NTSB recommends nation-wide .05 as legal BAC threshold

[Fenixgoon]

I dont see what people are bitching about. Dont drink and drive. Any idiot can see the benefits.

the question is - are those "benefits" worth it?

because a lot of people will no longer go out for A drink, period, simply because the risk is not worth it.

first, we'd have to look at the distribution of accidents where alcohol is involved. of those, how many are 0.05 or less, vs. 0.05-0.08, and 0.08+?

Someone in this thread previously mentioned that the 0.08+ is greater than all the combined 0.08 or less, and by a large margin.

This means that stricter limits will be minimally effective at getting dangerous people off the road, since those dangerous people are at 0.08+ (and generally 0.13+ from what that person quoted, IIRC).

Let's say you save 800 people (projections were 500-800). That's 800 out of about 32,000 driver fatalities each year. Not bad, but I think you'd be far more effective in teaching people how to actually DRIVE a car. As it is, our driver education system is a joke.

 

[fskimospy]

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??

I don't think you're addressing my post. Lots of people have claimed it's a money grab, but there seems to be no plausible way for that to be true.

 

[sm625]

This is obviously nothing more than a yet another money grab that the dumbed down sheeple are too stupid to defend themselves against. The problem with sheeple is that once they've become known as an easy mark they become a mark to everyone.

 

[fskimospy]

This is obviously nothing more than a yet another money grab that the dumbed down sheeple are too stupid to defend themselves against. The problem with sheeple is that once they've become known as an easy mark they become a mark to everyone.

I just asked how this is a money grab in a previous post. Can you explain?

 

[Oyeve]

This is obviously nothing more than a yet another money grab that the dumbed down sheeple are too stupid to defend themselves against. The problem with sheeple is that once they've become known as an easy mark they become a mark to everyone.

How?

 

[tgferg67]

One of the money grabs - police steal(impound) property before one is convicted of a crime. At least 1k to get the vehicle back with a certain percentage that will not be able to - the vehicle will be forfeited/auctioned and funds benefit police.

 

[fskimospy]

One of the money grabs - police steal(impound) property before one is convicted of a crime. At least 1k to get the vehicle back with a certain percentage that will not be able to - the vehicle will be forfeited/auctioned and funds benefit police.

How does the NTSB, the body that made this ruling, benefit from local police impound fees?

 

[tgferg67]

How does the NTSB, the body that made this ruling, benefit from local police impound fees?

I am assuming influence from somewhere, since this lower BAC limit is being addressed before cell phone use while driving.

 

[fskimospy]

I am assuming influence from somewhere, since this lower BAC limit is being addressed before cell phone use while driving.

From where?

Are you saying that states lobbied the NTSB to issue this recommendation? If so, why? They don't need NTSB approval to change these laws.

Are you alleging some sort of outside corporate influence? If so, which one and why?

If you've decided this is a money grab you should at least have some sort of mildly plausible mechanism for it, right?

 

[WackyDan]

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?

Sorry... I was overly optimistic that we actually wanted to reduce DUI related accidents and deaths... You are indeed correct and that makes me sad.

 

[tgferg67]

From where?

Are you saying that states lobbied the NTSB to issue this recommendation? If so, why? They don't need NTSB approval to change these laws.

Are you alleging some sort of outside corporate influence? If so, which one and why?

If you've decided this is a money grab you should at least have some sort of mildly plausible mechanism for it, right?

How about from the starting point, where do the statistics come from(police)?
The NTSB uses the term "alcohol related" - this does not mean the cause, only that alcohol was consumed or believed(subjective) to be consumed. So if only the passenger has consumed it is "alcohol related".

Here is the defintion of alcohol related from wiki.
"This statistic includes any and all vehicular (including bicycle and motorcycle) accidents in which any alcohol has been consumed, or believed to have been consumed, by the driver, a passenger or a pedestrian associated with the accident. Thus, if a person who has consumed alcohol and has stopped for a red light is rear-ended by a completely sober but inattentive driver, the accident is listed as alcohol-related, although alcohol had nothing to do with causing the accident. Furthermore, if a sober motorist hits a drunk pedestrian, the accident is also listed as alcohol-related. Alcohol-related accidents are often mistakenly confused with alcohol-caused accidents."

 

[fskimospy]

How about from the starting point, where do the statistics come from(police)?
The NTSB uses the term "alcohol related" - this does not mean the cause, only that alcohol was consumed or believed(subjective) to be consumed. So if only the passenger has consumed it is "alcohol related".

Here is the defintion of alcohol related from wiki.
"This statistic includes any and all vehicular (including bicycle and motorcycle) accidents in which any alcohol has been consumed, or believed to have been consumed, by the driver, a passenger or a pedestrian associated with the accident. Thus, if a person who has consumed alcohol and has stopped for a red light is rear-ended by a completely sober but inattentive driver, the accident is listed as alcohol-related, although alcohol had nothing to do with causing the accident. Furthermore, if a sober motorist hits a drunk pedestrian, the accident is also listed as alcohol-related. Alcohol-related accidents are often mistakenly confused with alcohol-caused accidents."

Wait, so you think that police departments from all across the country were artificially inflating alcohol related deaths in the hope of having the NTSB issue a non-binding safety recommendation?

lol. Really?

 

[GoPackGo]

They could NEVER drop it 0.00 - Violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

[piasabird]

Bring it on baby. .01% is too drunk to drive.

 

[piasabird]

Just crush the car when they are over the limit.

 

[fskimospy]

They could NEVER drop it 0.00 - Violation of the 1st Amendment.

How?

 

[GoPackGo]

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.

