NTSB recommends BAC of .05

[The Minsky Moment]

Seems to me there ought to be data out there that could help answer the question.
First, figure out what accident rates are among people between .05 and .08
Then compare against accident rates for people at 0.

[The Brain]

I don't think scoring cheap data points solves anything.

[garbon]

Seems to me there ought to be data out there that could help answer the question.
First, figure out what accident rates are among people between .05 and .08
Then compare against accident rates for people at 0.

Here's what NJ says - in a driving manual

http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/Licenses/Driver%20Manual/Chapter_6.pdf

If a motorist has reached a BAC of slightly above .05 percent after drinking, the
risk for causing a motor vehicle accident doubles. The risk is six times as great
when driving with a BAC of .10 percent.

[Berkut]

I think that is setting the bar higher than it needs to be. I think it would be very hard to measure accident rates for people between .5 and .8 - how would you do that?

It is, however, very easy to measure impairment of people at various level of intoxication. If medical study shows that your ability to operate a vehicle is significantly impaired at 0.5, then it is prefectly reasonable, IMO, to define that as the general point of impairment.

Now, as far as the objection that other things you can do also impair you in just as dangerous a manner, I get that...but so what? We don't have a test for how tired you are, or if you are mad at your wife. Those thing shave to fall under the more general guidelines that create liability or even criminal action if you operate a motor vehicle in a dangerous manner.

If the argument that we should not set the level at 0.5 because other activities that are not specifically legislated against can also impair you ability in a similar manner, then why not apply that argument to 0.8? It is just as valid.

Or 0.10. Or even 0.2. Or any number - we all know that no matter how drunk you are, we can imagine some other state of being that would be just as dangerous, so does that mean we should just drop the entire "don't drive while drunk" thing? Of course not.

[The Minsky Moment]

Here's what NJ says - in a driving manual

Hmm
NHTSA says only 38% at .05 but rises to double at .07.
That would suggest a certain logic to a .05 cutoff.
Of course the default risk starts at a very low base in percentage terms.
The other question that has to be considered is whether the population that drives at .05 tends to have other characteristics that make them more accident prone.

[alfred russel]

Seems to me there ought to be data out there that could help answer the question.
First, figure out what accident rates are among people between .05 and .08
Then compare against accident rates for people at 0.

Here's what NJ says - in a driving manual

http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/Licenses/Driver%20Manual/Chapter_6.pdf

If a motorist has reached a BAC of slightly above .05 percent after drinking, the
risk for causing a motor vehicle accident doubles. The risk is six times as great
when driving with a BAC of .10 percent.

Is doubling a reason to give a DUI? I think not, but obviously it is a judgment call. Talking on a cell phone, texting while driving, and speeding all increase the risk too. Some of those are against the law, but very rarely do they have the draconian punishments associated with a DUI.

I'd be fine with fining people (even a lot) for a .05 BAC, but a DUI is too much.

[11B4V]

Is blowing a breathalyzer providing evidence against yourself? I never thought about it before.

Doesnt implied consent fit here? You can always refuse the BAC too.

[alfred russel]

FWIW, people talk about the horrors of prisons in different countries, but if I am going to be arrested (which is unlikely anywhere), I'd much rather it be in say Mexico than the US. Assuming I'm not going to be doing serious hard time, of course. An arrest record in the US could end my career. I have much more fear of that than time in a prison.

A DUI wouldn't do that singlehandedly, but it certainly wouldn't help.

[11B4V]

An arrest record in the US could end my career.

Depending, yes.

DUI shows poor judgement.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I read it. The reason I asked the question is because even if a person is never mirandized nor arrested, they can still get themselves into trouble by saying shit. You can have a chat about the weather and it will be recorded by that cop for possible later use. Is blowing a breathalyzer providing evidence against yourself? I never thought about it before.

I'm not sure if I misspoke somewhere or if you misread me, but I was not saying that taking breath/blood samples were self-incriminating statements. I was saying in the DUI cases, once police have arrested you based on probable cause that you were drunk (failing a PBT, a FST, or based on their "observances") they can ask you questions ("How many drinks did you have tonight?" "When did you have your last drink?" "What were you drinking?") and they can use how you answer against you in a court. This is after that have taken you into custody, so these are custodial questions. In all other forms of custody, they are inadmissible if you haven't first been Mirandized. In DUI arrests, the SCOTUS said, "We do not know when Miranda should apply in a DUI case, we just know it's later than in other cases." So the SCOTUS has staked out, literally, a DUI exception to the 5th Amendment in that custodial interrogations can be conducted in DUI cases without Mirandizing the suspect and the results of that interrogation are admissible in court.

