.05 Blood Alcohol Limit for Driving?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
McBrewskie said:
That cannot be right. I'm 200 lbs and male and if I drank 5 beers in an hour I'd be significantly ****ty beyond .08.
Click to expand...

5 drinks in a hour, you are 200 lbs male you would be at .09 But for every 40 min after you start you can subtract .01% sooo that's .08 ish. You are legally drunk
 
fosaisu said:
Agreed, those charts are generally looking at a 12 oz can of 4-5% BMC, while many of us are enjoying 14-20 oz "pints" of 7% IPAs at a local bar or brewery. Makes a difference!

[EDIT: McBrewskie posted almost exactly the same thing while I was typing this, so well said McBrewskie!]
Click to expand...

Ha. I got new pint glasses the other day that are 20 oz and I had a couple of days where I was thinking, "man I had 3 beers list night, why do I feel like I'm slightly hung over?" Turns out those 20 oz pints of 7% IPAs will do that.
 
Magic8Ball said:
5 drinks in a hour, you are 200 lbs male you would be at .09 But for every 40 min after you start you can subtract .01% sooo that's .08 ish. You are legally drunk
Click to expand...

If I drink 5 beers in an hour and decide to drive I can guarantee I am gonna Monty Clift the heck out of myself and some other poor bastard.
 
McBrewskie said:
I see we live in different states. You live in Arizona where you are given the benefit of the doubt that at most times you act like a responsible adult. I live in California where the philosophy is if you drink, smoke, or hunt that you're evil.
Click to expand...

Like I mentioned in the other thread - you're in California, you're fecked! :eek:
 
Why not set the limit to .005 ? That way joe blow, politicians, cops, etc probably won't chance being pulled over then traffic will be reduced and gas supply increases. :D
 
TrubHead said:
Why not set the limit to .005 ? That way joe blow, politicians, cops, etc probably won't chance being pulled over then traffic will be reduced and gas supply increases. :D
Click to expand...

Alright hands behind your back son, gonna have to take you downtown for driving under the influence of NyQuil.
 
There are three DUI fatalities in my community of 50,000 according to the news right now. That's three too many. None were over .15.

Don't drink and drive. One guy killed his best friend.

Another swerved over center and killed a man while he was driving a toddler.

Its not your God given right to drive impaired. No matter the limit.

People shouldn't text while driving either fwiw.
 
MiloTheJayhawk said:
There are three DUI fatalities in my community of 50,000 according to the news right now. That's three too many. None were over .15.

Don't drink and drive. One guy killed his best friend.

Another swerved over center and killed a man while he was driving a toddler.

Its not your God given right to drive impaired. No matter the limit.

People shouldn't text while driving either fwiw.
Click to expand...

But how do I get my car home?
 
I should mention as well that my cousin did time drunk driving. When the paramedics arrived after the crash, he was trying to hold his friend's face on his head. It had come off, you see. The friend didnt make it.
 
CreamyGoodness said:
I should mention as well that my cousin did time drunk driving. When the paramedics arrived after the crash, he was trying to hold his friend's face on his head. It had come off, you see. The friend didnt make it.
Click to expand...

God damn, all joking aside, I've driven when I shouldn't have, but have grown up since then. It's dumb as **** and I couldn't live with myself if I hurt someone just because I was being a selfish moron.
 
CreamyGoodness said:
I should mention as well that my cousin did time drunk driving. When the paramedics arrived after the crash, he was trying to hold his friend's face on his head. It had come off, you see. The friend didnt make it.
Click to expand...

I've lost quite a few friends to drunk driving & drunk drivers. there's nothing like the feeling you'll never see someone again over something easily avoidable. same goes for cell phone & driving and exhausted driving.


no matted what the law is on you BAC limits, think before you get behind the wheel. a vehicle can be a useful tool, dangerous machine, or deadly weapon. just like a fire arm, it needs to be exercised with great care.
 
And let me ask you this... I know this isnt exactly the scope of the original question but it is loosely related... lets say you have 2 beers with a nice dinner out. Maybe you feel a little mellow, no big deal... how much would it kill you 99% of the time to wait a half hour and have a cup of coffee?
 
fosaisu said:
And I have to respectfully disagree with you again about the way people respond to changes in the law. It's a question of basic human behavior that's as applicable to jaywalking as it is to murder. The whole point of punishment is to deter "immoral" people (people who disagree with the policy and aren't going to comply with it just because it's written down somewhere) from acting in the way they otherwise would. If the punishment is sufficiently unpleasant and the law is enforced then some people will "fall in line" to avoid punishment rather than because it is the "right thing to do." And you will drive down the rate of the "undesireable" behavior, which is presumably why the law was passed in the first place.

As to your pro/con point, I'm definitely not convinced that the benefits of dropping to .05 outweigh the costs. That seems like a point worth discussing. But I simply don't buy the argument (as must be plain since I keep sqwaking about it) that making changes in the law is pointless because some people would never change their behavior no matter what punishment will result. Simply doesn't square with my understanding of human nature, which is that most people don't like being punished and will take steps to avoid it!
Click to expand...

