Absolutely against. They give out the Darwin awards for a reason, and alcohol helps weed out those who need to be removed from the gene pool.

Seriously, this is the government trying, yet again, to legislate morality. Can't be done. People are gonna do what they're gonna do. Can't be helped, it's called "being human". Those who think they're better than that want the rest of us to think they are, too, and I'm not buying.

You can't MAKE people be personally responsible. It's most helpful if they are, and a lot of people are, but the ones that aren't? Can't make 'em be. Can't beat it into their heads, not even through the seat of their pants, no how. More laws ain't the answer.

Even MADD is against this

The nannies hate science.

My question is how many accidents, let alone deaths, have occurred with a BAC between .050 and .079? I'll bet the number is near zero. That means this purely a money hunt not a valid safety change.

I really object to it.

This is about money and control, not about safety. When even MADD, the ultimate nanny lobby group, opposes something, you know it's wallet-based, not fact-based.

Ultimately, it's another charge that can be hung on someone if they've been stopped for something else, which allows a speeding fine to become speeding plus DUI and possibly a vehicle confiscation, once that question - "Have you had anything to drink tonight?" - is asked.

Okay, a person with BAQ of 0.05 has some level of impairment, but how does that impairment compare to things like
- "I have a cold, my head feels like it's stuffed with cotton, and I have to keep grabbing for kleenex."
- "I didn't sleep well last night so I'm still sleepy but I've got to get to work or I won't be able to pay my rent."
- "My wife and I had a fight and I'm wondering how to make it right so we can 'fix it' and keep our marriage together."
- "I shouldn't have eaten that extra pancake. Please tell me I can find a restroom at that restaurant up ahead."
- (Version 2.0) "What was in those burritos? If I don't find a restroom _now_, this upholstery is going to be ruined."

Going to make driving under all those circumstances illegal too?

When Indiana lowered the legal limit from .1 to .08 the "metric" they used to show "success" was "number of arrests made" not "reduction in accidents." That is a bad metric but, I suspect, the only metric by which the change was a "success."

And just to be clear, I don't drink (maybe a "toast" once or twice a year)so have no "conflict of interest" on the issue.

"Even MADD is against this"

This surprises me, actually. MADD long ago crossed over the line from an anti-drunk-driving organization to being a temperance movement. I wonder if opposing this latest thing is something that they are doing to try to get back a measure of credibility.

And yeah, this isn't really about saving lives so much as it is about power and revenue. Hopefully, there will be a mass rejection of it by the states (as eventually happened with the 55 MPH speed limit) so the federal government will have to ask for a mulligan.

And to get on my permanant rant about this topic: Driver training in the United States is abysmal. I'm not saying we should have heavily regulated training like some European countries do, but people who drive, or who teach their kids to drive, need to take some responsbility for learning how to actually handle their vehicles. Unfortunately, we seem to be going in the other direction -- I've seen a lot of people express the atttitude that, with the advent of big heavy SUVs, drivers don't have to worry about actually driving since the vehicle will protect them in any kind of accident.

MADD long ago crossed over the line from an anti-drunk-driving organization to being a temperance movement.

Right? I dunno, though, being a member of DAMM (Drunks Against Mad Mothers) and all. I'd like to think that some of their members still remember what it's like to have dinner and drinks and go out dancing...

Oh and Cousin Dave? Seems like the state of CT, at least, is taking driver training seriously. The state legislature recently passed a law that you MUST have a learner's permit if you're learning to drive, NO MATTER YOUR AGE, and you MUST attend a formal driving school (cost: $400) in addition to logging 40 hours of driving with someone who's had their license for at LEAST 4 years themselves before you can qualify to take the test and get your license.

The days of driving with dad and then taking the test are OVER, in CT at least. Sucks for me, because #2 has been bugging me to let her get her license, and right now, I don't even have the $40 to get her permit.

I desperately need to win the Powerball this weekend!

David L. Burkhead if you are curious Mythbusters did episodes on several of those questions.
But that was using .08 as drunk.

