News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

NTSB recommends BAC of .05

Started by 11B4V, May 15, 2013, 10:45:25 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

11B4V

Interesting if this can go through. Good thing IMO

Right now WA state is struggling with the "pot issue" and driving. IOW how stoned can you be.

QuoteWASHINGTON – The National Transportation Safety Board voted to recommend to states that they lower the blood-alcohol content that constitutes drunken driving.

Currently, all 50 states have set a BAC level of .08, reflecting the percentage of alcohol, by volume, in the blood. If a driver is found to have a BAC level of .08 or above, he or she is subject to arrest and prosecution. 

The National Transportation Safety Board is advising states to lower the Blood Alcohol Level that defines drunk driving from .08 to .05, which they say is the level at which many drivers' vision can be affected. NBC's Tom Costello reports.

The NTSB recommends dropping that to a BAC level of .05.

Each year, nearly 10,000 people die in alcohol-related traffic accidents and 170,000 are injured, according to the NTSB. While that's a big improvement from the 20,000 who died in alcohol-related accidents 30 years ago, it remains a consistent threat to public safety.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/14/18250824-ntsb-recommends-lowering-blood-alcohol-level-that-constitutes-drunken-driving?lite
"there's a long tradition of insulting people we disagree with here, and I'll be damned if I listen to your entreaties otherwise."-OVB

"Obviously not a Berkut-commanded armored column.  They're not all brewing."- CdM

"We've reached one of our phase lines after the firefight and it smells bad—meaning it's a little bit suspicious... Could be an amb—".

Valmy

QuoteEach year, nearly 10,000 people die in alcohol-related traffic accidents and 170,000 are injured, according to the NTSB. While that's a big improvement from the 20,000 who died in alcohol-related accidents 30 years ago, it remains a consistent threat to public safety.

'Stats' like this are sorta annoying to me.  What extent does drinking increase your risk percentage?  The simple numbers do not mean anything, over 30,000 people die in traffic accidents every year but it would be stupid to simply say: 'OMG over 20,000 people die in sober-related traffice accidents every year nearly twice as many who die from drunk drivers!  Everybody start drinking!'  But if you go from simply the number of deaths and nothing else that would be a logical conclusion.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Malthus

Considering how much better safety features are on vehicles nowadays, I'm not sure a decrease in deaths from 20,000 to 10,000 is a big success in the public-awareness-of-drunk-driving front over 30 years ago.  :hmm:
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

garbon

Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2013, 10:51:56 AM
QuoteEach year, nearly 10,000 people die in alcohol-related traffic accidents and 170,000 are injured, according to the NTSB. While that's a big improvement from the 20,000 who died in alcohol-related accidents 30 years ago, it remains a consistent threat to public safety.

'Stats' like this are sorta annoying to me.  What extent does drinking increase your risk percentage?  The simple numbers do not mean anything, over 30,000 people die in traffic accidents every year but it would be stupid to simply say: 'OMG over 20,000 people die in sober-related traffice accidents every year nearly twice as many who die from drunk drivers!  Everybody start drinking!'  But if you go from simply the number of deaths and nothing else that would be a logical conclusion.

Didn't we already discuss recently the percent that it increases it? In that whole discussion of "predictable".
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."

I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Valmy

Quote from: Malthus on May 15, 2013, 10:54:13 AM
Considering how much better safety features are on vehicles nowadays, I'm not sure a decrease in deaths from 20,000 to 10,000 is a big success in the public-awareness-of-drunk-driving front over 30 years ago.  :hmm:

Yeah.  Raw data with no statistical analysis: blah.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Valmy

Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2013, 10:54:18 AM
Didn't we already discuss recently the percent that it increases it? In that whole discussion of "predictable".

Possibly.  Did I participate in that discussion?  I do not remember it.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Berkut

Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2013, 10:51:56 AM
QuoteEach year, nearly 10,000 people die in alcohol-related traffic accidents and 170,000 are injured, according to the NTSB. While that's a big improvement from the 20,000 who died in alcohol-related accidents 30 years ago, it remains a consistent threat to public safety.

'Stats' like this are sorta annoying to me.  What extent does drinking increase your risk percentage?  The simple numbers do not mean anything, over 30,000 people die in traffic accidents every year but it would be stupid to simply say: 'OMG over 20,000 people die in sober-related traffice accidents every year nearly twice as many who die from drunk drivers!  Everybody start drinking!'  But if you go from simply the number of deaths and nothing else that would be a logical conclusion.

