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."
Mythbusters show just how impaired you are at .08% (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mythbusters show just how impaired you are at . (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the same episode where it showed being tired or distracted by cell phones or anything else were actually significantly more impairing than the alcohol?
I don't think we should get rid of drunk driving laws by any stretch of the imagination. However, there are already plenty of distracted/reckless driver laws that exist. I just don't see the a need to create specific laws for every single possible way someone can increase their danger while driving.
Re:Mythbusters show just how impaired you are at . (Score:5, Insightful)
Driving dangerously should be the issue, period. We shouldn't need to make five thousand laws for five thousand contexts. If you are reckless and dangerous on the road because of texting, talking on the phone, parenting your children in the back seat, watching videos on your laptop in the passenger seat, or just sheer stupidity or old age -- it should all fall under the same category and impact your license to drive.
The only reason a few items might sensibly be specifically classified and identified is because of the intentional choices that go into them. For example, nobody accidentally drinks and drives or accidentally texts while driving.
Re:Mythbusters show just how impaired you are at . (Score:4, Insightful)
I could go for this, if you could get it to be actually enforced. Selective enforcement ("i think drunk drivers are bad, so i'll bust them, but texting, hey, everyone does that, it can't be bad") is a problem. Fill in your own law-enforcement preferred and hated activities. Not only do you have to get police to agree to actually enforce per measured-risk, you have to get cranky old judges who liked things the way they were back then to all be on the same page.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the same episode where it showed being tired or distracted by cell phones or anything else were actually significantly more impairing than the alcohol?
I don't think we should get rid of drunk driving laws by any stretch of the imagination. However, there are already plenty of distracted/reckless driver laws that exist. I just don't see the a need to create specific laws for every single possible way someone can increase their danger while driving.
I agree cell phones or even conversations are a problem but there's a big difference in that I can hang up when I encounter a potentially dangerous situation, I don't have that option if I'm drunk.
Are you 8? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Grain of salt. (Score:3)
Re:Mythbusters show just how impaired you are at . (Score:5, Insightful)
I can assure you, on a real road, people tend to stay a bit more alert after consuming a few drinks.
Well, I'm certainly glad that we've got the accurate scientific evidence of the assurances of an Anonymous Coward to set us straight!
Re:Mythbusters show just how impaired you are at . (Score:5, Funny)
I'm the AC that wrote that. Drive over 0.08 all the time. I've never had a problem.
You're not statistically significant.
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:Mythbusters show just how impaired you are at . (Score:5, Funny)
making a mockery of the entire scientific process.
On Mythbusters, you say?
Re:Mythbusters show just how impaired you are at . (Score:5, Insightful)
I can assure you, on a real road, people tend to stay a bit more alert after consuming a few drinks.
Assure me by citing evidence supporting your case.
peer reviewed studies >>> mythbusters > AC's personal testimony.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
The difference here is that there is genuine science measuring the result. 0.08 is pretty dramatically impaired and has a marked effect on reaction times. 0.07999 is not at all "safe".
0.05 is unreasonable. It is de facto prohibition, and unconstitutional.
Prohibition? You are prohibited from drinking and then operating a two ton machine on our public road network. Boo fuckin
Re: (Score:3)
Google tells me he's from Sweden [wikipedia.org]:
Sweden: 0.02% (up to 6 months imprisonment), 0.10% (imprisonment, maximum 2 years), zero (if not driving safely.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
HELL
Re:Mythbusters show just how impaired you are at . (Score:4)
Right, because if it is not peer reviewed and published by Elsevier then it's completely garbage. There are no degrees in between. Either it's the "truth" (TM) or it has absolutely no scientific evidentiary value.
Glad you understand so well how data collection works.
Incompatible (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Incompatible (Score:5, Insightful)
Winner! (Score:5, Funny)
Which explains why americans are so socially inept and so fat, and so selfish. Well done mister, don't stop, put a fence around your house and kidnap another 14 year old teenage.
That gets today's prize for most ridiculously over-the-top hate-and-assumption-filled response.
1) Social skills are learned in pubs, bars and the like, while drinking alcohol.
2) Staying out of bars, pubs, etc, will make you fat.
3) Failure to drink enough and be in the company of others while doing so will result in selfishness.
