recommended: lower u.s. drunk driving threshold

[alocispepraluger102]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57584376/feds-adopt-recommendation-for-tougher-drunken-driving-threshold/

"WASHINGTON

Federal accident investigators recommended Tuesday that states cut their threshold for drunken driving by nearly half, matching a standard that has substantially reduced highway deaths in other countries.

The National Transportation Safety Board said states should shrink the standard from the current .08 blood alcohol content to .05 as part of a series of recommendations aimed at reducing alcohol-related highway deaths."

[DukeCity]

No doubt, it's the safe thing to do.

Sadly, it likely will correlate with musicians' pay on jazz gigs in clubs going down from $80 to $50. When customers limit themselves to splitting one drink between two people, the bar receipts don't justify spending much on entertainment.

Cheers (but not too much)!

[Tim McG]

0.05

The new prohibition.

Edit for clarity: Numbers are not my thing.

Edited May 15, 2013 by GoodSpeak

[Jazzmoose]

I wish we could go back to the time when drunk driving meant you were driving drunk, rather than you scored a number on some test. Thank you, MADD.

[Quincy]

As a cyclist I'd far rather have free reign to throw rocks at any driver I see texting. Or at city planners who think it's fabby to add a "calming device" that causes your average driver to verve into the bike lane for fear of hitting the island.

And isn't it about time to modernize the concept of "how many beers" one can drink in an hour when some of us prefer something hoppy, or stout, you know, a real beer as opposed to a fucking Miler Lite or Buttwiper?

[Daniel A]

I'm a bit surprised by this view. Over here we went from 0.5 to 0.2 decades ago, and many lives have been saved. I'm sure you realize just how much your driving capabilities are affected at an intoxication level of 0.8.

[Blue Train]

You don't undertand the relative difference between .08 and .05 . Even for your weight...in normal circumstances it's one drink less....unless the person is binge drinking.

[Tim McG]

I'm a bit surprised by this view. Over here we went from 0.5 to 0.2 decades ago, and many lives have been saved. I'm sure you realize just how much your driving capabilities are affected at an intoxication level of 0.8.

True.

But at some point reality of restaurants losing business needs to set in along with personal responsibility of the consumer. Personally, if I drink I simply do not drive. Period. But if a guy has a beer at the ballpark, suddenly he's a DUI just because he hits an arbitrary number? Police will take it to mean anybody with alcohol on their breath needs to be run in or given a sobriety test irrespective of the ability to drive a vehicle. It happens with far too much regularity here in California and I have a real problem with that.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Larry Kart

[Blue Train]

I'm a bit surprised by this view. Over here we went from 0.5 to 0.2 decades ago, and many lives have been saved. I'm sure you realize just how much your driving capabilities are affected at an intoxication level of 0.8.

True.

But at some point reality of restaurants losing business needs to set in along with personal responsibility of the consumer. Personally, if I drink I simply do not drive. Period. But if a guy has a beer at the ballpark, suddenly he's a DUI just because he hits an arbitrary number? Police will take it to mean anybody with alcohol on their breath needs to be run in or given a sobriety test irrespective of the ability to drive a vehicle. It happens with far too much regularity here in California and I have a real problem with that.

One beer won't register as a DUI for anyone....unless they drank the beer minutes before.

Even if they're arrested....there is still Urine/Blood tests to confirm things...by the time they're tested it's hours later.

As in, by that time.....the person in question was way over the legal limit when they were first arrested if they still register @ 0.8.

Of course, this doesn't even bring up the difference between being impaired and legally considerd drunk

[.:.impossible]

Guys... 0.8 BAC would kill you.

[Tim McG]

Guys... 0.8 BAC would kill you.

True.

Read: 0.08 is the current level.

I dropped a zero in my earlier comment...not a Math guy

[Big Beat Steve]

Guys... 0.8 BAC would kill you.

:tup

On a more serious note, though, reports over here had it today that a NEWBORN child in a maternity unit in Poland was diagnosed with an alcohol level of 0.45!!! (no, not 0.045 - really 0.45!) This because the mother who had collapsed SLOPPY DRUNK in public had to be rushed to the hospital to have the child delivered in an emergency before more serious damage was done. The poor newborn is still in critical condition, though.

