.05 Blood Alcohol Limit for Driving?

[Accidic]

I think the issue is largely political. When someone registers .008 they are not a danger to themselves or anyone else. The guy driving down the wrong side of an interstate who hits a. family of 6 returning from vacation is not .008. People in an accident at the lower level are people who had a drink and had an accident, not caused an accident. I am 64 and those under 40 could probably be at .01 and have faster reaction time than I completely sober, and I am not a danger behind the wheel. It is just a way for prosecutors and local law enforcement to generate press.Just my opinion.

I wish my grandfather could say the same. That man scares the @#$% out of me behind the wheel and of course... It's everyone else's fault. There is a very real issue with younger female drivers in this particular area however. It's like they flip a coin and decide they're either going to follow you at 60-70mph 10 feet from your bumper, or they have an utter fear of being passed in which they'll speed up to re-pass you then slow back down. It's like they've turned into 16 year old boys or something.

I'd most definitely advocate tougher driving tests though but then again I personally also believe drivers should be required to test with Manual transmissions rather than Automatics. But as my life was saved once by a manual transmission I'm a little biased.

 

[DrunkleJon]

I held off until today from reading this thread. I honestly was expecting a much larger S-show and far more accusational posts. Congrats on keeping it civil all.

Alcohol, like guns and personal privacy are, in my opinion, all of the same cloth when it comes to polotics and polite conversation. I see people who have never held a gun advocating banning them. I, being a computer guy who has a 'healthy level of paranoia' about being tracked online, constantly get asked the question "If you are doing nothing wrong, why do you have a problem with it?". This lowering of the requirement seems to me to be in the same vein.

I agree with both sides. Yes, this will not stop those that habitually drive over the limit from changing their practices one iota. If they are over the limit now, they will still be over the limit when it is lower. No question there. True, no one should drive impared (regardless of what it is due to). The problem with the whole thing is self identification. I am sorry, when I have a few I am unable to know "Okay, I have had X beers of Y abv in Z oz servings over the pasn N hours which were all equally spaced out with not having had a drink in P amount of time. Since I weigh L, I am now officially under the limit and okay to drive." Hell, I can't do that math now in my head.

The biggest problem is that public education of the problems is not efficient. You can ask anybody if they should drive drunk and they will say no. The problem lies in where people realize learn their limits and where they fall on the scale. As many have said before, after a dinner with a beer or 3, where is my intoxication level? I may feel below the limit, but still fail the tests.

My personal opinion is that before considering this, we need to fix our existing rules about it. No tolerance for repeat offenders. Period. Especially if someone is injured due to the drunks actions. I would also support tiered punishment levels for those just over through those blatantly over the limit. If i have 1 too many and get a DUI why should I not get a lesser punishment than somone who is a 4 time offender who ran into someone's house?

And lastly, I saw an amazing posting in the mens room at a local bar last year. It was a cab service, ilbeit one that costs a little more, that comes with 2 people. One drives you home, and the other drives your car home for you. Brilliant. Your car gets home so that problem is solved (and no towing or parking tickets from those parking enforcement Nazis), and so do you, and that to me makes it worth the little extra.

 

[Paps]

Not to split hairs, but the cop can't lie on a breath test. The on-scene breath-test is probable cause only and needs to have printouts from the breathalyzer machine and is only used for probable cause to arrest. The evidentiary one taken later needs to have printouts too, though typically blood or urine are taken because they are more accurate and hold up better in court.

You obviously have not spent time in Indiana.Sure maybe what you say holds true in California but i have been arrested for P.I. (on my own private property) from strictly the reading of the field officers breathalyser.When being `booked` i asked to be tested by the machine at the jail of which the officers denied me. A persons best bet is to avoid LEO's like the pluage.

 

[DrunkleJon]

You obviously have not spent time in Indiana.Sure maybe what you say holds true in California but i have been arrested for P.I. (on my own private property) from strictly the reading of the field officers breathalyser.When being `booked` i asked to be tested by the machine at the jail of which the officers denied me. A persons best bet is to avoid LEO's like the pluage.