Personally, .05 is a point where I couldn't tell if someone had been drinking. Let alone while driving. So the only way to tell would be breathalizers.

Say, why not cut drinking off entirely? We could call it "prohibition" or maybe "stupidity."

Forty years ago, I noted that bars were allowed to be open to 2AM - but public transport shut down at midnight.

but people who drive, or who teach their kids to drive, need to take some responsibility for learning how to actually handle their vehicles.

Much like with gun ownership, many people want the perks without owning the responsibility.

I just learned how to drive late last year. I'm not a great driver yet, so I minimize distractions. I don't drive tired; I don't drink and drive; I don't listen to music or audiobooks; and I don't text or talk on the phone.

I've seen a lot of people express the attitude that, with the advent of big heavy SUVs, drivers don't have to worry about actually driving since the vehicle will protect them in any kind of accident.

Those people are selfish morons. Even if it were true that an SUV could protect them from all damage, the other drivers and pedestrians they hit might not be so lucky.

MonicaP, talk about distractions!

What is striking is the statement of NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman, who explained that "Our goal is to get to zero deaths because each alcohol-impaired death is preventable."

The only way to do that is through total state control.

Beware of government bureaucrats on a crusade.

What a superb opportunity to compare this with the actions resulting from "legalizing" other drugs!

So: what's the legal limit for driving under the influence of your favorite drug?

While you consider this, keep in mind that intoxication is a choice, unlike most of the other scenarios offered here as examples of impairment.

"Our goal is to get to zero deaths because each DRIVING death is preventable."

Therefore, we will be removing your ability to own or operate individual vehicles... after all autonomous cars and public transport are good enough for any rational human being...

logic is SUCH an interesting thing.

"Driving is a sport, learn how to play." Don't have any bumper stickers on my vehicle, but wouldn't mind this one.

Against. One could also strive to reduce preventible deaths to zero by, say, putting a soundproof partition between driver and passengers and thereby prohibiting distracting conversations.

I thought Debbie Hersman had better sense.

Arizona and some other states DO HAVE 0.00 BAC.

"
§ 28-1381A1

You are being accused of:

Driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle While your ability to drive is impaired to the slightest degree By alcohol, intoxicating vapors or drugs (including prescription drugs) DUI Impaired to the Slightest Degree is a class 1 misdemeanor
"

So you can be found guilty of this AND get a 6 month jail sentence for taking a cold med and then driving to work. (And lose your license for 90 days and lots of other nasty consequences) and that's for a FIRST TIME offense.

If we really wanted to make the roads safer, we could abolish all intoxication and distraction laws, strip the driver of all seat belts and airbags (let passengers keep theirs), and then put a spike on the steering wheel aimed at the.drivers chest. We'd have the safest roads in the world.

"If MADD is against this, is it because they want the legal limit to be zero?"

I found an article about that... as near as I can tell (the article was a bit confusing), what MADD now wants is for all vehicles to be equipped with devices that will prevent the vehicle from being operated if the person sitting in the driver's seat is intoxicated. I can see this working out about as well as the mid-1970s seatbelt systems that were supposed to prevent the engine from being started if the seat belts weren't fastened.

Oh, and Flynne: I do try to avoid leaving out petards by which I might be hoisted later, but in this case I didn't succeed. I don't favor government-mandated training per se, because that's just asking for graft and corruption to occur -- the next thing you know, you're paying $400 to some state-contracted school that isn't going to teach you anything you didn't learn by reading the state's traffic-law manual. However, I do think that before a person is licensed to drive, they should have to demonstrate that they are reasonably capable. Not that everyone has to be A.J. Foyt, but a driver should be able to show that they are capable of things like holding a lane at highway speeds, and properly judging stopping distances.

(In my fantasy world, everyone would take a few hours of racing school, so they can experience what understeer and oversteer really feel like. But I know good and darn well it would be too expensive for a lot of people. Still, if you're serious about being a better driver, and you can dig up the $$$, you should do a half-day school sometime.)

