Tougher drunken driving threshold recommended

[hbelkins]

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?

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.

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.

[agentsteel53]

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

it was.

from Wikipedia:

States 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]

[1995hoo]

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/

[agentsteel53]

where 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?

[elsmere241]

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

[corco]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[The Premier]

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:

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

[kphoger]

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.

[1995hoo]

where 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.

[SidS1045]

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.

[Brandon]

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).

[elsmere241]

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.

[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.

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[jwolfer]

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....

[jwolfer]

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:

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

[jwolfer]

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.

[The Premier]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[corco]

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

[realjd]

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.

[kphoger]

Good point.  I really have no idea what a 0.08% BAC actually feels like, because I've never measured my breath.

[J N Winkler]

Good 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.