I have been told by some boys in blue that you are 'technically' in public if you can be seen from public property (read, the road). I also seem to remember a news report from 9-10 years ago or so where a woman was pulled off a bar stool and breathalyzed and arrested for drunk in public. technically she was in public. The current alcohol laws really need to be fixed before they start saying the fix for something like this is a lower BAC.

 

[seigex]

You obviously have not spent time in Indiana.Sure maybe what you say holds true in California but i have been arrested for P.I. (on my own private property) from strictly the reading of the field officers breathalyser.When being `booked` i asked to be tested by the machine at the jail of which the officers denied me. A persons best bet is to avoid LEO's like the pluage.

Public Intoxication and DUI in California are two different things and hold two different extremes for punishment. Technically in California you can be arrested for drunk in public as long as you are in public view and you are "unable to care for yourself" (647(f) PC):

PC 647 (f) Who is found in any public place under the influence of
intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any
combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, controlled substance,
or toluene, in a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care
for his or her own safety or the safety of others, or by reason of
his or her being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any
drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any
intoxicating liquor, drug, or toluene, interferes with or obstructs
or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public
way.

no breathalyzer results are needed and can be based purely off of the officer's observations. This arrest in CA is typically for when someone fights, or is causing problems and the police had been called on the person and they are taken in for detox and never filed on. Not sure about the details of your case though or whether you took it to trial or not if you were charged.

DUI is under much more scrutiny and officer's observations are not enough to pass the test, and would not be filed on if it didn't include any evidentiary breathalyzer. And that doesn't change the fact that the officer's breathalyzer still can't be manipulated unless he is using one he purchased no the internet and not one provided by his department.

 

[seigex]

I have been told by some boys in blue that you are 'technically' in public if you can be seen from public property (read, the road). I also seem to remember a news report from 9-10 years ago or so where a woman was pulled off a bar stool and breathalyzed and arrested for drunk in public. technically she was in public. The current alcohol laws really need to be fixed before they start saying the fix for something like this is a lower BAC.

Bars are specifically identified in California as a place where you have to be able to care for yourself. Cops do "bar checks" all the time to make sure nobody is causing a ruckus, and a bartender is required to cut off patrons who are "obviously drunk" out of fear of losing their licenses.

 

[DrunkleJon]

Bars are specifically identified in California as a place where you have to be able to care for yourself. Cops do "bar checks" all the time to make sure nobody is causing a ruckus, and a bartender is required to cut off patrons who are "obviously drunk" out of fear of losing their licenses.

Oh I agree, you should be able to control yourself. This was not in CA, but it came out that the woman had one or two glasses of wine and the police officer said that they received reports that she was dancing on the barstools and taking her shirt off. The woman was still barely over the driving limit. Of course this is all what I remember from 10 years ago so I may be wrong.

 

[Paps]

Well like i had mentioned the laws are probably different from California To Indiana.
Certain states that i don't care for their laws i avoid,California is one such state and they get to lose out on any funds that they would get from my tax $$ or other things i `would` have bought while there.(my small version of the `free market` in action)

 

[seigex]

My problem isn't with the cops, in general they are just people doing their job to the best of their ability like anybody else. My problem is with the legislature. As long as we keep electing people who create ridiculous laws and we don't don't fight the laws we find ridiculous (like seatbelt laws), they will continue to walk all over us.

 

[TrubHead]

I have been told by some boys in blue that you are 'technically' in public if you can be seen from public property (read, the road). I also seem to remember a news report from 9-10 years ago or so where a woman was pulled off a bar stool and breathalyzed and arrested for drunk in public. technically she was in public. The current alcohol laws really need to be fixed before they start saying the fix for something like this is a lower BAC.

As I posted before lowering BAC appears to be monetarily motivated and political.