I also think that instead of learner's permits, new drivers should be issued a "town license" that only authorizes them to drive on roads with a speed limit of, say, 50 MPH or less. In order to get an unrestricted license, the driver should have to pass a test conducted at interstate highway speeds and traffic. The town license would be enough for new drivers to be able to get around, in most parts of the U.S. (it won't work in some areas of the West), and some drivers in urban areas might not ever bother with getting an unstricted license because they won't need it.

Cousin,

Just how would this get by the people who vote?

I'm not sure how I feel about this. One one hand, if, as Turley says, an average woman will cross the threshold with only a single drink, it seems too strict. On the other hand, I find it interesting that, according to Hersman's piece in the NY Times, "Twenty-five of the 27 European Union countries have a blood limit of 0.05 or lower." and "Worldwide, more than 100 countries on six continents have a blood alcohol limit of 0.05 or lower" but, then again, we know that those damn European countries are all about money and control with their laws and regulations, not safety.

So libertarians, what should the blood alcohol limit be? 0.08 percent? 0.10 percent, as it was before? Higher than 0.10 percent. Should there be no BAC? Is any BAC just a nanny-state infringement on the rights of freedom-lovin' Americans?

Another interesting bit in another NY Times piece, this one by Dr. Barron Lerner. If it took Dr. Lerner, an average-sized man, three shots of liquor in one hour to reach 0.05 percent, then 0.05 percent doesn't seem that unreasonable, and would perhaps explain why so many European countries have that as their standard.

Some people may need fewer drinks to get to 0.05 than others, but that's still a level at which behavior is impaired.

Here is an example. When writing “One for the Road,” my history of drunken driving, I did an experiment in which I drank alcohol within an allotted amount of time on an empty stomach, monitored my blood alcohol level with a home Breathalyzer and asked my wife to observe my conduct. I’m an average-sized man.

In my case, it took three shots of liquor (equal to three glasses of wine or three beers) in one hour to reach 0.05 percent. I felt giddy and mildly buzzed. My wife corroborated this, calling me “even more annoying than usual.” Studies for decades have shown that drivers with blood alcohol levels of 0.05 percent have slower reflexes and poor concentration.

The point is that I had to work hard just to get to 0.05 percent, which is legal. I was not “socially drinking,” which usually means having a couple of glasses of alcohol during a several-hour meal. What I was doing was closer to binge drinking.

This is where the critics will jump in, saying I am not representative and that a tiny woman who metabolizes alcohol slowly might get to 0.05 percent by having two drinks during a long meal. Thus, a 0.05 percent law would deprive her of her right to have an evening of social drinking.

To that, I say “tough luck.” Have one fewer drink, rest for an hour or call a cab. The right we should be preserving is to be able to drive without having buzzed drivers running a red light and crashing into us, even if most of them will not do so. The right to socially drink and then drive is much less compelling.

I'm fairly indifferent to this, leaning towards opposition. I would be fully against it if it applied to asinine charges like public intoxication, but since it applies to the circumstance of operating potentially deadly machinery (deadly to others, not necessarily just to the operant), I'm not significantly opposed to it.

To my anecdotal knowledge, most officers already make an arrest simply based on the presence of any BAC, regardless of proximity to the legal limit. I'm not sure how prevalent this approach is, but I disagree with it even though it is a marginal deterrent. Many responsible drivers are capable of having one drink and waiting a while before driving, but because of the all-or-nothing approach, they're already unfairly at more or less equal risk of prosecution as the "fuck it, I'm fine to drive, gimme another one for the road" folks.

I think it would be more productive to enact a zero-tolerance DWI policy, such as 1st offense as automatic license revocation for life. True, it wouldn't deter career alcoholic drivers a bit, but it would cut back on all but the truly committed sloshes. As usual, it appears more desirable to legislators to take the more profitable approach of palavering over the inconsequential.

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Arizona and some other states DO HAVE 0.00 BAC.

