NTSB recommends BAC of .05

[frunk]

The drop from 20,000 to 10,000 is probably a significantly bigger improvement than it sounds like.  Each of us are driving many more miles each year than we were 30 years ago, and we have a bigger population as well.  On a drunk driver fatalities per mile driven it's probably dropped by a factor of 10 or 20.

[11B4V]

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.

I don't think it will either. Most accidents where one driver is legally drunk, they have a significantly higher BAC than .08. Will lowering to .05 help, prob not. Lowering to .05 will allow the state, counties, and cities to net more fines and fees though.

   

[Berkut]

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 don't think they are infering anything of the kind.

I think they are simply saying that new medical evidence says that a BAC of 0.05 will result in am impaired driver, hence that should be the legal definition of when someone is impaired.

[derspiess]

Ugh.  Complete bullshit.

Freedomism.  Libertyness.

What are they thinking?  We're not all Asian, FFS.

[merithyn]

I understand that. I'm refuting that it will lower drunk driving fatalities.

I don't think it will either. Most accidents where one driver is legally drunk, they have a significantly higher BAC than .08. Will lowering to .05 help, prob not. Lowering to .05 will allow the state, counties, and cities to net more fines and fees though.

That's my take on it, too.

[merithyn]

They provided you evidence though.

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.

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.

My point is that if they really want to lower drunk driving fatalities, their money and energy are better spent elsewhere.

[Valmy]

I don't think they are infering anything of the kind.

I think they are simply saying that new medical evidence says that a BAC of 0.05 will result in am impaired driver, hence that should be the legal definition of when someone is impaired.

I am addressing the stats presented at the bottom of the article, I think they should have picked more useful ones that help inform people on the topic at hand.  That really has nothing to do with whether or not the BAC should be lowered.

[Valmy]

They provided you evidence though.

That is not statistical evidence.  I was only talking about the stats they chose to use Berk.

[11B4V]

If drinking enough to get your BAC to 0.05 means you don't see very well, then you should not be driving.

This IMO this is sound, if they have the Medical data to back it. Just off that alone they should lower it.

[Barrister]

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.

I don't think it will either. Most accidents where one driver is legally drunk, they have a significantly higher BAC than .08. Will lowering to .05 help, prob not. Lowering to .05 will allow the state, counties, and cities to net more fines and fees though.

Okay, last week I had an impaired driving matter set for every single day of the week.  They are the majority of my caseload.  So this is something I know a little bit about.

A limit of 80 (or .08 if you prefer), is surprisingly high.  First of all because you want to give every possible doubt to the accused, and there is a variance of +/- 10%, in order to actually charge someone they need to blow a 90 or 100 (different jurisdictions have different thresholds).  For myself, 5'8" 160lb, in order to get to 100 I'd need to drink at least 4 beer 30 minutes before hitting the road.

So we have this culture, and law, that states it's okay to drive if you've had 'just a few' drinks.  Unfortunately once you have a couple, your judgment is impaired, which leads you to drinking even more, and now you're well over.

A push to 50 is meant to combat that culture.  It is to change the mindset to 'you can not drink and drive at all'.

Now there has to be some cut off though.  I'm pretty sure everyone has a minute, but scientifically measurable amount of alcohol in them at all times.  As well many products do contain alcohol.

50 seems to be a decent spot.  The science is good that most people's ability to drive if affected as low as 50.  Some people are affected at even lower amounts, and absolutely everyone is affected at 100, but 50 captures most people.  It does save people who have only had one drink from being over.

As for collecting more fees?  I can spend 1, or even more, days combating a drunk driving charge, only for the accused to receive a $1200 fine.  That fine doesn't even cover my salary for the time I spent on it, never mind my support staff, the police time, the court staff, the courthouse, the judge...

[merithyn]

If drinking enough to get your BAC to 0.05 means you don't see very well, then you should not be driving.

This IMO this is sound, if they have the Medical data to back it. Just off that alone they should lower it.

Based on this chart, pretty much any alcohol in the system will affect your ability to drive, something that I think everyone is aware of. The question is how much?

http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/pdf/BAC-a.pdf

[merithyn]

Okay, last week I had an impaired driving matter set for every single day of the week.  They are the majority of my caseload.  So this is something I know a little bit about.

A limit of 80 (or .08 if you prefer), is surprisingly high.  First of all because you want to give every possible doubt to the accused, and there is a variance of +/- 10%, in order to actually charge someone they need to blow a 90 or 100 (different jurisdictions have different thresholds).  For myself, 5'8" 160lb, in order to get to 100 I'd need to drink at least 4 beer 30 minutes before hitting the road.

So we have this culture, and law, that states it's okay to drive if you've had 'just a few' drinks.  Unfortunately once you have a couple, your judgment is impaired, which leads you to drinking even more, and now you're well over.

A push to 50 is meant to combat that culture.  It is to change the mindset to 'you can not drink and drive at all'.

Now there has to be some cut off though.  I'm pretty sure everyone has a minute, but scientifically measurable amount of alcohol in them at all times.  As well many products do contain alcohol.

50 seems to be a decent spot.  The science is good that most people's ability to drive if affected as low as 50.  Some people are affected at even lower amounts, and absolutely everyone is affected at 100, but 50 captures most people.  It does save people who have only had one drink from being over.

This seems fair. My only question is that according to the CDC, motor responses aren't affected until closer to .08. How will police determine how drunk a person is at that level? Won't it now require that every police car have a breathalyzer? And I thought that an individual can refuse to use one based on the 5th amendment in the US. (Or something like that. I don't remember the specifics, only that a person can refuse it.) So, how would it be enforced?

As for collecting more fees?  I can spend 1, or even more, days combating a drunk driving charge, only for the accused to receive a $1200 fine.  That fine doesn't even cover my salary for the time I spent on it, never mind my support staff, the police time, the court staff, the courthouse, the judge...

That's fair for those who fight the charge, but most don't around here unless they fear losing their license permanently.

[11B4V]

If drinking enough to get your BAC to 0.05 means you don't see very well, then you should not be driving.

This IMO this is sound, if they have the Medical data to back it. Just off that alone they should lower it.

Based on this chart, pretty much any alcohol in the system will affect your ability to drive, something that I think everyone is aware of. The question is how much?

http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/pdf/BAC-a.pdf

Then no reason not to lower it IMO. Right now WA state has a .08 and .04 for CDL drivers.

[merithyn]

Then no reason not to lower it IMO. Right now WA state has a .08 and .04 for CDL drivers.

My only question is how to enforce it.

By the way, it may seem that I'm arguing against lowering the rate. The problem is that I'm about as fascist as it comes to drunk driving, and would just as soon require every single person driving that gets into an accident be required to have a breathalyzer. If it registers above 0.02, then they get thrown in jail. I'm making a conscious effort to be reasonable about any changes to the laws as they now stand.

[The Brain]

I'm an excellent drinker.