Here are a couple of article links where select police officers "abuse" their authority (DUI) at the expense of certain individuals. After reading, I'm cautious about drinking outside my residence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/lisa-steed-utah-state-trooper-fake-dui-arrests_n_2740623.html

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/23/5286298/ex-sacramento-police-officer-pleads.html

 

[shyanny]

I'm a DWI attorney, the difference between .08 and .05 is about 1.5 beers in an hour, on average. As noted earlier, the real issue isn't blood alcohol level, it's enforcement. Being "tough" on DWI is great for the politicians to talk about, but in general, the law is not "brought down" on anyone, unless you kill someone. It's highly unlikely you'll face jail time on even your 2nd DWI as long as no one was hurt or killed. They can make it .05 or .08 or .02, but it only really matters if they enforce it correctly.

Its not about jail time. Its about the fact that the law is not written to judge impairment. It Is written for entrapment. Its a revenue generator. It is written to make criminals out of otherwise lawful citizens. It is a flawed law. One person may be impaired with a BAC of .08 while another is totally functional at 1.0. The problem with being arrested for a DWI is not the jail time, it is the stigma attached to it and the sequelae that follows. I know people who have lost their jobs or been denied employment because of this flawed law. My brother is trying to get his Respiratory Therapist License for over a year now but even though he has passed his cirriculum and his state board exam the State will not allow him to become licensed until he completes a psychiatric review and is entered into an alcohol treatment program All at his expense. All this stemming from a DWI 1st offense from when he was 18. He's 22 now. And yes he had it taken off his record and no the State doesnt care.

 

[MNDan]

On the upside, cars will be driving themselves within 20 years. Then how will law enforcement generate revenue? Hehe.

I've already got a car that practically drives itself - adaptive cruise control + beeping when I leave my lane + automatic braking for obstacles. Set it to 60 and slow-roll home. Subaru FTW.

 

[fosaisu]

It is written to make criminals out of otherwise lawful citizens.

Couldn't you say this about every law in existence? Before their is a law against it, all conduct is lawful (or at least not unlawful).

I have to disagree that DUI laws and the use of BAC as a proxy for impaired driving is a money grab. I think people are genuinely and rightly upset when impaired drivers hurt and kill innocent people with their cars. Whether dropping BAC from .08 to .05 is the way to acheive the goal of decreasing accidents is a different question, but I think most people advocating the change have good motives.

BAC limits are a lot like speed limits. Mario Andretti could probably drive 90-100 on the freeway his whole life without massively increasing his risk of accident. The same isn't true for me or most others, so they set the speed limit lower and we all have to live with it, even though if you set it at 65 there are plenty who could safely do 75, and plenty more who should really never go above 50. If you set any "legal limit" higher than zero it will always be somewhat arbitrary (why 65 MPH instead of 60? Why have a bag limit of 2 fish instead of 1 or 3?) But it is much easier (and therefore cheaper) to enforce a concrete limit than a more generic standard (e.g. "recklessness" or "intoxication"), and if the rule leaves less to the enforcing officer's discretion then it arguably decreases the risk of arbitrary or abusive policing.

 

[ricksam]

"BAC limits are a lot like speed limits."

What a totally disingenuous argument. In order to make that comparison you would have to accept that everyone who is driving is drinking. Not only that, I don't care it you are a race car driver, if you are driving those speeds outside the controlled and consistent environment of a race track, you ARE massively increasing the risk of an accident.

I am also sure that there are many who are advocating for the change have good motives and intentions...and the road to hell is paved with them.

 

[fosaisu]

"BAC limits are a lot like speed limits."

What a totally disingenuous argument. In order to make that comparison you would have to accept that everyone who is driving is drinking. Not only that, I don't care it you are a race car driver, if you are driving those speeds outside the controlled and consistent environment of a race track, you ARE massively increasing the risk of an accident.

I am also sure that there are many who are advocating for the change have good motives and intentions...and the road to hell is paved with them.

