.05 Blood Alcohol Limit for Driving?

[Slainte-brew]

My buddy works for LifeSafer here in Ohio, they make breathalizers for automobiles for multiple offense drivers, and he said that there is talk of making it mandatory to have ignition interlock devices in all cars (in the future, years away). Car wont start if you have had a drink! I dont think that restaurants and bars would ever let this happen.

 

[unionrdr]

It all comes back to certain people wanting someone else to blame for their lack of vision. I think it's just a new version of prohibition being forced on the many by the few. Grow the F up & teach your kids common sense & what it'll be like if they drink to much & what to expect.

 

[YNOT2K]

so the change is designed to "catch" those between .05% and .08%? those aren't the folks on the road i'm worried about. dropping the limit will only "catch" those who probably really aren't impaired.

 

[SharonaZamboni]

Here in Australia it's 0.05. For our younger drivers it's 0.00, and ever since that became law it has reduced our road toll hugely. Our labels on alcoholic beverages tell us how many standard drinks are in each one. As pictured. But really these laws only stop honest people. Too many people die or seriously hurt themselves or others after getting on it.
Bottom line really is don't drink and drive.

I like that labeling! It definitely gives you more information about the alcohol content of your drink.

I don't condone impaired driving, and don't drive if I feel any effects. That means maybe one BMC on an empty stomach, or whatever the circumstances are. You ever have a day when just one drink feels like two or three? Or have a nice beer with a big dinner and feel nothing? I do, so I can't use a set number of drinks as my driving limit.

I think that BAC levels are not necessarily the best way to determine how impaired a driver may be. I know a long-time alcoholic person who I'd rather see have a drink to control his DTs before trying to drive. I also know someone who shouldn't drive after a couple of ounces of wine. Their BAC levels effect each of them quite differently.

 

[looneybomber]

In KS, if you're carrying a concealed firearm (we're a concealed firearm, not weapon state), anything over 0.00 is a felony, driving or not. That's one way to keep drunk driving down.

As for if they should change it, no, it won't do much good. If it was changed, I would not be able to finish my second beer at the restaurant.

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

As far as this goes, I'm against it.

First off I'm 100% against drunk driving. Never done it but I am the person who'll drive after having a few beers or enough time to sober up.

I think though there are many things on the road that are a much bigger threat than drunk driving. People putting on makeup while driving, people talking on their phone while driving. People staring at their GPS while driving, etc.

Face it some people just shouldn't be driving. I'm a very good very safe driver. I do things that aren't 100% in the rules of the road (speed being the biggest) but I do it knowing I'll have enough space to avoid an accident.

 

[kombat]

Don't drive after you've been drinking, and it's not an issue.

Ever drive tired?

Ever drive after having a heated argument with someone?

Those can be just as dangerous - if not more so - than driving after a beer.

 

[fuzzy2133]

I do not think we are getting a full and complete story; I can understand if it was simply making the arrest and guilty point the same at 0.05.

What I am curious about is what are the BAC statistics when there is an incident. What is the percentage over 0.08, between 0.08-0.05 and under 0.05.

Hell lets put this in perspective with driving distracted incidents. If it is just a money grab they could make plenty of money enacting and enforcing hands free cell phone use laws or no cell phone use while driving.

 

[aubiecat]

Ever drive tired?

Ever drive after having a heated argument with someone?

Those can be just as dangerous - if not more so - than driving after a beer.

Doesn't justify driving while intoxicated.

 

[mb82]

Hell lets put this in perspective with driving distracted incidents. If it is just a money grab they could make plenty of money enacting and enforcing hands free cell phone use laws or no cell phone use while driving.

Handsfree does not take away the fact most people can not concentrate on two tasks that need as much thinking power as talking on a phone and driving. No cell phone use while driving is nearly impossible to enforce when there is handsfree phones, how could a police officer tell if the person is talking on their phone handsfree or just singing to the music in their car? Well besides the occasional air guitar solos

I am not sure what the dropping of the legal BAC to .05 would accomplish. Of course I am sure if the feds made it law that my state would argue the rule and take the hit on transportation funds just to be a thorn in the side of the Feds at the expense of its citizens.

 

[skw]

I've seen people who blew a .08 not fail a field sobriety test (I use to work in EMS). I don't think a .05 would be impaired at all. They wouldn't be swerving, crossing the center line, etc. I don't think they would have slowed reaction time.

