NTSB Recommends Lower Drunk Driving Threshold Nationwide: 0.05 BAC

Officials for the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board have recommended a nationwide lowering of the blood-alcohol level considered safe for operating a car. The threshold is currently 0.08% — the NTSB wants to cut that to 0.05%. "That's about one drink for a woman weighing less than 120 lbs., two for a 160 lb. man. More than 100 countries have adopted the .05 alcohol content standard or lower, according to a report by the board's staff. In Europe, the share of traffic deaths attributable to drunken driving was reduced by more than half within 10 years after the standard was dropped, the report said. NTSB officials said it wasn't their intention to prevent drivers from having a glass of wine with dinner, but they acknowledged that under a threshold as low as .05 the safest thing for people who have only one or two drinks is not to drive at all. ... Alcohol concentration levels as low as .01 have been associated with driving-related performance impairment, and levels as low as .05 have been associated with significantly increased risk of fatal crashes, the board said."

Mythbusters show just how impaired you are at .08%

[Gregory Eschbacher]

Look this is not ideal for folks who want to go out and have a large drink with dinner. But on Mythbusters, they've done a number of driving myths at .07999% BAC, and the results are pretty dramatic. You are definitely impaired at .08%.

Re:Why?

[mcmonkey]

If we're going to change the numbers in this manner, why not just make it 0% and at least be clear about the message: Drink at all, and you'd better be willing to not drive for a couple of hours.

Because machines made by man aren't perfect. You can be completely free of alcohol and blow a 0.01.

So basically you're suggesting we give police carte blanche to arrest any driver at any time.

FUCK THE NANNIES

[Lawrence_Bird]

This MADD crusade really has to end. This is not going to "save lives" and instead is going to be a revenue source for the government and a life wrecker for those stopped. From Reason.com:

Consider the 2000 federal law that pressured states to lower their BAC standards to 0.08 from 0.10. At the time, the average BAC in alcohol-related fatal accidents was 0.17, and two-thirds of such accidents involved drivers with BACs of 0.14 or higher. In fact, drivers with BACs between 0.01 and 0.03 were involved in more fatal accidents than drivers with BACs between 0.08 and 0.10. (The federal government classifies a fatal accident as "alcohol-related" if it involved a driver, a biker, or a pedestrian with a BAC of 0.01 or more, whether or not drinking actually contributed to the accident.) In 1995 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studied traffic data in 30 safety categories from the first five states to adopt the new DWI standard. In 21 of the 30 categories, those states were either no different from or less safe than the rest of the country.

Once the 0.08 standard took effect nationwide in 2000, a curious thing happened: Alcohol-related traffic fatalities increased, following a 20-year decline. Critics of the 0.08 standard predicted this would happen. The problem is that most people with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10 don't drive erratically enough to be noticed by police officers in patrol cars. So police began setting up roadblocks to catch them. But every cop manning a roadblock aimed at catching motorists violating the new law is a cop not on the highways looking for more seriously impaired motorists. By 2004 alcohol-related fatalities went down again, but only because the decrease in states that don't use roadblocks compensated for a slight but continuing increase in the states that use them.

Re:Why?

[Wookact]

Because machines made by man aren't perfect. You can be completely free of alcohol and blow a 0.01.

So basically you're suggesting we give police carte blanche to arrest any driver at any time.

Annnh, they already have it. STOP RESISTING!! You are under arrest for resisting arrest.

Re:I approve

[operagost]

So will total prohibition. Neither is acceptable. Drunk driving is deadly, but this is a step too far when even the government admits a limit this low this is de facto prohibition. Unless we also want to outlaw other distractions, like screens, radios, cupholders, pets, and passengers, we're just choosing what rights we're OK with giving up.

Some people can't drive well with 0.00% BAC

[drcheap]

From the CNN variation of TFA: "From a "At 0.01 BAC, drivers in simulators demonstrate attention problems and lane deviations. At 0.02, they exhibit drowsiness, and at 0.04, vigilance problems."

Ha! I witness these issues repeatedly on a daily basis from plenty of people with zero alcohol in their system (ok, I didn't test them, but I think we can safely assume >99% of drivers had not been drinking at 8-9am for example). Let's face it, some people just suck at driving, and that makes them quite dangerous already before you even factor in alcohol. I've even experienced some of these symptoms myself on occasion w/o drinking -- especially drowsiness.

I'm all for very low tolerance of drinking and driving, but I wish the media/politicians/etc. would stop making it out to be the only problem with driving, or that it is the biggest cause of accidents and/or deaths. On some "top N causes" lists it's even down at #5 or so. What usually tops alcohol is various forms of distractions (rubbernecking, eating, fiddling with radio, etc.), and what leads that list is usually cell phone usage. Studies have been done which shown that even talking on the phone is just as dangerous (albeit in slightly different ways) as being at the current legal BAC limit. So lowering legal BAC limits will actually make talking on the phone "even worse" than DWI.