I'm sorry if my argument strikes you as totally disingenuous, but why would I have to accept that everyone who is driving is drinking to compare BAC limits to speed limits? Everyone who is driving has to comply with the BAC limits (or be in violation of the law), which they can do by not drinking at all or by monitoring their intake. I don't follow your logic.

As far as people's intentions go, I agree that plenty of terrible laws have been passed with good intentions. But many in this thread have argued that this is all just a money-making scheme of some kind, and that doesn't seem likely to me to be the case.

 

[fosaisu]

"BAC limits are a lot like speed limits."

What a totally disingenuous argument.

And in the interest of moving the debate along, are there any driving rules/limits that you believe CAN be fairly compared to BAC?

 

[Mozart]

I have no problems with the idea of changing the BAC to .05% from .08%. It's generally .05% over most of Europe already.

As far as the 'impairment' argument, and that the laws should be based on this than an arbitrary BAC level, I do understand the argument, but I nevertheless support the BAC threshold.

To put it simply, under the impairment rule, one is impaired at 'first buzz'. For some of us, that can be a very small amount of alcohol. The problem with impairment rules is that impairment is much more difficult to determine. Sure, if someone is completely hammered, it's easy, but what about that fine line where one is just a little buzzed?

Ever been a little tipsy, to the point where someone you know really well can tell from the slight affect it has on your speech, but a complete stranger wouldn't notice? Field sobriety tests? Some people simply have better coordination and balance than others do.

Again, if we want to draw the line at impairment, that's 'first buzz', and it's darn hard to objectively prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law based on any kind of field sobriety test. BAC, however, is cut and dry, black and white. You're either above the legal threshold, or you're not. This, not a 'money grab', is why the BAC thresholds were put in place to begin with.

No law, or set of them, is going to be perfect, but in general the clearer and cleaner and less vague we make our laws, the better, and if lowering the BAC threshold from .08% to .05% encourages fewer people to get behind the wheel who are buzzed, then I personally would be in favor of it.

 

[TopherM]

if lowering the BAC threshold from .08% to .05% encourages fewer people to get behind the wheel who are buzzed, then I personally would be in favor of it.

So, by that logic, you would be AOK with the BAC threshhold being 0.00%, correct?

It's not like there's an arguement here that anyone DOESN'T want to save lives or DOESN'T think that drunk driving is wrong. It's a matter of "at what point is someone impaired?" and unfortunately that question is very dependent on the individual, yet there is this law that applies equally to all. It's the way it has to be, because laws need to be as objective as possible, but this arguement will NEVER end because it's an objective law that applies to a very subjective matter.

 

[Grippe]

Nothing significant to contribute other than having lived in a country with a zero tolerance for BAC and driving I found it really wasn't that bad. After a while I grew to appreciate it.

 

[TrubHead]

"BAC limits are a lot like speed limits."

What a totally disingenuous argument. In order to make that comparison you would have to accept that everyone who is driving is drinking. Not only that, I don't care it you are a race car driver, if you are driving those speeds outside the controlled and consistent environment of a race track, you ARE massively increasing the risk of an accident.

I am also sure that there are many who are advocating for the change have good motives and intentions...and the road to hell is paved with them.

Not the best comparison/analogy (had a chuckle after reading) so over looked that one.

Statistics has shown that the lowering to .08 BAC has noticeably reduced accidents. The .05 may further dissuade some to not over indulge and get behind the wheel. It has been well publicized the higher BAC levels (2x, 3x, etc) of drivers involved in accidents. Have there been any publicized accidents where the driver is at or below .08 BAC and if so what was that BAC? To add was the BAC the contributing factor (no texting, other distractions, etc)?

 

[Mozart]

So, by that logic, you would be AOK with the BAC threshhold being 0.00%, correct?