I don't see the advantage to dropping the limit and why it would save lives.

First, BAC is the only way I want to have it in the law. It's a clearly defined measurable number and leaves no room for interpretation. All other sobriety tests, well intended as they may be, leave too much room for chance and interpretation. Whether you get a DUI or not should depend on a fact and not on whether you seem sober to someone.

Most people I know have no idea about BAC - they just go by guidelines, such as "two beers and you're still in the legal limit". Now if the BAC limit gets lowered and the media makes a bit of a stir about it, everyone will now know it's lower than it used to be - so without knowing the actual numbers, people will probably say "now that it's more strict, I won't have more than one". That I would hope is going to keep at least some people from driving while intoxicated.

Personally, I don't drink and drive. For me it's strictly one or the other. I wish that everybody should do the same, but that doesn't mean I think this should be the law.

 

[zmad2000]

To me this is just a political move nothing more nothing less. Some guy wants the "bitchy women with nothing better to do" vote.

For the texting argument. PUT THE PHONE DOWN!!!
Now talking on the phone. Well have you seen what cops are doing in the patrol cars. Here is Jersey i have seen more cops on their phone than reg drivers. Its a little disturbing. I was told its so that they can have a private talk to the dispatcher. BS. I have never seen a cop ever have that good of a talk with a dispatcher.

I say just teach the people to be better drivers. Go to almost any country in the world and look what they have to learn before they can drive. When i was getting my license i showed my EU friends what i had to "study". It was a joke. Being in New Jersey I think we have the worst drivers in the country and teaching people to drive better would improve the WHOLE situation. No politician though is going to get elected on "Lets relearn how to drive"

 

[kombat]

Doesn't justify driving while intoxicated.

Sure it does (assuming by "intoxicated" you meant "any alcohol at all in your system").

It's not black-and-white, it's a spectrum. It's not like you're perfectly fine at 0.07 BAC, but at 0.09 you're all over the road.

The limit is set where it is because the powers that be have decided that at 0.07, you're not a danger. 1 beer will not put you even close to 0.07 (unless it's a bomber of Eisbock, and you're Kerri Strug). You won't be quite as alert as if you hadn't had any beer at all, but you're still within the "safe" zone, according to the law.

Likewise, it's legal to drive tired, even though you're not at 100%. It's legal to drive angry, even though you're not at 100%.

Unless you're claiming you only ever drive when you haven't had anything to drink in the preceding 2 days, you're well rested, in a good mood, and without any distractions (radio is off, cell phone is on vibrate and out of reach, etc.)?

 

[GarageDweller]

Ban driving while late for work. Join my group BALD. Bitches Against Late Drivers

This whole country is going to $hit. you are telling me that this is what our government is focusing their time on? I want to be free, not micromanaged to death with minor details of where someone else says the bar for every damn choice I have in my life should be set. Its endless and completely ridiculous. We don't need politicians in washington to deal with crap like this. balance the budget before you make anymore restrictive laws. I guess the F.O.P. is complaining about needing raises and more cashflow, so congress better get on restricting us even more. Those of you who take the moral high road and say "oh i never drink and drive" thats great for you, but don't just sit there and let people's rights be eroded because you can't be bothered to think past yourself. I agree with the sentiment that its not the folks between .05 and .08. those are the people trying to be careful. beat the fed!

quit legislating morality in washinton dc and state capitols across the country. you bastards!

 

[RyeGuy]

Is they trying to make this a national law or up to the states? If national I don't see how congress has the authority to do that.

Plus how soon is it before we wind up with pre cogs predicting that we may drive and arresting us before we do it

 

[bob1852]

Is they trying to make this a national law or up to the states? If national I don't see how congress has the authority to do that.

It'll probably be the same as now. The states can have whatever level they want, but if they want federal highway dollars, it has to be set at 0.08.

 

[kombat]

Is they trying to make this a national law or up to the states? If national I don't see how congress has the authority to do that.

It's up to each state to set their own speed limits and DUI limits.

However, the federal government influences such decisions by witholding highway funding unless the states - of their own free will - choose limits the feds "approve" of.

 

[RyeGuy]

True. Federal highway dollars is how they get you. Hopefully some state soon will say screw you feds, we're just not gonna send you the taxes in the first place just to have you hold us ransom.