Wonder if that "mother" has a driver's license and whatever she might have been up to at other occasions ..

On the actual subject, beats me how ANYBODY can make enjoying themselves at whatever party or public event depend on gulping down alcoholic beverages. Is that really THAT necessary? Can't these characters loosen up and enjoy themselves without resorting to "little helpers" like that?

And what's this thing about ruining club/restaurant business? Are there that many who feel they are being sneered at for being "weaklings" if they limit themselves to soft drinks or whatever non-alcoholic stuff whenevery they have to drive? Maybe a reevaluation of the company they're keeping might be in order, then ...

[Tim McG]

Guys... 0.8 BAC would kill you.

:tup

On a more serious note, though, reports over here had it today that a NEWBORN child in a maternity unit in Poland was diagnosed with an alcohol level of 0.45!!! (no, not 0.045 - really 0.45!) This because the mother who had collapsed SLOPPY DRUNK in public had to be rushed to the hospital to have the child delivered in an emergency before more serious damage was done. The poor newborn is still in critical condition, though.

Wonder if that "mother" has a driver's license and whatever she might have been up to at other occasions ..

On the actual subject, beats me how ANYBODY can make enjoying themselves at whatever party or public event depend on gulping down alcoholic beverages. Is that really THAT necessary? Can't these characters loosen up and enjoy themselves without resorting to "little helpers" like that?

And what's this thing about ruining club/restaurant business? Are there that many who feel they are being sneered at for being "weaklings" if they limit themselves to soft drinks or whatever non-alcoholic stuff whenevery they have to drive? Maybe a reevaluation of the company they're keeping might be in order, then ...

Well, restaurants do make money off of the food and beverages they sell.

I don't think a BAC of 0.08 will make anyone stone, sloppy drunk. My problem is with this one-size-fits-all determination of what is called DUI.

[Daniel A]

Sorry if I added to the confusion. Here it's measured in per mil.

[Blue Train]

Guys... 0.8 BAC would kill you.

:tup

On a more serious note, though, reports over here had it today that a NEWBORN child in a maternity unit in Poland was diagnosed with an alcohol level of 0.45!!! (no, not 0.045 - really 0.45!) This because the mother who had collapsed SLOPPY DRUNK in public had to be rushed to the hospital to have the child delivered in an emergency before more serious damage was done. The poor newborn is still in critical condition, though.

Wonder if that "mother" has a driver's license and whatever she might have been up to at other occasions ..

On the actual subject, beats me how ANYBODY can make enjoying themselves at whatever party or public event depend on gulping down alcoholic beverages. Is that really THAT necessary? Can't these characters loosen up and enjoy themselves without resorting to "little helpers" like that?

And what's this thing about ruining club/restaurant business? Are there that many who feel they are being sneered at for being "weaklings" if they limit themselves to soft drinks or whatever non-alcoholic stuff whenevery they have to drive? Maybe a reevaluation of the company they're keeping might be in order, then ...

Well, restaurants do make money off of the food and beverages they sell.

I don't think a BAC of 0.08 will make anyone stone, sloppy drunk. My problem is with this one-size-fits-all determination of what is called DUI.

Who said anything about "stone, sloppy drunk"? By that point....it's a miracle anyone isn't in an accident that doesn't result in their, and/or other's deaths.

Do you understand the difference between being impaired and legally drunk?....and once again.... by the time they finally test someone however many hours later and they're still 0.08....they were way above 0.8 when they were initally arrested?

[Blue Train]

Drunk drivers...by the time they're tested and still are considred legally drunk.....they really shouldn't be driving from the start.

That's keeping in mind we're talking about a single drink between .08 and .05 no matter how obese anyone happens to be and they're not binge drinking.

[Tim McG]

Drunk drivers...by the time they're tested and still are considred legally drunk.....they really shouldn't be driving from the start.

That's keeping in mind we're talking about a single drink between .08 and .05 no matter how obese anyone happens to be and they're not binge drinking.

I am not defending drunk drivers. Nobody should get behind the wheel if they are drunk. Period.

I am, however, saying consumers need to take personal responsibility for their own actions. Further, restaurants and pubs have a right to do business in this country. Alcohol is a legal beverage. Hence, the government will only deter business, not drinking. People can do that at home, too.

A drunk will still drink irrespective of any laws and then get behind the wheel. This law is not for them.

