NTSB recommends nation-wide .05 as legal BAC threshold

[fskimospy]

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.

Also, the purpose of state tests is not to figure out exactly when a person is 'impaired' or not. That would be a nightmare for enforcement, not to mention it would present a field day for people trying to avoid conviction.

BAC is like a speed limit, you set it at a point that would be dangerous for most people to exceed. I haven't seen a lot of evidence that .05 is a good place to put that speed limit, which is why I'm reluctant to endorse it. As for other measures of impairment, it is already legal for cops to arrest you if you show signs of being impaired in ways other than alcohol.

 

[fskimospy]

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.......

Reaction is absolutely not the only reason you are considered impaired. Full stop.

Cops can and do already test people for impairment in other ways outside of BAC.

 

[Darwin333]

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

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8945188

And if that woman was pulled over shortly before the accident you believe she should have been let go as the law currently is?

And being in the wrong lane isn't a "bad judgement" just like falling asleep and weaving into the wrong lane isn't a bad judgement.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Yes it is subjective as far as how much it impairs someone.

True. It is an objective test to tell how much alcohol is in your system. The effects of alcohol are subjective to each person. That is why we set a fucking limit. Right now it is .08 - we allow you to legally have about 4 drinks before you drive because for most people the effects don't show. They want to lower it. 4 drinks is quite a bit unless you drink regularly.

.

Why are you ok with allowing people who are impaired due to something other than alcohol to continue driving without ramifications?

I never said I was OK with that. Why are you putting words in my mouth? I am not OK with distracted driving either. This is about drunk driving, which kills a lot of people needlessly. Let's take care of the low hanging fruit first.

Also, a lot of newer luxury cars have technology to monitor your number of blinks and driving style and warn you when you are too tired to drive. It is actually possible to wake yourself up if tired, or put your phone down, or quit fucking with the radio. It is absolutely not possible to sober up by any means other than letting your liver remove the alcohol.

My way actually works on EVERYONE regardless of why they are impaired.

No, it doesn't. You think if you are driving tired and you get pulled over a surge of adrenaline isn't going to wake you?

BAC is an OBJECTIVE measure of alcohol in your system. How you act is SUBJECTIVE and difficult to measure at best. You cannot easily measure ones judgement. We have set a legal limit basically saying "Most people can handle this amount of alcohol before they lose judgement/response time/etc." They want to lower it because it will help save lives. If you don't like the fucking law, don't fucking drink and drive. If you can afford to go out and drink, you can afford a goddamn cab ride.

 

[Darwin333]

Reaction is absolutely not the only reason you are considered impaired. Full stop.

Cops can and do already test people for impairment in other ways outside of BAC.

Please list me the rest and why our current testing procedures are better at finding those than a simple reaction speed test. Thanks.

 

[Doppel]

It's pretty damn obvious that the science supports a reduction from .08 to .05, if not even .00.

.00 won't happen because drinking is a major part of a lot of people's lives and the idea of going to a restaurant and not getting alcohol with the meal is unthinkable. Further, it would destroy the business of a lot of bars.

Now, I don't drink. I stopped years ago and so I really don't give even a bad f about if it was dropped to .00. It wouldn't impact me at all except slightly decrease the chances some drunk asshole kills me some day on the road, and I realize my lack of giving a f about it biases me (as does the desire to drink and then drive bias those who are getting all pissy over this recommendation).

Despite the above, I think this is a piss in the wind. I strongly suspect that the limit could be left where it is, hell even raise it to .10, but put some more teeth behind stopping it. I don't ever want to read about repeat offenders with DUI. As it is, it kind of sucks getting one, but obviously a lot of people get multiple ones anyway, and that is bullshit. If you get a DUI your license is gone for 6 months, you spend a week in jail, too, absolutely guaranteed, and oh the legal fees, friend, they are serious.

Second DUI shit gets very real, including multi-year ban on driving and a whack of other shit.

Now the problem is, most repeat offenders are worthless scum who don't much care anyway and will go to the gas station for beer the second they're out of prison. And driving without a license? They don't care about that, either. These people are public menaces and may need to be dealt with differently.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8945188

And if that woman was pulled over shortly before the accident you believe she should have been let go as the law currently is?

And being in the wrong lane isn't a "bad judgement" just like falling asleep and weaving into the wrong lane isn't a bad judgement.

It is bad judgement. You aren't answering my question. People make bad judgement calls frequently. It is much worse with alcohol.

1550 deaths from drowsy driving
http://drowsydriving.org/about/facts-and-stats/

10,500 deaths from drunk driving
http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics

Both are a problem. Drowsy driving (distracted driving) is illegal, and we can tackle that issue next. Drunk driving accounts for over 1/3 of the driving fatalities in America. It is a low hanging fruit. The fix is simple - don't drink and drive and make the penalty for it so severe that nobody will consider it.

 

[Darwin333]

I never said I was OK with that. Why are you putting words in my mouth? I am not OK with distracted driving either. This is about drunk driving, which kills a lot of people needlessly. Let's take care of the low hanging fruit first.

That is exactly my point. Instead of going after the low hanging fruit first we can easily and cheaply go after ALL the fruit at one time while making it absolutely fair across the board.

