Legal Drinking-Driving Limit LOWERED to 0.05.

The National Transportation Safety Board today recommended that all 50 states lower the benchmark for determining when a driver is legally drunk from 0.08 blood-alcohol content to 0.05. The idea is part of an initiative to eliminate drunken driving, which accounts for about a third of all road deaths.

Lowering the rate to 0.05 would save about 500 to 800 lives every year, the safety board said. The NTSB cannot mandate changes, but the agency is influential on matters of public safety.

Under current law, a 180-pound male typically will hit the 0.08 threshold after drinking four drinks in an hour, according to an online blood alcohol calculator published by the University of Oklahoma.

edition.cnn.com...


They did this in Alberta, where I live about 1.5 years ago (I believe some other provinces are still 0.08).

The road fatalaties are still the same BUT there are a hell of a lot more check-stops, 24 hour suspensions and court cases and fines. LOTS more. Basically everyone I know has got a fine or a short/long term suspension and I don't hang with hard-liners. I'm talking female teachers and male lawyers, young and old.

I've lost my license about 5 years ago once, and I had 3 of my GF's coolers over the course of 4 solid hours and still blew over 0.08, twice!! Lost my license for a full year.

reply to post by CALGARIAN


Not in Newfoundland. I believe there it's zero-tolerance for driving under the influence.

Originally posted by RedShirt73
reply to post by CALGARIAN

 

Not in Newfoundland. I believe there it's zero-tolerance for driving under the influence.

Same here.

My x had 2 DWI's and still managed to escape them both.

Not like it will matter anyway.

Here in NY if you get pulled over and blow between a .04 and .07 you can still be charged with driving while ability impaired, which still has the same penalties and fees that a full blown DUI or DWI.

I know, because it happened to me. I blew an .05 and was charged with a DWAI. Cost me about $1300 in fees and 6 months of not having a license.

Wish we had some statistics on blood alcohol levels of drivers at fault in fatal accidents. I would bet almost all are well above 0.10, and probably most are above 0.20.

I agree that such a limit would just add primarily to the pockets of the judicial system.

My 2 cents worth after working in ERs for many years.

Lowing it to 0.000000 wouldnt stop a drunk from driving drunk.

It just casts a wider net so they can arrest more people for taking cough syrup and inflate the importance of the police.

Just like the pointless "texting" laws that were stacked on top of at least a dozen other distracted driving laws.

People need to stop using lines like "x many more lives saved" because the offense and accident rates always remain the same. What people whould start saying is "x number of people arrested" and "$x generated".

I think it should be zero tolerance, you take a drink, you don’t drive.

Drink driving kills

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I think it should be zero tolerance, you take a drink, you don’t drive.

Drunk driving kills

And, people who are on prescribed Meds that drive, also kill. It's not just Alcohol.

reply to post by Manhater


Very true I don’t know how it works in the states but in the UK if you’re on certain meds that means you won’t be safe driving you told not to drive by your doctor and if you are found out to still be driving the DVLA are informed and they can take your licence of you.

At least in the US the reality is that a police officer can DUI you even if you are below the limit - all they need say is that they considered you impaired based upon your driving or behavior.

I am not a supporter of anyone who drives drunk - at all. But it is obvious to me that these laws having nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with revenue. The small city I live in, a minor suburb of Atlanta... brand new jail, brand new City Hall, brand new courthouse, brand new "Government Center", brand new "Government and Administration" building, and a fleet of brand new Dodge Chargers for the police force. Everything here, city owned, is brand new, high end, customized to the nth degree, and they flaunt it aggressively.

Thanks people who had a glass of wine with dinner and ended up shelling out about 15k in restitution...

reply to post by CALGARIAN


It is basically a heresy to speak against these kinds of things but... I've always liked bucking the system.

This is by no means to endorse drunk driving but this reduction in limit seems more to justify more roadside checkpoints than anything else.

Of course, I don't agree with mandatory insurance laws or seatbelt laws either.

(Ooops. Someone is knocking at my door...)

Why doesn't the NTSB just recommend world peace instead. That would save a lot more than 6-800 lives a year. Lowering the level is not about saving lives for them. It is about the revenue that is able to be generated from the traffic stops, fines and whatnot that all goes along with getting cited.

