What do you think of the US DUI Level

[CPomeroy]

I was just looking at a thread in Great Debates, and it got me wondering what people think of the typical 0.08 BAC threshold for DUI in the US.

Please provide suport for your opinion if you feel so inclined. I will check back and post my thoughts after the poll has been posted for a while.

[dalej42]

I think it is too high and it is designed to make sure the state gets their money from the slightly impaired person.

[Rumor_Watkins]

Ugh.

.08 is not the threshhold for DUI in the US.

.08 is the threshhold for a per se DUI.

[kanicbird]

What you need to measure is if that person is safe in the public situation they are in. Driving a car at all involves risk, but is that risk consistent with acceptably normal human behavior. Is it reasonable for a slightly impaired person to drive 1 mile on a straight vacant rural road with no intersections, is this a equal 'crime' to a slightly impaired person driving from a city bar home to the suburbs?

[Blackberry]

I think it's misguided, in the case of the (many) states that don't have different levels. The idea seems to be that driving drunk is bad, so the lower we make the limit, the better. But driving with a BAL of .08 is NOTHING like driving with a BAL of .2 or .3. I'm okay with .08 being illegal, because it's not a great idea to drive at that level--but who has never driven at a time when it wasn't a great idea? When you were really tired or distracted or something? Everyone does sometimes. So, fine, have it be a ticket-able offense. But I think the serious consequences--jail/thousands in fines/suspended license/etc.--should be reserved for the truly dangerous levels.

I don't think that penalizing small amounts of something in order to highlight the danger of large amounts of that thing is ever a good idea or that it ever works. (If it did, we wouldn't even be discussing this, because Prohibition would have been a success.)

[Gray Ghost]

I think the poll question is a bit ambiguous. I was all set to choose "too low", as it---IMHO---unduly penalizes drivers who are no more impaired than fatigued drivers, texting drivers, and the elderly. Then I read dalej42's comment, which pretty much mirrors my thoughts, and he chose too high. So I chose "other."

Use a per se DUI level that more Americans can agree is really per se. I like .15% BAC, but others can and will differ. However, use evidence of BAC levels in proceedings to prove the defendant's reckless driving, in addition to other evidence, like video evidence, testimony from other drivers who called 911 to report the defendant's driving, etc... Reckless, dangerous driving is what we are trying to limit, after all, not whether the defendant's blood level, according to Widmark's model, goes above some arbitrary line.

Of course, strict liability crimes are much easier to prove than a crime like reckless driving, and so the .08 will not only endure, I'd give even money that it'll drop to other countries' BAC levels like .04 or .05, within the next 20 years.

[Only Mostly Dead]

I think it is too high and it is designed to make sure the state gets their money from the slightly impaired person.

Hmm, I voted "too high," meaning the exact opposite explanation. 0.08 allows for too many impaired drivers to legally be on the road (by most BAC Charts, it'd take a 200lb man about four drinks in short order to hit 0.08, five or six if he's pacing himself and allowing some to metabolize over an hour or two. That's really not a low bar.), and I'd prefer to see a lower BAC as the threshold, maybe 0.06 or so.

[Eureka]

As someone who almost never drinks alcohol, and certainly never to the point of impairment, I don't have a good sense of what the point of impairment is, so I opted for it's about right.

[dalej42]

I messed up. I think .08 is too low of a BAC for a DUI level with the current penalties.

[CPomeroy]

Thanks for the replies so far. Sorry about the ambiguity. I was thinking that "too high" meant that the law should be more stringent, e.g. 0.05, etc.

Also, could someone please explain what is meant by "per se" DUI.

[Rumor_Watkins]

Also, could someone please explain what is meant by "per se" DUI.

if you are impaired while driving a vehicle, any amount of booze in your system is enough to get you busted under normal DUI rules.