Also, a lot of newer luxury cars have technology to monitor your number of blinks and driving style and warn you when you are too tired to drive. It is actually possible to wake yourself up if tired, or put your phone down, or quit fucking with the radio. It is absolutely not possible to sober up by any means other than letting your liver remove the alcohol.

I don't understand your point, getting into a big ass wreck will wake you up pretty damn quick too.

No, it doesn't. You think if you are driving tired and you get pulled over a surge of adrenaline isn't going to wake you?

Not an expert but isn't adrenaline rather short lived? Last time I got a seat belt ticket it took him at least 20 minutes to run my tags, check my license and insurance, write the tickets etc...

And you are only looking at one other type of impairment. Does a breathalyzer tell you the amount of prescription medication a person has in their system? Cocaine? Heroin? Pot? Opium? Any other substance that has a very substantial effect on your driving abilities other than alcohol?

BAC is an OBJECTIVE measure of alcohol in your system. How you act is SUBJECTIVE and difficult to measure at best. You cannot easily measure ones judgement. We have set a legal limit basically saying "Most people can handle this amount of alcohol before they lose judgement/response time/etc." They want to lower it because it will help save lives. If you don't like the fucking law, don't fucking drink and drive. If you can afford to go out and drink, you can afford a goddamn cab ride.

You have confused my argument as wanting to give drunk drivers a free pass. Quite the opposite, I know a girl that can absolutely not drive after a single drink. One drink and she is too drunk to drive yet she will pass a Breathalyzer all day long, my way gets her off the road but your way does not.

But hey, if you don't like that the fucking law will leave a ton of impaired drivers on the road then stay off the goddamn road.......

Seems like you have more of an ax to grind with alcohol than you do with people too impaired to drive.

 

[fskimospy]

Please list me the rest and why our current testing procedures are better at finding those than a simple reaction speed test. Thanks.

Impaired judgment is associated with increased BAC by not only scientific testing but by common sense, and good judgment is easily as important as good reaction time while driving. Can you explain the basis for which you believe that impaired judgment can be measured through reaction time? Some individuals have naturally superior reaction time to others, so how would your test account for this?

 

[Darwin333]

It is bad judgement. You aren't answering my question. People make bad judgement calls frequently. It is much worse with alcohol.

1550 deaths from drowsy driving
http://drowsydriving.org/about/facts-and-stats/

10,500 deaths from drunk driving
http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics

Both are a problem. Drowsy driving (distracted driving) is illegal, and we can tackle that issue next. Drunk driving accounts for over 1/3 of the driving fatalities in America. It is a low hanging fruit. The fix is simple - don't drink and drive and make the penalty for it so severe that nobody will consider it.

Sigh....

My point is very very simple:

We can tackle both problems at the same time and do it cheaper and easier than what we are currently doing.

Why that is a bad idea to you is beyond me.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Please list me the rest and why our current testing procedures are better at finding those than a simple reaction speed test. Thanks.

We've already told you - judgement is a huge issue while driving. That is why you have to be 16 to get a license (provisional at that in some areas) - it is because it isn't just about reaction time.

A "simple reaction speed test" would hurt those with slow reaction times to begin with. It does not show judgement (I refuse to link again for you - Google it you lazy fuck.) It does not show how your mind wanders or the other effects of alcohol.

Euphoria (BAC = 0.03% to 0.12%)

Overall improvement in mood and possible euphoria
Increased self-confidence - mildly bad when driving
Increased sociability
Decreased Anxiety
Shortened attention span - bad while driving
Flushed appearance
Impaired judgment - TERRIBLY while driving
Impaired fine muscle coordination - TERRIBLE while driving

Lethargy (BAC = 0.09% to 0.25%)

Sedation - TERRIBLE
Impaired memory and comprehension - TERRIBLE
Delayed reactions - TERRIBLE
Ataxia; balance difficulty; unbalanced walk - TERRIBLE
Blurred vision; other senses may be impaired - TERRIBLE

Do we really have to line it out for you?! Jesus tap dancing christ.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

But hey, if you don't like that the fucking law will leave a ton of impaired drivers on the road then stay off the goddamn road.......

Seems like you have more of an ax to grind with alcohol than you do with people too impaired to drive.

This is about lowering the BAC limit, not how to make someone wake up. I think all impaired drivers need to go.

It seems like you are stuck on reaction time and have no idea what you are talking about.

As for your other points, field sobriety tests are used for other drugs and you can be booked for driving while impaired.

I am not a teetotaller. I am just tired of people making excuses for drunk driving. There should be no legal limit for alcohol while driving because there is really no excuse for it. If we could cut traffic deaths by 1/3 by simple outright making it illegal to drink and drive (and completely enforce it) then why wouldn't we do that.

I'm not sure where your mystical reaction time device is. I'm not sure why you haven't invented one. What I do know is that it doesn't exist while DUI laws do exist and have been proven to work.

 

[Darwin333]

Impaired judgment is associated with increased BAC by not only scientific testing but by common sense, and good judgment is easily as important as good reaction time while driving. Can you explain the basis for which you believe that impaired judgment can be measured through reaction time? Some individuals have naturally superior reaction time to others, so how would your test account for this?