 

[mcl]

In KS, if you're carrying a concealed firearm (we're a concealed firearm, not weapon state), anything over 0.00 is a felony, driving or not. That's one way to keep drunk driving down.

Do you have a link for this. I thought it was a misdemeanor.

 

[xjmox14x]

Is they trying to make this a national law or up to the states? If national I don't see how congress has the authority to do that.

Plus how soon is it before we wind up with pre cogs predicting that we may drive and arresting us before we do it

They don't have the authority and can't do that. They can, however, pass incentives along to the state level to persuade them to implement it as law. Much like how there is no national drinking age, but every state's age is at 21 because the DOT would skull**** any state should they lower it.

 

[thood6]

Is they trying to make this a national law or up to the states? If national I don't see how congress has the authority to do that.

Plus how soon is it before we wind up with pre cogs predicting that we may drive and arresting us before we do it

Congress doesn't have the authority. Doesn't mean they can't make it happen. Just like they did with the national drinking age and the national speed limit. Bye bye 10th Amendment

 

[RyeGuy]

I understand dot does and would try that. I'm just saying they shouldn't an the states should stand up and say, no were a sovereign state and we're not sending you your precious tax money

 

[kombat]

I'm just saying they shouldn't an the states should stand up and say, no were a sovereign state and we're not sending you your precious tax money

Great idea! Who's first?

 

[CreamyGoodness]

I just wonder if the accidents will go down at all. People who drive impaired now are not going to stop because the limit has changed but the revenue going into the police will increase.

I also think the personal responsibility angle will not work. Some people need just need laws. It is almost as if they do not understand or have a moral compass to follow and with out the laws they are lost.

I also wonder when the limit will be zero but not limited to driving. When will we get a ticket for tending our kids and having a few beers at home.

You bring up some interesting points, but truly, I think this (like most if not all laws) is a measure to keep law abiding citizens from engaging in a certain behavior. Criminals and scoff-laws will likely still not follow the law (the very definition of criminal) but the soccer mom who had 2 glasses of sangria for the first time in 6 months and now plans to drive her kids home will think twice. The thing is, the soccer mom is as likely as the criminal to cause an accident and cause grievous bodily harm to herself or others. Maybe, arguably, even more so, seeing as a repeated drunk driver is more practiced at staying between the lines.

Just think, Im sure there has been at least one instance in your life that you were a micrometer from punching that one *******'s teeth down his throat... he sure would have deserved it... and the only reason you didnt was because of the legal trouble you would have gotten into.

Speaking to your last point, I honestly dont see that happening. I just dont. We are in a country that will put you in jail for 20 years for having a little baggie of drugs, but then give your kids back to you more or less the moment you get out of jail. Nevermind that your kid was using hypodermics instead of darts to play cricket when they arrested you.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Great idea! Who's first?

Going out on a limb and guessing South Carolina. Always goes swimmingly.

 

[MNDan]

There is a lot of BS in the news release, with quoted statistics that are in no way correlated with alcohol. For example - "The number of alcohol-related highway fatalities, meanwhile, dropped from 20,000 in 1980 to 9,878 in 2011, the NTSB said." Well, the overall incidence of traffic deaths dropped from 52,000 in 1980 to 32,367 in 2012, and that combined with a change in how they classify "alcohol-related death" equates to no change at all in the number of deaths as they relate to alcohol. It's sad that we have to let outliers like the members of MADD set public policy. I'd be crazy, too, if my child died.

This is the article I'm referring to:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol/index.html

 

[xjmox14x]

There is a lot of BS in the news release, with quoted statistics that are in no way correlated with alcohol. For example - "The number of alcohol-related highway fatalities, meanwhile, dropped from 20,000 in 1980 to 9,878 in 2011, the NTSB said." Well, the overall incidence of traffic deaths dropped from 52,000 in 1980 to 32,367 in 2012, and that combined with a change in how they classify "alcohol-related death" equates to no change at all in the number of deaths as they relate to alcohol. It's sad that we have to let outliers like the members of MADD set public policy. I'd be crazy, too, if my child died.

This is the article I'm referring to:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol/index.html

I suppose next you're going to tell me that global warming is not due to the decrease in pirate population?!?!