No it wouldn't. It would be a stunningly illogical conclusion, and stupid to boot.
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

derspiess

"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

merithyn

Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2013, 10:45:25 AM
Each year, nearly 10,000 people die in alcohol-related traffic accidents and 170,000 are injured, according to the NTSB. While that's a big improvement from the 20,000 who died in alcohol-related accidents 30 years ago, it remains a consistent threat to public safety.

How many of those accidents are with people under .08, though? It strikes me that the problem isn't the blood alcohol levels, but idiots driving when they're well-beyond that. I've never seen any proof that lowering the level is going to have an affect on those 10,000 deaths.

Basically, they're looking at the wrong things.
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away...

Valmy

Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2013, 10:58:14 AM
No it wouldn't. It would be a stunningly illogical conclusion, and stupid to boot.

Yes.  That is what I said, it would be stupid, which is why simply listing the number of people who died is not particularly useful in showing the dangers.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Valmy

Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 10:58:42 AM
How many of those accidents are with people under .08, though? It strikes me that the problem isn't the blood alcohol levels, but idiots driving when they're well-beyond that. I've never seen any proof that lowering the level is going to have an affect on those 10,000 deaths.

Basically, they're looking at the wrong things.

Well I think the inference is lowering the BAC level for arrests is what is causing the lower reduction in Drunk Driving fatalities...which again they are not really demonstrating.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

merithyn

Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2013, 11:00:55 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 10:58:42 AM
How many of those accidents are with people under .08, though? It strikes me that the problem isn't the blood alcohol levels, but idiots driving when they're well-beyond that. I've never seen any proof that lowering the level is going to have an affect on those 10,000 deaths.

Basically, they're looking at the wrong things.

Well I think the inference is lowering the BAC level for arrests is what is causing the lower reduction in Drunk Driving fatalities...which again they are not really demonstrating.

I understand that. I'm refuting that it will lower drunk driving fatalities.
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away...

Berkut

Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2013, 10:59:00 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2013, 10:58:14 AM
No it wouldn't. It would be a stunningly illogical conclusion, and stupid to boot.

Yes.  That is what I said, it would be stupid, which is why simply listing the number of people who died is not particularly useful in showing the dangers.

Of course it is useful.

There is an assumption of course, that had those 170,000 injury causing drivers NOT been intoxicated, then some appreciable portion of those accidents would not have happened. But that is a pretty reasonable assumption to make. I suppose they could site the data to prove that (accident rates in sober drivers compared to drunk), but it isn't unreasonable to assume that the reader knows that as a given.

Pointing out that 10,000/year are killed and 170k/year are injured in alcohol related accidents is perfectly useful information. I did not know that, and I did not know that still, even after the massive education and awareness of the dangers of drunk driving, fully a third of existing vehicular fatalities are still the result of drunk driving. That is certainly useful information to me in the context of the article.
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

CountDeMoney


Berkut

Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 10:58:42 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2013, 10:45:25 AM
Each year, nearly 10,000 people die in alcohol-related traffic accidents and 170,000 are injured, according to the NTSB. While that's a big improvement from the 20,000 who died in alcohol-related accidents 30 years ago, it remains a consistent threat to public safety.

How many of those accidents are with people under .08, though? It strikes me that the problem isn't the blood alcohol levels, but idiots driving when they're well-beyond that. I've never seen any proof that lowering the level is going to have an affect on those 10,000 deaths.

Basically, they're looking at the wrong things.

They provided you evidence though.

QuoteThe National Transportation Safety Board is advising states to lower the Blood Alcohol Level that defines drunk driving from .08 to .05, which they say is the level at which many drivers' vision can be affected.

Now, perhaps you aren't convinced by their evidence, which is fine, but they are certainly providing evidence.

Honestly, IMO, I don't care if there is direct evidence that lowering it to .05 will save lives or not - if the medical evidence that people with a BAC of 0.05 are in fact impaired (ie their vision is in fact impaired) then that is plenty of data for me to support lowering the BAC limit to 0.05.

If drinking enough to get your BAC to 0.05 means you don't see very well, then you should not be driving. I don't accept that we have to wait until we show that driving while not being able to see well kills enough people before we decide that isn't ok.
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned