Should the US drunk-driving threshold be lowered?

[Greg Bernhardt]

Sounds ok to me. If I have more than two drinks, I don't drive. When I'm out on a weekend I see far to many people get behind a car when they shouldn't. We also need to make the punishments more severe. I hear of many reports of people with 3-4-5 DUIs still with a license or still driving without one.

A decade-old benchmark for determining when a driver is legally drunk should be lowered in an effort to reduce alcohol-related car crashes that claim about 10,000 lives each year, U.S. safety investigators said on Tuesday.
The National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all 50 states lower the threshold from 0.08 blood-alcohol content (BAC) to 0.05.
The idea is part of a safety board initiative outlined in a staff report and approved by the panel to eliminate drunk driving, which accounts for about a third of all road deaths.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol

 

[ImATrackMan]

This is exactly what we need (not sarcasm, by the way). Clamping down on the legal limit is definitely going to make the roads safer, and cut down on smart***es that drink to 0.06 or 0.07 and say "But, hey, I'm under the limit, aren't I?".

 

[MarneMath]

Sounds ok to me. If I have more than two drinks, I don't drive. When I'm out on a weekend I see far to many people get behind a car when they shouldn't. We also need to make the punishments more severe. I hear of many reports of people with 3-4-5 DUIs still with a license or still driving without one.



http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol

I'm a big fan of breathalyzer to start your car. Take the choice out of the equation for a person who has obviously shown they can't be trusted to make the right decision.

 

[AlephZero]

The statistics look strange compared with the UK:

Same legal blood alcohol level as the US
Number of deaths from drink driving less than 500 / year (that's still 500 too many, of course)
Number of prosecutions for drunk driving about 70,000 / year

Changiing the law makes no difference unless it is enforced - is that why the US figure is 20x higher than the UK?

The CNN link says reducing the level from 0.08 to 0.05 would only save 500 to 800 deaths out of the 10,000 - that doesn't seem very effective.

What are the US penalties for conviction? The UK minimum penalty is a 12 month disqualificaton plus fine for first offence, 3 years disqualification for a second offence within 10 years. Maximum penalty is 6 months jail sentence plus 5 years disqualification.

 

[enosis_]

I think we need a serious discussion regarding legal limits in places where pot is legal - for combinations of alcohol and pot.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I think we need a serious discussion regarding legal limits in places where pot is legal - for combinations of alcohol and pot.

What are the statistics on pot related driving injuries / accidents / deaths?

 

[azdavesoul]

What are the statistics on pot related driving injuries / accidents / deaths?

A quick google search showed some articles on how Marijuana did not increase accidents but they all seemed to be from Norml.

WebMD Health News
Dec. 1, 2005 - People who drive after using marijuana are nearly twice as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051201/marijuana-raises-risk-of-fatal-car-crash

 

[Evo]

What are the statistics on pot related driving injuries / accidents / deaths?

Here's a report.

One study found that about 34 percent of motor vehicle crash victims admitted to a Maryland trauma center tested positive for “drugs only;” about 16 percent tested positive for “alcohol only.” Approximately 9.9 percent (or 1 in 10) tested positive for alcohol and drugs, and within this group, 50 percent were younger than age 18.5 Although it is interesting that more people in this study tested positive for “drugs only” compared with “alcohol only,” it should be noted that this represents one geographic location, so findings cannot be generalized. In fact, the majority of studies among similar populations have found higher prevalence rates of alcohol use compared with drug use.6

Studies conducted in several localities have found that approximately 4 to 14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in marijuana.7

In a large study of almost 3,400 fatally injured drivers from three Australian states (Victoria, New South Wales, and Western Australia) between 1990 and 1999, drugs other than alcohol were present in 26.7 percent of the cases.8 These included cannabis (13.5 percent), opioids (4.9 percent), stimulants (4.1 percent), benzodiazepines (4.1 percent), and other psychotropic drugs (2.7 percent). Almost 10 percent of the cases involved both alcohol and other drugs.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/drugged-driving

 

[krash661]

i'm glad that i do not even drink alcohol.

enosis,

these are topic supposedly for discussion (within the government)when it comes to legalizing it in general.(but the big alcohol and tobacco companies lobby against it)
there's many idea's, the whole same rules as alcohol is leaned towards at this moment the last i knew of.

but it appears it is going no where at this point in time.

it being medically is still in a difficult stage.
but all in all, there's tons of papers on it globally.
on both medically and recreational.

also,
it can very from person to person.
some maybe effected from it in ways others may not.
which makes it tough for an apple to apple comparison.

for me personally ,
i can not handle alcohol.
all those effect that are said from weed, i experience from alcohol(when i have had a drink)
and not from weed.

plus it helps with my supposed serious case of social anxiety disorder.

 

[WannabeNewton]

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051201/marijuana-raises-risk-of-fatal-car-crash

Here's a report.