Of course, sarcasm aside, I'm with you. Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[billl]

I'm sure MADD is never going to admit it, but none of the laws they pushed have had any impact on drunk driving fatalities. Since we dropped the limit to 0.08 nationwide, the percent of alcohol related traffic fatalities has stayed constant.

That really should have been an obvious result, but everyone wanted to "get tough" on drunk drivers. The problem is that the vast majority of drunk driving deaths are caused by people at over 0.24. These people have absolutely no business behind the wheel, but are too drunk to make a rational decision. Arresting a bunch of people at 0.08 has no impact on the people above 0.24. ie the dangerous ones. Likewise, arresting people in the 0.05 to 0.08 will have no impact on fatalities.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Im not sure I fully agree that someone at .24 is dangerous and 0.08 is not. If my reaction time is slowed, it is slowed.

 

[Desvio]

The news was covering this the other day talking with the local PD, funny thing was the police were against the change to .05 due to the increases it would cause across the board. However they backed it up by saying you can still blow a .05 and if you are visibly intoxicated, you will be arrested. And sure, a good lawyer can get you off that one, but you are still going to be forking our a ton of money in legal fees, impound, and others regardless.

 

[billl]

"Im not sure I fully agree that someone at .24 is dangerous and 0.08 is not. If my reaction time is slowed, it is slowed."

Statistically, 70% of fatalities are the result of people with over a 0.24. The rest peters out very quickly. Almost none of the fatalities are caused by people at 0.08. You are as likely to get struck by lightning than to die in a "drunk" driving accident with someone blowing a 0.08 let alone a 0.05.

 

[rdann87]

Cant say i'de be too happy about that.

I understand the reasoning, but as someone young, who lives in a somewhat remote area... Taxi's arent really a possibility.

Last time i took a cab, it cost like 50 bucks each way... and it was gross.

I'de much rather just be mature and monitor my intake... or call a friend if I've had too much.

 

[unionrdr]

To be honest,it's not too much of a problem for me anymore. They outlawed smoking in public places a few years ago,including bars. So I quit going. Now I only drink when I know my day of runnin around is done.

 

[fosaisu]

Statistically, 70% of fatalities are the result of people with over a 0.24. The rest peters out very quickly. Almost none of the fatalities are caused by people at 0.08. You are as likely to get struck by lightning than to die in a "drunk" driving accident with someone blowing a 0.08 let alone a 0.05.

Since it sounds like you've looked at the stats, how many deaths are caused by drivers at 0.08 (or between .08 and .05) every year? If it's actually less than lighthing strikes (evidentenly there were 28 of those in the US in 2012), that's a pretty good argument against lowering the limit.

According to the CNN article, NTSB thinks dropping from .08 to .05 would save 500-800 lives a year.

 

[djt17]

Ban driving while late for work. Join my group BALD. Bitches Against Late Drivers

This whole country is going to $hit. you are telling me that this is what our government is focusing their time on? I want to be free, not micromanaged to death with minor details of where someone else says the bar for every damn choice I have in my life should be set. Its endless and completely ridiculous. We don't need politicians in washington to deal with crap like this. balance the budget before you make anymore restrictive laws. I guess the F.O.P. is complaining about needing raises and more cashflow, so congress better get on restricting us even more. Those of you who take the moral high road and say "oh i never drink and drive" thats great for you, but don't just sit there and let people's rights be eroded because you can't be bothered to think past yourself. I agree with the sentiment that its not the folks between .05 and .08. those are the people trying to be careful. beat the fed!

quit legislating morality in washinton dc and state capitols across the country. you bastards!

Where do I vote for post of the year!

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Seriously, if you think its your right to drink and drive continuing to talk to you on the subject is a complete waste of time.

 

[billl]

"Since it sounds like you've looked at the stats, how many deaths are caused by drivers at 0.08 (or between .08 and .05) every year? If it's actually less than lighthing strikes (evidentenly there were 28 of those in the US in 2012), that's a pretty good argument against lowering the limit.
"

Just to clarify, I wrote struck by lightning, not died from lightning. 400 or so americans get directly struck by lightning per year and someone around 30 die.

About 3000 of the drunk driving fatalities are caused by people under 0.24. I haven't seen a breakdown by individual points (just over/under), but even assuming a completely flat distribution, that would be 3000/16=188 at 0.08. The reality is certainly less than that since someone at 0.23 would be more likely to get in an accident then someone at 0.08. Those fatalities also include the driver themselves and something like a third of all those wrecks are just drivers running off the road and hitting a tree or lamppost etc. So anyway, we are talking about a very small number of incidents per year. We should all be leery of sending potentially hundreds of thousands of people to prison in the hope that some of those hundred or so people might decide not to drive.

