.05 Blood Alcohol Limit for Driving?

Brewer's Friend 728
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.
Varmintman said:
BAC laws are kind of silly at least for me. I brewed last night and after the first beer I was buzzed. It was a low gravity beer and I had eaten a nice dinner. It just goes to show that alcohol will hit you differently sometimes.

If I feel to buzzed I do not drive pure plain and simple. And drunk driving never no matter what BAC I am at
Click to expand...

There's no doubt some people can drive (mostly) just fine with .08 BAC. But BAC is a necessary standard. Field sobriety tests are failed by completely sober people all the time.
 
TopherM said:
I love the juxtoposition of curse words and brewing terms! It's floccing awesome!

Back on topic, though. Can you imagine a world where a responsible bartender serves you ONE Stone Ruination (or insert your favorite imperial here), then cuts you off, because they don't want the liability of overserving you? Or a world where you can go sue the bar because they served you two pints of beer with lunch prior to your "drunk driving" accident.
Click to expand...

FFS, enough with the alarmism. None of that is happening with .08 so it has no relevance in the argument against .05. Bartenders can and regularly do serve people well past .08... they don't generally know if you have a DD, are taking public transit or cab, or are in fact driving.
 
Not to drift too far off topic, but to the "revenue" point, there may be a higher-level conspiracy to fleece otherwise innocent folks who've made the mistake of having 1 beer then driving home, there certainly isn't buy-in from the front line police officers.

Police officers despise doing drunk driving stops. I've been on a couple of ride-alongs, and if a report comes in about a possible drunk driver, the officers do their best to find another, closer call they can be dispatched to and avoid getting stuck with the drunk driving call.

The problem is that there is so much paperwork and red tape involved in dealing with a drunk driving charge that it takes the officer off the road for the rest of their shift. It literally takes several hours. It's total drudgery for the officers. They'd much rather be chasing down real bad guys.
 
None of that is happening with .08 so it has no relevance in the argument against .05. Bartenders can and regularly do serve people well past .08... they don't generally know if you have a DD, are taking public transit or cab, or are in fact driving.
Click to expand...

It's the letter of the law, and SHOULD be happening if the law were seriously enforced. The only reason it's not happening today is because the letter of the law isn't practical to real life in most cases, and THAT is only magnified by this 0.05 business.
 
Part of the disagreement here may stem from differing state laws. Moto above points out that in WI the penalties are quite minimal. In others they are fairly draconian: NJ for example is a 3 month suspension and thousands of $ in fines mandatory for the first offence with a BAC less than 0.10. By the third, you are spending 180 days behind bars and losing your license for 10 years. NYC confiscates your car.

What gets me is the disproportionality of it. Speeding 15mph over the speed limit increases your risk of accident equivalent to a 0.08 DUI, but one is 4 points on your license and the other is 3 month suspension, $thousands in fines and a possible 30 day jail sentence. The first is off your record in 2 years, the second follows you around for 10. Im all for making the roads safer, but when actions that increase your and others risk similarly are treated so differently, I start to suspect Neo-Puritanism rather than actual concern for safety.
 
kombat said:
The problem is that there is so much paperwork and red tape involved in dealing with a drunk driving charge that it takes the officer off the road for the rest of their shift. It literally takes several hours. It's total drudgery for the officers. They'd much rather be chasing down real bad guys.
Click to expand...

Maybe some cops are different but our state troopers would rather write up equipment violation tickets than stop real bad guys like wreckless drivers or DUI's.

They go after citations that they are sure won't involve a court appearance. It's free money and an easy addition to their monthly quota.

Yes I was pulled over for no front tag while driving the speed limit and being passed by a Cadillac that was going 25 over the speed limit. To serve and protect means targeting those who are a danger to society, not cherry picking the easy citations.

State trooper rant over.
 
widsith said:
What gets me is the disproportionality of it. Speeding 15mph over the speed limit increases your risk of accident equivalent to a 0.08 DUI, but one is 4 points on your license and the other is 3 month suspension, $thousands in fines and a possible 30 day jail sentence. The first is off your record in 2 years, the second follows you around for 10. Im all for making the roads safer, but when actions that increase your and others risk similarly are treated so differently, I start to suspect Neo-Puritanism rather than actual concern for safety.
Click to expand...


