NTSB recommends lowering blood alcohol level that constitutes drunk driving

[Cotton]

I'm not sure I'm buying the .05 BAC is going to cause enough impairment to cause a person to be a danger behind the wheel. I see the stats they've given but stats can be manipulated to fit an agenda. Seems like more of an effort to hand out more DUI tickets to me.

I doubt .05 would pass in Texas, at least anytime soon. They just passed a bill to make texting while driving illegal but of course Rick Perry has already come out and said he'll veto it the first chance he gets if it becomes law. Nevermind the fact that people die from texting and driving every day.

Stats aside, I believe that someone who is texting and driving is every bit as dangerous as someone who gets behind the wheel at .05 BAC. I'm certainly not advocating driving drunk, I just think lowering the standard to .05 is unnecessary and will mostly only serve to punish people who aren't a real threat.

I would say that someone texting and driving is more dangerous than someone blowing a .05. And leave it to that dipshit Perry to veto it. We have got to get that fucker out of office.

 

[E_D_Guapo]

Why on earth would that dipshit veto a bill outlawing texting while driving?

 

[Smitty]

It does affect me. If people are driving drunk, it can affect me. If those cases decrease, it affects me in a positive way.

I meant you can "live" with alcohol being banned because you don't care to use it so it would have no effect on you in that sense.

 

[Smitty]

I'm not sure I'm buying the .05 BAC is going to cause enough impairment to cause a person to be a danger behind the wheel. I see the stats they've given but stats can be manipulated to fit an agenda. Seems like more of an effort to hand out more DUI tickets to me.

I doubt .05 would pass in Texas, at least anytime soon. They just passed a bill to make texting while driving illegal but of course Rick Perry has already come out and said he'll veto it the first chance he gets if it becomes law. Nevermind the fact that people die from texting and driving every day.

Stats aside, I believe that someone who is texting and driving is every bit as dangerous as someone who gets behind the wheel at .05 BAC. I'm certainly not advocating driving drunk, I just think lowering the standard to .05 is unnecessary and will mostly only serve to punish people who aren't a real threat.

You're not even a threat at .08, it's all just a scare tactic. Not any more than people fiddling with their radio or talking to passengers or staring at hot girls walking down the sidewalk. Those behaviors all deserve to be dealt with in the realm of negligence when something bad happens, not criminality in a pre-emptive crackdown. I deal with quite a few DUIs in my county and I have never even seen someone in an accident, let alone a fatality, at .08. Most accidents don't start occuring until the driver is up past .16% which happens to be a stricter tier in PA.

So .05 is nonsense.

Can you find an example where there was a car crash fatality where one driver was at .08? Yes, but you can find examples where there were car crash fatalities where neither driver consumed alcohol too. But in terms of dealing with it frequently, I cannot see any correlation between having the two beers it would take to get me to .05 BAC and unsafe driving.

And yes... this is going to clog up the courts, cost people money, and ruin more people's lives than it actually saves.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Jesus, the US is the only country in the world just about where you can do things without being micromanaged by the government or attacked by the equivalent of Somali Pirates. If you want health and safety guidelines for every part of your existence, emigrate to England. Don't ruin the last place where you can have any kind of freedom by messing up other people's lives for your imaginary sense of security.

 

[Cujo]

Oh, so what you're saying is that compared to the alternative of losing alcohol priveledges altogether, just a law lowering the allowed BAL when driving isn't as bad as it's made out to be?

What about the millions of drivers out there hopped up on prescription meds? Which, if you've been paying attention to the latest stats seems to be on it's way to becoming the bigger problem. Throwing more laws at a problem or restricting more liberties is clearly not the answer. Otherwise, it would have worked by now.

 

[L.T. Fan]

What about the millions of drivers out there hopped up on prescription meds? Which, if you've been paying attention to the latest stats seems to be on it's way to becoming the bigger problem. Throwing more laws at a problem or restricting more liberties is clearly not the answer. Otherwise, it would have worked by now.

It is already against the law (as it should be) to drive while impaired even with prescription drugs. There is a warning on the drug container.

 

[Smitty]

My point is this:

To say that you cannot drive with any alcohol in your system at all because it's "too dangerous" is

1) basically to ban going out and drinking unless you can walk to a bar, and

2) Simply a lie.

People are perfectly safe driving with small amounts of alcohol in their system. There is nothing inherently dangerous about it any more than the infinite distractions that are inherent to, and unpreventable with, human operation of a machine. So if I'm not acting criminally when I daydream about a hot chick while driving, then I shouldn't be acting criminally when I do something that is the same level of dangerous in driving with a very small amount of alcohol in my system (like the amount I get from rinsing with mouthwash).

I might be acting NEGLIGENTLY, but negligent isn't criminal. Or at least it shouldn't be. Criminality should not be imparted until the mental state far surpasses negligence into the realm of "willful" or at least "reckless" -- which means that you are so disregarding of dangers that you basically no reasonable person would go around ignoring those dangers.

Since just about everyone daydreams, or fiddles with the radio, or occasionally looks away from the road, anything that is "as distracting" as those actions is not enough of an obvious danger to rise into the "reckless" category and should still be negligence and should still be NOT criminal. And since there's no evidence that driving with a small amount of alcohol is more dangerous than those things, it should only be negligent not criminal.