4) Americans are particularly vulnerable due to their lack of drinking.
5) People that disagree with you are child molesters. or is it "people that don't drink"? or "people with fences around their house"? you should clarify this point for us.
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing lucky about having good public transportation infrastructure. It requires sensible public policy, a populace willing to pay taxes and an electorate that votes for it. Perhaps after a few thousand people lose their drivers license they may be inclined to support it.
Re:Incompatible (Score:5, Insightful)
If we had decent public transportation. I would be all for making any alcohol consumption before driving illegal. But we don't live in a world where that is possible. But the truth is, DUI or no, public transportation saves lives. Getting in your car, even sober, is the most dangerous thing you do each day. And even if you are the safest driver on the planet, the other guy who t-bones you in an intersection isn't. Building a rich public transportation system will save countless live from just everyday traffic accidents, not just DUI related accidents. And it would facilitate stricter driving laws.
Re:Incompatible (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designated_driver [wikipedia.org]
Not only won't that cost you $15/mile, you'll spend less on alcohol, too. Don't excuse being an idiot just because there's a lack of public transportation.
Re:Incompatible (Score:4, Funny)
You have to have friends or at least social acquaintances.
Remember where you are posting.
Re: (Score:3)
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:Incompatible (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I get what you're saying. My point falls more along the lines of, if you lower the limit from what has been the accepted standard, you're going to end up with a lot of people falling between the new and old limits getting arrested...without a proportionate increase in safety. I get the feeling people aren't going to simply stop having that second bottle of beer with dinner because the percentage rate dropped by .03; at least not until their friends and family who were always responsible drinkers before the change start running afoul of it. Then again, I guess there's always a "user education" period...
Ultimately, I'm just always wary when the law makes it easier and easier to be a lawbreaker. I'd hate for people who legitimately exercise responsible drinking to inadvertently find themselves in trouble.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
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:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the bad part about more arrests is that it dilutes the stigmatization effect of drunk driving arrests. When half or more of the people you know have a DUI, it's only a hassle, it's not embarrassing and carries no social stigma causing you to be less likely to avoid it in the future.
It's similar to the problem when people want the police to "get tough" in poor neighborhoods. It's nice rhetoric, but so many of those people have already been arrested before they just don't care outside of the headache. And for many it's a badge of courage for standing up to the man.
With the deterrence effect of stigmatizing DUIs diluted, all they can turn to are draconian laws -- soon we'd probably have a 3 strikes law for driving. Then we'd have a new problem of people driving without licenses, insurance, an increase in stolen plates (because you can't get your tabs without a license...).
Re: (Score:3)
Which is what Sweden has: 0%. But toallow for measurement error, the practical limit is 0.02%. Which may sound not too far away from 0.05%, but that is of course before a measurement margin is applied.
In practice, you don't drink at all before driving if you value your license. And you had better either be moderate the night before, or skip the driving the next day if you're going to a party. Good.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Banning X does not always reduce the number of people who do X, and certainly doesn't necessarily reduce the harmful consequences of X. See: alcohol, guns, marijuana.
Commercial drivers are already limited to 0.02 (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not make 0.02% BAC universal? I understand that there are practical limits, but should you really be going out for dinner, downing a bottle, and driving home?
(a 750ml bottle of wine over 2 hours for a 180lb person @ 0.08 = legal)
Have a glass of wine or a beer with dinner. Heck, go ahead and have two. But if you're going to drink any more than that DON'T FUCKING DRIVE A CAR.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Commercial drivers are already limited to 0.02 (Score:5, Insightful)
Drunk driving should be based upon how impacted you are by the alcohol, not how much you've consumed.
Re: (Score:3)
"Consuming one alcoholic beverage does not make a person an unsafe driver"
Yes it does. It about doubles the drivers chance of getting involved in a car accident during several hours after consumption of said beverage.
I find the attitude in the comments here rather odd - yet another apparent cultural difference between Americans en Europeans. Where I live (Europe, obviously), you're considered an idiot if you drink and drive, no matter what the law says. Apparently that's not the case in America, where drink
Re: (Score:3)
Have a glass of wine or a beer with dinner. Heck, go ahead and have two.
I don't think you read the summary very well:
That's about one drink for a woman weighing less than 120 lbs.