We are not talking about people who are sloshed, we are talking about people who would be around the legal BAC limit. As far as superior reaction time, some people can handle their booze a lot better than others and right now we don't account for this at all.

Again, this would be absurdly simple to do and implement. I wouldn't think it would be all that difficult to include some sort of test of a persons "judgement" either and have it weigh towards the pass/fail grade.

 

[woolfe9998]

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.

So you would jail people for not realizing that they are tired enough to fail a reaction time test? Fascinating.

 

[Darwin333]

This is about lowering the BAC limit, not how to make someone wake up. I think all impaired drivers need to go.

It seems like you are stuck on reaction time and have no idea what you are talking about.

As for your other points, field sobriety tests are used for other drugs and you can be booked for driving while impaired.

I am not a teetotaller. I am just tired of people making excuses for drunk driving. There should be no legal limit for alcohol while driving because there is really no excuse for it. If we could cut traffic deaths by 1/3 by simple outright making it illegal to drink and drive (and completely enforce it) then why wouldn't we do that.

I'm not sure where your mystical reaction time device is. I'm not sure why you haven't invented one. What I do know is that it doesn't exist while DUI laws do exist and have been proven to work.

Quite a few people died last year that would disagree with you.....

As far as "completely enforce it", I assume because it would be extremely intrusive and a violation of our rights to do so.

BTW, no need to get your panties all in a wad. I am actually on your side as far as saving lives is concerned.

 

[fskimospy]

We are not talking about people who are sloshed, we are talking about people who would be around the legal BAC limit. As far as superior reaction time, some people can handle their booze a lot better than others and right now we don't account for this at all.

Again, this would be absurdly simple to do and implement. I wouldn't think it would be all that difficult to include some sort of test of a persons "judgement" either and have it weigh towards the pass/fail grade.

Can you describe what that judgment test would be, even in a general sense?

 

[Darwin333]

So you would jail people for not realizing that they are tired enough to fail a reaction time test? Fascinating.

Whats the difference between that and jailing someone who doesn't realize they are too drunk to drive?

Isn't the goal to remove people who are to impaired to drive? Driving while tired is a huge cause of fatal crashes, why do you want to give them a pass? Are there any other potentially fatal impairments that you think people should get away with while driving?

 

[surfsatwerk]

Can you describe what that judgment test would be, even in a general sense?

Ask them about evolution. As soon as they say, "it's just a theory," cuff them.

 

[fskimospy]

Whats the difference between that and jailing someone who doesn't realize they are too drunk to drive?

Isn't the goal to remove people who are to impaired to drive? Driving while tired is a huge cause of fatal crashes, why do you want to give them a pass? Are there any other potentially fatal impairments that you think people should get away with while driving?

I think the difference would be that we have a pretty clear understanding of what actions will lead us to be too impaired from alcohol, but not nearly so clear an understanding in terms of how tired you are.

 

[Jadow]

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.

then people will die from infections they get from putting their mouth on the breathalizer machine. unintended consequences are a bitch

 

[Alex C]

With BAC, I can look at a chart and know I'm not legally allowed to drive after more than two drinks. I might think I'm fine to drive, but I know I'll get a DUI if I get pulled over, so I don't try.

Without a clear objectively defined and easy to asses limit, people are left to decide on their own if they're impaired before driving. Drunks are notoriously bad at accurately assessing their abilities. The BAC system prevents all the (law abiding) people who think they're fine from driving when over the limit because they're afraid they'll get a DUI if they happen to be pulled over. Some of these people are actually impaired and have effectively been kept from driving under the influence. A reactionary test would send them all on their way, and they'd never find out if they're actually impaired until they get pulled over or crash.

 

[Paul98]

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.

And what if you are still a good driver after having a drink or two or even more?

 

[hal2kilo]

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.

I bet you made the mistake of taking a field sobriety test. Never....I repeat Never... take a field sobriety test especially if you think you won't blow high. There's nothing to be gained and everything to loose. Like your state, in Washington state, even if you blow low, but fail the field sobriety test you can still get a DUI.

 

[Paul98]

I will say it again just because you have had a drink or two doesn't mean you will be a bad driver. While there are people who are much more dangerous every time they get in the car sober or not.

I am not saying I want to see drunk people driving, but the hate for someone driving after a drink is well over blown.

 

[Doppel]

With BAC, I can look at a chart and know I'm not legally allowed to drive after more than two drinks. I might think I'm fine to drive, but I know I'll get a DUI if I get pulled over, so I don't try.

Without a clear objectively defined and easy to asses limit, people are left to decide on their own if they're impaired before driving. Drunks are notoriously bad at accurately assessing their abilities. The BAC system prevents all the (law abiding) people who think they're fine from driving when over the limit because they're afraid they'll get a DUI if they happen to be pulled over. Some of these people are actually impaired and have effectively been kept from driving under the influence. A reactionary test would send them all on their way, and they'd never find out if they're actually impaired until they get pulled over or crash.

Stop using your head. If I say I am an awesome driver after 9 beer, I am, damnit!