AP via WTOP Radio: Tougher drunken driving threshold recommended (http://www.wtop.com/931/3321053/Driving-drunk-after-drinking-less)
QuoteStates should cut their threshold for drunken driving by nearly half-- from .08 blood alcohol level to .05_matching a standard that has substantially reduced highway deaths in other countries, a federal safety board recommended Tuesday. That's about one drink for a woman weighing less than 120 pounds, two for a 160-pound man.
QuoteMore than 100 countries have adopted the .05 alcohol content standard or lower, according to a report by the staff of the National Transportation Safety Board. 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.
I fail to see how this would really save a lot of lives. From some of what I've seen and read, most drunken drivers tend to have BACs well in excess of the current 0.08 limit. I say we should have tougher consequences for the current limit before even looking at lowering the limit.
Interesting that the limit is .05 in several other countries.
I do think that we need a tiered penalty system based on BAC, with extra penalties if a life-threatening violation is committed (such as red light running, wrong-way travel, ect.) There should be mandatory prison sentance for those who are over a ceratin BAC and/or commit a life-threatening violation while driving drunk.
It's just rediculous how many peole drive the wrong way on freeways and kill people around here due to drunkenness.
I personally don't like alchol; and I belive that it is a dangerous drug, and is a huge problem for our society. People take it's use and abuse far too lightly.
One of my early jobs was analyzing breath and blood alcohol contents in New Mexico. I also compiled data on our results, and the amazing thing was that from year to year the average concentrations were remarkably close to 0.195%. That was of course twice the legal level at that time (1970s). What I drew from that calculation was that this particular level was the median level to attract the attention of police, not that this was the borderline safe level. In some states, a BAC of 0.05-0.08% is eligible for Driving While Alcohol Impaired, which requires the arresting officer to demonstrate impairment in addition to the BAC, which would have course be a definitive level if over 0.08%.
I had a couple of results over 0.50%. Wow. I would be dead at that level.
Quote from: Brian556 on May 14, 2013, 09:16:14 PM
It's just ridiculous how many people drive the wrong way on freeways and kill people around here due to drunkenness being too old to drive.
Oh, wait, did I say that?
Quote from: Brian556 on May 14, 2013, 09:16:14 PM
I personally don't like alcohol; and I belive that it is a dangerous drug, and is a huge problem for our society. People take its use and abuse far too lightly.
I personally do like some alcohol, in moderation, but I also agree that it is a dangerous drug–arguably doing more social damage than harder drugs, simply due to how widespread its abuse is. I also agree that, especially when it comes to driving, people take it too lightly. I personally have no problem with enacting a legal limit of 0.0 percent–which some countries do have, such as the Czech Republic. There are more ways of getting home than driving your own car, after all.
Quote from: Brian556 on May 14, 2013, 09:16:14 PM
a tiered penalty system based on BAC, with extra penalties if a life-threatening violation is committed
A good idea, in my opinion.
Won't be long before this is not just a recommendation by the feds, but a requirement.
Like mandatory seat belt usage, the nationwide minimum drinking age of 21, the existing 0.08 BAC standard, etc.
And most likely coming soon, federal mandates on recognition of same-sex marriage, texting while driving bans and handheld cell phone usage bans.
So long, 10th Amendment, it was nice knowing you.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 14, 2013, 11:20:34 PM
Won't be long before this is not just a recommendation by the feds, but a requirement.
Like mandatory seat belt usage, the nationwide minimum drinking age of 21, the existing 0.08 BAC standard, etc.
And most likely coming soon, federal mandates on recognition of same-sex marriage, texting while driving bans and handheld cell phone usage bans.
So long, 10th Amendment, it was nice knowing you.
Seat belt usage is not a Federal requirement. Drinking age and BAC aren't requirements, but they are
de facto and I hate that. It's indeed an end run around the Constitution. If Congress doesn't have the right to legislate it, FHWA doesn't have the right to play bully and blackmail states into doing it. Cell phones and texting, that's in the same category, and so if anything, expect the FHWA to play $$$ again, but it will never become a Federal law per se. Gay marriage is a red herring, so cut it out of this thread and leave your bigotry to yourself.
I wish the Supreme Court would hear a challenge to the FHWA law, but no state's going to risk funding to create a case.
Yep, I think folks on all sides of the political spectrum can agree that these de facto mandates are essentially a piss on the constitution.
As far as the topic at hand, I've long believed in a very simple reactionary approach to drunk driving enforcement. No legal limit, no active enforcement. If you get in an accident and it's your fault, you get the option of a breathalyzer or a blood draw. If there's any alcohol in your system, you don't drive again. Ever. No exceptions. 1 strike, you're out. No prison time, no fines due to intoxication, you just don't get to have a driver's license ever again. You can appeal if you want through the court system.