I won't deny that there's plenty of merit to that thinking. I will contest, however, that lowering the limit further is going to create a statistically significant positive difference for society at large, solely because the limit is already below the dangerous level (assuming that we can even accept the 0.10 figure as truth).

I think what marginal gains there are to have through lowering the limit further likely won't outweigh the burden on those of us who are already obeying the law. I can't see the justification for taking more of my personal freedoms away.

CreamyGoodness said:
And let me ask you this... I know this isnt exactly the scope of the original question but it is loosely related... lets say you have 2 beers with a nice dinner out. Maybe you feel a little mellow, no big deal... how much would it kill you 99% of the time to wait a half hour and have a cup of coffee?
Click to expand...

I usually do this as it is. Under the proposed change, maybe now I have to wait an hour and have a second cup of coffee. Not the end of the world, but my time is valuable to me. So if I'm going to have to sacrifice more of that time, I want hard, verifiable evidence that lowering the limit further is going to have a real affect - other than fattening up our leaders' coin purses.
 
I am against them lowering it. I have been reading much today and it seems as if it will not do much in the difference of your driving ability. But like Creamy has said it would not hurt to wait a bit and make sure you are better to drive...with out the pie though please just bring me another side of bacon :p

Last night a buddy of mine was in a wreck and both parties were stone cold sober. I have read that there are way more wrecks with stone cold sober people than with drunk people as well for what ever reason. Should we not be looking at ways to stop ALL wrecks or at best target the greatest cause of the wrecks instead of the political hot potato cause.

I also checked several sites that had calculators to "inform" the public if they should drive after so many drinks. I would be very suspect of using any of them since I got different answers and sometimes by a lot. I am thinking now that I have a ton of breathalyzer ads popping up I might get one just to see how many drinks and how drunk I am some night
 
I like this thread. Here is my 2 cents. Please don't get all crazy trying to pick apart my argument, I have been drinking! The bac level is less of a deterrent than the punishment. The cops can always give you a dui, whatever the limit is. I do not drive after drinking Anything, because I grew up in Utah.

Utah is like a gestapo state when you are in high school. A minor in possession gets you 30 days of drug testing and 30 days of counseling. If you fail a drug test, 30 days in County. Two alcohol offenses of any kind and 30 days in County. The fines are outrageous as well. It sucked growing up, but I saw enough people go to jail that I just don't drink and drive at all.

Now I live in Kentucky, also a very hardcore republican state. This state doesn't care at all about drunk driving. It's rarely enforced. To stop drunk driving you need to have hardcore enforcement. And big time punishment. Drug testing on the back end is something nobody has mentioned. I promise it helps keep the crazies off the road.

At the end of the day I don't really care about any of this too much. I am a cell phone Nazi and that's all I care about these days. Using a phone in the car is at least as bad as being drunk...in any way shape or format. I see at least a couple people a week swerving around the freeway talking on their phones. We just had quite a few people die here in the past couple months. One lady was hit by a cell phone user and lost her baby in her belly and her legs.

After living in Utah, it's apparent that our cops don't enforce anything. They could make the bac limit zero and the speed limit 100, the culture around here is live and let live. This is also how I know there is a difference between being a Republican, and a redneck. Thanks for listening! Going to grab a beer!
 
I live in CA. Got attested for DUI in 2006. Blew 0.080 and 0.089 roadside, blood tested 0.080. Blood retest, per my attorney, was 0.078. It was thrown out of court, but the DMV still suspends your license, requires classes, etc. I was coming home from a brewfest and still had my wrist band on and my sampling glass on the seat. I had drunk lots of water and walked around for over an hour after my last beer, and could barely feel any effect at all. I screwed up by opening my mouth when the cop started asking questions, probably wouldn't have made any difference though. So for me, 0.080 is where I can just barely feel any effect, typically one beer at 4.5-6% ABV. So no drink and drive for me anymore; that also means I don't have to admit to a cop that I've had a drink, or lie. No more.
 
Varmintman said:
Last night a buddy of mine was in a wreck and both parties were stone cold sober. I have read that there are way more wrecks with stone cold sober people than with drunk people as well for what ever reason. Should we not be looking at ways to stop ALL wrecks or at best target the greatest cause of the wrecks instead of the political hot potato cause.
Click to expand...

Of course there are way more wrecks with sober people. It is a numbers game. There are more sober drivers on the roads then drunk ones. People just need to be smart while driving and realize that there are other drivers on the road. If the only people killed in drunk driving accidents were the drunk drivers fine. Sadly that isn't the case.
 