"per se" DUI is a separate offense where you are automatically deemed to be impaired if you have over a .08 BAC (technically, it isn't DUI, it's more along the lines of "driving with a BAC over .08 in the sense that impairment doesn't have to be shown)


here's the speeding analogy:

if you're driving 54 mph in a 55 mph zone in the middle of a blizzard, you will get busted for violating the basic speed law/driving too fast for the conditions

if you're driving 56 mph in that same 55 mph zone in that same blizzard, you will get busted for the per se violation of driving faster than the posted speeding limit. it's a lot easier for the state to prove this than the 54 mph offense.


edit: if you still aren't getting it: understand that DUI has been renamed DWI in many jurisdiction, and incorporates driving while under the influence of drugs. there's no "BAC" for the amount of coke, heroin, or pot in your system, but it's still plenty illegal to drive around while you're high.

[Freddy the Pig]

I find it difficult to have an informed opinion on this topic, because no two accounts seem to agree on how much alcohol is necessary to breach the limit.

[WhyNot]

I think ticketing should be limited to impairment and/or the breaking of traffic laws, whatever the BAC is. I have one friend who seriously can't drive with a single glass of wine in her, and others who can drive well with a high level of alcohol in them.

A number's just a number, and I'm far more interested in removing impaired drivers than those with good driving skills who happen to be drunk.

I have no problem with adding penalties, and really damn severe ones, for drivers who break traffic laws and have also been drinking, as it may reduce the likelihood that they'll drink and drive again, but I don't see a logical reason why a person should be penalized for only having consumed alcohol, if they haven't broken traffic laws (say, at a checkpoint.)

While I'm at it, I'd like a pony that poops marshmallows.

[Rumor_Watkins]

I think ticketing should be limited to impairment and/or the breaking of traffic laws, whatever the BAC is. I have one friend who seriously can't drive with a single glass of wine in her, and others who can drive well with a high level of alcohol in them.


a) what she's doing is illegal

b) yeah, sure they can

[WhyNot]

a) what she's doing is illegal

Not driving because you know you can't do it well after a single glass of wine is illegal? :confused:
b) yeah, sure they can
Sure they can. Not falling down drunk, but with a BAC over 0.8. You don't seriously think that 0.8 was picked because it's a magic number, and anyone with a 0.81 is going to hit a tree, do you? It was picked because it's somewhat conservative, so as to remove the dangerously drunk drivers. It's also going to penalize some of those who are not dangerous.

I've seen people walk themselves into the ER with a .48, and they can even fill out their paperwork all by themselves. What means death in the textbook is just a Tuesday afternoon for some folks. (Note: I'm not saying anyone ever should be driving with a .48, just that there's a whole lot of numbers in the middle there, and people cross "incapacitated" at different ones.)

[suranyi]

There are some countries that have a maximum DUI level of 0. Yes, zero. I believe Japan is one. That means if you have any measurable alcohol in your blood at all, you are guilty.

[Rumor_Watkins]

Sure they can. Not falling down drunk, but with a BAC over 0.8. You don't seriously think that 0.8 was picked because it's a magic number, and anyone with a 0.81 is going to hit a tree, do you? It was picked because it's somewhat conservative, so as to remove the dangerously drunk drivers. It's also going to penalize some of those who are not dangerous.

no, it's not picked to remove the dangerously drunk drivers. it's picked after scientific research determined that most people suffer severe impairment in operating a 3000 piece of moving steel at that BAC level.


I've seen people walk themselves into the ER with a .48, and they can even fill out their paperwork all by themselves. What means death in the textbook is just a Tuesday afternoon for some folks. (Note: I'm not saying anyone ever should be driving with a .48, just that there's a whole lot of numbers in the middle there, and people cross "incapacitated" at different ones.)

assuming I believe you, criminal law isn't concerned with matching "bad" behavior to each and every person's unique situation in life. it's concerned with broad applicability to the average person - to regulate behavior in the manner you suggest is inefficient and ultimately pointless. whoop dee doo that you have apparently met people who aren't comatose at a BAC of .48, but that's really irrelevant - it's unimportant that you feel that that person shouldn't be penalized after going on a massive bender (and driving) because he has 99.99999999999999th percentile tolerance.

