NTSB Recommends Lower Drunk Driving Threshold Nationwide: 0.05 BAC 996
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."
Re:Mythbusters show just how impaired you are at . (Score:0, Interesting)
I saw that episode. They weren't taking the test seriously and were doing exactly what you'd expect horsing around on a closed course making a mockery of the entire scientific process.
I can assure you, on a real road, people tend to stay a bit more alert after consuming a few drinks.
Re:Incompatible (Score:5, Interesting)
Let your buddy drive?
I live in one of those "lucky big cities": Washington, DC. It takes me 45 minutes to travel the 1.6 miles to work if I use public transportation, and the roundtrip fare is $6.40 ($1.60 each way, and Metro is 50% subsidized). The subway here breaks down constantly, and is rather unpleasant -- people shit on the escalators (http://unsuckdcmetro.blogspot.com/2013/05/metro-pooper.html happened yesterday), for instance.
Perhaps mass transit works better other places -- I'm sure that in (picking a city at random) Frankfurt it is more pleasant than here. But mass transit is not a land of faeries and rainbow-pooping unicorns.
Re:Mythbusters show just how impaired you are at . (Score:2, Interesting)
No, every single one of there tests have been seriously flawed. IN fact, anything involving driving on the show borders on surprisingly stupid.
That's not even getting into the issue that the issue is reflexes and response time, so you should test reflexes and response time, not how much of X is in your system.
Of course, that would be reasonable, and remove most people over 60 from driving.
Re:It doesn't matter and doesn't help. (Score:3, Interesting)
Why does this sound like the "we don't need background checks at gun shows, we need better help for the mentally unstable" argument?
You're right that there's people now who have 10 drinks and decide to go driving anyway, and this will do nothing to stop them.
You're also right that there's people now who are perfectly sober and still can't seem to find their turn signal.
And yes, there's people who have 1, maybe 2 drinks, who would not get a DWI now, but would under a lower level, while there has been no ascertainment of their actual ability of operating a vehicle; some will be fine, others will fall over if asked to stand on one leg. The former will whine and moan about it on facebook/twitter, the latter deserve the DWI in the first place.
But then there's the people who have 1, maybe 2 drinks, and would chance it under an 0.08% law, but not under an 0.05% law.
One may argue that they're just after the DWI, that it'll be a cash cow, that it goes against freedom and justice and the american way or whatever and that this last group is just a byproduct. But it's not one that should be ignored for the sake of those who think that they're the special ones who are fine.
Of course, if you can think of a reasonable impairment test that can be administered quickly and accurately that doesn't rely on BAC, I'd happily support any effort to have that test replace the BAC tests.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Interesting)
Taking away driving privileges over 60? No. Requiring regular re-testing/re-certification? Absolutely... provided that you require it for *everybody*. If we *all* needed to go re-test for driving every 5 years (for example), there'd be a huge reduction in the number of accidents over-all, and people would be more likely to keep abreast of changes to the laws and safety standards.
As for raising the driving age to 22? I've been saying for years that we should raise the driving age to 21, and lower the drinking age to 14. That way you have a chance to learn to drink in a supervised setting with adults who (theoretically) know how to drink safely, and you have a chance to get all the stupid "hey guys, check this out!" stories out of your system before you're ever allowed near the wheel of a car.
Ok (Score:2, Interesting)
Are you also willing to require that people only drive when they are well rested? Turns out being sleepy is a major impairment to driving. So are we going to restrict that as well? After there is "no excuse".
Re:Mythbusters show just how impaired you are at . (Score:2, Interesting)
During WWI, you were convicted of sedition if you criticized the US's entry into the war. Apparently that is OK, because it was the law.
0.05 is unreasonable. It is de facto prohibition, and unconstitutional.