I feel like this country spends so much money on the DUI industry and there has to be a way to simplify it. I also believe that the drunk people that say "WWOOOOOO!!!! I'M DRUNK 100 MPH BABY" ruin things for the drunk people that are aware they are intoxicated and do their best to drive more carefully as a result. I also think folks in the latter category may not actually be worse drivers than some sober people on the road. Personally, I'd rather be in a car with a moderately drunk person at the height of their refliexive abilities who is aware they are drunk and is driving as carefully as they can than in a car with an 80 year old who still thinks they are at the height of their reflexive abilities and is talking on a cell phone. The latter is more or less legal, the former is not. At some point, the former is more dangerous than the latter, but that's way beyond a .08 BAC. This is why I'm against active enforcement- there's no good way to separate the good eggs from the bad eggs- we've been trained as a society to just say that any drunk driver no matter how drunk or not drunk they are is a bad egg, but I don't think it's so black and white.
Quote from: corco on May 14, 2013, 11:41:18 PMYep, I think folks on all sides of the political spectrum can agree that these de facto mandates are essentially a piss on the constitution.
I don't, actually. Even if we buy the argument that the option to lose federal funding amounts to blackmail (which has not received a lot of traction in the federal courts), there is little value to using this as a basis to object to measures that are good public policy in all fifty states.
QuoteAs far as the topic at hand, I've long believed in a very simple reactionary approach to drunk driving enforcement. No legal limit, no active enforcement. If you get in an accident and it's your fault, you get the option of a breathalyzer or a blood draw. If there's any alcohol in your system, you don't drive again. Ever. No exceptions. 1 strike, you're out. No prison time, no fines due to intoxication, you just don't get to have a driver's license ever again. You can appeal if you want through the court system.
Instead of early intervention (court-ordered treatment and the like), which is at least theoretically possible under the current system, an alcoholic would almost have to kill or seriously injure someone before action was taken. The lack of active DUI enforcement would also create a perverse incentive for people convicted of DUI to keep on driving--without licenses or insurance. This could not be prevented without throwing them into prison. In short, this proposal saves the recurrent cost of enforcement (which is considerable) but opens the door to all of the harmful consequences collateral to there being absolutely no enforcement. It is highly doubtful it would be even Kaldor-Hicks efficient for society to convert to this regime.
A lifetime driving ban is also quite a draconian sanction, especially in a society organized around personal motorized transportation, so putting it forward as a suggested remedy instantly calls to mind the phrase "Mercy for me, justice for everyone else."
QuoteI feel like this country spends so much money on the DUI industry and there has to be a way to simplify it.
There are huge deadweight losses associated with DUI and the penal regime for it is something that, in principle, is susceptible to cost-benefit analysis. I personally think the economic optimum (wherever that is) is tilted much more toward treatment and prevention, because that prevents problem drinkers from becoming "frequent flyers" in the system, where the opportunities for expensive losses to society (such as prison time for persistent DUI offenders or loss of innocent life in crashes) continue to accumulate.
QuotePersonally, I'd rather be in a car with a moderately drunk person at the height of their reflexive abilities who is aware they are drunk and is driving as carefully as they can than in a car with an 80 year old who still thinks they are at the height of their reflexive abilities and is talking on a cell phone. The latter is more or less legal, the former is not. At some point, the former is more dangerous than the latter, but that's way beyond a 0.08 BAC.
For me the comparison is besides the point, since I would not want to be in either car, nor would any prudent person.
QuoteThis is why I'm against active enforcement--there's no good way to separate the good eggs from the bad eggs--we've been trained as a society to just say that any drunk driver no matter how drunk or not drunk they are is a bad egg, but I don't think it's so black and white.
This is the problem I have with your suggested solution--no active enforcement, but then if something bad happens and alcohol is found to be involved, lo! a lifetime driving ban. It is, in effect, a binary solution (a scratchcard sentence, no less) applied to a problem that has multiple shades of gray.
The current sanctions regime is far from perfect, but it allows sanctions to escalate, which in time quite effectively sorts the lightweights from the real problem drinkers; it is based on objective criteria, which reduces the opportunity for injustice through personal or group bias; and it offers alcoholics a route into treatment. In comparison, a regime of no active enforcement merely gives problem drinkers multiple opportunities to fail (potentially at the expense of other people's lives), not to get better, and once they mess up, they are declared unsalvageable.
The "DUI industry" also offers an infrastructure for recruiting people to take responsibility for their drinking and (as the case may be) alcoholism, which I would contend is necessary given that untreated problem drinkers are usually in denial about their drinking.
Anyone with a CDL license is subject to a .04 BAC limit. And it doesn't matter if you're driving a truck or car at the time; the simple fact that I or anyone else with the license is subjected to the lower limit. I think though that it would be extremely rare for anyone to be cited solely if they blew a .04 though; chances are, they would have to be involved in an accident or some other traffic violation. Otherwise, I doubt the cops would even notice the person was drinking.