[neuroman]

I think the poll question is a bit ambiguous. I was all set to choose "too low", as it---IMHO---unduly penalizes drivers who are no more impaired than fatigued drivers, texting drivers, and the elderly. Then I read dalej42's comment, which pretty much mirrors my thoughts, and he chose too high. So I chose "other."

Yeah unfortunately this poll is kind of worthless because people may misinterpret it.

I would be happier if the law went back to 0.10 where it was 10-15 years ago, but 0.08 is not terrible. I would be incredibly pissed if it was ever lowered beyond that because at that point you're not stopping the dangerous offenders, you're just screwing people who are very moderately impaired. Three beers at happy hour doesn't kill people but it would give many a DUI at 0.05. The worst problems are not the people in the 0.08-0.09 range, it's people in higher ranges. http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrinkingAndDriving.html

[MPB in Salt Lake]

There are some countries that have a maximum DUI level of 0. Yes, zero. I believe Japan is one. That means if you have any measurable alcohol in your blood at all, you are guilty.

The Czech Republic, a VERY alcohol-centric culture in general, is also a 0-limit country.

(After reading this thread, I have decided to have a few drinks tonight, but I will be staying nice and safe, right here at home.)

[PandaBear77]

I'd like to see it lowered, but that's because I am, admittedly, hyper about drunk driving.

0.04, I'd be happy.

[Rumor_Watkins]

I would be incredibly pissed if it was ever lowered beyond that because at that point you're not stopping the dangerous offenders, you're just screwing people who are very moderately impaired.

i'm surprised that you think "moderately" impaired people have any business commanding multi ton pieces of metal on public roadways.

you're free to drink. you're free to drive. don't mix the two to at a level where driving is impaired.

it's not that hard.

[Thudlow Boink]

I don't know (so I didn't answer the poll). But occasionally I hear of someone being hit by a drunk driver, and the response is "We need to get tough on drunk driving"—but then their suggestion for doing so is to lower (i.e. make more restrictive) the maximum allowable blood alcohol level. Which doesn't make any sense at all, unless the drunk driver involved had a level that was within the currently-legal limit. (In fact, I suppose lowering the limit could even be counterproductive, if it disincentivizes a slightly tipsy person from taking over the driving from a seriously drunk person.)

From what I've heard, the biggest problem from drunk drivers is from those who are already over the legal limit but drive anyway.

[Leaffan]

It sucks.

It penalizes those of us who can have 4 or 5 beers and completely control ourselves. I have had that much to drink at lunch, in a previous job, and still worked throughout the afternoon quite fine.

However I realize the line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere. I'm confident that Ontario will be going to a .05% criminal rate in the near future.

[Rachellelogram]

I think poll options are variously interpretable--can I unvote and revote the right way? I answered "it is too high" because the restriction is too strict. I think it should go back up to .10%.

[sisu]

Australia has 0.05 BAC and that to me seems about right. i can have a couple of beers and drive, by making it lower it forces people to think about drink driving. Drink driving is a huge killer on the roads, when random breath testing came out in Victoria Aus people complained about loss of liberty etc etc but now that we have the lowest death rates of anywhere in the world 99.999% of people think it is a good idea.

We also have 0.00% for bus, truck, train drivers etc and also for new drivers for 3 years about.

If you are at or above 0.05BAC then you have no right to be on the road.

[Crafter_Man]

It sucks.

It penalizes those of us who can have 4 or 5 beers and completely control ourselves.
Completely agree.

The problem with DUI laws is that they don't take into account your inherent driving skills. They simply make a correlation between your level of inebriation and a relative decrease in your judgment and driving skills. The law doesn't take into account your judgment and driving skills on an absolute scale.