It's not like there's an arguement here that anyone DOESN'T want to save lives or DOESN'T think that drunk driving is wrong. It's a matter of "at what point is someone impaired?" and unfortunately that question is very dependent on the individual, yet there is this law that applies equally to all. It's the way it has to be, because laws need to be as objective as possible, but this arguement will NEVER end because it's an objective law that applies to a very subjective matter.

No, I would not be in favor of the BAC threshold being zero. That would, in my opinion, not be reasonable.

As I said, no law or set of them is going to be perfect. It seems we agree that impairment is subjective, or at least, difficult to objectively prove in every case, and that it is beneficial to have laws that are as objective as possible.

So it all boils down to reasonableness given conflicting goals that tug in opposite directions. That leaves a pretty wide swath of room for people, all with good motivations and even shared goals, to reasonably disagree.

Yes, this is a debate that will never end. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. I'd never call someone objectively 'wrong' for wanting to leave the BAC threshold at .08%, raise it to .10% where it was when I started driving, or even lower it below the proposed .05% threshold. I might disagree with them. I might think my opinion is 'better', for if it wasn't, why would I hold it? But there certainly is plenty of room for intelligent, reasonable people to honesty disagree with one another here.

The question was whether I, personally, would be in favor of the change.

I would.

And I fully admit my position is an opinion.

 

[techbrewie]

really its not the limit that needs to change its the severity of the punishment. obviously punishment for being caught DUI is an acceptable risk to many americans. not to me specifically, but the data on dui's each month speak volumes.

There needs to be a culture change, where personal responsibility and caring about the saftey of others as well as yourself is a priority. personally i think no amount of legislation can force that. It has to be a social movement.

 

[ricksam]

Nothing significant to contribute other than having lived in a country with a zero tolerance for BAC and driving I found it really wasn't that bad. After a while I grew to appreciate it.

Thats fine for you. I would not wish to live in such a country.

If you all believe that the b.a.c. issue is about saving lives, then it should be 0.00. While your at it, the speed limit should probably be lowered to say, 10 mph? And if you are on any medication, or not taking medication, you should not drive. You also shouldn't be allowed to drive if you are sensitive to light, or can't see well in the dark. Come to think of it, we shouldn't be allowed to drive east in the early mornings, or west in the late afternoons because of the sun in our eyes. All vehicles need to be equiped with the 'sleepy meter'. If you are determined to be too sleepy, as the soup nazi might say, no driving for you. Wait, you have a pet in your car?? They are way more distracting and dangerous than anyone under a .10. I could go on and on with this. But please, whatever you do, don't let the facts get in the way of your support for .05.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Thats fine for you. I would not wish to live in such a country.

If you all believe that the b.a.c. issue is about saving lives, then it should be 0.00. While your at it, the speed limit should probably be lowered to say, 10 mph? And if you are on any medication, or not taking medication, you should not drive. You also shouldn't be allowed to drive if you are sensitive to light, or can't see well in the dark. Come to think of it, we shouldn't be allowed to drive east in the early mornings, or west in the late afternoons because of the sun in our eyes. All vehicles need to be equiped with the 'sleepy meter'. If you are determined to be too sleepy, as the soup nazi might say, no driving for you. Wait, you have a pet in your car?? They are way more distracting and dangerous than anyone under a .10. I could go on and on with this. But please, whatever you do, don't let the facts get in the way of your support for .05.

Do you actually think that histrionics are valuable to the conversation?

 

[fosaisu]

Not the best comparison/analogy (had a chuckle after reading) so over looked that one.

Statistics has shown that the lowering to .08 BAC has noticeably reduced accidents. The .05 may further dissuade some to not over indulge and get behind the wheel. It has been well publicized the higher BAC levels (2x, 3x, etc) of drivers involved in accidents. Have there been any publicized accidents where the driver is at or below .08 BAC and if so what was that BAC? To add was the BAC the contributing factor (no texting, other distractions, etc)?