For those who are screaming "citation needed!" in their heads right now, here's one [distraction.gov] of many I quickly googled up. Plenty more out there, just go look. And that is just talking on the phone...texting and/or surfing the web is even worse, and becoming more prevalent.

I think it's time to put more of this attention & funding against cell phone usage (not to say ignore alcohol, but share the spotlight so to speak). Better driver education & more so driver training (as in actual training, like car control & stuff) would also help overall safety considerably.

Re:Why not just 0?

[Meeni]

There is significant literature from EU authorities (and each of the member states local DOT).

Bottom line is:
* 0.08 is the last "safe" limit. Performance is already decreased, but It is approximately equivalent to driving with children in the backseat. Not the best, but acceptable risk. About twice as bad as 0.05.
* However, above 0.08, performance decrease sternly and exponentially. At 0.1, chances of death or dismemberment become alarmingly hight. It is not obvious for a driver to make the distinction between 0.08 "happy" and 0.1 "drunk", since one may not feel impaired, but he is, really.
* Anything over 0.12 is classical "drunk driving" as understood by common folks. Chances of accidents are extremely elevated.
* 0.05 is the bottom of the exponential curve. There are still benefits from driving with a lower BAC, but the lions share of the exponential decrease is passed. The difference with 0.08 is significant (half less chances of accident, or more, more pronounced for young drivers). Below that, chances of accident continue to decrease, but not as quickly, so there is little benefits to be reaped going even lower.

Another interesting point is that effect of BAC on drivers is very age related. Being drunk at 0.1 when you are an experienced driver in your 30's puts you back at the same risk as when you were 16 and road racing everywhere and everyone (this is bad, indeed). However, a teen driver at 0.08 is already at extreme risk (as if he was an experienced driver at 1.4 or more from my memory), the statistics I read just showed this result, but didn't explained why. Could be that most 30+ have acquired some sort of higher alcohol resistance, or that it requires more focus from teen drivers, focus that cannot be achieved when intoxicated, even mildly. Anyway, teens that consume alcohol should never drive, even at legal concentrations.

Re:Why not just 0?

[TheGavster]

The states really don't have much choice in taking federal money. Because the federal tax rate is so high, there's a limit to how much a state can tax before their taxable residents and businesses move elsewhere. The feds know this, so they tax more and offer the states the money back in exchange for the forfeiture of their 10th amendment rights. As long as 1 state keeps taxes low with federal money, no state can refuse the cash and keep its tax base.

Re:Incompatible

[Meeni]

You could walk/bike or segway 1.6 miles in much less time that this. Not blaming you, just listing options you may not have thought about.

Re:Why not just 0?

[amiga3D]

Any personal tragedy is personal to you. To everyone else it's a statistic. I think we all know we can't make everyone 100 percent safe. We make choices based on different factors and only one of them is safety.

Re:Why not just 0?

[canadian_right]

The BAC was reduced last year from 0.08 to 0.05. in our province. It did not lead to a huge rise in BAC convictions, nor it did not lead to any lessening of the social stigma associated with drunk driving. What it did is make our roads safer.

Re:Why not just 0?

[mjwx]

Australia has already solved this problem.

Reducing the BAC to 0.05 and implementing random breath testing has been very effective in reducing road deaths. We reduced the BAC limit to 0.05 in the 90's and this is why Australia has 5.7 deaths per 100,000 people (8 per 100,000 vehicles) and the US has 12.7 deaths per 100,000 people (15 per 100,000 vehicles). Because it sure as shit isn't because Australian's can drive.

Meanwhile, I predict that prosecuting people for .05 DUIs is going to be expensive. Most will try to fight it; you're getting into the range where a breath test might not be accurate enough. I question whether the the cost to society for enforcing the rule might not exceed the cost of implementing it.

The answer to this is simple.

First, offer all people caught with a DUI a blood test. Breathalysers can be inaccurate if not configured correctly (but they are accurate if configured correctly) however a blood test eliminates this problem. Breathalysers often show a lower BAC than a blood test would so if you get caught DUI by a breathalyser and are pissed _DO NOT_ opt for the blood test as it is likely to show a higher BAC.

Second, increase fines and suspensions for DUI to pay for it.

Third, loser pays. If you fight a DUI and lose, you get an extra fine.

In recent years, Australian courts have ordered the installation of Alcohol (Ignition) Interlock Devices into cars driven by people with multiple high range DUI convictions. Personally I'd rather these people have their licenses torn up for life and their cars auctioned off, but that's just me.