Look at the statistics.

You could ban alcohol completely and not eliminate traffic deaths. In fact the death count could increase because the "buzzed" drivers are typically more aware of what they are doing and force them to drive more carefully.

The answer is to BAN DRIVING!!!

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811379.pdf

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

How?

You ask too many questions. You don't need plausible explanations or anything of the sort - what they say is above reproach and your questions only make you look childish. /s

I like that they think the NTSB and all local PDs are colluding against them to get more money. I like how they further think a police officer would somehow benefit personally from DUIs. Or that drinking and driving is simply the only option. Or that drinking and driving is somehow protected by the first amendment. Jesus Christ...and we're supposed to be the dumb ones?

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Look at the statistics.

You could ban alcohol completely and not eliminate traffic deaths. In fact the death count could increase because the "buzzed" drivers are typically more aware of what they are doing and force them to drive more carefully.

The answer is to BAN DRIVING!!!

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811379.pdf

Are you actually advocating drunk driving?
Logic fail across America. "We can't ban X because Y is just as dangerous and it is still legal!"

FYI - there is no difference between buzzed and drunk. If alcohol is having an effect on you, you are drunk. Call it tipsy, or buzzed, or whatever you want... you are still drunk if you lose ANY control or show any effect.

 

[tgferg67]

Wait, so you think that police departments from all across the country were artificially inflating alcohol related deaths in the hope of having the NTSB issue a non-binding safety recommendation?

lol. Really?

The NTSB is looking at statistics, if the stats are not an accurate reflection of what is happening well does it matter how or why?

Lives are not saved when stats include sober drivers "at cause" hit another vehicle where the other vehicles passenger or driver were drinking or there was simply alcohol in the trunk.

 

[fskimospy]

The NTSB is looking at statistics, if the stats are not an accurate reflection of what is happening well does it matter how or why?

Lives are not saved when stats include sober drivers "at cause" hit another vehicle where the other vehicles passenger or driver were drinking or there was simply alcohol in the trunk.

You're moving off your original point. You said this was done to make money, so who is 'doing' it and how?

 

[GoPackGo]

Are you actually advocating drunk driving?
Logic fail across America. "We can't ban X because Y is just as dangerous and it is still legal!"

FYI - there is no difference between buzzed and drunk. If alcohol is having an effect on you, you are drunk. Call it tipsy, or buzzed, or whatever you want... you are still drunk if you lose ANY control or show any effect.

Sure, why not? It is how people get their cars home. DUI/DWI/OWI is nothing but a money grab. If you get in a car accident and kill people whether drunk or not and the accident is your fault you are still negligent. But punishing people for something that "might" happen.

From the MADD Women:

Over 1.41 million drivers were arrested in 2010 for DUI but there 10228 fatalities.

In 1986 it 19554.

So for those 9000+ people, the revenue raked in if an average DUI sets a person back 10000 is $14billion dollars.

How much would that revenue increase at .05? or .00?

Now tell me it isn't a money grab.
.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

UAE has zero tolerance for drunk driving. In Dubai, a city of over 2 million people, the drunk driving deaths are in the single digits. As in, fewer than 10 in a YEAR.

http://www.emirates247.com/news/emi...g-offenders-list-in-dubai-2010-10-18-1.305409

In Russia there is also zero tolerance. 30,000 deaths each year, although only about 1,000 are attributed to drunk driving. And this is a country full of alcoholics.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/25/russia-drunken-driving.html

Do a little research and you will find that zero tolerance leads to dramatically decreased drunk driving fatalities.

A lot of other countries have low limits. Norway is .02. Switzerland is .05.

http://www.etsc.eu/documents/copy_of_Explanatory note.pdf

In 2005 switzerland there were 409 traffic deaths, of which only 79 were due to drunk driving. That is 19%, compared to the US rate of over 33%.

Everyone here is supposed to be somewhat technical, a little geeky or nerdy, and yet you have a hard time believing hard science. You laugh when someone believes in evolution but you have a kneejerk emotional reaction and don't believe the numbers in your face when presented with hard facts that are contrary to what you THINK is correct. See idiot GoPackGo stating that drunk driving actually leads to safer drivers.

 

[zsdersw]

Set whatever draconian policies you want in a feel-good gesture, but when it comes to enforcement, what are all the additional police officers and manhours going to be paid with? Donuts?

 

[zsdersw]

UAE has zero tolerance for drunk driving. In Dubai, a city of over 2 million people, the drunk driving deaths are in the single digits. As in, fewer than 10 in a YEAR.

http://www.emirates247.com/news/emi...g-offenders-list-in-dubai-2010-10-18-1.305409

In Russia there is also zero tolerance. 30,000 deaths each year, although only about 1,000 are attributed to drunk driving. And this is a country full of alcoholics.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/25/russia-drunken-driving.html

Do a little research and you will find that zero tolerance leads to dramatically decreased drunk driving fatalities.

A lot of other countries have low limits. Norway is .02. Switzerland is .05.

http://www.etsc.eu/documents/copy_of_Explanatory note.pdf

In 2005 switzerland there were 409 traffic deaths, of which only 79 were due to drunk driving. That is 19%, compared to the US rate of over 33%.

Everyone here is supposed to be somewhat technical, a little geeky or nerdy, and yet you have a hard time believing hard science. You laugh when someone believes in evolution but you have a kneejerk emotional reaction and don't believe the numbers in your face when presented with hard facts that are contrary to what you THINK is correct. See idiot GoPackGo stating that drunk driving actually leads to safer drivers.

Yes, and all of those countries are comparable to the US in this regard. /s 🙄