Of course, the story came out with the 'even one drink causes impairment' statement, which is minimally true. If someone is drinking a bottle of water in the car, isn't that an impairment as well...by only holding the steering wheel with one hand?
One thing that shocked me was that MADD wasn't totally on board with the .05 BAC limit...at least not yet!
Quote from: Brandon on May 14, 2013, 05:20:28 PM
I fail to see how this would really save a lot of lives. From some of what I've seen and read, most drunken drivers tend to have BACs well in excess of the current 0.08 limit. I say we should have tougher consequences for the current limit before even looking at lowering the limit.
Essentially, my thoughts exactly.
What this going to do is corral more people who likely had one drink three hours prior, and have run afoul of nothing more than a checkpoint or a weak suspicion.
Tougher penalties are needed in the first place; one strike for causing bodily harm, two strikes for those just caught being dumb. Another problem is that anyone with enough money is back behind the wheel rather quickly, although depending on which state laws, there's still plenty of paperwork, fees, and waiting times involved.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 15, 2013, 12:55:56 AM
I don't, actually. Even if we buy the argument that the option to lose federal funding amounts to blackmail (which has not received a lot of traction in the federal courts), there is little value to using this as a basis to object to measures that are good public policy in all fifty states.
I would disagree that everything that has been end-run through "withhold federal funding" is good public policy. I can see the argument for a BAC of .05. I cannot, under any circumstances, see the argument for a drinking age of 21.
What I hate is how many DOTs advertise DUI patrols on the VMSs.
Technically, cops are always on 'DUI patrol', and honestly, posting a sign every once in a while alludes that they only look out for drunk drivers on certain days (which probably isn't the case, but many people may interpret it that way). Also, it lowers the significance of VMS signs, since most motorists will assume future VMS readings to be about DUIs or seat belts and perhaps miss important information when they drive through the VMS again.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 15, 2013, 09:19:35 AMI would disagree that everything that has been end-run through "withhold federal funding" is good public policy. I can see the argument for a BAC of .05. I cannot, under any circumstances, see the argument for a drinking age of 21.
I agree regarding 21 as the minimum drinking age--I would rather have 18 (as in the vast majority of European countries, including ones where the BAC is 0.05) plus more stringent enforcement of laws against nuisance drinking. The underlying issue here is that withholding of federal funding is a tool, just like a saw, which can be used to cut wood (good) or your finger (bad).
Quote from: KEK Inc. on May 15, 2013, 09:37:40 AMWhat I hate is how many DOTs advertise DUI patrols on the VMSs.
I don't really have a problem with this as long as it is not done too frequently. Saturation patrols for DUI are qualitatively different from regular patrolling and are often funded with special sobriety grants; as such, they can occur (and be advertised on VMS) on only a few occasions a year. Advertising them on VMS displays is similar to announcing sobriety checkpoints in the newspaper: it undercuts the argument that DUI arrests during such episodes of high-intensity enforcement are entrapment. Also, in most jurisdictions there are still enough issues with the quality and reliability of traffic-related VMS messages that the potential dilution of their impact by using the VMS for general safety-related messages (DUI, seatbelts, etc.) or Amber Alerts is a comparatively small problem.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 15, 2013, 10:21:57 AMThe underlying issue here is that withholding of federal funding is a tool, just like a saw, which can be used to cut wood (good) or your finger (bad).
certainly, but we also have a 10th Amendment, which basically says that saws are illegal.
if the feds think that drunk driving enforcement is such an important policy, then have congress enact a federal law, as opposed to behaving in an underhanded manner with regard to the states.
Quotesobriety checkpoints
speaking of constitutional amendments being violated in the name of "good policy"...
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 15, 2013, 12:43:27 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on May 15, 2013, 10:21:57 AMThe underlying issue here is that withholding of federal funding is a tool, just like a saw, which can be used to cut wood (good) or your finger (bad).
certainly, but we also have a 10th Amendment, which basically says that saws are illegal.
Actually (and at some risk of mixing metaphors), it says saws are illegal
unless the federal government buys you one.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 15, 2013, 08:30:53 AM
Anyone with a CDL license is subject to a .04 BAC limit. And it doesn't matter if you're driving a truck or car at the time; the simple fact that I or anyone else with the license is subjected to the lower limit. I think though that it would be extremely rare for anyone to be cited solely if they blew a .04 though; chances are, they would have to be involved in an accident or some other traffic violation. Otherwise, I doubt the cops would even notice the person was drinking.
Maryland has a
0.000 BAC limit for CDL holders when they are driving a commercial vehicle.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on May 15, 2013, 09:37:40 AM
What I hate is how many DOTs advertise DUI patrols on the VMSs.
