NTSB recommends BAC of .05

[Barrister]

I'm curious: many Indian working the oil patch?

Not as many as there should be, but some.

[alfred russel]

I held off posting because it seems I'd be rowing against the tide, but at a 0.05 threshold one drink will be enough to put people over the limit.

http://www.moderation.org/bac/bac-men.shtml

To expose people to the possibility of a DUI after one drink, and effectively make them some of them nearly unemployable in this job market, is really extreme. I would be interested to see a statistics showing that our typical middle aged driver is more of a risk driving after one drink than a teenage driver or an elderly person.

A long time ago, in a different era, the fine was like $50 drinking while driving. I would pick up a beer before my commute home and drink it while driving. You know what? That hurt no one, and endangered no one. Now I understand it would be treated as a serious crime. I just don't get it.

[garbon]

I held off posting because it seems I'd be rowing against the tide, but at a 0.05 threshold one drink will be enough to put people over the limit.

http://www.moderation.org/bac/bac-men.shtml

To expose people to the possibility of a DUI after one drink, and effectively make them some of them nearly unemployable in this job market, is really extreme. I would be interested to see a statistics showing that our typical middle aged driver is more of a risk driving after one drink than a teenage driver or an elderly person.

A long time ago, in a different era, the fine was like $50 drinking while driving. I would pick up a beer before my commute home and drink it while driving. You know what? That hurt no one, and endangered no one. Now I understand it would be treated as a serious crime. I just don't get it.

Odd because Business Insider shows most normal people would need 2.

http://www.businessinsider.com/drinks-before-driving-if-bac-is-05-2013-5

[alfred russel]

I held off posting because it seems I'd be rowing against the tide, but at a 0.05 threshold one drink will be enough to put people over the limit.

http://www.moderation.org/bac/bac-men.shtml

To expose people to the possibility of a DUI after one drink, and effectively make them some of them nearly unemployable in this job market, is really extreme. I would be interested to see a statistics showing that our typical middle aged driver is more of a risk driving after one drink than a teenage driver or an elderly person.

A long time ago, in a different era, the fine was like $50 drinking while driving. I would pick up a beer before my commute home and drink it while driving. You know what? That hurt no one, and endangered no one. Now I understand it would be treated as a serious crime. I just don't get it.

Odd because Business Insider shows most normal people would need 2.

http://www.businessinsider.com/drinks-before-driving-if-bac-is-05-2013-5

Fuck, my chart shows the same thing and I just assumed the decimal place was somewhere else. 

I'd blame that mistake on a glass of wine, but then that would kind of go against my rant.

[PDH]

Fuck, my chart shows the same thing and I just assumed the decimal place was somewhere else. 

I'd blame that mistake on a glass of wine, but then that would kind of go against my rant.

You shouldn't drink and drive and post.

[jimmy olsen]

I held off posting because it seems I'd be rowing against the tide, but at a 0.05 threshold one drink will be enough to put people over the limit.

http://www.moderation.org/bac/bac-men.shtml

To expose people to the possibility of a DUI after one drink, and effectively make them some of them nearly unemployable in this job market, is really extreme. I would be interested to see a statistics showing that our typical middle aged driver is more of a risk driving after one drink than a teenage driver or an elderly person.

A long time ago, in a different era, the fine was like $50 drinking while driving. I would pick up a beer before my commute home and drink it while driving. You know what? That hurt no one, and endangered no one. Now I understand it would be treated as a serious crime. I just don't get it.

Odd because Business Insider shows most normal people would need 2.

http://www.businessinsider.com/drinks-before-driving-if-bac-is-05-2013-5

But not all

a 100-pound woman could not have even one drink in an hour without being legally intoxicated.

[garbon]

Thanks, Tim, for clearing that up.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Fuck that, so you're saying if there is "any impairment" you shouldn't drive? I think that's a bullshit standard and is basically saying, "if you enjoy a glass of wine or a beer with dinner at a restaurant, feel free to not drive home." That's stupid, and basically a weird obsession with the concept of being "perfectly unimpaired." Just about every study ever shows that 24 hours of no sleep means you are as impaired as someone with a .15 BAC--far over the legal limit in the United States. It would stand to reason there is "some impairment" if you've been without sleep for say, 20 hours or 19 hours. Also, some impairment if you normally get up at 6 AM but had to get up at 4:30 AM this morning (and went to bed at the same time.) There's some impairment from prescription medications (and people can routinely get driving under the influence charges dismissed if they have a prescription for the drug that makes them impaired--a concept mind boggling to me.) So sorry, but no. Unless you really think people should not drive under any impairment I see no compelling reason to take what is already a reasonable limit and make it lower.