MADD has a better lobby and more politically acceptable message than the people who want to prevent speeding or driving while using your cell phone. Drinking is already associated with "sinful" behavior so it's an easy sell.
 
weirdboy said:
MADD has a better lobby and more politically acceptable message than the people who want to prevent speeding or driving while using your cell phone. Drinking is already associated with "sinful" behavior so it's an easy sell.
Click to expand...

Yup, not everyone drinks but almost everyone uses a cell phone in the car.
 
Id also like to bring up the point that people who are impaired seldom think they are until they are falling or have the spins. My wife caught me repeating a story from work that I had already told her about an hour before last night, and that was on two cocktails. Obviously I was too impaired to drive, but almost everything else was working as normal.

Look, I dont know if .05 is too low or not. Since I dont drive, and I was too paranoid to have even one drink and drive when I was driving, I really dont have too much of a dog in the fight... but the idea that its one's god given right to drink a couple beers and get behind the wheel even if it means they are putting others in danger is asinine.
 
Wow, I didn't notice this bit before:

Even safety groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and AAA declined Tuesday to endorse NTSB’s call for a .05 threshold. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which sets national safety policy, stopped also short of endorsing the board’s recommendation.
Click to expand...

When even MADD and AAA are like, "Nah, that sounds a bit extreme" you KNOW you are fighting an uphill battle.
 
Not to get off subject in a way but I would love to sit at a MADD event or what ever they do and right down how many drive In With a a phone to there ear or texting. I ride a motorcycle and the way distracting driving is any more is ridiculous I watch at least 10 car a day distracted and its scary. But just to confront the MADD memebers that I can be killed by you on your phone just like your little johny was killed by a drunk driver maybe they would consider adding that extra d to the end and realize that is the problem now a days
 
Should it happen no! Will it happen yes! because the Feds will eventually force the states to do it through highway funds. The Citizens will also support it under the guise of safety. This is just another way to whittle away at liberty and demonize alcohol consumption.

The only people they will get off the streets will be overwhelming law abiding citizens that are just out having a few casual drinks. It will hurt the bar/restaurant business and drive drinking inside the home to become more clandestine.
When the limit dropped from .10 to 0.08 it criminalized a whole other segment of the population that normally wouldnt be breaking the law. Its statistically proven that most accidents involving alcohol that result in injury or death happen when the driver has a greater than .10 BAC.
In addition speeding kills more people than any other traffic violation combined but you dont hear anyone wanting to attach such strict punishment to it.
 
fuzzy2133 said:
Maybe MADD needs to add another D?

MADDD - Mothers Against Driving Drunk & Distractions
Click to expand...

What about MADVDA - Mothers Against Double Va... you know what? Never mind. :cross:

I'm against lowering the limit to 0.05 because this isn't going to solve any problems. Those that are going to drive after drinking are going to drive after drinking regardless of the law.

You can't legislate morality into people. They have to choose to act in a different manner for themselves. Granted, some laws do help some folks to choose differently, but I see more public harm than good coming from this.
 
kombat said:
Not to drift too far off topic, but to the "revenue" point, there may be a higher-level conspiracy to fleece otherwise innocent folks who've made the mistake of having 1 beer then driving home, there certainly isn't buy-in from the front line police officers.

Police officers despise doing drunk driving stops. I've been on a couple of ride-alongs, and if a report comes in about a possible drunk driver, the officers do their best to find another, closer call they can be dispatched to and avoid getting stuck with the drunk driving call.

The problem is that there is so much paperwork and red tape involved in dealing with a drunk driving charge that it takes the officer off the road for the rest of their shift. It literally takes several hours. It's total drudgery for the officers. They'd much rather be chasing down real bad guys.
Click to expand...

Right, but most officers I've talked to are in a catch 22 with this issue. They don't make the laws, they just enforce them. "How do we get more revenue" is rarely in any police officers job. Ask most of them, they didn't get into police work to give out tickets. It's the policy makers that are pushing these issues and it's usually for the sake of making a few extra bucks, because they are the onese worried about budgets and revenue.

On the other hand, you probably aren't going to see any police come out against any drunk driving laws or changes to them that tighten the limits. For one they know they are working against a strong lobby, so they can't come out and say, "Hey, we think drunk driving is fine where it is." because more than likely, MADD and the policy makers will turn that on them to more of a "They don't care" stance to get their side the support. Plus, the police are probably being sold the same lines we are. That dropping the limit will reduce incidents, therefore, reducing your time dealing with it. Which, and this is just my opinion, I just don't see happening.


