NTSB recommends nation-wide .05 as legal BAC threshold

[s0me0nesmind1]

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.

I'll go with "You're Retarded" for 5000, please.

 

[Paul98]

More stupid shit... no surprise there

 

[Paul98]

Make sure everything on your car is working and you don't get pulled over for something stupid then end up getting a DUI even though you were driving fine. I am much more scared of the idiot drivers who can't drive sober than a good driver who has had a few drinks. I guarantee that even "drunk" they are better drivers than many of the idiots on the road.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

Actually the entire premise of BAC is completely subjective. You might be way to impaired to drive at .08 yet still be under the legal limit. Another person might have a BAC of .10 and be just fine to drive. While BAC can be an indicator that a person is impaired it is in no way shape or form an absolute measurement of a persons ability to drive.

Even worse is it would be absurdly easy and almost definitely cheaper to test how impaired a person actually is instead of using a breathalyzer but then the .gov might lose revenue so we can't have that bullshit. I agree that we should have harsh laws to deal with people who drive impaired, regardless of the reason, but its a travesty of justice the amount of non-impaired people who have been put through an absurd amount of bullshit due to the .govs piss poor testing methods.

 

[Darwin333]

What better way? You mean the field sobriety tests?

No.

What is the reason that alcohol, drugs, being sleepy, etc... impair your driving ability?

 

[BoomerD]

Just put some real teeth into the existing DUI laws.

1 year in jail and 5 years loss of driving privilege for the first offense.

5 years in jail and permanent loss of driving privilege for the second offense.

10 years in jail and permanent loss of driving privilege for any subsequent offense.

Death penalty for ANY accident caused by a DUI driver that results in the loss of life. Treat it like capital murder. (because driving drunk IS pre-meditated...you CHOOSE to drive while intoxicated)

 

[Druidx]

I would rather see better enforcement and harsher penalties for repeat offenders.

 

[highland145]

How many beers chart....YMMV

 

[highland145]

No.

What is the reason that alcohol, drugs, being sleepy, etc... impair your driving ability?

Depressant.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

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.

Logic fail. How many .00 drivers are there at any given time vs. those driving with alcohol on board? The fact is that driving drunk kills people. There should be no threshold. It should be sober or nothing.

 

[nehalem256]

Logic fail. How many .00 drivers are there at any given time vs. those driving with alcohol on board? The fact is that driving drunk kills people. There should be no threshold. It should be sober or nothing.

So a person with a BAC of .001 should be arrested for drunk driving?

 

[Darwin333]

Depressant.

At the end of the day its reaction time. Reaction time is an actual real thing that can be measured and quantified to see if a person is impaired or not, BAC does not do anything remotely close to that.

Since reaction time is basically the only thing that matters, it would be absurdly easy to test that on the roadside. Wouldn't matter why you are impaired, it would work the same on every single driver AND it wouldn't be some bullshit subjective number that some asshole picked even though alcohol affects people differently. I guarantee that I could pick a team of 5 people from right here and anandtech and design a gameboy type device that would easily and accurately measure reaction time, we are talking absurdly simple here. Instead of simplicity and actually removing impaired drivers while letting non-impaired drivers go they are designing new breathalyzers to arbitrarily test for other substances now, which still doesn't test if you are actually impaired or not.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Actually the entire premise of BAC is completely subjective. You might be way to impaired to drive at .08 yet still be under the legal limit. Another person might have a BAC of .10 and be just fine to drive. While BAC can be an indicator that a person is impaired it is in no way shape or form an absolute measurement of a persons ability to drive.

Even worse is it would be absurdly easy and almost definitely cheaper to test how impaired a person actually is instead of using a breathalyzer but then the .gov might lose revenue so we can't have that bullshit. I agree that we should have harsh laws to deal with people who drive impaired, regardless of the reason, but its a travesty of justice the amount of non-impaired people who have been put through an absurd amount of bullshit due to the .govs piss poor testing methods.