O.O ahem, well then...*whistles away*

 

[enosis_]

i'm glad that i do not even drink alcohol.

enosis,

these are topic supposedly for discussion (within the government)when it comes to legalizing it in general.(but the big alcohol and tobacco companies lobby against it)
there's many idea's, the whole same rules as alcohol is leaned towards at this moment the last i knew of.

but it appears it is going no where at this point in time.

it being medically is still in a difficult stage.
but all in all, there's tons of papers on it globally.
on both medically and recreational.

also,
it can very from person to person.
some maybe effected from it in ways others may not.
which makes it tough for an apple to apple comparison.

for me personally ,
i can not handle alcohol.
all those effect that are said from weed, i experience from alcohol(when i have had a drink)
and not from weed.

plus it helps with my supposed serious case of social anxiety disorder.

I don't think drugs were considered when setting legal limits for alcohol. I think it's reasonable to think legalization of substances will result in use legal use of both pot and alcohol by some and a new set of legal limits should also be reasonable.

 

[krash661]

I don't think drugs were considered when setting legal limits for alcohol. I think it's reasonable to think legalization of substances will result in use legal use of both pot and alcohol by some and a new set of legal limits should also be reasonable.

i never said drugs were considered when establishing alcohol laws.
I said for marijuana, the thought is to imply the same rules from alcohol.

the problem with the discussions(in general) are,
no one realize that, not much would change, because what is said to occur or what is thought to occur,
is and has been since the beginning of(which only people in this trench would know of and possibly the majority that are not ,might not know of and leads to thoughts and statements that might not even be true).

 

[leroyjenkens]

1st offense, jail and suspended license for a while. 2nd offense, jail for longer and revoked license forever. 3rd offense, prison.

 

[AlephZero]

I'm a big fan of breathalyzer to start your car.

How is that sujpposed to work in practice? If you want to ignore it, just buy another car.

Or cheaper, buy a car vacuum cleaner to blow into the device...

 

[russ_watters]

Sounds ok to me. If I have more than two drinks, I don't drive. When I'm out on a weekend I see far to many people get behind a car when they shouldn't. We also need to make the punishments more severe. I hear of many reports of people with 3-4-5 DUIs still with a license or still driving without one.

A decade-old benchmark for determining when a driver is legally drunk should be lowered in an effort to reduce alcohol-related car crashes that claim about 10,000 lives each year, U.S. safety investigators said on Tuesday.
The National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all 50 states lower the threshold from 0.08 blood-alcohol content (BAC) to 0.05.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol

Seems to me like in order to answer that question we need to know just how many of those 10,000 lives are lost to people driving with BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. Making the penalty stiffer for people above .08 and lowering the threshold are two completely different approaches.

From the article:

Lowering the rate to 0.05 would save about 500 to 800 lives annually, the safety board report said.

So my question is: could the same police and court resources save as many or more lives by increasing penalties?

 

[FlexGunship]

Sounds ok to me. If I have more than two drinks, I don't drive. When I'm out on a weekend I see far to many people get behind a car when they shouldn't. We also need to make the punishments more severe. I hear of many reports of people with 3-4-5 DUIs still with a license or still driving without one.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol

I don't know if lowering the limit is really the issue; police officers just need more latitude in punishing unsafe driving.

Frankly, I don't care what your BAC is, if you're swerving between lanes, driving more than 5mph under the speed limit, or missing significant traffic markers (like red lights), you ought'a be in jail! Well... at least off the road.

 

[MarneMath]

How is that sujpposed to work in practice? If you want to ignore it, just buy another car.

Or cheaper, buy a car vacuum cleaner to blow into the device...

The Parole officer might notice that you bought a new car. That's one reason. Also would a vacuum cleaner even work? And who the heck goes drinking and carries a vacuum cleaner -_-. I think that's probably way to smart for the guy who gets black out drunk.

*Just for reference, in the State of Georgia this may be required for six months for a third offender.

 

[enosis_]

From this chart, a .05 level would make it illegal for a 120 pound woman to drive after only 1 drink (approx). While not quite prohibition - this seems to be unfair to petite persons. If passed, I wonder if lower proofs would be sold?

http://www.google.com/search?q=bac+...sAQ&biw=768&bih=928#biv=i|1;d|S5yn5Q6I2ek6GM:

 

[wukunlin]

I don't know if it is the same in US, but in NZ, the drink drivers that gets people killed are the ones who are at like 20 times the legal limit. Lowering the threshold is almost pointless in our case (but our government does it anyway).

 

[BobG]

How is that sujpposed to work in practice? If you want to ignore it, just buy another car.

Or cheaper, buy a car vacuum cleaner to blow into the device...