People choose to drink and drive on how they feel, not what their Blood alcohol level is. People may cut back a little, but almost no one ever knew what they BAC was anyways before they left the bar and they still chose to drive. I just don't see that changing because they lowered the level a little.

I just wish we could find a solution that actually led to results, as opposed to shifting limits and toting that as a solution. If BAC really worked, then no one would ever be caught with more than about .08 as their level. It would be just a couple of people who misjudged their limit and made a mistake. But that's not it, too many are causing damage and death at 2, 3 times the limit. That says to me the number .08 doesn't really mean anything. There are just too many people that believe they can do whatever they want, when they want and nothing bad will ever happen.
 
weirdboy said:
Wow, I didn't notice this bit before:

When even MADD and AAA are like, "Nah, that sounds a bit extreme" you KNOW you are fighting an uphill battle.
Click to expand...

Utah's chapter of MADD has been in the paper endorsing this. On the other hand, 3 or 4 years ago they were on board with creating a State database of people who order alcohol at restaurants and bars.

Prohibitionism hasn't died here yet.
 
motobrewer said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4471a8-bc6a-11e2-b537-ab47f0325f7c_story.html
Click to expand...

Anyone else bothered by this statement?

A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has estimated that 7,082 deaths would have been prevented in 2010 if all drivers on the road had blood alcohol content below .08 percent.
Click to expand...

To me it's as hypothetical as saying "7,082 traffic deaths would be eliminated if no one drove."

I mean, do they seriously think that the changing the law to 0.05 is going to prevent anyone above that from driving? :drunk:
 
PistolsAtDawn said:
I'm against lowering the limit to 0.05 because this isn't going to solve any problems. Those that are going to drive after drinking are going to drive after drinking regardless of the law.

You can't legislate morality into people. They have to choose to act in a different manner for themselves. Granted, some laws do help some folks to choose differently, but I see more public harm than good coming from this.
Click to expand...

I don't get this argument. Would you go on to say there's no point in having laws against murder because those that are going to murder are going to murder regardless of the law? Of course it's true that no matter how severe and sure the punishment someone will always break the law (there were more than 16000 homicides in the US last year even though it's illegal to kill people). But I think most people would agree that any law that is enforced has at least some degree of deterent effect. Of course if the law is never enforced (like state laws requiring self reporting and payment of online sales taxes due) then almost no one will comply.

It's another question whether shifting from .05 to .08 makes sense -- you'd have to balance the number of lives likely saved vs. cost of implementation and impinging on people's right to enjoy a drink at a bar/restaurant.

But I do think if you change the law, you'll change people's behavior. Will the people who were already breaking the .08 limit continue to do so if it drops to .05? Of course. Will at least some of us who currently attempt to obey the .08 BAC limit by having only the X drinks an hour that we believe keeps us under .08 keep doing exactly what we've been doing if the limit goes down (and probably end up somewhere between .05 and .08 in the process)? Absolutely. But speaking personally, if I know that doing what I'm doing now might line me up for tens of thousands in fines and fees, and the temporary loss of driving privileges, I'm going to start having one beer instead of two at happy hour. I think lots of others would do the same.
 
AZ_IPA said:
I mean, do they seriously think that the changing the law to 0.05 is going to prevent anyone above that from driving? :drunk:
Click to expand...

Do you seriously think that the threat of jail, tens of thousands in fines, and loss of a driver's license (and potentially your job if you need your license to work) isn't going to change at least some people's behavior? Plenty of people will still have a drink or ten before they drive even under a zero tollerance regime, but plenty of others would change their behavior if the penalties are sufficient and enforcement is sufficiently probable, whether or not they agree with the policy arguments behind the law. I know I would!
 
fosaisu said:
Do you seriously think that the threat of jail, tens of thousands in fines, and loss of a driver's license (and potentially your job if you need your license to work) isn't going to change at least some people's behavior?
Click to expand...

Between 0.05 and 0.08?

I think the responsible ones have already made that choice that a DUI at any level isn't worth it.