Just because someone has a tolerance and can hide the signs of inebriation better than someone else does not mean that they aren't drunk. BAC is NOT subjective. I don't think you know what that word means. BAC is the alcohol content in your blood. It is an objective measure that varies with time, like how much a bag of apples weighs.

There is no reason to drink alcohol and drive. None. Ever.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

So a person with a BAC of .001 should be arrested for drunk driving?

The cannot test that finitely without blood, but theoretically, if they had alcohol in their system and it hasn't been metabolized out, yes. I do realize they would need to set some sort of limit, and they are trying to do that. .05 is still too high. For someone with a CDL the legal limit (even if not driving a commercial vehicle at the time) is .04.

.05 is two to three drinks in an hour. I think that is way more than sufficient.

 

[Darwin333]

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?

What is wrong with common sense laws that actually accomplish what they are supposed to?

 

[fskimospy]

At the end of the day its reaction time. Reaction time is an actual real thing that can be measured and quantified to see if a person is impaired or not, BAC does not do anything remotely close to that.

Since reaction time is basically the only thing that matters, it would be absurdly easy to test that on the roadside. Wouldn't matter why you are impaired, it would work the same on every single driver AND it wouldn't be some bullshit subjective number that some asshole picked even though alcohol affects people differently. I guarantee that I could pick a team of 5 people from right here and anandtech and design a gameboy type device that would easily and accurately measure reaction time, we are talking absurdly simple here. Instead of simplicity and actually removing impaired drivers while letting non-impaired drivers go they are designing new breathalyzers to arbitrarily test for other substances now, which still doesn't test if you are actually impaired or not.

Reaction time is not the only thing that matters; judgment is also significantly impaired by alcohol consumption and judgment while driving can be really important.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

At the end of the day its reaction time. Reaction time is an actual real thing that can be measured and quantified to see if a person is impaired or not, BAC does not do anything remotely close to that.

Since reaction time is basically the only thing that matters, it would be absurdly easy to test that on the roadside. Wouldn't matter why you are impaired, it would work the same on every single driver AND it wouldn't be some bullshit subjective number that some asshole picked even though alcohol affects people differently. I guarantee that I could pick a team of 5 people from right here and anandtech and design a gameboy type device that would easily and accurately measure reaction time, we are talking absurdly simple here. Instead of simplicity and actually removing impaired drivers while letting non-impaired drivers go they are designing new breathalyzers to arbitrarily test for other substances now, which still doesn't test if you are actually impaired or not.

Are you saying alcohol doesn't impair judgement as well? Are you saying that judgement while driving doesn't matter?

How do you explain this? He was in the wrong lane. Did he just not react fast enough to know it? Or was it a poor judgement call?

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/05/criminal_charges_upgraded_agai_1.html

 

[highland145]

At the end of the day its reaction time. Reaction time is an actual real thing that can be measured and quantified to see if a person is impaired or not, BAC does not do anything remotely close to that.

Since reaction time is basically the only thing that matters, it would be absurdly easy to test that on the roadside. Wouldn't matter why you are impaired, it would work the same on every single driver AND it wouldn't be some bullshit subjective number that some asshole picked even though alcohol affects people differently. I guarantee that I could pick a team of 5 people from right here and anandtech and design a gameboy type device that would easily and accurately measure reaction time, we are talking absurdly simple here. Instead of simplicity and actually removing impaired drivers while letting non-impaired drivers go they are designing new breathalyzers to arbitrarily test for other substances now, which still doesn't test if you are actually impaired or not.

That's what I said, almost. Nervous system depressant.

Recent story, England maybe, where the guy showed the court that he was perfectly able to function while sloshed. He got off.

At the grand jury last week, the highway patrol worked a 1 car wreck where the woman was .31 and still standing (barely). She's had a lot of practice.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'll go with "You're Retarded" for 5000, please.

No, I'll go with "I stated the facts" for 5000 please. Facts are not retarded. They're just facts.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

What is wrong with common sense laws that actually accomplish what they are supposed to?