Let's say it can be proven that I am better than 99% of other drivers on the road when I have no alcohol in my system. Let's also say it can be proven that I am better than 60% of the drivers when my BAC is 0.15%. According to the law, if I have a BAC of 0.15% I am an automatic danger to mankind and should be promptly arrested and convicted, despite the fact that I am a better driver while drunk compared to most other drivers.

Of course, proving these things would be difficult, but not impossible. I'm just trying to point out a blaring problem with the system.

[Bearflag70]

Completely agree.

The problem with DUI laws is that they don't take into account your inherent driving skills. They simply make a correlation between your level of inebriation and a relative decrease in your judgment and driving skills. The law doesn't take into account your judgment and driving skills on an absolute scale.

Let's say it can be proven that I am better than 99% of other drivers on the road when I have no alcohol in my system. Let's also say it can be proven that I am better than 60% of the drivers when my BAC is 0.15%. According to the law, if I have a BAC of 0.15% I am an automatic danger to mankind and should be promptly arrested and convicted, despite the fact that I am a better driver while drunk compared to most other drivers.

Of course, proving these things would be difficult, but not impossible. I'm just trying to point out a blaring problem with the system.

This is why a friend of mine [jokingly] suggested a "drunk driving test." When you get your license, they test you sober and then keep adding alcohol until you fail. Then that is your personal legal BAC level which gets printed on your drivers license.

[Rumor_Watkins]

Completely agree.

The problem with DUI laws is that they don't take into account your inherent driving skills. They simply make a correlation between your level of inebriation and a relative decrease in your judgment and driving skills. The law doesn't take into account your judgment and driving skills on an absolute scale.

Let's say it can be proven that I am better than 99% of other drivers on the road when I have no alcohol in my system. Let's also say it can be proven that I am better than 60% of the drivers when my BAC is 0.15%. According to the law, if I have a BAC of 0.15% I am an automatic danger to mankind and should be promptly arrested and convicted, despite the fact that I am a better driver while drunk compared to most other drivers.

Of course, proving these things would be difficult, but not impossible. I'm just trying to point out a blaring problem with the system.

Do you feel speed limits are similarly unjust?

[sisu]

Completely agree.

The problem with DUI laws is that they don't take into account your inherent driving skills. They simply make a correlation between your level of inebriation and a relative decrease in your judgment and driving skills. The law doesn't take into account your judgment and driving skills on an absolute scale.

Let's say it can be proven that I am better than 99% of other drivers on the road when I have no alcohol in my system. Let's also say it can be proven that I am better than 60% of the drivers when my BAC is 0.15%. According to the law, if I have a BAC of 0.15% I am an automatic danger to mankind and should be promptly arrested and convicted, despite the fact that I am a better driver while drunk compared to most other drivers.

Of course, proving these things would be difficult, but not impossible. I'm just trying to point out a blaring problem with the system.

Yep laws are always broad, they have to be. I can drink 5 beers and drive fine, another time I might be tired and it effects me more. Subjective measurements in law are not good, in sentencing it can be used but not in law. Law must be fairly black and white.

[aruvqan]

I wouldn't mind seeing it dropped to 0. Back in my wild and crazy youth I kept an alarm clock and sleeping bag in my car. If I drank, I either found a ride home, got a cab or slept in my car [weather permitting]

I don't really think that any drinking before driving is really appropriate as alcohol can hit differently every time you drink, so one time you might be fine on 2 or 3 stiff drinks, and then wham one drink and you are unsafe. Might be fatigue and booze, or sneaking in illness and booze, whatever - that one time that a single drink does you in and you go ahead and drive ... that is all it takes.

[Magiver]

I didn't vote because I'm not sure how to answer it. As far as I know it's used to support other information such as a physical sobriety test. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't really mean anything if someone is pulled over for probable cause and can't pass a coordination test.