I don't feel that changing it from 0.08 to 0.05 is going to cause already irresponsible risk taking people to change their driving behaviors.
 
fosaisu said:
I don't get this argument. Would you go on to say there's no point if having laws against murder because those that are going to murder are going to murder regardless of the law? Of course it's true that no matter how severe and sure the punishment someone will always break the law (there were more than 16000 homicides in the US last year even though it's illegal to kill people). But I think most people would agree that any law that is enforced has at least some degree of deterent effect. Of course if the law is never enforced (like state laws requiring self reporting and payment of online sales taxes due) then almost no one will comply.
Click to expand...

This isn't an apples to apples comparison, but thanks for the sensationalism. Obviously I'm advocating abolishing laws against murder. :rolleyes:

Have you run for political office yet?

It's another question whether shifting from .05 to .08 makes sense -- you'd have to balance the number of lives likely saved vs. cost of implementation and impinging on people's right to enjoy a drink at a bar/restaurant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you believe that there is a statistically significant level in harm reduction by further dropping the legal limit. Over and over and over in this thread alone there have been plenty of statistics quoted that the most harmful drivers are those over .10, so dropping the legal limit to below that will accomplish something. It's already there. No need to drop it further.

But I do think if you change the law, you'll change people's behavior. Will the people who were already breaking the .08 limit continue to do so if it drops to .05? Of course. Will at least some of us who currently attempt to obey the .08 BAC limit by having only the X drinks an hour that we believe keeps us under .08 keep doing exactly what we've been doing if the limit goes down (and probably end up somewhere between .05 and .08 in the process)? Absolutely. But speaking personally, if I know that doing what I'm doing now might line me up for tens of thousands in fines and fees, and the temporary loss of driving privileges, I'm going to start having one beer instead of two at happy hour. I think lots of others would do the same.
Click to expand...

Yes, moral people will obey the law but nobody else. And as I said, you can't legislate morality into people. It isn't the moral, law-abiding folks that are the problem to begin with.

So I reiterate: such a change in the legal limit will bring more cons than pros.
 
We are proposing to tighten the BAC so that a 140 lbs female cant even have a single beer and drive. However we have legalized (medical ha) pot with no legal THC threshold in many states for operating a motor vehicles. That blows the stupid meter!
 
Dan said:
I was listening to Sean Hannity today and heard the same thing. He brought up a good point. Personal responsibility. I'm not getting on a high horse by any means but he had a point. 0.05 or 0.08. Really not much of a difference. It's a deterrent as all laws are.
Click to expand...

Hannity should care since he's a belligerent mick alcoholic.
 
Don't drink and drive, yeah that's just smart, but this **** is more about government taking money out of mofo's pockets. Cops will stake out nice restaurants and pull people over at random knowing that hey this poor bastard probably had a glass of wine with his dinner and at .05 I'll get to **** him up the ass to make quota!
 
McBrewskie said:
Cops will stake out nice restaurants and pull people over at random knowing that hey this poor bastard probably had a glass of wine with his dinner and at .05 I'll get to **** him up the ass to make quota!
Click to expand...

Without cause for a stop will easily get thrown out in court. Doesn't matter if he's drunk as a skunk. That's why many DUI charges never result in conviction. It doesn't matter if you're above the limit; it's due process that matters.

And quotas are a thing of the past.
 
AZ_IPA said:
Without cause for a stop will easily get thrown out in court. Doesn't matter if he's drunk as a skunk. That's why many DUI charges never result in conviction. It doesn't matter if you're above the limit; it's due process that matters.

And quotas are a thing of the past.
Click to expand...

Bull, cops make excuse up all the time for cause. Your word against a cop with any traffic stop and you lose. Quotas may be a thing of the past but I guarantee you they are leaned on like a mother ****er to write as many tickets as possible to increase local funds.
 
TopherM said:
I love the juxtoposition of curse words and brewing terms! It's floccing awesome!

Back on topic, though. Can you imagine a world where a responsible bartender serves you ONE Stone Ruination (or insert your favorite imperial here), then cuts you off, because they don't want the liability of overserving you? Or a world where you can go sue the bar because they served you two pints of beer with lunch prior to your "drunk driving" accident.

Everyone just needs to be completely honest and recognize that this proposal has nothing to do with the practical public good. It's a mix of political correctness run amuck and the new police politics where revenue matters much more than public safety.

This 0.05 business smells an awful lot like the RED LIGHT CAMERA endevour to me, and red light cameras have been proven to do exactly TWO things:

#1 Cause more accidents and injuries
#2 Produce millions in revenue for local police

When the police are selling the idea of red light cameras to the public, they do it under the guise of public safety, just like they will with this 0.05 thing, but in the end, it's all about #2 (pun intended)

They started the red light camera experiment here in my town about a year ago. Rear end accidents are up big time. The fee to fight a red light camera ticket is also conveniently about $50 more than the ticket itself. Tricky.