There is a mass hysteria in this country that "OMG EVERYONE KNOWS THAT IF YOU CONSUME ALCOHOL AND THEN DRIVE YOU ARE ALMOST GUARANTEED TO HURT SOMEONE ELSE" but that is not true one bit. In fact, you are not really any more likely than if you are texting or you are daydreaming or having a conversation with a passenger (all are things that are shown to increase accidents). You might get a small fine for some of those things (though not all those things), but I can guarantee you never will spend a day in jail for any of them.

Frankly, we need to reign in the panic about DUI and realize that it's ok to have "A" drink or two, and then to drive, for most people. Just as it's ok for them to have radios or passengers in their cars.

I'm not saying there doesn't need to be a line... just that the line is already set on the low side to prevent a slippery slope. Setting the line even lower is completely unwarranted.

The true danger for driving under the influence does not occur until much higher BACs.

And the fact that twenty years ago there were twice as many DUI deaths is probably just as attributable to increases in automobile safety as it is to harsher DUI laws.

You know what else could reduce motor vehicle accident deaths? If we reduced the speed limit on highways to 25 mph. Waah, waah, people complaining about it taking longer to get places! We're talking about safety here! No restriction is too great!

 

[Clay_Allison]

People who want to micromanage the lives of others are always pious and dismissive of the idea of "freedom" or "rights" right up until someone wants to take away something they like. Then suddenly they will be outraged. Everybody does something that the government regulates because they think it's bad for you.

There is something in everyone's life that someone wants to have banned or heavily regulated.

 

[L.T. Fan]

People who want to micromanage the lives of others are always pious and dismissive of the idea of "freedom" or "rights" right up until someone wants to take away something they like. Then suddenly they will be outraged. Everybody does something that the government regulates because they think it's bad for you.

There is something in everyone's life that someone wants to have banned or heavily regulated.

There has to be laws and regulations for society to co exist with a reasonable harmony. In a democracy the majority dictates how the rules are compiled and enforced. Even so there will always be some who do not agree with little,some or none of the established system. That is the price we pay to exist within the society.

 

[Clay_Allison]

There has to be laws and regulations for society to co exist with a reasonable harmony. In a democracy the majority dictates how the rules are compiled and enforced. Even so there will always be some who do not agree with little,some or none of the established system. That is the price we pay to exist within the society.

There's a reason we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic with a constitution. My point is that if you demand a great deal of government intrusion into the lives of others, you shouldn't be surprised when it starts to mess with yours too.

 

[L.T. Fan]

There's a reason we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic with a constitution. My point is that if you demand a great deal of government intrusion into the lives of others, you shouldn't be surprised when it starts to mess with yours too.

There is an ongoing debate regarding Republic/Democracy or hybrid but the end result (at least for me) is there has to be rules that govern the masses and public policy must be in the forefront for however it comes down the pike.

Obviously everyone has restrictions on their personal liberties if for no other reason than what I alluded to earlier. Keeping a balance of societial harmony. Everyone cannot have their ideologies forced on others so compromise for the "greater good" is utilized by government regardless of whether it is done in a pure democracy setting or a republic. We all have to live with it or work within the system to change it.

 

[Clay_Allison]

There is an ongoing debate regarding Republic/Democracy or hybrid but the end result (at least for me) is there has to be rules that govern the masses and public policy must be in the forefront for however it comes down the pike.

Obviously everyone has restrictions on their personal liberties if for no other reason than what I alluded to earlier. Keeping a balance of societial harmony. Everyone cannot have their ideologies forced on others so compromise for the "greater good" is utilized by government regardless of whether it is done in a pure democracy setting or a republic. We all have to live with it or work within the system to change it.

Everyone has some restrictions on what they can do, but how much is highly variable. I tend to prefer as little as possible.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Everyone has some restrictions on what they can do, but how much is highly variable. I tend to prefer as little as possible.

I think most of us holds the same position.

 

[Smitty]

I think most of us holds the same position.

And in this case the intrusion is unwarranted.

 

[L.T. Fan]

And in this case the intrusion is unwarranted.

That's one position.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

That's one position.

Anything to save a life right? They should also ban smoking and alcohol, they both cause disease. We can save some lives there. Also we need to get rid of all fast food places and restaurants that serve unhealthy food. In fact we should just ban unhealthy food in general, that would save some lives. Guns, ban them all, I can promise you that would save some lives. Also get rid of those silly cars, all they really do is cause accidents that kill people. Plus the walking would do everyone good.

There is a right position and a wrong position on this, and I know which side I'm on...

 

[Smitty]

That's one position.

It's the only position if you claim to value as little government restriction as possible.

This is one of those times we can weed out the fake conservatives.

 

[Smitty]

Anything to save a life right? They should also ban smoking and alcohol, they both cause disease. We can save some lives there. Also we need to get rid of all fast food places and restaurants that serve unhealthy food. In fact we should just ban unhealthy food in general, that would save some lives. Guns, ban them all, I can promise you that would save some lives. Also get rid of those silly cars, all they really do is cause accidents that kill people. Plus the walking would do everyone good.

There is a right position and a wrong position on this, and I know which side I'm on...

More people die from the things you named there than drunk driving.

 

[L.T. Fan]

It's the only position if you claim to value as little government restriction as possible.

This is one of those times we can weed out the fake conservatives.

You need to read closer. I stated to Clay that "most of us hold that position". I was agreeing with him but at the same time indicating there are differing positions. Your trigger finger is showing.