Options

lower blood-alcohol level that constitutes drunken driving

JonnyPistachioJonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,217
edited May 2013 in A Moving Train
What do you think??

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05 ... iving?lite

The National Transportation Safety Board voted to recommend to states that they lower the blood-alcohol content that constitutes drunken driving.

Currently, all 50 states have set a BAC level of .08, reflecting the percentage of alcohol, by volume, in the blood. If a driver is found to have a BAC level of .08 or above, he or she is subject to arrest and prosecution.
The NTSB recommends dropping that to a BAC level of .05.

Each year, nearly 10,000 people die in alcohol-related traffic accidents and 170,000 are injured, according to the NTSB. While that’s a big improvement from the 20,000 who died in alcohol-related accidents 30 years ago, it remains a consistent threat to public safety.

Studies show that each year, roughly 4 million people admit to driving while under the influence of alcohol.
The recommendation prompted immediate criticism from restaurant trade groups.

"This recommendation is ludicrous," said Sarah Longwell, managing director of American Beverage Institute. "Moving from 0.08 to 0.05 would criminalize perfectly responsible behavior.

"Further restricting the moderate consumption of alcohol by responsible adults prior to driving does nothing to stop hardcore drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel."

The United States, Canada and Iraq are among a small handful of countries that have set the BAC level at .08. Most countries in Europe, including Russia, most of South America and Australia, have set BAC levels at .05 to constitute drunken driving.

When Australia dropped its BAC level from .08 to .05, provinces reported a 5-18 percent drop in traffic fatalities.

The NTSB reports that at .05 BAC, some drivers begin having difficulties with depth perception and other visual functions. At .07, cognitive abilities become impaired.

At .05 BAC, the risk of having an accident increases by 39 percent. At .08 BAC, the risk of having an accident increases by more than 100 percent.

The NTSB believes that if all 50 states changed their standard to .05, nearly 1,000 lives could be saved each year. It is also considering other steps to help bring down the death rates on America’s roads.

The NTSB is an investigative agency that advocates on behalf of safety issues. It has no legal authority to order any change to state or federal law. It would be up to individual states whether to accept the NTSB’s recommendation, and up to the Department of Transportation whether to endorse the recommendations.
The last move from .10 to .08 BAC levels took 21 years for each state to implement.
Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Options
    BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    So two Miller Lite's and your legally drunk. If there going to lower it to .05 they should just make it .01. there's little difference.

    Personally as soon as i take the first sip of alcohol i've already decided i'm not driving.
  • Options
    redrockredrock Posts: 18,341

    Personally as soon as i take the first sip of alcohol i've already decided i'm not driving.

    As it should be. Impairment starts from the first gulp one takes. Even if it doesn't feel like it. Deceptive.....
  • Options
    Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    I really don't know what to make of this. I see the results of drunk driving all the time. So, I should be thrilled. But is this really going to reduce drunk driving fatalities or collisions? Or just increase the number of DUI's and income for counties?
  • Options
    redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    Seems it has reduced the numbers of accidents and fatalities in those countries that have reduced the limit.
  • Options
    JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    Coinciding with the eventual legalization of marijuana, this seems about right. The rise of pot, the downfall of alcohol. ;)
  • Options
    Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 33,602
    More people in jail, probably no less deaths. Not a fan.

    I live in a city so it's fine, but that is literally saying you cannot go out to dinner and have a drink and drive home if you are not within walking distance.
  • Options
    Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 33,602
    We need to start getting to the heart of the problem which is something this country never does. What is the blood alcohol of people who kill people in drunk driving accidents? Probably well above .1 most of the time. So what is this going to accomplish aside from putting more people in jail?

    Someone who is driving at .1 and above isn't going to be deterred by a lower BAC limit because they didn't give a shit about a higher one to begin with.
  • Options
    Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    Cliffy6745 wrote:
    We need to start getting to the heart of the problem which is something this country never does. What is the blood alcohol of people who kill people in drunk driving accidents? Probably well above .1 most of the time. So what is this going to accomplish aside from putting more people in jail?

    Someone who is driving at .1 and above isn't going to be deterred by a lower BAC limit because they didn't give a shit about a higher one to begin with.


    I'm pretty sure I agree with you. The majority of wrecks that i go to involving drunks and fatalities are people that are hammered.
  • Options
    pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    Cliffy6745 wrote:
    More people in jail, probably no less deaths. Not a fan.

    I live in a city so it's fine, but that is literally saying you cannot go out to dinner and have a drink and drive home if you are not within walking distance.
    I agree it is another easy answer to a hard problem that has seen no fix.

