NTSB recommends BAC of .05

[Barrister]

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.

I'd be shocked if the US allowed you to refuse to give a breath sample.  The way it works up here is that yes, you can refuse, but now you're being charged with the separate offence of refusing to provide a sample, which by the way carries the exact same punishment as drunk driving.

The chart is a vast generalization.  The effects of alcohol are going to be seen on any individual vary in intensity, and at level.  Someone might be slurring their words at 40, while someone else might have perfect diction even at 150.

This, by the way, is the reason we have criminalized specific BAC numbers.  It was almost impossible to prove whether someone is "too drunk to drive" based on physical observations, even though we know the science is strong on the correlation between even moderate alcohol consumption and increased auto accidents.

I haven't worked out the numbers specifically.  All I know is that in almost 10 years in criminal justice I have never, ever heard the suggestion that fines were a net money-maker.  Instead we are always seen as a cost on government resources.  There may be some jurisdictions with specific circumstances (small communities alongside major highways who write a lot of speeding tickets), but the cost of arresting and then prosecuting someone for speeding pales is orders of magnitude smaller than charging and prosecuting drunk drivers.

[The Brain]

When Bill Murray drove a golf cart drunk in the Stockholm party district he refused to blow IIRC.

[merithyn]

I'd be shocked if the US allowed you to refuse to give a breath sample.  The way it works up here is that yes, you can refuse, but now you're being charged with the separate offence of refusing to provide a sample, which by the way carries the exact same punishment as drunk driving.

I'm fairly certain that you can refuse a breathalyzer on the side of the road; instead requesting a blood test at the closest ED. Depending on where you are, that request can buy you the necessary time to "sober up" and not hit the .08. (I've known plenty of folks who've done that for that very reason.)

The chart is a vast generalization.  The effects of alcohol are going to be seen on any individual vary in intensity, and at level.  Someone might be slurring their words at 40, while someone else might have perfect diction even at 150.

This, by the way, is the reason we have criminalized specific BAC numbers.  It was almost impossible to prove whether someone is "too drunk to drive" based on physical observations, even though we know the science is strong on the correlation between even moderate alcohol consumption and increased auto accidents.

I haven't worked out the numbers specifically.  All I know is that in almost 10 years in criminal justice I have never, ever heard the suggestion that fines were a net money-maker.  Instead we are always seen as a cost on government resources.  There may be some jurisdictions with specific circumstances (small communities alongside major highways who write a lot of speeding tickets), but the cost of arresting and then prosecuting someone for speeding pales is orders of magnitude smaller than charging and prosecuting drunk drivers.

All of that seems perfectly reasonable. Thanks.

[Barrister]

I'd be shocked if the US allowed you to refuse to give a breath sample.  The way it works up here is that yes, you can refuse, but now you're being charged with the separate offence of refusing to provide a sample, which by the way carries the exact same punishment as drunk driving.

I'm fairly certain that you can refuse a breathalyzer on the side of the road; instead requesting a blood test at the closest ED. Depending on where you are, that request can buy you the necessary time to "sober up" and not hit the .08. (I've known plenty of folks who've done that for that very reason.)

Okay, I can see that.  We don't allow it here in Canada, but it isn't shocking.

(and mind you there are plenty of other ways for people to delay enough to try and sober  up in Canada)

[merithyn]

Okay, I can see that.  We don't allow it here in Canada, but it isn't shocking.

(and mind you there are plenty of other ways for people to delay enough to try and sober  up in Canada)

In my family, I'm pretty sure it's all been done. Drunk driving (and beating the charges) was and is a hobby for most of my cousins. It's one of the many reasons I'm so rabidly against it.

[sbr]

I know in Oregon if you refuse a breathalyzer you get the same drivers license suspension as you would if you failed it.  I don't know about asking for a blood test instead, I don't think that is allowed but I could be wrong.

[merithyn]

I know in Oregon if you refuse a breathalyzer you get the same drivers license suspension as you would if you failed it.  I don't know about asking for a blood test instead, I don't think that is allowed but I could be wrong.

I'm fairly sure that it's allowed across the board. Something about how wildly inaccurate breathalyzers used to be, and it's never been changed.

[11B4V]

I'm fairly certain that you can refuse a breathalyzer on the side of the road; instead requesting a blood test at the closest ED.

Meri I think you are refering to a PBT. Yes you can refuse that. You can also refuse the Breathalyzer barring any extinuating circumstances. I you refuse the Breathalyzer it invokes implied consent. Auto one year suspension.

instead requesting a blood test at the closest ED. Depending on where you are, that request can buy you the necessary time to "sober up" and not hit the .08. (I've known plenty of folks who've done that for that very reason.)

We are getting good at combating this stance.

[Valmy]

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...

Woah.  BB gets paid $1,000.00 a day.

[11B4V]

Where I work, WA State.