So no, it's more like "Have a sip of wine or beer with dinner. Heck, go ahead and have two. Sips. Because if you have a whole drink, you're breaking the law."
It doesn't matter and doesn't help. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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 asce
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Raise the level of skill needed to pass the driving test, skill not necessary being a function of how well somebody follows the letter of the law, but of the conditions that might be reasonably encountered outside of the driving test. Not only would there be fewer drivers, but all of the drivers would be certified to be of a skill level appropriate for real world conditions.
For example, some driving tests involve navigating a bunch of cones at 25 or 30MPH. How about making drivers navigate the cones at a 60
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, the objective results from functional tests - you know, tests where you test for impairment of a function of your body - show otherwise. As far as physiological response in places that are important - namely reaction time and oculomotor responses to visual stimuli - there is no such thing as individual tolerance. There, BAC can be fairly tightly correlated with some measures of impairment.
Individual tolerance can be seen when you test higher cognition and vestibulo-oculomotor responses. Some
Re: (Score:3)
why not just put us all in jail (Score:4, Insightful)
Good start but... (Score:5, Insightful)
...get serious about chasing drink driving regardless of the number.....US traffic stops with any probable cause for DUI need to get scientific, every gets to blow in the bag, non of this walk in a straight line, recite the alphabet backwards nonsense. And above all drink-driving needs to be properly stigmatized socially, I was stunned how many people drank and drive when I moved to the US from Europe, folks regularly drink many times the limit and drove when public transport/taxi is a viable alternative
Studies have shown... (Score:5, Insightful)
The obvious problem is that it is impractical, likely to severely impact average individuals, and frankly a pretty lousy tradeoff of "freedom" versus safety. I use freedom in quotes, because yes, "driving is a privilege not a right". On a side note, those who make the idiotic argument that the internet should be a "right" because it is almost impossible to live without it are on far more untenable ground than claiming that driving ought to be a "right".
Likewise, with drinking, there are similar practical, freedom versus safety, and impact arguments. I personally fall on the, "the government doesn't give a crap about safety and wants to scam citizens for millions of dollars each year" side of the issue.
Punish all negligent driving (Score:3)
No question that certain alcohol levels are severely impairing and dangerous, but shouldn't we be punishing all incidents of negligent driving with some level of standardization. If you run a red light, speed excessively (relative to traffic flow), or drive recklessly shouldn't you be subject to the same jail time and lifelong criminal record as someone who gets popped at a checkpoint or busted sleeping in their car while parked? This notion that _only_ drunk drivers cause driving deaths is completely misleading. Maybe if we start putting 17 year old kids in jail for 90 days and taking away their license when they get pulled over for texting, then we'll put all this stuff in perspective.
FUCK THE NANNIES (Score:5, Informative)
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:
Re:FUCK THE NANNIES (Score:5, Insightful)
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
I'd imagine that's because there are more drivers with BACs of .02+/-.01 than BACs of .09+/-.01. What matters is the accident rate per capita, which Reason conveniently forgot to mention.
Some people can't drive well with 0.00% BAC (Score:3, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or people with certain types of diabetes that generate natural blood alcohol.
Re: (Score:3)
At first, I thought you were bluffing or just misinformed. A quick consultation with the oracle [nih.gov] (No, not that Oracle) indicates you are correct. Except that the levels are too low to interfere with quantitative testing and legal proceedings. Don't try this excuse without consulting appropriate counsel.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe were you live. Some places are so severely restrictive that even such a simple request will arouse suspicion.
In fact, where I live, it's actually a *criminal offense* to refuse an officer's demand for a chemical sobriety test (breathalyzer or blood test). Yes, they can legally compel you, even if they know they're full of shit. Simply saying "no" will get you in cuffs and in jail. We have check stops here too, usually during holidays when it's common to go out for drinks, where they stop *everyone
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:5, Insightful)
GeeZ!!!
Lowering it to the .08 was too LOW to begin with.....
You can blow .08 and not be too impaired to drive...
Good Lord, are we going to let MADD start us back on the road to prohibition next???
But, more to the point the OP was making. Depends on the state you live in.