Re:Mythbusters show just how impaired you are at . (Score:5, Interesting)
One can already be arrested for having less than a .08% BAC in Georgia, and many other states. I'm not sure about the statue on other states, but in Georgia, according to the O.C.G.A.(Official Code of Georgia Annotated), one is considered "less safe" if law enforcement can provide proof that the driver was "under the influence" at a level below the "legal limit". I have arrested many people under this portion of the DUI statue, in Georgia.
Usually, I would establish "less safe" with video and audio recordings of the driver's inability to maintain lane and other moving violations, as well as my encounter with the driver, and the sobriety tests administered during the stop of the particular individual. "Less safe" is important, as it removes bureaucratic roadblocks from stop those that aren't capable of possessing a certain amount of alcohol in their bloodstream and operating a motor vehicle. The NTSB is doing nothing that isn't already enforced in many, possible most or all states currently.
There are people that can safely drive with 0.08% BAC, and higher. While I personally don't consume alcohol, I do consume narcotics for severe pain relief. If one took my blood and observed the levels, they would probably wish to jail me on those numbers alone. The issue is that it's safe to allow me to operate a motor vehicle, as I'm not "under the influence"(I don't experience the negative effects of narcotics, and even have a high tolerance against some of the positive effects), or my state of alertness and readiness isn't impacted in the slightest. That is what the people should be concerned with, whether the driver is "under the influence", "less safe", or simply whether the individual isn't capable of safely operating a motor vehicle.
Re:Incompatible (Score:2, Interesting)
Then drink at home you moron. We've had 0.05 in Australia for Years. It has helped cut the road toll significantly. Stop using excuses for your shitty behaviour. I like a drink, but if I'm going somewhere I need to drive to, I don't drink. Learn some care and respect for others.
Re:Mythbusters show just how impaired you are at . (Score:5, Interesting)
Eventually your luck will run out, even if not necessarily because of being caught (we'll get back to that), but because you'll cause an accident. When the road situation is relaxed, you are safe. As soon as things get tight or there's something unexpected, your performance is impaired, and it's simple objective measures such as reaction times and visual acuity we're talking about.
Now, nystagmus leads to loss of visual acuity at higher spatial frequencies while, perhaps counterintuitively, boosting the contrast at lower spatial frequencies.
This means that if you get motion-induced nystagmus, as you're likely to at 0.08% BAC and up, you won't be able to read the fucking speedometer or even roadside signs, and your brain will be substituting expected values for actual ones. That's how some drunk drivers are getting caught, and they swear they were not speeding. That's how some military and aerobatic pilots end up with doing controlled flights into terrain in instrument conditions - they don't see the artificial horizon without realizing it.
What you may also find scary is that people's susceptibility to various ototoxins (substances that impair the vestibular system) can vary a lot, and alcohol is not the only ototoxin out there. You can get same problems simply by being exposed to organic solvents.
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hey, you have to get your car home so you can work the next day, eh?
And no, I'm not going to leave it there overnight so it can be damaged, stolen or broken into. Again,cab isn't going to cut it, I likely need to work next day. And if you're picking up a chick, you're not going to take her home in a cab or a bus, and hope to have any chance of getting laid are you?
Face is...driving after drinking is extremely common. YOu look at all those bars with all those parking lots filled with cars, and at closing time, how many cars do you see left there over night due to taking a cab or someone there staying sober to be 'designated driver'.
And no, the majority of people there leaving are NOT under the legal limit.
So, face it...driving after drinking is common, and the only way yould be able to really drop those rates, is to ban external establishments from serving alcohol. Try that and see how well that flies.
With that in mind...as a society we do allow this type of activity and it is sanctioned for the most part by society. Most everyone gets home just fine.
If a cop sees someone driving poorly, sure...stop them, but if someone is driving just fine, let them get home.
And trust me...the ONLY time I'm driving the speed limit or even bothering to keep track of what the speed is in that zone, is driving home from a bar. Its when I'm stone cold sober that I drive like a maniac.
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:4, Interesting)