The Long Expected Next Phase In DUI Law Is HERE
Forums: Legal, News, Whiner, D U I Law, Legal Intoxication
hawkeye10
Reply	Tue 14 May, 2013 10:07 am
And as I expected it is .05 BAC
Washington (CNN) -- A decade-old benchmark for determining when a driver is legally intoxicated -- the 0.08 blood-alcohol content rate -- should be lowered to 0.05, reducing the amount a motorist can imbibe before being presumed to be drunk, federal safety officials said Tuesday.
At a meeting in Washington, the National Transportation Safety Board is recommending that all 50 states lower the threshold to reduce the nation's drunk driving death toll, which has plateaued at about 10,000 deaths a year. A vote on the recommendation is expected to take place at 11:30 a.m.
Lowering the rate to 0.05 would save about 500 to 800 lives every year, NTSB staff members said, and is a crucial part of the board's attempt to eliminate drunken driving in the United States.
Under current law, a 180-pound male typically will hit the 0.08 threshold after drinking four drinks in an hour, according to an online blood alcohol calculator published by the University of Oklahoma.
That same person could reach the 0.05 threshold after two to three drinks in an hour, according to the calculator. (Many factors besides gender and weigh influence a person's blood alcohol content level. And many states outlaw lower levels of inebriation when behind the wheel.)
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
I think that we have had just about enough of this corrupt governments intrusion into our lives based upon the SAFETY! excuse. I think that we will punish officials who go there following the anti drinking do-gooders.
Type: Discussion • Score: 13 • Views: 7,637 • Replies: 203
[+8] - mysteryman - 05/21/2013Hawkeye, I think you are wrong on this issue, and I will explain why. I am a firefighter and an EMT for the local volunteer fire dept. Because this is a fairly rural county (16,000 residents),...
[+5] - Butrflynet - 05/14/2013Let me guess....you have a liquor license and serve liquor in your restaurant and this will cut into your profits.
[+5] - farmerman - 05/14/2013There is plenty of good hard science behind the determination of where impairment begins and the NSC had done several studies to reinforce the original data. 0.05 actually has clearly visible...
[+5] - MontereyJack - 05/16/2013Hawkeye, you're really proving yourself to be a sociopathic asshole. I see absolutely no reason my life should be put in danger by someone who gets their jollies by drinking and then driving--and...
[+5] - firefly - 05/26/2013[quote] there are some idiots who cant get beyond the speaker to the idea[/quote] That's because you can't separate yourself from the topic--you can't discuss most topics with any degree of...
[+4] - JeffreyEqualityNewma - 05/14/2013I have no problem with this at all. If you�re drinking you have no business driving period! You know what they did in St. Pete last year? Changed the drinking time from 2am until 3am, who...
[+4] - firefly - 05/21/2013[quote] i dont happen to think that we should increase the risk of revolution...the risk of this collective blowing up, for the small gain in making roads safer by going from .08 to .05. this plan...
[+4] - farmerman - 05/21/2013any activity that takes away concentration or focus from driving , in many states is punisheable. Still You insist on allowing being"a little bit drunk" while driving.
[+4] - MontereyJack - 05/21/2013What you're asking us, hawk, is how much we're willing to endanger ourselves, for absolutely no gain on our part, for your selfish pleasure. My answer is: not at all. Would you be willing to...
[+4] - Setanta - 05/22/2013When you start your rants, no evidence is ever in evidence.
Oh yeah, to hell with people's safety. If someone wants to impair their judgment and reaction time, by god, we should let. Those damned old women can just stay off the road!
@Setanta,
Life is a risky proposition....the only way around this is to get dead.
Fun and fulfillment are important so long as we are not dead, dont minimize that. And we dont have a government that is trustworthy, which needs to be considered when they come around trying to sell their wares.
Those damned old women can just stay off the road!
now that you mention it we would do better on the SAFETY metric if we made old people prove that they still had good driving skills. but going after those who like to drink has always been easier.
