Gov wants DUI BAC limit lowered to .05

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Simgar988, May 14, 2013.

  1. Simgar988, May 14, 2013
    Last edited: May 14, 2013

    Simgar988 macrumors 65816

    Simgar988

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Location:
    UYBAATC
    #1
    From CNN.Com

    The U.S. gov recommended today to all 50 states to change BAC limit from .08 to .05.

    What do we thing? I for one say leave it where it is.
     
  2. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
  3. macquariumguy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sarasota FL
    #3
    I think .08 is too low. It should be raised back up to .1.
     
  4. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #4
    Agree

    OP: Do you have a link?
     
  5. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #5
    Well, since studies show impairment of driving ability at levels under 0.5, increase in crash risk starting at 0.5, and most first world counties have 0.5 as the legal limit, why not?
     
  6. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #6
    Because if you haven't noticed, conservatives aren't exactly too concerned about saving the lives of others.
     
  7. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #7
    I think you mean .05.;)
     
  8. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #8
    Why are you throwing politics in this? I didn't know this issue had a political divide.

    I'm convinced you just like to throw outlandish statements out there continually, no matter the topic, just to get a rise out of people
     
  9. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #9
    Look up political ideology with regards to political science.
     
  10. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #10
    I think most would be impaired at .5;)
     
  11. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #11
    I think most would be dead.
     
  12. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #12
    :eek:
    Damned decimals
     
  13. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #13
    Its a somewhat tricky issue.

    Statistically you are 169% more likely to be involved in a crash at a level of 0.08% (the current standard) than a driver with 0% alcohol. At 0.05%, you are 38% more likely. So, from a practical matter, it would only result in a very slight decrease in overall crashes and fatalities.

    Secondly, the move to the 0.05% level would increasingly target light and/or social drinkers. A 180lb man could (theoretically) consume 3 drinks in a 90 minute period and still be under the limit. But "standard" drinks are somewhat hard to measure - maybe your host was a little generous. So, to be on the safe side, one would probably need to limit consumption still further.

    As a side note, the "classic" gin martini calls for 2.5oz of gin and a half ounce of vermouth. Drinking just one of these could potentially leave an average male on the borderline of the 0.05% standard. Something to think about.

    One of the arguments put forward in favor of the lower limit is that much of the rest of the world has gone to a lower standard. Of course, in most of the rest of the world there is also much more public transport available.

    IMHO things should probably stay where there are. The new standard would only result in a tiny reduction of crashes; and would end up criminalizing a lot of purely light/social drinking. There are better things the Govt. could do to make the roads safer.
     
  14. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #14
    This is just an attempt at more revenue. The government makes big money out of DUI fines.

    The people crashing and killing people while DUI are the people who's BAC are .15-.30, not .05-.08. This won't prevent anything, it will just put more money in the government's pocket.
     
  15. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #15
    I assume you have a source for such a claim?
     
  16. Mousse, May 14, 2013
    Last edited: May 14, 2013

    Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #16
    If they want to prevent DUI, all they have to do us UP the penalty. I'm talking about taking some plays from other countries playbooks. I like the way cops in Turkey and Mayalsia thinks in regards to DUI. El Salvador is by far the harshest. If nothing else, it would thin out the ranks of drunk drivers, since it's the firing squad for offenders.

    All that changing the legal limit will do is bring in more cash to the Gub'ment, like zioxide said.
     
  17. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #17
    I would agree that .1, .08, .05 doesn't mean anything to someone having a few drinks and getting behind the wheel other then if you are going to get a ticket or not.

    The main point should be DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE.
     
  18. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #18
    Well it's a good thing you cited countries that are renowned for their human rights :rolleyes:
     
  19. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #19
    Keep it where it is, but make texting and driving equivalent to DUI as far as punishments go. Because if I had to ride in a car with a driver who had a .05 BAC or a driver who was texting the entire time, I'd choose the slightly drunk one. And I bet most people would choose the same.
     
  20. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #20

    Coincidently, this just popped up on my Twitter feed.


    http://io9.com/texting-while-driving-now-kills-more-teens-than-drunk-d-504588550
     
  21. Mr Kram macrumors 68000

    Mr Kram

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    #21
    needs to be raised to .1. they need to outlaw all the other dumb stuff like eating, putting on make up, shaving, etc.
     
  22. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #22
    That site is bollocks and copied from another bollocks site.Death penalty in El Salvador,no (unless in times of war),hard labour in Sweden,Finland and Norway,no.
     
  23. TheAppleFairy macrumors 68000

    TheAppleFairy

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Location:
    The Clinton Archipelago unfortunately
    #23
    In Japan the passengers get a fine as well as if you're in a car with a drunk driver. Not sure how well that actually works out but I wouldn't get in a car with someone who had a drink or two and I might even take their keys from them.
     
  24. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #24
    Out of curiosity, how do they determine that someone was actually texting or receiving or reading a text at the time of an accident?
     
  25. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #25
    There is (at least in my opinion) a lot more that needs to happen than just raising or lowering the limit of how much fermented grapes or barley pop one could drink.

    It also has to do with a lot of common sense and how much of a PSA we are and are not hearing in regards to drinking and DUIs. We really aren't hearing them enough, or they aren't as prominent or blunt enough to make an impact.

    For example, for a 20 year period from 1991 to 2010, the US has had over 10,000 DUI related deaths each year, with 1991 being the peak at a little over 15,000.

    Source

    Compare that to, say, Australia, who had 1292 in 2011, and 1236 in 2010. Yes, I know Oz has less of population than we do, but they have much more of an impact with their PSAs for DUI.

    Source

    Here is a good example of the PSAs they have down there, as well as their entire Drinking/Driving campaign. The one with the little kid is just the tip of the icebergs of those that were designed to hit home.

    What do we get in the US? some announcer on a beer commercial in a low voice saying "please drink responsibly". That goes through one ear and out the other.

    Oh.. before I forget, legal age for drinking in Australia is 18, and their alcohol content is a lot richer than here (read: not as watered down).

    Lowering the BAC limit isn't the only solution. Get more impacting PSAs out there to make it hit home. I didn't give a crap when I was up here and barely hitting 21 to care, but I rarely drank anyway; Seeing one commercial down there made me never want to drink and drive ever (excessive, one drink, or otherwise).

    I was already against drinking/driving just from my GF being killed by a drunk driver; the PSAs from down there cemented my thinking.

    Bottom line: This governor is partially doing the right thing. the BAC limit could be lowered, but that isn't going to make the impact. the impact is getting the mass audience to see the worst case, and in front of their eyes. Otherwise, they are only going to think that this happens to the Steve Clarks and John Bonhams of the world.

    BL.
     

Share This Page