

Plan would drop legally drunk from B.A. of 0.08 to 0.05


I. NTSB Says Its Time to Get Strict




II. Technology Battle Over Drunk Driving is Heated

Global blood alcohol limits
Global blood alcohol limits [Image Source: NTSB]


Drunk driver



Source: NTSB

Comments     Threshold


RE: Where is the data?
By M'n'M on 5/15/2013 12:53:01 PM , Rating: 3
Some of the data and the studies cited in coming up with the recommendation are in the report:

Summarizing it's seems they expect an ~10% decline in the number of fatal alcohol related accidents. I'd have to spend more time reading the cited studies to assess whether this is more BS or not.

What I do know is every state around here can convict you of a lesser offense at 0.05%, and of DWI at that level, if the arresting officer can show additional evidence of impairment (which should be easy as in most cases it'll be why he stopped you in the 1'st place). So it seems to me that the new limit is more of a public awareness "stick" than anything else. Even the report (pg 24) states:
Although lowering the per se BAC threshold may seem counterintuitive when the majority of alcohol - impaired drivers in fatal crashes have BAC levels well over 0.08, research on the effectiveness of laws limiting BAC levels (Hingson, Heeren, and Winter 1996; Wagenaar and others 2007) has found that lowering the per se BAC limit changes the drink - driving behavior of drivers at all BAC levels. Consequently, reducing the per se BAC limit could reasonably be expected to have a broad deterrent effect, thereby reducing the risk of injuries and fatalities from crashes associated with impaired driving.

Hmmmm ... that also cries for more looking into.

I find it "intriguing" that this comes out at the same time another group is recommending that physicians should "screen" all adults (18+ yrs) for potential alcohol "misuse".

RE: Where is the data?
By Etsp on 5/15/2013 2:12:17 PM , Rating: 2

Though, given what the BA rules are for most of the rest of the world (0.05 BA), they probably have some applicable data already.

To be clear, I'm not against this proposed change, but I'm not for it either. Not until I hear a sufficient argument for it, or against it, backed by data.

RE: Where is the data?



RE: Where is the data?
By vol7ron on 5/19/2013 4:40:22 AM , Rating: 1
The argument against it is there is a political desire to control every aspect of your life, no matter where you live or what you do.

Sure there may be impairments when drinking, but the physiological effects are different, for different people. In fact, I know people that function better when slightly intoxicated then completely sober - humorous, but true.

The truth is Congress and state governments would save more lives and prevent more injuries by having better driving regulations for all license holders - better tests to ensure those that hold licenses meet a certain standard while driving. There are simply too many drivers on the road that are horrible enough sober and these "horrible drivers" probably make up a large percentage of drunk drivers that are involved in accidents. So, if you improve the quality of the average driver on the road, either by better training or tests restricting their access, the DUI statistic will naturally be reduced.

The real statistics aren't in how many dui-related accidents occur, but how many non-dui accidents occur. The point is to save lives. It's nothing more than sensationalism to determine that deaths are a result of the combination of alcohol and driving. The government could save more in less invasive and in a more freedom-abiding manner. So, new BAC limits are complete and utter horse shit.