    They did make the water safer here maybe and lower the blood alcohol for boating
    to the same as motor vehicle. Lots of drunk people on the lakes, kids and adults dying.
  • Options
    pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Coinciding with the eventual legalization of marijuana, this seems about right. The rise of pot, the downfall of alcohol. ;)
    :? or consume both and be even more fucked up.
  • Options
    chadwickchadwick up my ass Posts: 21,157
    how about bars & night clubs & places serving more than one glass of wine or one beer with a meal start taking people's car keys? how about drunk drivers caught go to prison & no driving for five years or longer.

    heavily drinking in a tavern all night... cool. good stuff. having a blast. great, grand, awesome. they just lost their keys until morning time... by law. and if they drive off and are caught and or kill ppl driving drunk, the tavern owner is in a serious jam.
    for poetry through the ceiling. ISBN: 1 4241 8840 7

    "Hear me, my chiefs!
    I am tired; my heart is
    sick and sad. From where
    the sun stands I will fight
    no more forever."

    Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
  • Options
    Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    chadwick wrote:
    how about bars & night clubs & places serving more than one glass of wine or one beer with a meal start taking people's car keys? how about drunk drivers caught go to prison & no driving for five years or longer.

    heavily drinking in a tavern all night... cool. good stuff. having a blast. great, grand, awesome. they just lost their keys until morning time... by law. and if they drive off and are caught and or kill ppl driving drunk, the tavern owner is in a serious jam.
    I know bartenders can refuse to serve people. But why make it the bar owners responsibility to babysit drunks?
  • Options
    josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 28,299
    Even when i go out to dinner we allways choose who can drink and who drives i don't see this as a big deal ..
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • Options
    hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
    I wonder how the cars that can drive themselves will fit into this...
  • Options
    JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    pandora wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Coinciding with the eventual legalization of marijuana, this seems about right. The rise of pot, the downfall of alcohol. ;)
    :? or consume both and be even more fucked up.
    Put me on ignore, Pandora.
  • Options
    chadwickchadwick up my ass Posts: 21,157
    chadwick wrote:
    how about bars & night clubs & places serving more than one glass of wine or one beer with a meal start taking people's car keys? how about drunk drivers caught go to prison & no driving for five years or longer.

    heavily drinking in a tavern all night... cool. good stuff. having a blast. great, grand, awesome. they just lost their keys until morning time... by law. and if they drive off and are caught and or kill ppl driving drunk, the tavern owner is in a serious jam.
    I know bartenders can refuse to serve people. But why make it the bar owners responsibility to babysit drunks?
    what other ideas do we have?
    for poetry through the ceiling. ISBN: 1 4241 8840 7

    "Hear me, my chiefs!
    I am tired; my heart is
    sick and sad. From where
    the sun stands I will fight
    no more forever."

    Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
  • Options
    JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    I really do think that with the increasing decriminalization of marijuana, they'll be making up for it with alcohol. Not necessarily more jail time, but perhaps more fines, since many people don't end up in jail without getting multiple DWIs.
  • Options
    JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    More than 100 countries already use .05 as the legal limit for drunk driving.
  • Options
    pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    Jeanwah wrote:
    pandora wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Coinciding with the eventual legalization of marijuana, this seems about right. The rise of pot, the downfall of alcohol. ;)
    :? or consume both and be even more fucked up.
    Put me on ignore, Pandora.
    Now you want to ignore again? this is so confusing to me.
    Seems you want me to ignore you but you want to still make jabbing comments to me
    then say you want to go back to ignore in the same breath. :lol: Heavens...
    I don't think this is how its supposed to work but
    ok
    We'll try again. You ignore me I'll ignore you but no take backs now.
    This is your word.
  • Options
    JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    pandora wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    pandora wrote:
    :? or consume both and be even more fucked up.
    Put me on ignore, Pandora.
    Now you want to ignore again? this is so confusing to me.
    Seems you want me to ignore you but you want to still make jabbing comments to me
    then say you want to go back to ignore in the same breath. :lol: Heavens...
    I don't think this is how its supposed to work but
    ok
    We'll try again. You ignore me I'll ignore you but no take backs now.
    This is your word.

    Stop playing games and just do it, please.

    Now let's get back on topic!
  • Options
    pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    Jeanwah wrote:
    pandora wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Put me on ignore, Pandora.
    Now you want to ignore again? this is so confusing to me.
    Seems you want me to ignore you but you want to still make jabbing comments to me
    then say you want to go back to ignore in the same breath. :lol: Heavens...
    I don't think this is how its supposed to work but
    ok
    We'll try again. You ignore me I'll ignore you but no take backs now.
    This is your word.

    Stop playing games and just do it, please.

    Now let's get back on topic!
    games :? I am being fair and you first ;):lol: just kidding now never speak to me again I mean it! :P
    ignore away we will
  • Options
    SeaSea Earth Posts: 2,923
    Topic derailed by bickering. You are not using ignore properly if you are commenting to each other.
This discussion has been closed.