NTSB recommends nation-wide .05 as legal BAC threshold

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol/index.html

I understand it is part of the NTSB's job to make recommendations like this, but why don't we do what is already working: stepped up enforcement.

Lowering the limit wouldn't save that many more lives:

NTSB report said:
Lowering the rate to 0.05 would save about 500 to 800 lives annually, the safety board report said.

I'm pretty sure that better enforcement and other things we're already doing save more lives annually than this would, so let's just do more of what we're already doing.. not go through with the political mess lowering the legal BAC would create.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
this won't do anything to save lives. what it is going to do is increase cash flow.


but you idiots that drink and drive are now at greater risk. Nearly any random stop can nail you for it!
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
This will become law within a decade. It will be a moral obligation according to the authoritarians. If just one life is saved then it is a worthy cause.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Personally I'm definitely opposed to the proposed reduction in the legal rate. It makes it clear it's a money making decision rather than a safety issue.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
Reductio ad absurdum - why not lower it to .01 and save another 4 hypothetical lives?

.08 which is the limit here in CA (used to be .10) is fine. There's always a theoretical benefit but the truth is every criminal law reflects a tradeoff between safety and liberty. .05 is not much. It's barely tipsy.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
So at what BAC limit would going out a having a glass of wine with dinner and then driving home effectively become illegal?
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
This will become law within a decade. It will be a moral obligation according to the authoritarians. If just one life is saved then it is a worthy cause.

Yes. No law is too stupid or too silly as long as it saves one life.

/s
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
So at what BAC limit would going out a having a glass of wine with dinner and then driving home effectively become illegal?

I think what will happen is breathalyzers will become mandatory as standard equipment in cars... like seat belts, and each breathalyzer will be able to be remotely programmed, so it can be set as low as the city/county/state wants, depending on how low on money the city/county/state is.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
this won't do anything to save lives. what it is going to do is increase cash flow.

THIS THIS THIS THIS

That was EXACTLY my first thought when I read the OP. Clearly their numbers have been down for rounding up DWI's - so they need to increase the threshold to hold their monthly ticket quota's.

.05 is to the point of having 1 or 2 for happy hour after work and driving home with absolutely 0 affect on your driving skills. This is simply code for "We need to generate more revenue. How can we do so while acting as if we are concerned about people? :whiste:"
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
To be honest - if this gets enacted, I see absolutely no point of going out for a drink. Happy Hour will be dead unless the area is based on public transportation - and bar scenes, restaurants, and restaurant chains will be crushed by this. Alcohol is a HUGE revenue generator.

As much as I am oppossed to this BS, and as much as I like to enjoy myself - I also like having a successful career path. Basically would boil down to more money in my pocket - less money circulation - more recession.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,414
468
126
How many drunk drivers have killed with a BA of .05 to .10?

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811385.pdf

The PDF shows that the percentage of fatal accidents by .00 drivers is only slightly less than that .01 to .07 COMBINED.

56% of drivers involved in fatal accidents were .15 or higher.

Even if the accident is not the drinking drivers fault it will be counted as an alcohol related death.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
From what I understand of the science on BAC, .05 is not impaired to a significant enough level to be worth it. What we really need to do is massively increase enforcement.

Most of the people I meet from other countries are just mystified at the culture of drunk driving that exists in America. I guess that's what happens when you combine poor public transit infrastructure with a drinking culture. It's a huge problem.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Yes. No law is too stupid or too silly as long as it saves one life.

/s

And by the reverse, why have a drunk driving limits at all.

If the drivers wants to kill/mail anybody along with themselves, why should society care?
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,331
10,237
136
If it's all about saving lives, using cell phones while driving should be addressed first.

I concur.

Geez, .05 is like a cocktail. You already need to wait probably a half hour after you've had a pint to make sure you under .08. But, I'm sure the morally superior people never would do anything like drink and drive or cheat on their taxes.

