Drunk Driving

As a lover of both beer and driving, though not at the same time, I found this story kinda interesting:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/14/18250824-ntsb-recommends-lowering-blood-alcohol-level-that-constitutes-drunk-driving?lite

Apparently the NTSB has released a recommendation that the BAC level for someone to be considered intoxicated while driving should be reduced from .08 to .05, and that eventually that number be reduced to zero, so no alcohol can be in your system while driving.

As GRM is generally a fairly good place to be informed about what is going on in the world (It was where I first heard about the Boston Bombings and the Texas fertilizer plant explosions), and that GRMers would probably be interested in a story that involes what seems to be their two favorite pastimes, I thought I would share this story.

As someone who also enjoys both beer and driving, I am painfully aware that many people have a hard enough time driving safely when sober, so as long as this ruling would also include no cell phone usage while driving, I would "consider" supporting it. I would have to know a lot more than I do about the intricacies of the issue to know for sure.

Cool.

Guess i'll never ever set foot in a bar again. Seems like a good way to effectively completely kill off an industry.

I am certainly no lover of drunk drivers (I was hit by someone with a BAC of over .40!), but isn't it true that BAC is not necessarily directly correlated with diminished driving capacity?

As an example, given the right circumstances, someone could be almost drop down drunk on one beer and almost no BAC (dehydrated, doesn't normally drink) or almost fine with a rather high BAC (many hours after drinking, high tolerance).

The only controller for this of course is "observable impairment"..

(I also know of at least one person who seems to drive better / faster in a certain online driving game after a few beers.... but that is a different story...)

DUI and DWI are two different things. The lowering is a good step, but DUI has to carry stiffer penalties along with driving distracted.

Never down to .00. That would be silly; I would be breaking the law if I had a piece of tiramisu after dinner. Aside from that, the impairment realistically could not be measured.

Now lowering it in general? I guess I'm not against it, maybe down to whatever the BAC is for a 150 lb man immediately after having one 5% alcohol 12 oz beer--we'll call it X. Then if you got pulled over and they suspected something and made you blow, if you blew between X and .08 you get a small fine with nothing on your record, and then anything over .08 is business as usual, and anything with an accident is prosecuted down to X. Or even more.

Thing is, for my girlfriend, she probably shouldn't be driving at .04. I'd consider her drunk. My older brother? I'd consider him stone-cold sober at .10. And yes, we have done this with real breathalyzers.

If we banned automobiles from public roads we would save 50K lives a year. Do it. For the children.

Is there an enormous problem with drivers below .08 being impaired and causing accidents? I've not heard of it being an issue, and would not support a law like this unless extensive - and I mean non-MADD funded and very thorough long term - research showed it to be a problem. My belief at this point is that it's a Puritan based "zero tolerance" idiot idea. I'm willing to have my mind changed but I bet the evidence isn't out there to change it. Because I bet the facts do not support it.

Carrie Nation rides again!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Nation

It's entirely possible for someone with certain intestinal 'fauna' to have a blood alcohol content that's greater than 0.0 without taking a drink or being drunk.

mtn wrote: Never down to .00. That would be silly; I would be breaking the law if I had a piece of tiramisu after dinner.

You'd be against the law if you ate an apple.

I don't drink and I think the anything above a BAC of Zero is a bad idea. I can get behind the .05, but even that might be too much.

I just looked at a couple of BAC calculators online. At 170 pounds.. 4 beers in an hour would put me a .06.. illegal under the proposed rules

I have a friend who happens to be more of a fan of drinking than of driving. He was busted once about 15 years ago and I don't think he's ever driven after drinking again. But at the time, he paid his fine, dealt with the suspended license and took the classes. I remember him making an very interesting point. Statistically, most people continue to drive while they're under suspension. Therefore, their car insurance probably doesn't cover them if they're in an accident. If the limits are lowered, there would effectively be more uninsured drivers on the road at the same sobriety levels.

I'm not arguing for or against but just think about that...

I think... I think.... blaaaaggghghghghghggh.

Seriously. Are we done with all the other stuff now and we can go revisit something that already has a whole cottage industry built up around prosecuting/defending/collecting revenue on it?

Ideally zero, eh? This is where the "Knowing something about science" thread becomes relevant. Idiots. Will there be a quiz about fruit in your diet to follow a .0001 positive?

By definition, 100% of repeat offenders were over the current limit when they got caught. Just like turning the steering wheel more when you are over the limit on your tires does nothing... making rules more stringent for people who ignore them does nothing.

How about we spend a little time working on some unaddressed E36 M3 like (insert bill of rights erosion flounder here, cite recent AP incident)

Dr. Hess wrote: If we banned automobiles from public roads we would save 50K lives a year. Do it. For the children.

