NTSB and .05% alcohol level

The NTSB wants to lower the blood alcohol limit to 0.05% What do you all think about that?

 

More convictions. Would it changed much on a large scale? Probably not.

 

Wouldn't matter to me. I want to get my CDL and you can't be over that with it anyway.

 

It would be interesting to see what percentage of alcohol related accidents occured when the operator was between 0.05% - 0.08%. My belief and life experience has taught me that most drunk driving accidents happen when the operator is above the 0.08% - all reducing it will do is hurt the regular guy who has a beer or two and wants to go home. From my understanding too, 0.08% is not that noticable, how the hell would someone with 0.05% even know they are not OK to drive?

People who drive drunk will continue to drive drunk regardless of the legal limit.

 

More important than lowering the limit is punishing people who are actually convicted.

Especially for multiple convictions.

I have many friends who have multiple DUI convictions and not one has ever spent more than 2 days in jail.

I think a second conviction for DUI should be mandatory 1 year in jail.

Drunk drivers kill 12,000 innocent people every year.

They should be punished severly.

 

That depends on a lot of factors. I gave FSTs to a person that was a functioning alcoholic and blew WAYYYY above .08% and completed most FSTs dead on. Certain physiological effects can't be avoided or learned though and those take effect far before .08% so it is noticeable in that sense.

I concur with stricter punishments. Obviously the total cost over the long run isn't enough for some, so bump it up. Believe what you will as far as studies but .05% shows a dramatic loss in reaction time. I don't agree with the "1 is okay to drive" theory but that's just me.

Study from NHTSA in 2000, like I said take it as you wish. http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/hs809028/Results.htm#3.1

 

Well, the NTSB only recommends, they don't force the standard on the states. The only way it would happen is if it was mandated by restricting freeway funds.

I don't think I'd have too much trouble with it as I save most of my drinking for when I'm at home. From what I've read, for my size, I'd have to drink 4 drinks in an hour to reach .08 whereas it's 2 drinks per hour for .05. I may have one or two beers with a dinner but never more than that.

I'm also curious as to how many people involved in accidents had a BAC of 0.05 -0.08. I believe they're estimating that it would save about 1000/year, so that means about 8.3% of those accidents were for people between 0.05 and 0.08.

Technically, the law in California currently states you can be charged with DUI even if you're at 0.05 if it's believed the alcohol contributed to that. It's just harder to prove (0.08 is statute so it's an automatic). My main concern would be for people who are fine to drive and have done nothing wrong (e.g. random alcohol checkpoint vs. bad driving).

 

I always wonder what exactly .08 would feel like for me. I'm certainly against drunk driving and agree thang repeat offenders should face severe punishing but I also don't have a problem with having a couple beers when I'm out, especially since I generally drink light beer.

 

How it works here is if you are over .08 it's a DUI. If you are .05-.08 you lose your licence for a week and your car towed. My understanding when they changed the law was they wanted people to stop the "just one more, I'll be fine". Since .05 is basically one drink or less the law makers wanted to stop people from having two, three or four.

I stick with the one drink max while I'm driving and zero if I'm riding. But I completely agree with guitarjamman that drunk drivers will drive drunk regardless.

 

I've always been curious about the accident statistics they compile that "involved alcohol". Does it mean they determined conclusively the incident was caused by the alcohol or just that they determined one or more drivers, regardless of fault or circumstances, had a measurable BAC?

 

good money buys good lawyers that's the system

 

I'm with ya.

 

0.01 limit here. Anything shows up, you are under arrest.

 

That seems a bit drastic..how about the guy/gal stopping for ONE beer after work on Friday eve.

 

You can argue either way as far as the limit. 1 beer can put someone over the edge depending on their physical status at the time that wouldn't normally even give them a buzz. I still feel it's a punishment issue rather than limit issue though, but people will still do it because well...people are people.


Over here if they THINK they smell alcohol you're done, no breathalyzer just jail. Thank the lord for Western laws!

 

TOO LOW--Just more BS government CONTROL.
FYI-Never drive while intoxicated.
NEVER.
One beer and you go to jail--FUCKING BS
SLEEP DEPRIVATION is more dangerous than .08.

 

Here in New Brunswick, Canadaif you are caught with 0.05% - 0.08% you can have your license suspended for a week or so. Maybe they should start with something along those lines before just lowering the BAC all together.

http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/public_safety/promo/drivers_licence_suspensions.html

 

You can be charged with a DUI for being to tired or on pills. The alcohol limit is somewhat of a moot point. It's not DWI anymore. If they think you are UNDER ANY INFLUENCE you are busted.

 

What if your old lady tries to tell you how to drive?

 

Where is that AZ?

Straight from the states site.

2. If there was at that time in excess of 0.05 but less than 0.08 alcohol concentration in the defendant's blood, breath or other bodily substance, that fact shall not give rise to a presumption that the defendant was or was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor, but that fact may be considered with other competent evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant.


.08 and you're DUI

anything over .00 if you're under 21