Now if it were used as the primary test in a DUI road block because the smell of alcohol was detected then I would object to any number used.

[Blackberry]

Do you feel speed limits are similarly unjust?

Not Crafter_Man (obviously), but if the penalty for going a bit over the speed limit was analogous to the penalty for driving a bit over the BAC limit, then I would find speed limits to be similarly unjust.

If you're driving at a speed or BAC that is necessarily grossly unsafe, then you deserve to have the book thrown at you. If you're going in 30 in a 25 or driving with a BAC of .09, but obeying the other applicable laws, well then, I'd have a hard time considering you the devil.

[runner pat]

This is why a friend of mine [jokingly] suggested a "drunk driving test." When you get your license, they test you sober and then keep adding alcohol until you fail. Then that is your personal legal BAC level which gets printed on your drivers license.

But that would require Howard Hesseman to drive drunk. :D

[Stranger On A Train]

I've seen people walk themselves into the ER with a .48, and they can even fill out their paperwork all by themselves. What means death in the textbook is just a Tuesday afternoon for some folks. (Note: I'm not saying anyone ever should be driving with a .48, just that there's a whole lot of numbers in the middle there, and people cross "incapacitated" at different ones.)At a blood alcohol level of half a percent, physical damage would occur as the cellular level. Someone who is habituated to an intoxicated state may be able to function as a seemingly normal level to expected situations, but they certainly aren't capable of making rational decisions or responding in an effective fashion to novel situation.

A 0.08% BAC is at or beyond the threshold beyond which judgement and response time is impaired by a measurable degree. The majority of developed nations have an allowable BAC that is lower than this level, and penalties that exceed those of most states in the United States.

Stranger

[neuroman]

i'm surprised that you think "moderately" impaired people have any business commanding multi ton pieces of metal on public roadways.
Not to mince words, I said very moderately (i.e., not that impaired.) Anyway, people drive impaired all the time for an innumerable variety of reasons. Youth/inexperience, old/senile, on a cell phone, messing with the radio, eating, tired, emotionally distracted, etc.

You misunderstand me if you think I want dangerously impaired people on the road. But I don't believe a drop from 0.08 will not help and would instead penalize a large number of people not engaging on overly risky behavior (e.g., driving at 0.063 BAC).

[alice_in_wonderland]

I would be perfectly happy with 0% as the legal limit.

I can think of no reason, whatsoever, why someone needs to drink ANY alcohol and then drive. Take a cab, take a bus, ride with a friend or drink at home. It's so easy it mystifies that people still don't get it.

[EvilTOJ]

Because believe it or not, some people can actually have alcohol in their system without being stumbling down vomiting drunk :rolleyes:

[2square4u]

It penalizes those of us who can have 4 or 5 beers and completely control ourselves. I have had that much to drink at lunch, in a previous job, and still worked throughout the afternoon quite fine.Driving a ton or more of mass at high speeds and/or in heavy traffic isn't only a question of whether or not you're able to stand on your two feet or keep that vehicle more or less on the road. The reason many countries have a per se DUI limit way below 0.08% is that your critical sense and your reaction speed is significantly impaired at very low blood alcohol levels, even if you seem to be perfectly sober. There are numerous studies that indicate this.

Fact: The US is definitely in the high bracket for legal BAC while driving, if you look at the numbers for BAL around the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_law_by_country):

Zero: 20% of countries listed
.02%: 10% of countries listed
Above .02, but less than .05%: 7% of countries listed
.05%: 35% of countries listed
Above .05, but less than .08%: 3% of countries listed
.08%: 20% of countries listed
Above .08% or no limit: 6% of countries listed


And yes, there's a whole bunch of other conditions which impair your reaction speed and driving abilities. But DUI is the killer due to the large number of people driving drunk, and BAL is easy to measure.