In fact, in every state in which i have ever been licensed to drive, people above a certain age (usually 60) are required to take the written and the road test every time they renew their licenses. In all of those states, they were also required to renew every two years. I guess you wouldn't know that, though, huh? You're so wrapped up in yourself and your petty, silly grievances.
Sure life entails risk, but there's no reason to allow unnecessary risks. No one has to drink and then drive. There is public transport, there are cabs, there are one's friends or family who can see that they get home safely. Of course, that also increases the safety of everyone else. This is just another typical Whackeye thread--you just found something else to piss and moan about.
Sure life entails risk, but there's no reason to allow unnecessary risks. No one has to drink and then drive
under that theory we would not do 90% of the things we do each day and every day would suck.
I want my law guided by more humane and reasonable people than you!
Reply	Tue 14 May, 2013 05:09 pm
In a sign of just how difficult it would be to round up support for a lower BAC threshold, Mothers Against Drunk Driving suggested this afternoon that, while they won't fight the effort, they won't fight for it either, instead focusing the group's considerable resoucres on what it called "proven drunk driving countermeasures." That's obviously a rough blow for the federal safety advocates given the role MADD played in the last fight over BAC. If the moms don't want to take up this fight, it's hard to imagine who else could fill that gap.
The current level was adopted by all 50 states and D.C. only after President Bill Clinton signed a 2000 law that would have withheld highway construction cash from any state that didn't agree to the stricter standard. If Washington decides it wants to again use the federal cash as leverage, it would likely get its way. But given the current state of play in the nation's capital, that's a long shot at best for the foreseeable future.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/05/14/ntsb_bac_limit_national_transportation_safety_board_suggests_curbing_legal.html
if the feds try their usual approach of trying to blackmail the states into doing its bidding there will be hell to pay....we have seen way too much of that, and the reputation of Washington is sinking like a stone
Butrflynet
@hawkeye10,
Let me guess....you have a liquor license and serve liquor in your restaurant and this will cut into your profits.
@Butrflynet,
Butrflynet wrote:
yes but I was hostile towards DUI law before that....in the Berry/Thom thread I said that the .08 limit is already not justified based upon science and thus is barely tolerable, and that the next phase of depriving us of pleasure and freedom must be put down with vigor.
JeffreyEqualityNewma
I have no problem with this at all. If you're drinking you have no business driving period! You know what they did in St. Pete last year? Changed the drinking time from 2am until 3am, who needs to drink until 3 in the morning?
There is plenty of good hard science behind the determination of where impairment begins and the NSC had done several studies to reinforce the original data. 0.05 actually has clearly visible expressions of first order impairment.
when impairment starts is irrelevant, what matters is how much makes driving dangerous enough that the state has a valid claim to forbid the practice.
The impairment scale states that from 0.03 to 0.059 BA(by vol), there is a measurable decrease in JUDGEMENT SKILLS and SPEED OF COGNITION.
(Is that the lack of scientific data that you assert?)
irrelevant...there is no reason to work with this secondary plane when science has available to measure the primary plane, that being the accident and death data with the BAC of the one who was at fault.
having the law set to stop a bit over double the risk is barely tolerable in my opinion, any further removal of my right to go out and drive after is not until and unless we move to being a society were car ownership is not required due to the lack of public transit options
we spend a hell of a lot of money fighting diseases with similar percebtage occurences . Heres actual data tht you wish to call insignificant.
I can understand if youre a mouthpiece for the malt beverage nd liquor lobby
yes but I was hostile towards DUI law before that....in the Berry/Thom thread I said that the .08 limit is already not justified based upon science and thus is barely tolerable
And you were wrong in that thread, and your understanding, and knowledge, of the impairing effects of alcohol on the human central nervous system--and directly on driving abilities--hasn't improved since then.