The person caught with a DUI has to pay to have it installed in their car, plus pay a monthly fee to rent it for however long they're sentenced to use it for. If they lose their car (car accident, etc), they have to remove the device and return it or buy it (which is pretty expensive). They only have so long to get it installed into another vehicle that they drive or they get to start the whole process over (the DMV just doesn't believe the person just stopped driving).

If you're good looking, you might be able to get someone to http://abcnews.go.com/WhatWouldYouDo/video/beating-car-breathalyzer-10713920 .

In reality, it doesn't do you any good to get someone else to blow into it for you unless they plan on riding along with you. Periodically as you drive, it starts beeping and you have some short amount of time to blow into it or your car shuts off and can't be restarted for a while.

Not only does this keep a person from driving their car while intoxicated, any failed tests are logged. Once a month, the driver has to take his car in so the log can be read and cleared. Too many failed tests for low levels of alcohol and the driver gets to start the process over (the rule is no alcohol at all while driving with the breathalyzer). You definitely don't want to have a reading above the legal limit logged into the computer.

These really are a better tool for controlling drunk driving than suspending someone's license for a few months. With a suspended license, a person can take the risk and drive anyways. With the breathalyzer, it's awful hard for a person to give up their car.

A few failed tests and they probably accept that they just won't be driving after any alcohol. Or a lot of failed tests until they accept that they'll never be rid of that thing until they finally stop trying to beat the machine.

 

[Hepth]

I heard on the radio today that the percent of fatal accidents with an involved BAC of 0.05 to 0.08 was only about 6% of all alcohol-related auto deaths. (If anyone has a statistic source, please let me know. Otherwise take this with a grain of salt). So basically it does nothing. There were also a few callers from law enforcement whose opinion was that its a tactic to increase funding. They know its not a big deal, but the department gets about $1000 for every DUI prosecuted. One was saying that they keep track and compete (because it looks good to support your department).

In my opinion its not completely worthless, but it seems to be rather prohibitive. Of course it will save SOME lives, even if it means people stop drinking 1 drink and driving due to the fear of the lower limit. I mean, really it could be brought down to 0.02 and have an even greater effect.

I disagree with it as there are so many worse things. I think some people (not all) cannot handle being on a phone OR eating something OR changing a radio station OR etc while driving.

And to be honest, I feel MUCH more impaired driving home at 2am without drinking than driving home at 11pm with 0.05(2 drinks in an hour) just due to being tired. Or even driving home after stuffing myself at a BBQ place, my reaction times drop extremely.

 

[Evo]

I don't think the BAC should be lowered, the difference in capabilities between the two levels can't possibly be enough to warrant this.

What needs to be done is to crack down on people that are severely inebriated and/or repeat offenders, not crack down on someone that's had 1-2 drinks and not out of control. the only thing the lower BAC is meant to do is to needlessly fine someone that has been pulled over at a police checkpoint, and not because they were driving dangerously.

 

[enosis_]

I don't think the BAC should be lowered, the difference in capabilities between the two levels can't possibly be enough to warrant this.

What needs to be done is to crack down on people that are severely inebriated and/or repeat offenders, not crack down on someone that's had 1-2 drinks and not out of control. the only thing the lower BAC is meant to do is to needlessly fine someone that has been pulled over at a police checkpoint, and not because they were driving dangerously.

I had the same thought - too many little fishes thrown back into the pond.

 

[nsaspook]

I don't think the BAC should be lowered either but the ones who do get caught need to be jailed for at least some amount of time on the very first count.

I just lost a good friend and coworker of 20 years to a 'possible' drunk driver. Packed up the stuff from his desk this morning, damn sad.
http://www.kgw.com/video/featured-videos/1-dead-in-high-speed-Gresham-crash-207539771.html
http://pdxmugshots.com/mug/sun-bear-raven

 

[FlexGunship]

I don't think the BAC should be lowered either but the ones who do get caught need to be jailed for at least some amount of time on the very first count.

I just lost a good friend and coworker of 20 years to a 'possible' drunk driver. Packed up the stuff from his desk this morning, damn sad.
http://www.kgw.com/video/featured-videos/1-dead-in-high-speed-Gresham-crash-207539771.html
http://pdxmugshots.com/mug/sun-bear-raven

See, stuff like that... doesn't matter what the BAC is! That guy needs to lose his freedom over this. Life in jail without the possibility of parole. What could the argument possibly be?!

"But your honor... his BAC was only 0.04%!"

"Oh really? So he made this awful, life-destroying, decision while sober? Okay, that's better."

 

[Evo]

Any time careless driving is the cause, regardless of it's fiddling with the radio, smoking cigarettes, eating, drinking, changing your baby's diaper (yes I've seen this), proper charges should apply, if it's negligence, vehicular manslaughter would be appropriate. Even if it's being distracted by talking to a passenger, looking at your friend while talking instead of paying attention to the road. I've seen many near misses where the driver had their head turned toward the passenger, seemingly forgetting they driving, it's scary. Luckily the other cars were paying attention and managed to swerve out of the yakker's way.