 

[fosaisu]

Seriously, if you think its your right to drink and drive continuing to talk to you on the subject is a complete waste of time.

I have to agree with this. It makes sense to me to have a debate about what the BAC level should be set at to presume someone's too impared to drive and whether preventing an estimated X number of accidents a year is worth the change from .08 down to .05 (which impinges on people's freedom to have an extra beer before they drive, may lump less and more serious offenders together in undesirable ways, and will cost money to implement). But if you are opposed to any restriction on drinking and driving, then presumably you're also opposed to the entire concept of driving restrictions, meaning 5 year olds, alzheimer's patients and blind people should have unrestricted access to the road, and the "nonimpaired" drivers will just have to be extra careful to avoid them.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

"Since it sounds like you've looked at the stats, how many deaths are caused by drivers at 0.08 (or between .08 and .05) every year? If it's actually less than lighthing strikes (evidentenly there were 28 of those in the US in 2012), that's a pretty good argument against lowering the limit.
"

Just to clarify, I wrote struck by lightning, not died from lightning. 400 or so americans get directly struck by lightning per year and someone around 30 die.

About 3000 of the drunk driving fatalities are caused by people under 0.24. I haven't seen a breakdown by individual points (just over/under), but even assuming a completely flat distribution, that would be 3000/16=188 at 0.08. The reality is certainly less than that since someone at 0.23 would be more likely to get in an accident then someone at 0.08. Those fatalities also include the driver themselves and something like a third of all those wrecks are just drivers running off the road and hitting a tree or lamppost etc. So anyway, we are talking about a very small number of incidents per year. We should all be leery of sending potentially hundreds of thousands of people to prison in the hope that some of those hundred or so people might decide not to drive.

I get the stats and I get that blowing a point 05 or a point 08 might mean that person A is drunk as a skunk while person B is still sober as a lord. I get that BAC its not a one size fits all solution. Ive heard of college kids experimenting in order to gather data for thesis papers on the subject and blowing WAY over the legal limit and still passing sobriety tests that they developed themselves (dealing cards, walking straight lines, reciting the alphabet backwards, jumping on one foot, that sort of thing).

BUT....

How DO we set the bar for who is impaired and who isnt? .24 is a pretty high bar. Most people at .24 can barely walk, nevermind drive.

 

[daksin]

Ultimately, this is supposed to be about reducing the number of people hurt or killed in drunk driving accidents, and I think ultimately it's not going to do that.

Less than 6% of alcohol-related fatalities involved a driver with a BAC lower than 0.08, and almost none with BAC of 0.05 or below.

As for other countries, lowering the BAC limit has had mixed (read: statistically insignificant) success. I'll see if I can find some data on that, though.

Bar owners and alcohol manufacturers are going to be against it, so I'll be a little surprised if it actually goes through, but who knows? 0.05 is actually a pretty common number.

I'm personally concerned about my own liability as the owner of a beer tasting room. I know for myself (quick alcohol metabolism, very high body weight), although I would never get behind the wheel if I had been drinking, or ever suggest anybody else doing it, I can barely tell when I'm at 0.05 and, as Yooper mentioned, could probably pass a field sobriety test at 0.08.

Here are the descriptions of impairment levels at 0.05 and below:

BAC .02
Drinkers begin to feel moderate effects.
BAC .04
Most people begin to feel relaxed, mildly euphoric, sociable, and talkative.
BAC .05
Judgment, attention, and control are somewhat impaired. Ability to drive safely begins to be limited. Sensory-motor and finer performance are impaired. People are less able to make rational decisions about their capabilities (for example, about driving.)

If I can't judge 0.05% in myself, where I know my personal variables, how in the world am I supposed to judge 0.05% in the customers I'm serving? There's very little apart from making your customers blow a breathalyzer that can make that determination, and I can't see that being good for business.

That's a big risk for me, because if I "overserve" someone who has 2 glasses of beer in an hour and then runs into a bus, I could be held liable. People at 0.08 are usually visibly impaired, but 0.05 is a much thinner line to walk as a server.