Bringing the U.S. legal BAC level down to .05 will put this country more in line with the legal limits for driving elsewhere in the world. Limits in other countries were lowered some time ago because there is more than adequate scientific data to confirm significant impairment in faculties and abilities, that directly affect driving, and accident avoidance ability, at a .08 BAC level.
the next phase of depriving us of pleasure and freedom must be put down with vigor...
The government isn't trying to stop you, or anyone else, from binge drinking, or from getting as drunk as a skunk every day of the week, if that's your idea of "pleasure and freedom". You just have no "right" to get behind the wheel when you are in an impaired state, due to your alcohol consumption, because that makes you a potential danger to everyone else on the road.
This isn't about an anti-drinking crusade, it's about responsible driving--and that's the point you miss entirely. You've bitched before, in another thread, about the fact that distracted driving is being made illegal because that's another alleged infringement on your "pleasure and freedom" when you're behind the wheel. You simply view your own selfish needs as more important than responsible driving when the two conflict.
You may not care about your own safety when behind the wheel, and you may be unconcerned about the safety of others as well, but don't disingenuously pretend there isn't substantial scientific data to confirm significant impairment in driving abilities, and accident avoidance ability, at a BAC of .08--impairments which would contribute to a higher rate of automobile accidents and deaths. I posted a good deal of that data in the Drunk Driving/Thom thread, and I'm not going to re-post it here because you couldn't process or understand it the first time around.
Why not try to lower the number of alcohol-related automobile accidents and deaths as much as possible? And try to lower the number of auto accidents due to drugs, and distracted driving as well. What's wrong with promoting responsible driving, and penalizing irresponsible drivers, who pose a danger to others, because they get behind the wheel drunk/impaired, or because they are so busy talking or texting on cell phones they aren't fully attending to the road? What's wrong with trying to reduce all automobile accidents and deaths as much as possible? That's why we have speed limits, and traffic signals and signs, and try to build and own safer cars--to promote safety on the road.
Perhaps we need the government to intervene, and to set the boundaries for responsible driving, because too many individuals, like you, can't be trusted to set responsible boundaries for themselves. If your own safety isn't a main concern for you, when operating a potentially lethal piece of machinery, like an automobile, and you can't understand, or care about, the issue of public safety involved, you really disqualify yourself from being a meaningful contributor to a rational, informed discussion of this issue.
In fact, in every state in which i have ever been licensed to drive, people above a certain age (usually 60) are required to take the written and the road test every time they renew their licenses. In all of those states, they were also required to renew every two years.
That's not true in all states, and it's definitely not true in the state I live in. Here licenses are automatically renewed with no tests, beside eye tests, regardless of driver age, and, I think, the renewal period is for 8 years each time. Unless someone (a doctor, a family member, etc.) questions a driver's ability, and reports it to the motor vehicle bureau, or the person has a lot of driving infractions or accidents, no requirements, or tests, are imposed due to age.
This is just another typical Whackeye thread--you just found something else to piss and moan about.
I agree with you on that.
that is not a valid comparison because I get a lot of benefit out of drinking and then driving but none out of disease. life is properly navigated with reward/risk analysis not by counting up risk points.
nobody respects an oath breaker	- Discussion by gungasnake
Is taking his picture legal?	- Question by aquestion
"I want to be a lawyer!" -- Frequently Asked Questions	- Discussion by joefromchicago
Can a Government Official Claim Religious Exemption from Performing Official Duties?	- Discussion by wandeljw
Guilty murderer Amanda Knox	- Question by contrex
FOOD NAZI'S SUFFER STUNNING DEFEAT!	- Discussion by hawkeye10
Hotelmanagement - Employee dates a guest	- Question by lisali93
Question about going to court for a misdemeanor?	- Question by Swamp Swagger
JPMorgan Chase Civil Settlement	- Discussion by jcboy
Need a Legal Opinion - They Won't Let a Relative Visit From Europe	- Discussion by Brandon9000
The Trial that JUST WON'T END	- Question by michellesings
» The Long Expected Next Phase In DUI Law Is HERE