"§ 28-1381A1

You are being accused of:

Driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle While your ability to drive is impaired to the slightest degree By alcohol, intoxicating vapors or drugs (including prescription drugs) DUI Impaired to the Slightest Degree is a class 1 misdemeanor"

So you can be found guilty of this AND get a 6 month jail sentence for taking a cold med and then driving to work. (And lose your license for 90 days and lots of other nasty consequences) and that's for a FIRST TIME offense."

Jerry, I agree that policies like these are insanity.

I am neutral here. I don't agree with Flynne that DUI gets rid of stupid people-the drunk generally survives while the innocent that got hit dies, often kids. Since it does affect others, it's harder for me to go libertarian on this topic. The problem with expecting adults to decide for themselves is we're expecting them to do so while mentally impaired, where the stakes are someone else's life. It's a tough situation all around.

I also never drive after more than 1 drink, and never drive my kids after any drink at all. So this wouldn't affect me. So it's hard for me to care a whole lot about it.

I would pay a LOT for a soundproof partition between me and the passengers in MY van! I don't understand why some minivan maker hasn't come up with this yet. Entrepreneurs-there's money to be made here off the soccer mom set!

I also think that instead of learner's permits, new drivers should be issued a "town license" that only authorizes them to drive on roads with a speed limit of, say, 50 MPH or less. … -- Cousin Dave at May 16, 2013 12:17 PM

CD,

This doesn't really make any sense. How would the police know who has which license until they pulled them over, or ran every plate, and looked to the owner who may not be the driver.

Being able to do the something is not the same as legally allowed to do it (look at the drug laws for an example).

I've known several people who have driven for several years with suspended licenses because they were behind on child support.

The solution is almost here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgQpa1pUUE

Another interesting bit in another NY Times piece, this one by Dr. Barron Lerner. If it took Dr. Lerner, an average-sized man, three shots of liquor in one hour to reach 0.05 percent, then 0.05 percent doesn't seem that unreasonable, and would perhaps explain why so many European countries have that as their standard. -- JD at May 16, 2013 5:42 PM

That still doesn't answer the question: how many accidents, let alone deaths, have occurred with a BAC between .050 and .079?

I'll modify the question so that it is a little more specific but more open.

How many accidents, let alone deaths, have been primarily attributed to someone with a BAC between .050 and .079 since they have begun testing for it?

This is not a safety issue, it is a money issue.

Gonna have to echo Jim P's point here.

Is there *any* actual evidence to claim that .08 is actually more dangerous (in terms of actual incidents) than is .05?

While it's somewhat anecdotal (based upon what I read in the news), the *vast* majority of accidents and fatalities that can be pinned upon drunk drivers occur at BAC values *far* above .08.

While I may post comments drunk, I don't drive drunk (even after a single drink). But ...

I think it's entirely safe to say that someone who has had one (or maybe two) normal drinks, and who is actually giving their attention to driving is still an order of magnitude safer than some clue free idiot texting, or eating, or putting on make up while driving.

It's entirely possible that I can operate a motor vehicle with adequate safety after having a drink or two. The reason I don't do so has to do with attention and control.

When I'm driving (and I drive a lot), I *do not* drink, answer the phone, eat, fiddle around with the radio, masturbate, or do anything that interferes with my paying attention to driving and the traffic around me.

If you're not applying at least 90% of your attention and awareness to driving, and paying full attention to your surroundings, you should not be driving at all. Period, end of story.

For all of the talk of 'saving lives,' do you really think that the family of someone killed in an automobile incident cares if the driver was drunk, or texting, or eating a hamburger?

Regardless of some opinions to the contrary, it *should* be difficult and expensive to be permitted to drive. And failing to pay attention (for any reason whatsoever) should result in that person being prohibited from driving (whether it results in an accident or in injury or death or not).

Yes, you have a right to be able to get from point 'A' to point 'B.'

You *do not* get to abrogate the responsibility for that right by refusing to apply due diligence when exercising that right.

[Jim P:] My question is how many accidents, let alone deaths, have occurred with a BAC between .050 and .079? I'll bet the number is near zero. That means this purely a money hunt not a valid safety change.