Technically, cops are always on 'DUI patrol', and honestly, posting a sign every once in a while alludes that they only look out for drunk drivers on certain days (which probably isn't the case, but many people may interpret it that way). Also, it lowers the significance of VMS signs, since most motorists will assume future VMS readings to be about DUIs or seat belts and perhaps miss important information when they drive through the VMS again.
There are federally-funded campaigns that pay for such things. "Click It or Ticket" is one, and it's happening over the Memorial Day weekend. "Driver Sober Or Get Pulled Over" is another one. It usually happens over Labor Day weekend or later in the year (Thanksgiving/Christmas). The feds actually encourage the use of VMSes for promotion of these campaigns.
Quote from: Steve on May 14, 2013, 11:27:45 PMGay marriage is a red herring, so cut it out of this thread and leave your bigotry to yourself.
Oh puh-leeze. I think you know me well enough to know better than to call me a bigot. Or at least I would have hoped so.
But it's not a red herring. If we get to the point where 30 or 35 states recognize same-sex marriage and 20 or 15 states don't, wait and see if the federal government doesn't move to force the hands of the holdouts.
We had a similar issue in Kentucky regarding the dropout age. For as long as I've been alive the dropout age was 16. The legislature raised it to 18 this year, but they did not do so in a straightforward manner. They gave local school districts the option of raising the dropout age from 16 to 18 (and offered a financial carrot) and the law states that once a certain number of school districts raise their dropout age, the remainder will be required to do so.
Quote
I wish the Supreme Court would hear a challenge to the FHWA law, but no state's going to risk funding to create a case.
I don't know. Some states, Kentucky being one, have repealed motorcycle helmet requirements. It makes no sense to me to require occupants of an enclosed passenger vehicle to wear seat belts, but not to require motorcyclists to wear helmets.
(What do you call a person who rides a motorcycle without a helmet? An organ donor.) The anti-helmet lobby seems to have enough sway with state legislatures so that if the feds ever do mandate helmet requirements, there will be a strong push to fight it in the courts.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 15, 2013, 12:55:56 AM
Quote from: corco on May 14, 2013, 11:41:18 PMYep, I think folks on all sides of the political spectrum can agree that these de facto mandates are essentially a piss on the constitution.
I don't, actually. Even if we buy the argument that the option to lose federal funding amounts to blackmail (which has not received a lot of traction in the federal courts), there is little value to using this as a basis to object to measures that are good public policy in all fifty states.
But isn't the whole idea that the states should be able to decide what is and what is not good public policy for themselves? What if FHWA or NHTSA decides again that a 55 mph speed limit is good public policy? Should not states have the ability to set their own speed limits?
We should keep in mind that the threshold, be it .10 or .08 or .05, is the level at which a driver is legally presumed to be intoxicated, no matter what level of impairment is demonstrated. Kentucky has a
per se law which makes it illegal to drive with a BAC of .08 or higher, no matter how impaired the driver appears to be. You can be arrested and convicted of DUI with a level below the legal threshold if you demonstrate that you are too impaired to operate a vehicle.
Kentucky also has an implied consent law which states that by availing yourself of the privilege of driving a car, you have given consent to a BAC test. Refusal to take a BAC test results in an automatic administrative suspension of your license.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2013, 03:23:06 PM
There are federally-funded campaigns that pay for such things. "Click It or Ticket" is one, and it's happening over the Memorial Day weekend. "Driver Sober Or Get Pulled Over" is another one. It usually happens over Labor Day weekend or later in the year (Thanksgiving/Christmas). The feds actually encourage the use of VMSes for promotion of these campaigns.
I need to climb up on one of those and hack it to say "honk if you want your tax dollars back".
QuoteBut it's not a red herring. If we get to the point where 30 or 35 states recognize same-sex marriage and 20 or 15 states don't, wait and see if the federal government doesn't move to force the hands of the holdouts.
I get the idea that the federal government will pass something akin to the 1964 Civil Rights Act somewhat before the ratio is 30/20. but that's neither here nor there.
Nah, they'll force us all to get gay married. Because Bengoatse.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 14, 2013, 11:20:34 PM
And most likely coming soon, federal mandates on recognition of same-sex marriage, texting while driving bans and handheld cell phone usage bans.
What's wrong with those things? Gay marriage is moral and fair, while texting while driving is a hazard and should be illegal. Talking on the phone while driving is bad enough.
I don't see how this will make the roads safer. It will only punish drivers who have had 1 beer and aren't even drunk. Putting safety interlocks in the cars of repeat offenders and subsidies for taxi rides for drunks would be more effective ways to cut down on drunken driving.
Quote from: Steve on May 14, 2013, 11:27:45 PM
Seat belt usage is not a Federal requirement. Drinking age and BAC aren't requirements, but they are de facto and I hate that. It's indeed an end run around the Constitution. If Congress doesn't have the right to legislate it, FHWA doesn't have the right to play bully and blackmail states into doing it. Cell phones and texting, that's in the same category, and so if anything, expect the FHWA to play $$$ again, but it will never become a Federal law per se. Gay marriage is a red herring, so cut it out of this thread and leave your bigotry to yourself.