Most of the stats in the NTSB report that started this whole discussion come from other countries that dropped from .08 to .05 BAC and saw some type of decrease in accidents (some very small, some up to 10-12%). Not having looked at those studies I couldn't say if they controlled well for other variables that might account for the decrease. Obviously that's different than individual reports of accidents where a driver was in the .05-.08 BAC range, not sure how you'd go about finding those.

 

[TrubHead]

Most of the stats in the NTSB report that started this whole discussion come from other countries that dropped from .08 to .05 BAC and saw some type of decrease in accidents (some very small, some up to 10-12%). Not having looked at those studies I couldn't say if they controlled well for other variables that might account for the decrease. Obviously that's different than individual reports of accidents where a driver was in the .05-.08 BAC range, not sure how you'd go about finding those.

I think it would be beneficial on this subject of BAC level if that data was accurately obtained and analyzed by the NTSB rather than just following other countries policies.

 

[fosaisu]

I think it would be beneficial on this subject of BAC level if that data was accurately obtained and analyzed by the NTSB rather than just following other countries policies.

I agree that before shifting policy it makes sense to look at any data available regarding accidents where the driver was b/w .05 -.08 BAC. I'll bet there's at least some data out there since some states already have a seperate classification for people that are caught driving within that range. In Colorado if your BAC is .05-.08 there's a rebuttable presumption that you are "Driving While Ability Impaired" (lesser penalties than DUI and you can try to overcome the presumption with other evidence that you weren't impaired).

That said, I don't think it's accurate to say that NTSB is simply "following other countries policies" -- they rely on studies of what happened to accident rates after other countries did what they suggest the US do now, i.e. drop from .08 to .05 BAC. Assuming those studies are statistically valid (you'd hope so if they were published in reputable journals, but if not I bet we'll hear about it from the opponents as states start considering changes to the law) that seems like a pretty good way of predicting what the outcome of a drop to .05 would be.

 

[ricksam]

Do you actually think that histrionics are valuable to the conversation?

Its called perspective.

 

[OldWorld]

The stupid betties at MAAD want to make alcoholics lives a living hell. .08 is not impaired

The legal limit should be raised to .10

At slightly above .10 the repeat offenders who can afford dui lawyers will have less of chance using the rising blood alcohol defense.

 

[shyanny]

Couldn't you say this about every law in existence? Before their is a law against it, all conduct is lawful (or at least not unlawful).

I have to disagree that DUI laws and the use of BAC as a proxy for impaired driving is a money grab. I think people are genuinely and rightly upset when impaired drivers hurt and kill innocent people with their cars. Whether dropping BAC from .08 to .05 is the way to acheive the goal of decreasing accidents is a different question, but I think most people advocating the change have good motives.

BAC limits are a lot like speed limits. Mario Andretti could probably drive 90-100 on the freeway his whole life without massively increasing his risk of accident. The same isn't true for me or most others, so they set the speed limit lower and we all have to live with it, even though if you set it at 65 there are plenty who could safely do 75, and plenty more who should really never go above 50. If you set any "legal limit" higher than zero it will always be somewhat arbitrary (why 65 MPH instead of 60? Why have a bag limit of 2 fish instead of 1 or 3?) But it is much easier (and therefore cheaper) to enforce a concrete limit than a more generic standard (e.g. "recklessness" or "intoxication"), and if the rule leaves less to the enforcing officer's discretion then it arguably decreases the risk of arbitrary or abusive policing.

So why dont you write your legislator and ask them to change the limit to 0.01? It sounds like you would sleep better at night. Where is the study that shows that drivers with a BAC of 0.08 are suddenly no longer able to drive a vehicle? What was discovered to warrant a change to 0.05? As for me, I believe the individual should be judged on his/her level of impairment based on sobriety testing. As for your analogy to speeding, I suppose you don't believe in speed traps either... I guess there is truth in blissful ignorance.

 

[mike_in_ak]

I don't disagree with the substance there, but will add my two cents that sobriety testing as it currently stands is pretty much crap science and way too subjective.