The law is designed to keep people who have ingested a poison that slows reaction times and skews judgement from driving on the streets. Laws need to apply equally to all people. Using an objective measure, such as BAC, is the fairest way to do it. If you have a tolerance for alcohol and can drive well drunk, good for you, it is still illegal.

 

[Darwin333]

Just because someone has a tolerance and can hide the signs of inebriation better than someone else does not mean that they aren't drunk. BAC is NOT subjective. I don't think you know what that word means. BAC is the alcohol content in your blood. It is an objective measure that varies with time, like how much a bag of apples weighs.

There is no reason to drink alcohol and drive. None. Ever.

Yes it is subjective as far as how much it impairs someone. You can easily test this yourself by getting a few friends, do some control tests and then start drinking and test your BAC. According to you each one of you should have the exact same amount of decrease in reaction time at any given BAC. You will find that is very very untrue.

As I said, I am not trying to give drunk drivers a pass I would simply like to see a test that actually gets truly impaired people off the road while leaving those who aren't alone. People who drive to tired kill people all the time too yet there is no test a cop can give that person to show they are impaired and get them off the road. Why are you ok with allowing people who are impaired due to something other than alcohol to continue driving without ramifications? My way actually works on EVERYONE regardless of why they are impaired.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

That's what I said, almost. Nervous system depressant.

Recent story, England maybe, where the guy showed the court that he was perfectly able to function while sloshed. He got off.

At the grand jury last week, the highway patrol worked a 1 car wreck where the woman was .31 and still standing (barely). She's had a lot of practice.

A lot of functional alcoholics can seem pretty normal at ranges from .2-.3. As a matter of fact, they seem sick and cannot function without alcohol. I've seen it personally many times with the native population. It doesn't mean we should allow these people to drive only when they are "normally drunk" simply because they have trained their body to function that way.

 

[woolfe9998]

At the end of the day its reaction time. Reaction time is an actual real thing that can be measured and quantified to see if a person is impaired or not, BAC does not do anything remotely close to that.

Since reaction time is basically the only thing that matters, it would be absurdly easy to test that on the roadside. Wouldn't matter why you are impaired, it would work the same on every single driver AND it wouldn't be some bullshit subjective number that some asshole picked even though alcohol affects people differently. I guarantee that I could pick a team of 5 people from right here and anandtech and design a gameboy type device that would easily and accurately measure reaction time, we are talking absurdly simple here. Instead of simplicity and actually removing impaired drivers while letting non-impaired drivers go they are designing new breathalyzers to arbitrarily test for other substances now, which still doesn't test if you are actually impaired or not.

What would they do with people who failed your reaction time test? I assume they have to test them for BAC, because as you said, being sleepy will slow your reaction times.

 

[Darwin333]

The law is designed to keep people who have ingested a poison that slows reaction times and skews judgement from driving on the streets. Laws need to apply equally to all people. Using an objective measure, such as BAC, is the fairest way to do it. If you have a tolerance for alcohol and can drive well drunk, good for you, it is still illegal.

BAC is the most retarded way possible to do it. Again, why do you want to give people that are impaired due to something other than alcohol a pass until they kill someone? Why aren't you worried about getting drivers who haven't slept in 2 days off the roads? People on other drugs?

Why are you only worried about the people that get killed by drunk drivers and not those that killed by impaired, but not drunk, drivers?

Reaction time is the REASON you are considered impaired. Testing reaction time actually proves that you are impaired or not regardless of why you are impaired. Yet for some reason you are ok with arresting people and saying they are impaired when they are not impaired while allowing people who are impaired to go free and endanger people.......

 

[Darwin333]

What would they do with people who failed your reaction time test? I assume they have to test them for BAC, because as you said, being sleepy will slow your reaction times.

Driving impaired is driving impaired. Why should a person that is too tired to drive not be arrested for driving impaired the same as a drunk person is? They are both just as dangerous.