+1
Quote from: bugo on May 15, 2013, 04:01:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 14, 2013, 11:20:34 PM
And most likely coming soon, federal mandates on recognition of same-sex marriage, texting while driving bans and handheld cell phone usage bans.
What's wrong with those things? Gay marriage is moral and fair, while texting while driving is a hazard and should be illegal. Talking on the phone while driving is bad enough.
The point is the Federal mandates, not the actual acts. One of the more egregious, and very road-related, was the National Mandatory Speed Law (NMSL) which brought about the infamous 55 mph speed limit. There are some things the Feds should do, and some things (like the speed limit) they have no business doing. It's a worthy discussion of what they should do, and what should be left to the states. Personally, I'd rather keep such discussion related to roads here.
NMSL wasn't tied to federal funding, was it?
Quote from: Brandon on May 15, 2013, 04:04:46 PM
The point is the Federal mandates, not the actual acts. One of the more egregious, and very road-related, was the National Mandatory Speed Law (NMSL) which brought about the infamous 55 mph speed limit. There are some things the Feds should do, and some things (like the speed limit) they have no business doing. It's a worthy discussion of what they should do, and what should be left to the states. Personally, I'd rather keep such discussion related to roads here.
Quote from: NE2 on May 15, 2013, 04:28:45 PM
NMSL wasn't tied to federal funding, was it?
That's what I was going to ask. NMSL was actual congressional legislation (which, I think, was unsuccessfully challenged on 10th Amendment grounds) whereas the drinking age, seat belt usage, BAC levels, etc., are "if you don't do this, you don't get federal $$$" bureaucratic edicts.
Quote from: bugo on May 15, 2013, 04:01:08 PM
What's wrong with those things? Gay marriage is moral and fair, while texting while driving is a hazard and should be illegal. Talking on the phone while driving is bad enough.
We're not debating the merits of those things. We're debating whether these are decisions that should be made by the feds or left up to the states.
Quote from: NE2 on May 15, 2013, 04:28:45 PM
NMSL wasn't tied to federal funding, was it?
it was.
from Wikipedia:
QuoteStates had to agree to the limit if they desired to receive federal funding for highway repair. The uniform speed limit was signed into law by President Nixon on January 2, 1974, and became effective 60 days later,[11] by requiring the limit as a condition of each state receiving highway funds, a use of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.[12]
Indeed, and you can read the Ninth Circuit's opinion on the issue at the link below. Distilled to its essence, Nevada passed a law enacting a 70-mph speed limit on a portion of I-80, but the statute provided that it would automatically expire if the feds cut off highway funding (which is precisely what happened). Nevada sued the US government and lost. The court found that Congress could have enacted a national speed limit under the Commerce Clause and then reasoned that if the power exists under the Commerce Clause, it must also exist under the "gentler carrot" of the Spending Clause.
I believe there are a number of cases on the Spending Clause that hold where states don't have an inherent right to receive a type of funding from the federal government, then it's OK for Congress to attach conditions to the spending (such as the 21 drinking age, a 55-mph speed limit, etc.) unless the condition itself would violate another constitutional provision.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/884/445/464252/
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 15, 2013, 05:28:50 PMwhere states don't have an inherent right to receive a type of funding
doesn't the "to establish post roads" clause imply that states do have an inherent right to receive funding for transportation?
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 15, 2013, 10:21:57 AM
I agree regarding 21 as the minimum drinking age--I would rather have 18
As I understand it, the rationale there is that it is much easier for a teenager to pass as 18 than to pass as 21.
What about minimum age for drivers? Are there federal "guidelines?" When I was a kid, I remember one of the western states (either Montana or Wyoming, I think) allowed 14-year-olds to get licenses, and I think there were other states that licensed drivers at 15.
As to whether or not I agree with lowering the BAC limit to .05, whether it's done voluntarily by the states or at gunpoint by the feds, I am neutral to slightly against. Most of the really bad drunk driving accidents you hear about are caused by drivers whose BAC is well above even the old .10 standard. I don't know that reducing the standard would help reduce drunk driving wrecks. Stronger penalties for violations of the existing threshold might be a better deterrent.
I heard an interesting opinion about this yesterday from Sean Hannity; one I hadn't thought of but would have a hard time arguing against. He was of a thought that it might simply be another revenue grab by the government, much as lowering the speed limit or shortening the length of a yellow light (like what happened in Florida) would be.
QuoteWhat about minimum age for drivers? Are there federal "guidelines?" When I was a kid, I remember one of the western states (either Montana or Wyoming, I think) allowed 14-year-olds to get licenses, and I think there were other states that licensed drivers at 15.