I asked a lawyer in my state what to do if pulled over after having a few. He said if you know you're at the limit, don't say a damned thing and put your hands out for the cuffs and go quietly. Refuse tests, don't do field sobriety test (that is NOTHING more than evidence gathering). At worst for first offense you'll get reckless driving and maybe suspended license of which you can get permits to drive to work for food, etc.
Tough yes, but better than a DWI on your record.
Like with anything dealing with the cops, first thing to do is shut up, and lawyer up.
Fake statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason why they recommend lower and lower alcohol contents has more to do with the way they collect statistics than with any real effect.
If any of the drivers involved in an accident has any alcohol blood content at all, it is recorded as an "alcohol related accident", NO MATTER WHO CAUSED THE ACCIDENT.
This is bias in the worst sense of the word, it's political propaganda at its worst.
Suppose you drank one beer and is stopped at a red light. Then a madd bitch rear ends you. It will be an "alcohol related" accident, pointing to the "need for stricter drunken driving laws", even though the madd bitch caused it.
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many things that can impair driving. Kids fighting, dog puking, sun shining in your eyes, messing with the radio, and that's just off the top of my head. Who gives a shit if you can detect small changes in eye movement? Is that going to kill anybody? No? Then stop trying to push Prohibition back down our throats.
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:5, Insightful)
How can this be modded insightful. 100 countries have adopted 0.05 due to the carnage caused by drunk drivers.
Because insight requires a little more thought than "50,000 frenchmen can't be wrong". Try doing an actual risk benefit analysis. How many additional people will we imprison by moving to 0.05 per year? What are the social costs of that? Is it more or less than the cost of losing 800 people a year? Are there ways we could save 800 people per year that cost less? Do those first.
This is the kind of reasoning that needs to go into an insightful comment on the issue. As it is, I doubt anyone has done this.
On second thought, this is the country that thinks so little of mass shootings in schools that they refuse to regulate the access to firearms. Deaths on the road due to drunk drivers is nothing when compared to that.
Actually, mass shootings kill less than 100 people per year. If the NTSB is to be believed, lowering the BAC limit to .05 would save eight times as many lives as if we eliminated all mass shootings in the US. But I'm not sure I believe the NTSB.
But you're right, we do think so little of mass shootings that we refuse to regulate the access to firearms. And we are absolutely correct to do so. 100 deaths per year in a country of 300 million is negligable. You'll save orders of magnitude more lives if you regulate fructose instead of guns.
Re: (Score:3)
"But you're right, we do think so little of mass shootings that we refuse to regulate the access to firearms."
It's disingenuous of you to focus on 100 deaths when gun regulation would affect all gun deaths, not just mass shootings. It would probably affect mass shootings less than other gun deaths. There are a hell of a lot more than 100 gun deaths per year, plus much more still carnage wrought short of death.
Nevertheless you are totally right about the cost-benefit analysis, notwithstanding being wrong abo
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:5, Insightful)
Although mass shootings get all the headlines, controlling access to firearms will save a whole lot more than 100 lives per year. Most of the savings will come from reduced accidental deaths and suicides.
There is a widespread belief [washingtonpost.com] that having a gun in the house makes you safer: this is not true.
(other [phys.org] sources [childrensdefense.org] along [utah.edu] those lines)
There is also a widespread belief a person who dies from suicide would have done so no matter what method: this also is not true. Most suicide attempts are impulsive acts, and most are unsuccessful. An impulse act with pills or slit wrists is unlikely to succeed: it takes time, the person may have second thoughts, and usually recovers through medical and psychological treatment. A suicide attempt by a gun is much, much more likely to succeed. If that suicidal person did not have ready access to a gun, and had to resort to a different method, the changes are good that most (i.e., more than 50%) of those people would still be with us today.
Re: (Score:3)
The Kellerman study has been thoroughly discredited from many angles, including the fact that it used neighborhoods with high criminal populations, and counted rival gangs as someone you know. It even counted, for example, if you had a gun in the house, never used, and a rival gang-banger of your son's came in and shot somebody. Your gun had nothing to do with the violence, but it's counted towards Kellerman's total. On the other hand, if you pointed a gun at the bad guy and he fled, that was not counted as
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
In 2011, 31,000 people died firearm-related deaths.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_deaths_are_in_the_US_every_year [answers.com]
In 2010, there were 10,000 deaths due to drunk driving, and that number is falling.
http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics [centurycouncil.org]
More crap and bullshit from the anti-gun-control crowd.