Face it folks, the DUI machinery is already a major profit center for the state and your local constabulary.
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
It's already 0.05 in Colorado. And they have DUI checkpoints. They will also send you to detox at that level. In which you have to sign paperwork forcing you to pay if you want to be let out of detox. It's all about revenue. That's it.

http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/PDF/COLORADO DRUNK DRIVING LAWS.pdf

Gone through it. Made me want to go postal. And I'm not kidding. I was 0.047. Close enough for them.
 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
THIS THIS THIS THIS

That was EXACTLY my first thought when I read the OP. Clearly their numbers have been down for rounding up DWI's - so they need to increase the threshold to hold their monthly ticket quota's.

While I disagree with the NTSB's recommendation here, I do not think this is the motivation. DUI prosecutions aren't that profitable for the state given everything involved and the fact that some go to trial. The fines are about $1,000 in most states. It isn't worth the trouble.

Standard traffic tickets like speeding, red light, etc. are a different story. Those fines are now around $500 in California, depending on the offense. That IS just to raise revenues.
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
While I disagree with the NTSB's recommendation here, I do not think this is the motivation. DUI prosecutions aren't that profitable for the state given everything involved and the fact that some go to trial. The fines are about $1,000 in most states. It isn't worth the trouble.

Standard traffic tickets like speeding, red light, etc. are a different story. Those fines are now around $500 in California, depending on the offense. That IS just to raise revenues.

You are forgetting about the mandatory treatment you have to pay for, about $3000 in addition to the fines. Also the alcoholics anonymous meetings. MADD panels. Driver License Reinstatement fees. The "blow into a straw" ignition systems you have to install, and pay a monthly fee for (to the state.) Not to mention they get to confiscate your car and auction it off.

The average DUI costs about $5000, if you are allowed to keep your car and don't need the ignition system.

Its more revenue than you realize and with a lower limit and more repeat DUIers and such. Cha-ching!
 
Last edited:
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
I concur.

Geez, .05 is like a cocktail. You already need to wait probably a half hour after you've had a pint to make sure you under .08. But, I'm sure the morally superior people never would do anything like drink and drive or cheat on their taxes.

Face it folks, the DUI machinery is already a major profit center for the state and your local constabulary.

Hell, if I had 2 beers over the course of a 2 hour happy hour I still wouldn't blow. Ridiculous to bring it down to .05. Your ACTUAL BAC is probably 0.01 or 0.00 - but a slight puff of alcohol probably sets one of those off to .05
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,709
11
81
An additional piece of information:

In BC they essentially lowered the limit to .05 somehow. You would get your car towed, be forced to have a breathalyser interlock device installed on your car at your own expense, and a bunch of other bad stuff.

Cops actively enforced this and a whole bunch of people who weren't actually impaired had this happen to them.

It scared the rest of the normal people into not driving at all after drinking, and apparently it has had a big effect on drunk driving statistics.

Of course you still get the people who drive at .15 and end up parked in the meat section of a Safeway, but you'll always have that.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
You are forgetting about the mandatory treatment you have to pay for, about $3000 in addition to the fines. Also the alcoholics anonymous meetings. MADD panels. Driver License Reinstatement fees. The "blow into a straw" ignition systems you have to install, and pay a monthly fee for (to the state.) Not to mention they get to confiscate your car and auction it off.

The average DUI costs about $5000, if you are allowed to keep your car and don't need the ignition system.

Its more revenue than you realize and with a lower limit and more repeat DUIers and such. Cha-ching!

Yes I'm familiar with the average cost of a DUI, but most of that does not go to the state. Most of it actually goes to your insurance carrier. Some goes to programs you have to enroll in by court order. And no, the state selling your car is not the norm.

In the typical DUI case, the state most likely profits to some degree, but the cases that go to trial are way in the negative. I doubt DUI prosecution is all that profitable if at all. A speeding ticket is $500 for 10 minutes of an officer's time and a paper notice sent to the offender's address. Even the court challenged ones rarely take up more than an hour. That is where the real profits are made.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
BAC is a horrible way to judge if someone is to impaired to drive. There are much better and easier ways to test exactly how impaired a person is regardless of the reason.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
BAC is a horrible way to judge if someone is to impaired to drive. There are much better and easier ways to test exactly how impaired a person is regardless of the reason.

What better way? You mean the field sobriety tests?