There aren't as far as I know. You can still get a license at 15 in Idaho, and I think the age is 14 in...North Dakota maybe? It's 15 here in Montana too- in the county I live in, you could conceivably have to drive 60 miles one way every day to go to high school (K-8 schools are more scattered), so it's sort of impossible not to allow it.
QuoteI heard an interesting opinion about this yesterday from Sean Hannity; one I hadn't thought of but would have a hard time arguing against. He was of a thought that it might simply be another revenue grab by the government, much as lowering the speed limit or shortening the length of a yellow light (like what happened in Florida) would be.
I agree that it seems like a revenue grab, but it's awfully life-ruining for a revenue grab. I wonder if they could make a .05-.08 DUI an infraction or something (if they must do this)- that way it's still kind of a hassle, but it's not something that you have to explain to future employers and things for the rest of your life.
My take on the BAC is this:
There is absolutely no need whatsoever to decrease the BAC even further. We already have arrests for people that blow more than .08, let alone .10. A better approach would be this:
Quote from: bugo on May 15, 2013, 04:03:32 PM
Putting safety interlocks in the cars of repeat offenders and subsidies for taxi rides for drunks would be more effective ways to cut down on drunken driving.
Before
ANY lowering of the BAC can occur, we need to strengthen the current drunk driving laws that are enforced. It does no good when new laws are enacted when you could enforce the existing laws now. For starters, anyone arrested for DUI should face a mandatory 18-month jail term if convicted and their license revoked for two years, no questions asked. Anyone who refuses a breath test will be required to take a blood sample and face stiffer penalties. Also, those who blow a BAC of over .16 will face stiffer penalties. From there, each subsequent DUI will gradually be more severe, and if death results from a DUI, a mandatory life sentence (or even the death sentence for states that allow this) without the possibility of any parole need to be implemented.
Another issue I find is enforcement. The problem isn't that the police can't find drunk drivers. Rather, its the lawyers and the judges that don't have the guts to prosecute the drunk drivers. We need to get on them much harder to start taking DUI seriously if we want to combat this problem
Quote from: hbelkins on May 15, 2013, 07:56:55 PM
What about minimum age for drivers? Are there federal "guidelines?" When I was a kid, I remember one of the western states (either Montana or Wyoming, I think) allowed 14-year-olds to get licenses, and I think there were other states that licensed drivers at 15.
I got my learner's permit at 14, full driver's license at 15. That was Kansas in 1997.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 15, 2013, 05:47:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 15, 2013, 05:28:50 PMwhere states don't have an inherent right to receive a type of funding
doesn't the "to establish post roads" clause imply that states do have an inherent right to receive funding for transportation?
Not necessarily, if the feds were to build them themselves.
Quote from: bugo on May 15, 2013, 04:03:32 PM
Putting safety interlocks in the cars of repeat offenders...would be more effective ways to cut down on drunken driving.
Unfortunately, one part of the reduced-BAC proposal was a study to determine if ignition interlocks should be made mandatory on all new cars. AKA penalizing everyone for the sins of a relative few.
And if you read the message boards on sites like the NMA's, you'll know that the existing ignition interlocks are notoriously buggy, and will often either refuse to start with a blow of 0.00 or will start with a 0.08 or higher.
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 15, 2013, 11:01:33 PM
Quote from: bugo on May 15, 2013, 04:03:32 PM
Putting safety interlocks in the cars of repeat offenders...would be more effective ways to cut down on drunken driving.
Unfortunately, one part of the reduced-BAC proposal was a study to determine if ignition interlocks should be made mandatory on all new cars. AKA penalizing everyone for the sins of a relative few.
And if you read the message boards on sites like the NMA's, you'll know that the existing ignition interlocks are notoriously buggy, and will often either refuse to start with a blow of 0.00 or will start with a 0.08 or higher.
That'd go over as well as the ignition interlock for seat belts. They tried that for a very short period of time whereby one must buckle up and then start the car. It went over like a lead balloon, and the idea was dropped after a model year (1976 or so, IIRC).
Quote from: Brandon on May 15, 2013, 11:12:27 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 15, 2013, 11:01:33 PM
Quote from: bugo on May 15, 2013, 04:03:32 PM
Putting safety interlocks in the cars of repeat offenders...would be more effective ways to cut down on drunken driving.
Unfortunately, one part of the reduced-BAC proposal was a study to determine if ignition interlocks should be made mandatory on all new cars. AKA penalizing everyone for the sins of a relative few.
And if you read the message boards on sites like the NMA's, you'll know that the existing ignition interlocks are notoriously buggy, and will often either refuse to start with a blow of 0.00 or will start with a 0.08 or higher.
That'd go over as well as the ignition interlock for seat belts. They tried that for a very short period of time whereby one must buckle up and then start the car. It went over like a lead balloon, and the idea was dropped after a model year (1976 or so, IIRC).
