tougher-drunken-driving-threshold-recommended-4513199.php

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.

 

[old_tony]

****, just go back to Prohibition.

 

[Dick Whitman]

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.

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.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Restaurant industry too, ****, 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.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

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.

 

[YankeeFan]

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."

 

[Ace]

.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.

 

[Dick Whitman]

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."

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."

 

[Mizzougrad96]

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.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

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."

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."

That's actually a pretty good argument.

 

[LongTimeListener]

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."

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.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

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."

It's also a great way to generate additional tax revenue!!!

Ding. Ding. Ding.

 

[Captain Obvious]

A lot more opportunities for sober journalists if it comes into effect.

 

[Armchair_QB]

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

Or talking on your phone, eating, yelling at your kids, putting on make-up, or shaving.

This does seem pretty low to me too but as has already been pointed out it could theoretically discourage people in the .06 to .09 range so that's not a bad thing.

And like Orville said, it's great way to boost tax revenues. Which is all city, county & state governments care about when it comes to this and speed limits anyway.

 

[MileHigh]

****, just go back to Prohibition.

Or put an interlock device on all vehicles.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

NTSB recommendations are often roundly ignored by the rest of the government. It and the FAA are always at loggerheads, for example.

 

[BitterYoungMatador2]

http://www.sfgate.com/news/medical/article/Tougher-drunken-driving-threshold-recommended-4513199.php

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.

Since when do we follow what those commie pinko socilist European countries do?

 

[Armchair_QB]

http://www.sfgate.com/news/medical/article/Tougher-drunken-driving-threshold-recommended-4513199.php

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.

Since when do we follow what those commie pinko socilist European countries do?

Since we started playing soccer.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

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

Or talking on your phone, eating, yelling at your kids, putting on make-up, or shaving.

This does seem pretty low to me too but as has already been pointed out it could theoretically discourage people in the .06 to .09 range so that's not a bad thing.

And like Orville said, it's great way to boost tax revenues. Which is all city, county & state governments care about when it comes to this and speed limits anyway.

And sure beats raising garbage fees or property taxes. It's like a sin tax.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

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

Or talking on your phone, eating, yelling at your kids, putting on make-up, or shaving.

This does seem pretty low to me too but as has already been pointed out it could theoretically discourage people in the .06 to .09 range so that's not a bad thing.

And like Orville said, it's great way to boost tax revenues. Which is all city, county & state governments care about when it comes to this and speed limits anyway.

And sure beats raising garbage fees or property taxes. It's like a sin tax.

Yeah, I wouldn't really have a problem if they did to alcohol and maybe a few other things what they're already doing to cigarettes.

The problem with that, of course, becomes, where do you draw the line? Soda? Sweets? Coffee?