The 0.05 level now cuts into the population of responsible drinkers and that, my friend, is my problem with it.

[Blue Train]

The 0.05 level now cuts into the responsible drinker and that, my friend, is my problem with it.

You went from the whole numbers thing and .08 wasn't drunk to .05 is a "responsbile drinker?

A single drink less makes somone a "responsible drinker",,,,and that's if they could do a urine/blood test right there and then when initally arrested.

You keep forgetting the part about how many hours after the fact they're actually tested to confirm they're considered legally drunk.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Blue Train

[Tim McG]

And you don't take into consideration of having a beer in the 8th inning might put a guy over that new limit.

Just sayin'.

[Blue Train]

I don't take anyone into account who has a single beer in the 8th inning for multiple reasons.

First off...at best they're looking at 20 minutes before the game is over. Then, if they're lucky....another 30-45 minutes to get to their car and get out of the parking lot. If they're somehow arrested...another 2-5 hours before their urine/blood is tested. It's not the breathalyzer that matters but their urine/blood that results in it going further. This also forgets the fact of the all that goes into a field sobriety test before they even get to the point of using a breathalyzer.

[Tim McG]

I don't take anyone into account who has a single beer in the 8th inning for multiple reasons.

First off...at best they're looking at 20 minutes before the game is over. Then, if they're lucky....another 30-45 minutes to get to their car and get out of the parking lot. If they're somehow arrested...another 2-5 hours before their urine/blood is tested. It's not the breathalyzer that matters but their urine/blood that results in it going further. This also forgets the fact of the all that goes into a field sobriety test before they even get to the point of using a breathalyzer.

My point is that a responsible drinker could get popped for a DUI simply upon the basis of the lower number. Not because he was drunk or impaired enough to be a hazard behind the wheel. Then he is detained for hours while the cops figure it out. That isn't justice, it is tyranny.

As to a field sobriety test, my knees are shot to shit. I couldn't walk a straight line in any condition. I'm willing to bet the ranch I'm not the only one.

I just don't like giving police [or government, for that matter] that much control over what I can or cannot do.

Edited May 16, 2013 by GoodSpeak

[RDK]

Drunk drivers...by the time they're tested and still are considred legally drunk.....they really shouldn't be driving from the start.

That's keeping in mind we're talking about a single drink between .08 and .05 no matter how obese anyone happens to be and they're not binge drinking.

I am not defending drunk drivers. Nobody should get behind the wheel if they are drunk. Period.

I am, however, saying consumers need to take personal responsibility for their own actions. Further, restaurants and pubs have a right to do business in this country. Alcohol is a legal beverage. Hence, the government will only deter business, not drinking. People can do that at home, too.

A drunk will still drink irrespective of any laws and then get behind the wheel. This law is not for them.

The 0.05 level now cuts into the population of responsible drinkers and that, my friend, is my problem with it.

This has nothing to do with "personal responsibility." Not if that person is driving and endangering others by their actions.

[Tim McG]

Drunk drivers...by the time they're tested and still are considred legally drunk.....they really shouldn't be driving from the start.

That's keeping in mind we're talking about a single drink between .08 and .05 no matter how obese anyone happens to be and they're not binge drinking.

I am not defending drunk drivers. Nobody should get behind the wheel if they are drunk. Period.

I am, however, saying consumers need to take personal responsibility for their own actions. Further, restaurants and pubs have a right to do business in this country. Alcohol is a legal beverage. Hence, the government will only deter business, not drinking. People can do that at home, too.

A drunk will still drink irrespective of any laws and then get behind the wheel. This law is not for them.

The 0.05 level now cuts into the population of responsible drinkers and that, my friend, is my problem with it.

This has nothing to do with "personal responsibility." Not if that person is driving and endangering others by their actions.

Agreed.

But here again, 0.05 isn't that guy.

This law isn't about keep drunks off the road. It's about keeping ANYBODY who drinks off the road. And that is not what government should be involving itself in. Unless, of course, it is [as I said] the "new prohibition".

[Chuck Nessa]

I can see the bar has been lowered beyond my expectations.

[Blue Train]

I can see the bar has been lowered beyond my expectations.

FTW!^IInfinity symbol

Edited May 16, 2013 by Blue Train