Or a bag of groceries on the passenger seat could trigger it. Lee Iacocca in his first book suggested that if Congress had such a problem with Interlock, they should have mandated a light on the outside of the car that was green if the driver was buckled up, and red if he/she wasn't.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 15, 2013, 03:15:33 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 15, 2013, 08:30:53 AM
Anyone with a CDL license is subject to a .04 BAC limit. And it doesn't matter if you're driving a truck or car at the time; the simple fact that I or anyone else with the license is subjected to the lower limit. I think though that it would be extremely rare for anyone to be cited solely if they blew a .04 though; chances are, they would have to be involved in an accident or some other traffic violation. Otherwise, I doubt the cops would even notice the person was drinking.
Maryland has a 0.000 BAC limit for CDL holders when they are driving a commercial vehicle.
http://www.mva.maryland.gov/Resources/DL-151.pdf
Per Section 1.2.2 on page 1-3, the limit in Maryland is 0.04, not 0.000.
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 15, 2013, 11:01:33 PM
And if you read the message boards on sites like the NMA's, you'll know that the existing ignition interlocks are notoriously buggy, and will often either refuse to start with a blow of 0.00 or will start with a 0.08 or higher.
And still doesn't solve the issue of a drunk driver having his friend blow in the tube for him.
This is more of a money grab for the states than anything else. " It will make us all safer" is the justification for the change but it will make a lot more money for state and local governments.... more reason for check points. Previous posters have made the case already. People who are mindful of the law will be responsible whether the threshold is .10, .08 or .05. The news reports still have people with .20 BAC on their 3rd DUI.... they ignored the .10 and they will ignore .05
Like the drug check points where the police agency gets the money seized. If the police think you might be a drug dealer the money and vehicle are taken and you have to prove otherwise. Say you just sold a car for 5000 cash out of state and you are driving a rental car home. Its none of the police departments business where you got the money. ( dont give me if I'm not doing anything wrong... b.s)
The rationale for the stops is not keeping drugs off the street but extra money and the sheriffs department get a fancy car....
Quote from: The Premier on May 15, 2013, 08:16:49 PM
My take on the BAC is this:
There is absolutely no need whatsoever to decrease the BAC even further. We already have arrests for people that blow more than .08, let alone .10. A better approach would be this:
Quote from: bugo on May 15, 2013, 04:03:32 PM
Putting safety interlocks in the cars of repeat offenders and subsidies for taxi rides for drunks would be more effective ways to cut down on drunken driving.
Before ANY lowering of the BAC can occur, we need to strengthen the current drunk driving laws that are enforced. It does no good when new laws are enacted when you could enforce the existing laws now. For starters, anyone arrested for DUI should face a mandatory 18-month jail term if convicted and their license revoked for two years, no questions asked. Anyone who refuses a breath test will be required to take a blood sample and face stiffer penalties. Also, those who blow a BAC of over .16 will face stiffer penalties. From there, each subsequent DUI will gradually be more severe, and if death results from a DUI, a mandatory life sentence (or even the death sentence for states that allow this) without the possibility of any parole need to be implemented.
Another issue I find is enforcement. The problem isn't that the police can't find drunk drivers. Rather, its the lawyers and the judges that don't have the guts to prosecute the drunk drivers. We need to get on them much harder to start taking DUI seriously if we want to combat this problem
I hate mandatory sentences for anything. The judge/jury should make the decision that how its supposed to work. DUI is a problem for sure but more draconian laws will do nothing but give the police more of a reason to harass and inconvenience the rest of us. Talk about full jails/prisons if every 19 y/o kid who blows a .06 is in jail for 18 months for his/her first DUI or the 32 y/o driving home from his sisters wedding reception and blows a .06 on his first DUI... 18 month in jail/criminal record/loss of job etc. Be careful what you wish for
Quote from: Brian556 on May 14, 2013, 09:16:14 PM
Interesting that the limit is .05 in several other countries.
I do think that we need a tiered penalty system based on BAC, with extra penalties if a life-threatening violation is committed (such as red light running, wrong-way travel, ect.) There should be mandatory prison sentance for those who are over a ceratin BAC and/or commit a life-threatening violation while driving drunk.
It's just rediculous how many peole drive the wrong way on freeways and kill people around here due to drunkenness.
I personally don't like alchol; and I belive that it is a dangerous drug, and is a huge problem for our society. People take it's use and abuse far too lightly.
I think that we should prohibit the use of alcohol by everyone. We will be much safer, there will be less alcoholics and it will be better for families..... Oh wait we tried that... didn't work too well.