Which brings up a good point...bllaaaaarff. 'scuse me. :D This Alpine Spring ain't bad. They def need to get the average driver to pay attention to what they're doing now,not what they will be doing when they get where they're going. I also have to agree with something my father said 30 or 40 years ago. People should have to take the kind of drivers test Europeans do over here. i think they should have to take one of those defensive drivers test they do at the race driver schools. they put you on a skid pad & everything. Teach them what I was taught by my grandaddy. He started it when I was 3! He was what we called a runner,& drove his Watkins rout through those WV hills like Fangio at Der Nordschleife. I can even do great 4 wheel brake drifts in a front wheel drive. My Probe SE tuner is great fun driving the way grandpa taught me to.
*Just a lil FYI...a "runner" in country speak is a moon runner. Granpa never got caught!
 
unionrdr said:
Which brings up a good point...bllaaaaarff. 'scuse me. :D This Alpine Spring ain't bad. They def need to get the average driver to pay attention to what they're doing now,not what they will be doing when they get where they're going. I also have to agree with something my father said 30 or 40 years ago. People should have to take the kind of drivers test Europeans do over here. i think they should have to take one of those defensive drivers test they do at the race driver schools. they put you on a skid pad & everything. Teach them what I was taught by my grandaddy. He started it when I was 3! He was what we called a runner,& drove his Watkins rout through those WV hills like Fangio at Der Nordschleife. I can even do great 4 wheel brake drifts in a front wheel drive. My Probe SE tuner is great fun driving the way grandpa taught me to.
*Just a lil FYI...a "runner" in country speak is a moon runner. Granpa never got caught!
Click to expand...

Better driving tests is a good start. Driving tests in my state are a joke. I remember having my younger sister drop me off at school once right after she got her license. She was completely freaking out on the freeway. I said, "what the hell is wrong with you?" It was the first time she'd driven on the freeway. Way to give 16 year old girls no training at something that's super dangerous.
 
McBrewskie said:
God damn, all joking aside, I've driven when I shouldn't have, but have grown up since then. It's dumb as **** and I couldn't live with myself if I hurt someone just because I was being a selfish moron.
Click to expand...

I was actually way more cautious when I was younger. I would leave my car less than a tenth of a mile from my rural home, having stopped for a beer after work that turned into three or four beers.

The thought is always in my head that even if an accident were not my fault, I'd always wonder if I could have avoided it if I hadn't had a drink. Fear of causing harm deters me from drinking and driving.
 
SharonaZamboni said:
I was actually way more cautious when I was younger. I would leave my car less than a tenth of a mile from my rural home, having stopped for a beer after work that turned into three or four beers.

The thought is always in my head that even if an accident were not my fault, I'd always wonder if I could have avoided it if I hadn't had a drink. Fear of causing harm deters me from drinking and driving.
Click to expand...

Did you know that drunk walking is more dangerous than drunk driving?
 
I bet I could pick up a DUI walking out of my LHBS. They have 5 of their current beers on tap for samples. Sample are probably 1.5 oz. Anywhere between 5-10%. And if I go on an afternoon that he's kegging, maybe one or two of those, too. Works out to a pint or less of microbrew over the course of 45-60 min, but still enough.
 
I personally have a moral compass and can handle myself when I go out to the bar (pretty much never) or dinner (more likely) and know when I shouldn't drive, so arguably, this law won't affect me, however, I am still against it.

I'm part of the "enforce the laws we have rather than generating new ones or changing existing ones" group. This is a "feel-good" law not one that will make an impact.
 
I am definitely guilty of having one or two and then driving. Not proud of it and a cab is definitely a better option.

Keep in mind that almost the rest of the entire world is zero tolerance, even 1 beer so it's all relative!
 
cjtahoe26 said:
Keep in mind that almost the rest of the entire world is zero tolerance, even 1 beer so it's all relative!
Click to expand...

While I wouldn't argue that driving impaired is ever okay, much of Europe has decent (or in comparison to the States: excellent) public transportation. Much, much easier to never have to drive if you don't live in America where it's basically the only viable option. So I think that makes zero tolerance laws make much more sense over there - or anywhere with good public transport - than it does here.

So I think what's going to happen if the limit is lowered is that those folks who pay attention to their intake and wait around after drinking, making sure to get some water in their systems and pee a couple times will now have to either not drink or spend twice as much time doing their post-drinking sobering-up exercises. I just don't agree that it's necessary to subject responsible folks to this unless good evidence can be shown to support the supposed need for this change.
 

Similar threads

Bramling Cross
Driving Coast-to-Coast in a Miata....with DC plates. Advice?
Replies
11
Views
604
MaxStout
MaxStout
K
Sam Adams Double Bock
Replies
21
Views
2K
danb35
D
J
Bulk Pasteurization Research Thread
Replies
4
Views
165
Chalkyt
Chalkyt
A
RO Water - starting with lower pH
Replies
30
Views
1K
jerrylotto
jerrylotto
P
Keg has flat beer an froth
Replies
17
Views
1K
WesBrew
WesBrew
Yakima 300

Latest posts

Back
Top