 

[reenmachine]

Leaving the country factor aside , I think lowering the alcohol limit is really aiming at the wrong crowd.People that are driving completely drunk on their *** will always eventually get caught and those are the ones who are more likely to be involved in deadly accidents.Lowering the limit will only penalize people that like to have 1-3 beers or a glass of wine or two.These people will be stuck with a criminal record that I don't think they deserve for the most part and their lives could be changed forever because of it.

Hit the people that are getting caught multiples times and the people that are getting caught completely intoxicated and hit them hard.Leave the moderate drinkers alone.Alcohol is too present in society to aim for complete sobriety while driving.

I think it's bordering on infantilization to lower the limit from 0,8 to 0,5.

 

[nsaspook]

Hit the people that are getting caught multiples times and the people that are getting caught completely intoxicated and hit them hard.Leave the moderate drinkers alone.Alcohol is too present in society to aim for complete sobriety while driving.

I completely agree, IMO it would be better to actually increase the legal limit a bit for really 'drunk' driving while keeping a separate lower limit crime for BOC impairment so the penalties for 'drunk' driving could be charged as a felony with mandatory jail time on a first offence without destroying lives for being a little tipsy.

 

[nsaspook]

"But your honor... his BAC was only 0.04%!"

"Oh really? So he made this awful, life-destroying, decision while sober? Okay, that's better."

I would feel marginally better about the guy if he was dead drunk or high because at least then there is some small reason for this horror.

Bard’s family said,“Donald was a loving husband, father, grandfather, son, brother and friend. He was born in Lewiston, Maine and has been a loyal Red Sox fan his whole life. He served in the US Navy, where fate took him to his wife and soul mate in 1980. He was the kindest and most caring individual anyone could ever have the pleasure to know. He worked hard to provide for his family who he adored and cherished. He is survived by his wife of thirty-one years, two children, mother, three brothers, one sister and two grandchildren. He will never be forgotten. We love you so much and will miss you dearly.”

 

[BobG]

Colorado already has three different offenses for alcohol and driving:

1) DUI - BAC over .08. This is the usual offense with the usual penalties, which includes a suspended license for up to a year (or the driver can choose the ignition interlock, instead, in most cases). It can also result in some jail time, but probably not (who will they release to make room for the DUI's?)

2) DWAI - BAC between .05 and .08. This is 8 points towards a suspended license and $100 to $500 fine for first offenses, with the penalties increasing for subsequent offenses.

3) Drivers under 21 with a BAC between .02 and .08 automatically lose their license. In fact, just having alcohol in the car results in revocation of their license. This is stiff, but it's also illegal for anyone under 21 to drink in the first place.

 

[Bacle2]

Part of the problem, I think, is that if you take away someone's license in much of the US, a person will be unable to go about much of their daily life required to ,basically, sustain oneself at the most basic level. How can one go shopping for food or how can one get to work in much of the country without driving? Maybe in some parts of the country one can get food delivered to one's home; but I think the costs of doing this become prohibitive over the long run.

 

[enosis_]

Leaving the country factor aside , I think lowering the alcohol limit is really aiming at the wrong crowd.People that are driving completely drunk on their *** will always eventually get caught and those are the ones who are more likely to be involved in deadly accidents.Lowering the limit will only penalize people that like to have 1-3 beers or a glass of wine or two.These people will be stuck with a criminal record that I don't think they deserve for the most part and their lives could be changed forever because of it.

Hit the people that are getting caught multiples times and the people that are getting caught completely intoxicated and hit them hard.Leave the moderate drinkers alone.Alcohol is too present in society to aim for complete sobriety while driving.

I think it's bordering on infantilization to lower the limit from 0,8 to 0,5.

I agree.

 

[Astronuc]

I don't think the BAC should be lowered, the difference in capabilities between the two levels can't possibly be enough to warrant this.

What needs to be done is to crack down on people that are severely inebriated and/or repeat offenders, not crack down on someone that's had 1-2 drinks and not out of control. the only thing the lower BAC is meant to do is to needlessly fine someone that has been pulled over at a police checkpoint, and not because they were driving dangerously.

Proper enforcement is necessary.

My brother and I once followed a drunk driver for nearly 20 miles on a freeway in Houston. The guy was weaving/drifting across several lanes. We called 911, but there was no response from the Houston police, even after we told them on which freeway we were driving, and several times gave the crossroads. The person finally pulled off the freeway and we gave up waiting for the police.

I also watched a drunk driver swing around a blind curve across the dividing line. Had another car been coming around the curve, it would have been a head on collision. Fortunately there was no oncoming traffic, and the driver subsequently pulled into a quiet neighborhood about two miles later.


My wife used to counsel offenders with multiple drunk driving arrests. They were still on the road.