Quote from: jwolfer on May 16, 2013, 10:45:32 AM
I hate mandatory sentences for anything. The judge/jury should make the decision that how its supposed to work. DUI is a problem for sure but more draconian laws will do nothing but give the police more of a reason to harass and inconvenience the rest of us. Talk about full jails/prisons if every 19 y/o kid who blows a .06 is in jail for 18 months for his/her first DUI or the 32 y/o driving home from his sisters wedding reception and blows a .06 on his first DUI... 18 month in jail/criminal record/loss of job etc. Be careful what you wish for
That would be true if the BAC is .05. But my opinion is different. If someone blows a .06 when the BAC is .08, that's different and they would be on their way. The purpose of my comment is that we need to enforce and strengthen the existing laws without dropping the BAC. I like the .08 level as it is; there is no need for a drop in BAC levels.
I think a moderately lower BAC limit might make people less likely to think to themselves, Well, I probably had just a little bit too much, but I'm still probably under the legal limit. I've found myself in that situation, and only realized partway down the road that I should have had my wife drive instead.
Just playing devil's advocate here. I really don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on this.
I don't drive (and I bet a lot of other people don't either) based on my perception of the legal limit though- I pretty much know where I don't feel comfortable driving, and I know it's fairly conservative. I couldn't tell you what the BAC is, but I know when I hit that feeling that I shouldn't be driving anymore, and that's when I say "I've had too much to drive." That border is usually around 4 reasonably potent (6% or so) beers in 3 hours, but it could be more, could be less. How drunk I feel at that point depends on lots of other factors.
I guess the question I ask myself is "am I drunk enough that I'm going to get pulled over on suspicion of DUI?" If the answer to that is "no" then I drive. That said! If I know there's going to be a checkpoint or something or am in an unfamiliar area where I don't know how bored the cops are or where I'm going (I'll say that if I have had alcohol and I don't really know where I'm going, that's where I think I'd be at risk of getting a DUI in a borderline case), I don't drink at all.
I'm more comfortable driving borderline drunk in, say, Tucson than I am here- in Tucson you're one of a thousand cars on the road and what are the odds that you're driving conspicuously worse than the teenage girls on their phone or the assholes in slammed Civics with rims, but here you're one of two cars and there's one cop driving around. Of course, everything is in walking distance here where it wasn't in Tucson.
I will not drink so much as one beer if I am in an unfamiliar area and plan on driving anywhere at all, especially at night. I don't want the smell on my breath if I end up doing something that might get me pulled over, such as missing a turn or something. As clumsy as I am, I'm liable to fail a field sobriety test stone-cold sober. Not all cops have portable breath testers, and they arrest you for DUI before they give you the official test, and they don't let you go if you get to the jail and you blow a .00 or .01. You have to go through the court system to get the charges dismissed.
I have an inexpensive consumer grade breathalyzer. Playing around with it, 0.08 was well beyond where I would be comfortable driving. My personal absolute cutoff ended up been around 0.06 with my more typical "I'm driving so I should stop" point ending up being 0.04-ish. For me and my friends, it seemed like 1 drink = 0.02 BAC, diminishing by 0.01 per hour.
That is my typical amount, but there were outliers depending on what I ate, how tired I was, caffeine intake, etc.. Every so often I'd feel not comfortable driving at what amounted to 0.02, and every so often I'd feel stone cold sober at 0.08. Not often mind you, but every once in a while. When in doubt, one drink an hour (or waiting one hour per drink) seemed to be a good general rule for an adult man.
Good point. I really have no idea what a 0.08% BAC actually feels like, because I've never measured my breath.
Quote from: kphoger on May 17, 2013, 05:26:43 PMGood point. I really have no idea what a 0.08% BAC actually feels like, because I've never measured my breath.
I do. It is some point beyond where I feel the "buzz" (which in my case is like the humming sensation I get in my head whenever I hit it against a hard object), which in itself is my cue to stop drinking.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 16, 2013, 08:40:14 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 15, 2013, 03:15:33 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 15, 2013, 08:30:53 AM
Anyone with a CDL license is subject to a .04 BAC limit. And it doesn't matter if you're driving a truck or car at the time; the simple fact that I or anyone else with the license is subjected to the lower limit. I think though that it would be extremely rare for anyone to be cited solely if they blew a .04 though; chances are, they would have to be involved in an accident or some other traffic violation. Otherwise, I doubt the cops would even notice the person was drinking.
Maryland has a 0.000 BAC limit for CDL holders when they are driving a commercial vehicle.
http://www.mva.maryland.gov/Resources/DL-151.pdf
Per Section 1.2.2 on page 1-3, the limit in Maryland is 0.04, not 0.000.
Look a little further.
On physical page 7, it reads [
emphasis added]:
QuoteYou will be put out-of-service for 24 hours if you have any detectable amount of alcohol under .04%.
I have personally observed Maryland State Police troopers (and civilian MSP transportation inspectors) order CDL drivers to blow into a PBT and then inform them of the above legal requirement.