Granted, they are called Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, but although the tests may be standardized, the testers are not.

 

[Accidic]

Statistics has shown that the lowering to .08 BAC has noticeably reduced accidents. The .05 may further dissuade some to not over indulge and get behind the wheel. It has been well publicized the higher BAC levels (2x, 3x, etc) of drivers involved in accidents. Have there been any publicized accidents where the driver is at or below .08 BAC and if so what was that BAC? To add was the BAC the contributing factor (no texting, other distractions, etc)?

Assertions of what the data says have done that but they are incredibly one sided to begin with and neglect to recognize any other advancements and instead attribute all improvements to that one variable. Statistics are typically used to push people to a desired response. It's actually rather frightening to see someone assess them with a specific statement in mind and their ability to repeatedly produce that stance regardless of what the data says. In the same breath, prior studies have shown that certain amounts of alcohol actually increase driver's alertness even though it doesn't entirely make sense unless your claiming that the slight depressant effect triggered a more alert response to counteract. You don't see them broadcast that fact though.

Personally, I think they should set the BAC to .02 and allow for tested response above that with a reasonable cap. I still maintain their primary drive for doing this is for feel goodism and revenue creation. My suggestion would allow both.

 

[fosaisu]

So why dont you write your legislator and ask them to change the limit to 0.01? It sounds like you would sleep better at night. Where is the study that shows that drivers with a BAC of 0.08 are suddenly no longer able to drive a vehicle? What was discovered to warrant a change to 0.05? As for me, I believe the individual should be judged on his/her level of impairment based on sobriety testing. As for your analogy to speeding, I suppose you don't believe in speed traps either... I guess there is truth in blissful ignorance.

I have tried to make clear that I don't necessarily support a drop to .05 - I'd want to see more data than what I found by looking at the NTSB report (it's worth a look if you are truly interested in this topic). You won't find a study saying that people are incapable of driving at .08, but you will find studies suggesting that accidents and deaths decreased in countries that dropped from .08 to .05 BAC limits. I don't find that unbelievable given what little I know about the impacts of alcohol on driving performance (seems like more of a curve of increased impairment as you drink more rather than a cliff you suddenly drop off at .08 or .10 or whatever). But I haven't read the underlying studies and there could be other data suggesting a much narrower benefit. It's perfectly reasonable in my opinion to, after considering the data, reach the conclusion that saving X lives a year isn't worth the cost and loss of freedom the change to .05 would require. People can disagree in good faith about where to draw that line. But people often seem inclined to ignore the data entirely and just argue from their gut, often demonizing the other side in the process (reckless alcoholics vs prudish prohibitionists). I think that's a lousy way to make public policy decisions.

As for speed traps, I always thought that's where the police camp out where it drops from 65 to 55 and try to catch people well over the posted limit. If that's what you're talking about I've experienced it and haven't enjoyed it. On the other hand I was breaking the speed limit, and was certainly more cautious for a good while thereafter. If your point was that speeding tickets are a huge source of revenue to the police and that they have ticket quotas and so forth (and probably hand out tickets to maximize fines incurred rather than accidents prevented, which probably isn't what the lawmakers had in mind) then I agree. But I wouldn't move from that point to the assumption that the "55 saves lives" folks were just looking to line the pockets of local govt and didn't believe their own arguments and data about safety.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

I think fosaisu brings up a valid point.

Its all but impossible to argue against the idea that this country has a segment of the population that would live life in a sterile bulletproof bubble rather than risk the most basic hazards in life, but its also true we have a segment of yahoos who would rather see pure anarchy than ANY infringement on personal liberty. Its almost as if a scientist could formulate the perfect equation for judging loss of freedom to gain in public safety.

Lets not forget, some older Italian men consider it an infringement on their personal liberty to demand they not rub up against or grab a woman's posterior on public transportation. The use of the word "freedom" must not be allowed to disrespect the word itself.

All that said... .05 seems too low.