Tougher drunken driving threshold recommended

[cpzilliacus]

AP via WTOP Radio: Tougher drunken driving threshold recommended

States 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.

More 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.

[Brandon]

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.

[Brian556]

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.

[The High Plains Traveler]

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.

[kphoger]

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?

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.

a tiered penalty system based on BAC, with extra penalties if a life-threatening violation is committed

A good idea, in my opinion.

[hbelkins]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[corco]

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.

[J N Winkler]

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.

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.

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.

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."

I 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.

Personally, 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.

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.

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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!

[formulanone]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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. 

[KEK Inc.]

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.

[J N Winkler]

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.

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).

What 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.

[agentsteel53]

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).

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.

sobriety checkpoints

speaking of constitutional amendments being violated in the name of "good policy"...

[J N Winkler]

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).

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

Gay 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.

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.

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.

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.

[agentsteel53]

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".

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.

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.

[NE2]

Nah, they'll force us all to get gay married. Because Bengoatse.

[bugo]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[bugo]

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

[Brandon]

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.

[NE2]

NMSL wasn't tied to federal funding, was it?