NTSB recommends BAC of .05

[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.

WASHINGTON – 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

[Valmy]

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.

'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.

[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. 

[garbon]

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.

'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".

[Valmy]

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. 

Yeah.  Raw data with no statistical analysis: blah.

[Valmy]

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.

[Berkut]

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.

'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.

[derspiess]

Ugh.  Complete bullshit. 

[merithyn]

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.

[Valmy]

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.

[Valmy]

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.

[merithyn]

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.

[Berkut]

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.

[CountDeMoney]

Ugh.  Complete bullshit.

Freedomism.  Libertyness.

[Berkut]

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.

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.