Hell hath frozen over, I agree with Dr. Hess's assesment! Enforce what you have and teach proper driving.

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: If we banned automobiles from public roads we would save 50K lives a year. Do it. For the children.

Hell hath frozen over, I agree with Dr. Hess's assesment! Enforce what you have and teach proper driving.

Imagine how many lives would be saved if we just redefined the clinical meaning of death. Hell, my dad got type 2 diabeetus that way.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I think... I think.... blaaaaggghghghghghggh. Seriously. Are we done with all the other stuff now and we can go revisit something that already has a whole cottage industry built up around prosecuting/defending/collecting revenue on it? Ideally zero, eh? This is where the "Knowing something about science" thread becomes relevant. Idiots. Will there be a quiz about fruit in your diet to follow a .0001 positive? By definition, 100% of repeat offenders were over the current limit when they got caught. Just like turning the steering wheel more when you are over the limit on your tires does nothing... making rules more stringent for people who ignore them does nothing. How about we spend a little time working on some unaddressed E36 M3 like (insert bill of rights erosion flounder here, cite recent AP incident)

what about diabetics? It is not rare for them to have enough sugar in their urine to prove a .001

Seems like a $$ grab to me. I doubt this would make anyone any safer, but it would make some people more wealthy.

IIRC nearly all drunk driving accidents are caused by folks well over the .08 limit. Dropping the limit further won't save lives, it will just result in more DUIs.

to judge by my bil and my uncle I can believe that. I am just surprised those two have not been pulled over -more-

DUIs are life ruiners. When I drive, I have a maximum of one beer a few hours prior. I see these new regulations as a slippery slope: DUIs can already be issued to individuals with a BAC under 0.08. Will a BAC of 0.03 become grounds for DUI charges that after thousands in legal fees get reduced to reckless driving? Will driving after taking a dose of Nyquil subject a driver to more scrutiny?

Many countries with stricter rules, such as Western Europe and Japan, have much better transportation options to keep drivers off of the roads.

Swank Force One wrote: Cool. Guess i'll never ever set foot in a bar again. Seems like a good way to effectively completely kill off an industry.

My home town in Australia, Melbourne, has always been. 05%, so far the bars are booming.

Just plan ahead, if you drink, don't drive.

Nobody ever acussed an Aussie if being too sober.

aussiesmg wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: Cool. Guess i'll never ever set foot in a bar again. Seems like a good way to effectively completely kill off an industry.

My home town in Australia, Melbourne, has always been. 05%, so far the bars are booming. Just plan ahead, if you drink, don't drive. Nobody ever acussed an Aussie if being too sober.

I mean mostly if they bring it down to .00%.

I don't go to bars to get hammered, i go to socialize with my friends and have a few drinks over a few hours time. If i can no longer drive myself to and from, then i just won't go, because cab rides are berkeleying expensive.

And so are DUI tickets if i were to get pulled over and blew a 0.02%.

mad_machine wrote: what about diabetics? It is not rare for them to have enough sugar in their urine to prove a .001

One problem is Hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) which can cause Ketoacidosis. That causes the body to make compounds which cause a Breathalyzer to register a false positive.

More Info

I've seen enough people who shouldn't be driving sober, much less drunk. I also don't doubt this is a money grab by unscrupulous county governments...

dculberson wrote: Is there an enormous problem with drivers below .08 being impaired and causing accidents?

Answer is: no. The OVERWHELMING amount of driving accidents where people have alcohol in their system are with people that are OBLITERATED, something to the tune of over 75% are HIGHER than 0.08.

We have a 0.05 law in Alberta that isn't criminal, but gets you fined and licence suspension for 24 hours (and a vehicle impound). It's stupid.

And of course, this brings up the implications of having ANY drugs in your system when driving. If it is zero tolerance for alcohol, it's zero tolerance for EVERYTHING.

DoctorBlade wrote:

mad_machine wrote: what about diabetics? It is not rare for them to have enough sugar in their urine to prove a .001

One problem is Hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) which can cause Ketoacidosis. That causes the body to make compounds which cause a Breathalyzer to register a false positive. More Info I've seen enough people who shouldn't be driving sober, much less drunk. I also don't doubt this is a money grab by unscrupulous county governments...

thank you Doc, that is what I was looking for.

and yes, this just a money grab

I have a better idea. How about a program that provides breathalyzers to bars and gives bartenders the authority to confiscate a person's keys overnight if they fail a test.

Or heck, how about just provide the breathalyzers in bars for them to advise people that they are unsafe to drive.