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:4, Insightful)
The wiki answer is from the CDC.
The century council number is from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Those not authoritative enough for you?
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:4, Insightful)
After seeing how friends dealt with the 0 limit on provisional drivers and in light of the fact I don't drive myself, I'd support a 0 limit - it encourages a lot of caution and forethought, particularly the morning after when you can still be drunk and might think it's just a hangover.
Re: (Score:3)
you better not eat any fresh donuts or bread before driving
Or fruit.
Actually it's worse than you claim. Natural yeasts will start fermentation in almost everything, so actually almost all food has trace amounts of alchohol.
I do, however support "very low", i.e. 0 to the precision of the legislated equipment, meaning below 0.001 or whatever. I just don't like bad science.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the Golden Rule
He who has the gold, rules.
If states could live within their means and didn't need Federal money they could do whatever the Hell they wanted (sort of, no nuclear weapons or suchlike).
You let them in, they own the house.
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
Oh I see, you're supposed to get the alcohol in from the other end?
Re: (Score:3)
Taking your alcohol that way will not give you a BAC around zero, because your BAC results from alcohol vaporisation in your lungs.
On the upside, alcohol taken that way will get you much more drunk.
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, right now, there's a huge negative stigma associated with getting a DUI. It's rare enough, and heinous enough, that society views it as a serious mistake.
If you reduce the BAC threshold enough, then getting a DUI will become so common that the negative social stigma will be gone, which will defeat the purpose of having the law to begin with.
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:5, Insightful)
The world certainly would be entirely safe from driving accidents if nobody was ever allowed to drive. 0% is physically impossible: alcohols are a broad class of naturally occurring organic chemicals, that will be present at some (tiny) level in any human body, even if you have never taken a drink in your life. If you want to permit anyone to drive, then you'll need to set a non-zero limit somewhere; preferably above natural fluctuations in baseline level and measurement error. So, where to set the level? Do you need to check whether the driver has consumed a drink in the last year? Week? Hour? Minute? Rather than setting a useless/impossible "0 is lowest, so it must be best" limit, one should look at *actually available data* to determine how alcohol levels correlate with actual increases in accidents.
P.S.: do you ever stay up an extra 10 minutes at night, to finish reading that book chapter / checking your favorite news site? If you do, do you avoid driving the next day, because you've *knowingly decreased your driving ability* by sleep deprivation? And, if you didn't know before, you do now --- so don't even think about stepping in a car if you've stayed up the least bit past your bedtime.
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
Anyone who drinks regularly is like not that impaired at those levels. If I am as impaired at 0.1 as you are are at 0.05 why can I not drive at 0.1?
What about the old bat that is more impaired than either of us to do age?
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who drinks regularly is like not that impaired at those levels.
Well, they probably are similarly impaired --- they're just more used to the condition. And if they're correspondingly more cocky about how well they handle their liquor, they'll just be that much less reluctant to head out on the road and murder a bunch of folks. Just because you can hold down a bunch more vodka shots without puking, and have developed mental coping strategies to not seem like a total klutz when you walk or speak, doesn't mean you aren't still quite impaired (without knowing it).
What about the old bat that is more impaired than either of us to do age?
Well, one could work towards increasing availability of public transportation and services for the elderly/disabled. One might even be more accepting of involuntary impairments (getting old), versus voluntary impairments (chugging a few beers soon before driving) --- realizing that banning an elderly person without preexisting access to suitable transportation alternatives from driving at all is likely a far greater hardship to them than insisting that the young and healthy pick a designated driver or arrange their drinking needs not to immediately precede their driving needs.
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that you're "not that impaired" is a fancy in your head with no basis in objective measurements. You get used to the side effects and you somewhat compensate for them in your gross behavior, but the low-level stuff like reaction times and visual/oculomotor responses do not show any appreciable effects of alcohol tolerance.
Re: (Score:3)
Nop, You are making a conversion error (it is expressed in g/L in most places, equivalent to 10BAC). Most of Europe is between 0.05 BAC and 0.03 BAC. Many countries are at statutory 0, not sure how that is enforced in practice (since natural BAC is often in the 0.01 range).