When a reporter asked the chief of police "What are your goals for the red light cameras for 2013," the chief answered "We hope to increase revenue by 20%." Think about that a second. A Public Safety organization that wants violations to increase over time. The more people running lights, the better.

THAT is what this 0.05 business is about. The police want to increase violations. They are making it so that drunk driving violation are in their best interest as an organization! They have people who work from them that are responsible for figuring out new ways to legally make drunk driving incidents INCREASE. They might as well just give out free beer coupons at XX bar, then stake out the joint.

Think about it. When it comes down to it, that's what all this is about, and you are literally giving up civil liberties under the illusion of public safety in order to increase police revenue.

Don't fall for it! This proposal isn't about drunk driving or public safety! As with most political agendas, just follow the money!
Click to expand...

Oh those damn cameras! Half the time they are just flashing people like some kinda perv in a trench-coat.

But yeah, follow the money. And look for the real agenda. All the cards aren't laid out at once.

1fast636 said:
Not to get off subject in a way but I would love to sit at a MADD event or what ever they do and right down how many drive In With a a phone to there ear or texting. I ride a motorcycle and the way distracting driving is any more is ridiculous I watch at least 10 car a day distracted and its scary. But just to confront the MADD memebers that I can be killed by you on your phone just like your little johny was killed by a drunk driver maybe they would consider adding that extra d to the end and realize that is the problem now a days
Click to expand...

I've become so much more aware of what people (and myself) do in cars since getting on a bike. I can usually tell what they are going to do before they move their car. It's like some kind of ESP.
 
AZ_IPA said:
Between 0.05 and 0.08?

I think the responsible ones have already made that choice that a DUI at any level isn't worth it.

I don't feel that changing it from 0.08 to 0.05 is going to cause already irresponsible risk taking people to change their driving behaviors.
Click to expand...

I guess that begs the question of who the "irresponsible risk taking people" are. If that's anyone that has anyone with any alcohol in their system when they drive, then you'd need to go zero tolerance. The point of having a BAC limit at all is to say the law is going to presumptively view anyone who exceeds that limit as an "irresponsible risk taker" (and that means that some of us who are now technically law abiding when we drive after two beers would be transformed into "irresponsible risk takers" if the legal limit changes to .05 or zero and we don't change our behavior).

Whenever you make a new law some people will go on doing what they were doing before. But if it's enforced and if it's painful, some people will change their behavior to comply. I'm no criminologist but I think the research would back me up that most laws that meet these two criteria have some level of deterrent effect.
 
PistolsAtDawn said:
Yes, moral people will obey the law but nobody else. And as I said, you can't legislate morality into people. It isn't the moral, law-abiding folks that are the problem to begin with.

So I reiterate: such a change in the legal limit will bring more cons than pros.
Click to expand...

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!
 
McBrewskie said:
Bull, cops make excuse up all the time for cause. Your word against a cop with any traffic stop and you lose. .
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you're so skeptical of the justice system. I know at least a dozen people charged with DUI, but not convicted, because the judge felt like there wasn't cause for a stop.

I know at least a dozen cops that I've asked why they don't just sit outside the college bars and pull over everyone leaving. They respond that they have a lot better stuff to do with their patrol time than to get involved with questionable illegal stops.
 
bobmcstuff said:
The definition of a "drink" appears to be quite a low ABV...

But yeah, me too!!
Click to expand...

Ah good point. Their definition of beer is yellow, fizzy, slightly higher ABV than water, and 12 oz. So they are thinking Bud while I am thinking imperial pints and real beer.
 
bobmcstuff said:
The definition of a "drink" appears to be quite a low ABV...

But yeah, me too!!
Click to expand...

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!]
 
AZ_IPA said:
I'm sorry you're so skeptical of the justice system. I know at least a dozen people charged with DUI, but not convicted, because the judge felt like there wasn't cause for a stop.

I know at least a dozen cops that I've asked why they don't just sit outside the college bars and pull over everyone leaving. They respond that they have a lot better stuff to do with their patrol time than to get involved with questionable illegal stops.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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
149
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
Williams Brewing 300

Latest posts

Back
Top