+10

To rephrase your point slightly, I'll bet the differential likelihood drivers of drivers with a BAC => .05 and

I read somewhere (perhaps Slate, but I'm too lazy to look), that even the NTSB admits this, but justifies the reduction as "messaging".

There is an even more important problem here, though. With BACs > .08, people are aware they are not quite completely compos mentis. Below .05, people could be found guilty of a crime they had no intention, or awareness, of committing.

This is a debate about legal limits, not specifically that of alcohol.
So, again: what should the legal limit be for driving under the influence of marijuana?

Experienced highway patrol say that it's difficult to know if somebody is impaired at .08 BAC. Usually, around .10 BAC is where impairment is notable.

I can see where .05 could be a money grab -- but how much more revenue has been generated for the gov't when they lowered the level from .10 to .08?

The legal BAC for commercial truck drivers is .04. How do they come up with that number, I wonder?

"Just how would this get by the people who vote?"

It wouldn't. That's why it's a fantasy.

"This doesn't really make any sense. How would the police know who has which license until they pulled them over, or ran every plate, and looked to the owner who may not be the driver."

Yes, that's one of the problems with it. Car and Driver magazine was floating a proposal, back in the early '70s, for something called the "master driver's license" that would allow drivers who could demonstrate competence at high-speed driving to have higher speed limits on interstate highways. (For the record, I think that was a bad idea -- having a mix of fast and slow vehicles on a roadway is more hazardous than having all of the traffic moving at about the same speed.) Anyway, their proposed solution to the driver identification problem was that everyone who had such a license would have a removable sticker that they would carry, which they would place on the license plate of any vehicle that they drove. If they changed vehicles, they'd take the sticker and move it. Obvously there were going to be problems with this, but it was an interesting idea.

"That still doesn't answer the question: how many accidents, let alone deaths, have occurred with a BAC between .050 and .079? "

Saw an article yesterday that said it's about 1000 fatalities a year. A quick look at some Census Bureau data shows 33,800 motor vehicle fatalities in 2009 (the most recent year for which this particular Web page had data). So that's 3% of all fatalities. Not trivial, but if the goal is to most effectively reduce motor vehicle fatalities, it appears that there are much bigger gains to be made elsewhere.

Comparing laws doesnt tell you anything unless you know how they are actually enforced.

I suspect that the absurdly low limits in other countries operate the way they do in Japan.

Japan has very low speed limits, and also a .02 BAC.

The trick is, nothing is ever enforced. I have never seen anyone getting a ticket for speeding or a traffic violation of any kind.
In drivers training we were told to keep up with the flow of traffic, and not pay attention to the speed limits.

The police are just there to clean up the mess after an accident, and assign fault.

If most of the police forces in the US were not motivated by revenue generation, this is probably the way it would be in the U.S.

'ya know... what percentage of drunk drivers are driving on suspended or revoked licenses in any case? This happens a lot, and they 'dun care. Most people you can't tell at those low thresholds, and what? You gonna make them do a blow test ant ANY traffic stop? How else are you going to find out.

But then to circumvent that, you hafta require an ignition interlock on every car to start it, doncha?

I can see the over-reach from here.

You know who can really put it away? Old people. DAMN! I just had some old folks over for dinner, and just... DAMN! That Mad men generation really likes their cocktails.

I served them Mojitos (which they kept saying "More rum!" to as I was mixing), rosé, red wine, and coffee with a generous amount of Baileys.

Old people really like to tipple.

that would allow drivers who could demonstrate competence at high-speed driving to have higher speed limits on interstate highways

It would be interesting to apply that logic to drinking. I used to have to help my ex to the table at Christmas because she had had half a glass of champagne (she rarely drank). On the other hand, I don't show any noticeable impairment before about 0.2%. She used to joke, when she was driving us home, that if it weren't for the law she would get me to drive and feel safer. I don't drink as much as I used to, but you do develop a tolerance. Can I have my license stamped with, say, "ok up to 0.15%"?

I'm in a 0.05% country, but it would make bugger all difference to me if they put it back up to 0.08%.