• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NTSB recommends nation-wide .05 as legal BAC threshold

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
nehalem256 said:
So at what BAC limit would going out a having a glass of wine with dinner and then driving home effectively become illegal?
Click to expand...

ive had a glass of wine before and was hands down too messed up to drive. and i have also had nearly a bottle of wine and was stone cold sober.
 
zsdersw said:
, but why don't we do what is already working: stepped up enforcement.
Click to expand...

No...Enforcement is fine... We need to make penalties stick and prevent people from pleading their way out of the penalties via attorneys. Then you will see the DUI rates go down.
 
just make it 0.00000. will solve everything right?

honestly i'd focus more on driver education (in general, not just drunk driving awareness). i think it should be a lot harder to get a license, with much more thorough examinations and skills training.

basically, i think people should learn through autocross
 
WackyDan said:
No...Enforcement is fine... We need to make penalties stick and prevent people from pleading their way out of the penalties via attorneys. Then you will see the DUI rates go down.
Click to expand...

Earth to Dan, this isn't about making the DUI rates go down. This is about increasing them, maybe even twofold! Are you wacky or what?
 
Alex C said:
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.
Click to expand...

So even though they have no clue what their BAC is or might be, and this is true for 90% of people that drive drunk, its more effective because while drunk they think of the "clear objectively defined and easy to asses limit" versus another test that is easily defined with a clear objective limit?
 
Darwin333 said:
So even though they have no clue what their BAC is or might be, and this is true for 90% of people that drive drunk, its more effective because while drunk they think of the "clear objectively defined and easy to asses limit" versus another test that is easily defined with a clear objective limit?
Click to expand...

My point was that there a plenty of people who do look at the clear objective limit and then decide not to drive home. Your method would have people making that decision based on how they feel their reaction time would be. Which way do you think would keep more drunk people off the road?
 
Also note that .08 makes us one of the highest, if not the highest, legal limit in the west. I don't see much problem with dropping it to .05. Not going to be terribly effective until most cars have built in breathalizers though and that's about 5-10 yes out still.
 
Darwin333 said:
So even though they have no clue what their BAC is or might be, and this is true for 90% of people that drive drunk, its more effective because while drunk they think of the "clear objectively defined and easy to asses limit" versus another test that is easily defined with a clear objective limit?
Click to expand...

What's so hard to understand? You drink you drive you go to jail. Of course you probably already know this which is why you're so bitter. Don't worry man it'll drop off your driving record sometime this decade.
 
OILFIELDTRASH said:
Stupid alcoholics. I think it should be .02. You have a beer then drive then you deserve to be thrown in jail.
Click to expand...

More idiotic posts... Might as well throw everyone in jail for any stupid reason. For speeding, not stopping fully when they should not using their turn signal, jaywalking,...

More brainwashing for irrational reactions.
 
Paul98 said:
More idiotic posts... Might as well throw everyone in jail for any stupid reason. For speeding, not stopping fully when they should not using their turn signal, jaywalking,...

More brainwashing for irrational reactions.
Click to expand...

No. Just drinking and driving. If you can't exercise good judgment then you don't need a license.
 
OILFIELDTRASH said:
No. Just drinking and driving. If you can't exercise good judgment then you don't need a license.
Click to expand...

So you simply decided that the only thing people have to "exercise good judgment" with is having a drink. I am sorry but that is no different than anything else I posted.
 
Demo24 said:
Also note that .08 makes us one of the highest, if not the highest, legal limit in the west. I don't see much problem with dropping it to .05. Not going to be terribly effective until most cars have built in breathalizers though and that's about 5-10 yes out still.
Click to expand...

That should never happen, but knowing our society's propensity to freak out about problems to a Helen Lovejoy ("Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?!?") degree, I'm sure it will.
 
.05 is nothing but a money grab. As it is 1 drink can cost you several thousand dollars. If the standard is lowered to .05 sniffing the bottle cap will put you in violation. Even the current Threshhold of .08 is questionable and was established simply to appease some special interest lobbying groups.
 
This is just a money grab. If they are really that interested in safety how about a national law banning bars from owning parking lots?

Not that I want to give them any ideas
 
HomerJS said:
This is just a money grab. If they are really that interested in safety how about a national law banning bars from owning parking lots?

Not that I want to give them any ideas
Click to expand...

I don't get this, a money grab by who? The NTSB is a federal agency that wouldn't see a dime from any uptick in DUI convictions.

Are you guys claiming that the states lobbied the NTSB to make this recommendation? If so, why? If a state wanted to lower its BAC level for a DUI it could just do so anyway.

Are you claiming the NTSB has some sort of financial incentive? If so, what?

Are you claiming that states wanted the NTSB to issue this recommendation to give them political cover for more DUI revenues? If so, based on what evidence?
 
This is like the average ATOT BMI thread where every fatass with a BMI of 40 thinks they look like Vernon Davis. Toss everyone in jail for driving with any trace of alcohol and take away their car.
 
eskimospy said:
I don't get this, a money grab by who? The NTSB is a federal agency that wouldn't see a dime from any uptick in DUI convictions.

Are you guys claiming that the states lobbied the NTSB to make this recommendation? If so, why? If a state wanted to lower its BAC level for a DUI it could just do so anyway.

Are you claiming the NTSB has some sort of financial incentive? If so, what?

Are you claiming that states wanted the NTSB to issue this recommendation to give them political cover for more DUI revenues? If so, based on what evidence?
Click to expand...

If its really a safety issue then ban the parking lot ownership. Problem dimishes.

BTW - Do we have any stats on imparment related accidents with BAC .05-.08??
 
HomerJS said:
If its really a safety issue then ban the parking lot ownership. Problem dimishes.

BTW - Do we have any stats on imparment related accidents with BAC .05-.08??
Click to expand...

Yep cause no one in the history of man has used designated drivers or just went to hang out and didn't drink.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top