Under Washington's Implied Consent Law, you have already consented to the breath test.  Although you have the absolute right to refuse to take the breath test at the police station, the consequences are severe, and you can still be charged with a DUI.

Under the law, there are three consequences:  (1) your driver's license can be suspended for a minimum of 1 year, or substantially longer if you have prior DUI convictions or alcohol-related administrative license suspensions; (2) if you refuse to take the breath test at the police station, your refusal can be introduced into evidence as "consciousness of guilt," and a test refusal will increase the mandatory minimum sentence that the judge must impose if you are found guilty; and (3) if you refuse the breath test at the police station, the Department of Licensing will revoke your driver's license for at least 1 year, and prior DUI's can increase the revocation.  Further, requirements of Ignition Interlock and SR22 high-risk insurance will be enforced.  Even after your driver's license is reinstated, the Department of Licensing requires an Ignition Interlock Breathalyzer (breath-alcohol tester installed in your vehicle for at least a year) and proof of financial responsibility by way of a certificate of high-risk insurance, known as a SR22.

[merithyn]

Where I work, WA State.

Under Washington's Implied Consent Law, you have already consented to the breath test.  Although you have the absolute right to refuse to take the breath test at the police station, the consequences are severe, and you can still be charged with a DUI.

Under the law, there are three consequences:  (1) your driver's license can be suspended for a minimum of 1 year, or substantially longer if you have prior DUI convictions or alcohol-related administrative license suspensions; (2) if you refuse to take the breath test at the police station, your refusal can be introduced into evidence as "consciousness of guilt," and a test refusal will increase the mandatory minimum sentence that the judge must impose if you are found guilty; and (3) if you refuse the breath test at the police station, the Department of Licensing will revoke your driver's license for at least 1 year, and prior DUI's can increase the revocation.  Further, requirements of Ignition Interlock and SR22 high-risk insurance will be enforced.  Even after your driver's license is reinstated, the Department of Licensing requires an Ignition Interlock Breathalyzer (breath-alcohol tester installed in your vehicle for at least a year) and proof of financial responsibility by way of a certificate of high-risk insurance, known as a SR22.

Yeah, that's different from what I remember from the last time I looked into it. Granted, that was probably 10 years ago and in Illinois, but I'm assuming that Washington isn't too far different from anywhere else in the country.

[11B4V]

Mandatory Breath and Blood

Generally, the officer cannot make you take a test if you refuse, but there are some exceptions. You must take a test if you were involved in an accident where someone was seriously injured or killed. Also, if you were killed or become unconscious due to an accident, then the officer does not need to ask you before ordering a test

[sbr]

I know in Oregon if you refuse a breathalyzer you get the same drivers license suspension as you would if you failed it.  I don't know about asking for a blood test instead, I don't think that is allowed but I could be wrong.

I'm fairly sure that it's allowed across the board. Something about how wildly inaccurate breathalyzers used to be, and it's never been changed.

I am pretty certain you can't just say no the the breathalyzer here in Oregon and opt for a blood test.  I am not positive about Oregon and clueless about other states.

I have gotten a DUI here in Oregon though, almost 6 years ago.  The process here is that you blow one time, I believe the reading goes out to the thousandths place and then they round to the hundredths (less than 5 down, 5 or more up).  You then wait 5 minutes and blow again, with the same rounding method.  Your "official" BAC is the lower of the two numbers.

I blew something that rounded up to .09 the first time, 5 minutes later it rounded up to .10 and it was a significant jump not just from .004 to .005.  At that point it had been well over an hour since I had had a beer and at least 40 minutes since I had been stopped.  It doesn't make too many math skills to assume that when I was stopped my BAC was under .08, but the way the laws are written here you just cannot fight them, especially if you have the option of going through a diversion program.

The law is driving under the influence of intoxicants, and you can still be cited and arrested if you blow a 0.00, because you could be under the influence of something else.  At that point the court case comes down to he-said he-said between you and the cop.  Not many people will win that, and the punishment for fighting and losing is much, much harsher than just bending over and taking it from the start.

[DGuller]

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.

Both of you have a point, though Valmy has more of a point.  The way the numbers were presented can indeed be very misleading in a number of ways.  There are many obvious and simple confounding factors that can affect the drop of drunk deaths from 20,000 to 10,000.  On the other hand, knowing the raw numbers puts the importance of the issue in perspective.

[Barrister]

The law is driving under the influence of intoxicants, and you can still be cited and arrested if you blow a 0.00, because you could be under the influence of something else.  At that point the court case comes down to he-said he-said between you and the cop.  Not many people will win that, and the punishment for fighting and losing is much, much harsher than just bending over and taking it from the start.

That must be a difference between the US and Canada then.  Here we have no diversion program, and the penalties after trial are identical to if you entered a guilty plea at first opportunity.