This isn't the same as blood/breath draws, which are evidence collections (and should require a search warrant IMO.)

[The Minsky Moment]

Is doubling a reason to give a DUI? I think not, but obviously it is a judgment call. Talking on a cell phone, texting while driving, and speeding all increase the risk too. Some of those are against the law, but very rarely do they have the draconian punishments associated with a DUI.

That's a good point.
"Moderate secondary tasks" also double accident risk according to the NHTSA.
That would include things like eating, inserting/removing a CD, combing hair, dialing a handheld, or "looking at an external object" (sorry Caliga).  It also would presumably include actively using a GPS to navigate although the NHTSA study didn't break that out specifically.
None of those activities are necessary but yet most of them would not be considered serious candidates for regulation.

[OttoVonBismarck]

There are actually very few career paths where DUI is an immediate bar to employment, or even a significant negative. Federally it doesn't get in the way of secret clearances (I know this from my time as a civilian DoD employee, we had several people get clearance w/DUIs) or etc. If you want to be a LEO, DUI usually is a practical block to any chance of that happening. Many departments expressly prohibit anyone with a DUI from being a LEO and those that don't, it's unlikely you'd get through the hiring process, oral boards etc with a DUI on your record. But, why would you want to be a LEO? That's one of the worst jobs in America. [This is different from people who are already LEOs, they can usually get away with a DUI or three.]

Even many companies that employ truckers hauling hazardous materials, that are significantly regulated by DoT can and do hire guys with DUI on their record as long as it has been more than 12 months in the past and they have certification they've completed alcohol education courses. No State bar will reject a law school graduated with only a DUI on their record, etc etc. Basically as someone who has been involved in hiring decisions for over 15 years I can say categorically most jobs a single DUI on your record is not going to cost you the job. In fact, many employers only ask for felony convictions to be specified and if they do a background check it won't even find the DUI. (Tip to anyone with an embarrassing municipal/county arrest long in their past, many of those records are never digitized and sent in to the State police and thus most background check firms that corporations hire will never find them. At the Federal government level it's different and they will find them, but many corporations do not because the firms they hire do not physically travel to the court house at every place you've lied and looked through the files--which in many cases is the only way they'd find your conviction.)

[Barrister]

Seems to me there ought to be data out there that could help answer the question.
First, figure out what accident rates are among people between .05 and .08
Then compare against accident rates for people at 0.

Here's what NJ says - in a driving manual

http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/Licenses/Driver%20Manual/Chapter_6.pdf

If a motorist has reached a BAC of slightly above .05 percent after drinking, the
risk for causing a motor vehicle accident doubles. The risk is six times as great
when driving with a BAC of .10 percent.

Is doubling a reason to give a DUI? I think not, but obviously it is a judgment call. Talking on a cell phone, texting while driving, and speeding all increase the risk too. Some of those are against the law, but very rarely do they have the draconian punishments associated with a DUI.

I'd be fine with fining people (even a lot) for a .05 BAC, but a DUI is too much.

It's about shaping the culture.

We actually have come a long way.  30 years ago people routinely drove home while blitzed.  Now people are very conscious of drinking and driving - yet the problem still persists.

The thinking used to be "it's okay to drink and drive".  Now it's "you can't drink too much and drive".  The problem is people are pretty poor estimators of what "too much" is.  I've seen a lot of files where to be sure the driver is the most sober one in the vehicle, but they're still nicely over the legal limit.

We need to change the thinking to "you can not drink any alcohol and drive".  And lowering the limit to 50 is a big part of that.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Even airline pilots get hired with DUIs on their record by the way. [Now, like with HAZMAT truckers, I'm talking people with "civilian" DUIs driving a personal vehicle, truckers driving HAZMAT with over the 0.04 threshold or pilots piloting a plane are not only never going to work again in most cases they actually face vastly elevated charges for their crime versus "ordinary" DUI in a personal vehicle.]

[Barrister]

This isn't the same as blood/breath draws, which are evidence collections (and should require a search warrant IMO.)

Terrible idea.  Blood / breath demands are very time sensitive.  Alcohol is being eliminated by the accused every minute that goes by.  Obtaining a warrant takes time.  Much better to take the sample and let a judge rule after the fact whether the taking was warranted.