Also, without getting into a whole thing with you nanny-state types, alcohol and traffic fatality statistics in the United States are poorly done. NHTSA reports anything as "alcohol involved" if either driver of either vehicle had any alcohol in their system--regardless of whether they were legally impaired or not. So if I'm parked on the street at .02 BAC in a street parking area and a dump truck runs over me like Big Foot and crushes me to death, and the dump truck driver is 100% stone cold sober, NHTSA counts that as an "alcohol related fatality."

In 1999, the GAO reviewed many of the alcohol crash figures from the NHTSA and found that there were severe methodological problems with how they were reporting and collecting data. The GAO itself said their statistics fall short of providing conclusive evidence that .08% BAC laws were responsible for reductions in alcohol related fatalities. As recently as 2002 the Los Angeles Times dug into some of the statistics and found that less than 5,000 accidents involved a drunk driver killing a sober driver, and some reviews of the same data suggest it could be under 3,000.

I don't like drunk drivers that kill people or people that drive when they clearly shouldn't. But unlike people in the BB vein who simply are anathema to all civil liberties, I think principles against self-incrimination and "loop holes" to get around the fourth amendment are unconscionable. We have a Fourth Amendment right that prohibits the State from performing suspicionless stops on us, it's as clear as night and day. In Michigan v. Sitz the brain dead fucktards on the SCOTUS said that, "it would appear DUI checkpoints clearly violate the Fourth Amendment, but we think it's really good public policy so we're cool with it." The court that is literally charged with enforcing the constitutional rules, openly admits something violates them, and then says, "so?"

Same thing with implied consent and other laws, it's a loop hole to get around the self-incrimination laws. I'm fine with the administrative DMV laws, and implied consent meaning that you can lose your driver's license if you break those administrative laws. But many implied consent states no longer have the civil driver's license penalty as the consequence for violating implied consent, many have now actually criminalized refusing to provide evidence against yourself. This means in addition to the administrative civil law revoking your license (something I'm fine with, the license is not a constitutional right and State's have a right to regulate the rules for keeping one), you can be sent to prison for terms of 6-12 months for violating a first offense implied consent law. So basically telling a police officer you do not consent to a search = misdemeanor punishable by a maximum term in jail of 6-12 months in many states. Now, practically speaking it usually ends up being 24-48 hours or community service.

[sbr]

 

[MadImmortalMan]

Same thing with implied consent and other laws, it's a loop hole to get around the self-incrimination laws. I'm fine with the administrative DMV laws, and implied consent meaning that you can lose your driver's license if you break those administrative laws. But many implied consent states no longer have the civil driver's license penalty as the consequence for violating implied consent, many have now actually criminalized refusing to provide evidence against yourself. This means in addition to the administrative civil law revoking your license (something I'm fine with, the license is not a constitutional right and State's have a right to regulate the rules for keeping one), you can be sent to prison for terms of 6-12 months for violating a first offense implied consent law. So basically telling a police officer you do not consent to a search = misdemeanor punishable by a maximum term in jail of 6-12 months in many states. Now, practically speaking it usually ends up being 24-48 hours or community service.

Setting aside the 4th for a minute, what about the 5th?

[fhdz]

Personally, I recommend a BAC of 5.0.

[CountDeMoney]

Personally, I recommend a BAC of 5.0.

I prefer .005, myself.  All fucking drinkers must fucking hang.

[fhdz]

Personally, I recommend a BAC of 5.0.

I prefer .005, myself.  All fucking drinkers must fucking hang.

Meh, I don't drink very much these days so when I do I like to really get 'er goin'. I don't drive drunk, though.

[MadImmortalMan]

I approaching .02 right now. I'll be within NTSB guidelines in maybe a couple hours.

[fhdz]

I approaching .02 right now. I'll be within NTSB guidelines in maybe a couple hours.

Do you have your own breathalyzer?