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to do the same with sleeping pills, pain pills, lack of sleep, cell phones, paper reading material, makeup, cigarettes (you seen what happens when a driver drops a cigarette in their lap and it rolls down their groin?), caffeine (large amounts can cause lack of focus in some people), benzodiazepines, getting blow jobs from a passenger, people driving home after seeing a dentist in some cases...
Holy shit, I could do this all day...
kids in the car yelling, passengers talking, sign spinners, bill boards, radio advertisements, cops running radar, red light cameras, dashboard instrument panels with their flashing lights, wearing headphones while driving, radios and all the buttons you can fiddle with...
Outlaw them all. Why allow someone to knowingly decrease their ability to drive?
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Your long list of examples omit something important: data. Those examples simply don't have enough impact to trigger laws. You might not like them, but laws like this aren't written to accommodate your dislikes, laws like this are based on data. If putting on make-up was a significant source of accidents, above DWI or cell-phone usage, it would be on the list. It isn't arbitrary that alcohol and cell phone usage are restricted, they cause the most accidents.
Re: (Score:3)
Because there are lots of other things that impair your ability to drive: driving while tired, for instance. Should we not let people drive unless they've had enough sleep? At some point you have to let people make their own decisions.
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you going to do? Turn the inside of a car into a sterile wasteland and ban every possible thing that might decrease someone's ability to drive by event the smallest amount? Hey, no radio, phone, GPS, and definitely no talking to the driver. No driving hungry, or after taking cold medication, or after a Red Bull. All of those things could impact your driving in some minor way.
It's a question of proportionality. There is a point of diminishing returns beyond which the effort required to prevent people from driving after drinking becomes absurd. We can't even successfully prevent all idiots from driving at .08, despite millions in enforcement and PR campaigns. Imagine the pointlessness of spending an order of magnitude more to also fail to stop people from having a beer with dinner.
There is a point at which alchol impairs your ability to drive a car to the extent that you are an unacceptable danger. That point may be .08 or it may be .05, but it's definitely not "anything above 0".
Re: (Score:3)
We can't even successfully prevent all idiots from driving at .08
I'm not a professional researcher, but I question their results. I read a different article which said that .05 BAC levels would save 200-300 lives a year. .05 is 38% over sober .08 169%
Some figures:
Annual traffic deaths: ~33k [wikipedia.org]
Portion that are 'alcohol related': 1/3rd [cnn.com], about 10k total
Number of lives estimated to be saved: 500-800 per year, 5-8% of current alcohol deaths.
Extra risk: [nytimes.com]
Already there's all sorts of activities that will raise the risk of you having an accident more than 38%. The vast majority of
Re:Why not just 0? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Actually, the USA is at 10.4 as of 2011, and 1.1 per 100 million vmt, which works out to 6.8 per billion km.
Your death toll of 5.71 per 100k (2011 data), and 5.8 per billion km.
Results: You're still safer than we are even by distance driven, but we drive a HECK of a lot more per person. In addition, given that the proposal is, high end, expected to save ~8% of alcohol related deaths, which is in turn only 1/3rd of total deaths - that's about a 3% cut in death rate. That would drop us from 10.4 to 10.1 pe
Re: (Score:3)
Re:But this is America! (Score:5, Insightful)
If firearm and drunk driving fatalities only occurred to the people mishandling the firearm or drinking the alcohol, sure. Unfortunately they don't :-(
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I approve (Score:5, Funny)
And the key word there is "Associated".
Do you know what kind of depravity Dihydrogen monoxide exposure has been "associated" with?
- Nearly 100% of all felons were exposed to Dihydrogen Monoxide within just hours prior to their arrest.
- DHMO use is almost universal amongst child rapists.
- DHMO exposure actually kills children
- DHMO is dangerously addictive, killing most addicts who attempt to abstain from it within just 3 days!
Hows that for association?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with this. As much as I'm all for legalizing every drug under the sun, that freedom must come with responsibility, including internalizing all of the risks. If you operate heavy machinery in a factory, chances are they require you to have a 0.0% BAC on the job. Why should it be any different for machinery that actually moves around in public, in a system where driver's licenses are handed out like candy with no serious training standards?
Re:Money-making scheme (Score:4, Insightful)