Here in GA it is a money scheme for the most part. It is at the officer's discretion whether or not to take you in regardless of what you blow in the breathalizer. Then once you hit the court system they take away the DUI charge and hit you with a reckless driving or something of the sort which ends up costing more as well as having more community service time tacked on than an actual DUI.

It is silly to lower the limit. One drink more is not going to make that big of a difference. Instead of focusing on trying to nab the drivers that are drinking too much maybe they should propose a better public transportation system that allows low cost transport to drinkers.

Lowering the limit will only increase the number of people run through the system. This is not the answer.

So anyone that takes a prescription medication is subject to side effects from that medication, including high blood pressure medication, stress relieving meds., heart meds., anti seizure meds., blood sugar meds., blood thinning meds., etc. When mixed together they can have adverse effects as well. You can google and see all the side effects. NO ONE should be allowed to operate a vehicle while under the INFLUENCE of any medications whatsoever.

So what about the cops that are on them?


???

I would like to share something I learned after getting my DUI (yes I feel scummy about it). You can get a DUI for driving with just about any BAC. I think some states have differing rules on this, and sometimes have different names for an offense under .08, but really do be careful. It's best not to risk it.

ETA: Oh, looks like people already mentioned this. Perhaps I should begin reading the threads.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


You nailed it! These laws are strickly designed to generate revenue throughout the Judical System or keep lawyers paid. I see it all the time too and it makes me sick.

Let's say you get charged with a misdemeanor charge of DUI. If found guilty, even on a first offense, you can face up to a year in jail. District Attorney's use this to their advantage to generate revenue from people who are scared of the process or who have no ability to hire their own attorney.

You want to use a Public Defender??? HA!!! They work hand-in-hand with the DA's to generate this revenue. Think about it!! Who uses a Public Defender?? Usually, its people who cannot afford their own council who do. Well, in 95% of misdemaenor cases the Public Defender will approach their "client", or VICTIM--that's how I see it, and offer a plea deal that they cannot refuse!!!! THEY CONVINCE YOU that this is your best option!!! It's all a show!! It's the biggest ponzi scheme going on. In these plea deals, you are forced to lose your driving privledges and told you must complete some type of court ordered AA class. ALL OF WHICH are ways for your "great state" to generate revenue!!

Do your own research. Many states have this information available publically. If you use your own lawyer and take the charge in front of a Jury (which could take years BTW) the DA usually backs off outright. For those cases where the Jury decides your fate--especially minor crimes--IF you are found guilty your punishment for a first offense misdemeanor is usually a $500 fine plus court costs.

In my opinion, I'd rather pay a $500 fine instead of losing my license for a year and having to pay for AA and probation. That's just me though. BUT the real kicker here...in most states, you cannot even talk to the judge yourself. You have to have representation. It's purely a money maker.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I think it should be zero tolerance, you take a drink, you don’t drive.

Drink driving kills

Never happen. Restaurants and such would lobby so hard

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
I've lost my license about 5 years ago once, and I had 3 of my GF's coolers over the course of 4 solid hours and still blew over 0.08, twice!! Lost my license for a full year.

This is a good example why 0-tolerance is a good idea.
People don't know how long alcohol stays in their bodies.

Here's some advice:
Drink tonight - drive tomorrow.

reply to post by CALGARIAN


Here's a link to a list of BAC's by province.

Source

It's a PDF so don't be afraid of the loading and such.

Here in NB it's .005 and we have a zero tolerance policy for new drivers, I think it's the first 5 years, or until you reach full points.

IMO it should be 0. Period.

~Tenth

I drive better after I have a drink or two and that was common knowledge of the police before the government started to treat drinking as a source of revenue. After about four drinks it's all downhill though

Alcohol is a medicine and an adjuvant to other things found in it. Overconsuming any medicine is not good.

Originally posted by Manhater

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I think it should be zero tolerance, you take a drink, you don’t drive.

Drunk driving kills

And, people who are on prescribed Meds that drive, also kill. It's not just Alcohol.

edit on 14-5-2013 by Manhater because: (no reason given)

I think that many medicines are much worse than alcohol.