[Cluricaun]

I wouldn't mind seeing it dropped to 0. Back in my wild and crazy youth I kept an alarm clock and sleeping bag in my car. If I drank, I either found a ride home, got a cab or slept in my car [weather permitting]

You do know you can get a DUI for sleeping in your car right?

I think the standards are wrong for DUI/DWI most of the time. The limit should be higher and charges should only apply if you're caught doing something else, like swerving or driving into mailboxes or whatever. Stopping people at checkpoints is asinine and the penalties for a first time DUI are insane. It's a racket.

[alice_in_wonderland]

Because believe it or not, some people can actually have alcohol in their system without being stumbling down vomiting drunk :rolleyes:

:confused:

Because only stumbling down vomiting drunks ever get in drunk driving accidents?

Yah, there are no holes in that argument at all. :rolleyes:

[Leaffan]

I would be perfectly happy with 0% as the legal limit.

I can think of no reason, whatsoever, why someone needs to drink ANY alcohol and then drive. Take a cab, take a bus, ride with a friend or drink at home. It's so easy it mystifies that people still don't get it.

So there's no way my wife and I can go out for dinner, and enjoy a couple of glasses of wine without coughing up an additional $50 to $100 for a cab ride home?

I see.

[Skara_Brae]

I would be perfectly happy with 0% as the legal limit.

I can think of no reason, whatsoever, why someone needs to drink ANY alcohol and then drive. Take a cab, take a bus, ride with a friend or drink at home. It's so easy it mystifies that people still don't get it.

You must live in an area where cabs and buses are widely available. Some places they are not, and people still like to have a drink or two when they go out to dinner...

[MeanOldLady]

Seriously. Everyone who has a glass of wine with dinner should call a cab home? That's ridiculous.

[Cluricaun]

While we're at it I think that open containers should be allowed too. If I want to crack a beer on my way home from buying beer I don't see the harm. If I get pulled over and I'm drunk that's a different story, but just having a beer in the car shouldn't be a crime either.

[CPomeroy]

I also feel that the per se DUI level is too low in the US (I learned a new phrase as a result of starting this poll). One thing I found interesting is when they proposed lowering the level from 0.1 to 0.08 here in MN the only justification offered was that it would increase DUI arrests. Some folks have mentioned here and in other threads that there is scientific evidence justifying a level of 0.08 or lower, I would be interested in taking a look at that if anyone has a link.

I like the idea of having some set BAC level as an offense like any traffic ticket, and then further punishment if you are demonstratably impaired or violate other laws. However, I realize that the devil is in the details on how you could actually implement this. I would also support more severe penalties for those who repeatedly get caught driving while truly impaired.

The other thing I learned from starting this poll is that if I do it again I need to phrase the options more clearly.

Edit to add omitted thanks to Rumour for providing a very helpful definition of "per se".

[Necros]

You do know you can get a DUI for sleeping in your car right?

I think the standards are wrong for DUI/DWI most of the time. The limit should be higher and charges should only apply if you're caught doing something else, like swerving or driving into mailboxes or whatever. Stopping people at checkpoints is asinine and the penalties for a first time DUI are insane. It's a racket.

Completely agree. The limits are definitely too low. Those who are in favor of lowering the limit but who still might want to have a glass of wine at dinner should probably go get Breathalyzed at some point just to see. You would be shocked to find out how little alcohol people can have and still be legally "impaired." As far as I can determine, BAC charts are much like BMI charts. Maybe they are valid for populations as a whole, but they can be, and often are, wildly inaccurate on a person-to-person basis.

[Hal Briston]

Seriously. Everyone who has a glass of wine with dinner should call a cab home? That's ridiculous.No, you should have the willpower not to have that oh-so-precious glass of wine with dinner. There are plenty of non-alcoholic drinks you can choose from.

Please note, the above is not anywhere near close to my opinion -- it's the argument I've seen offered up by the 0%BAC-types in the past. The current legal limit is laughably low, and exists purely as a money maker.

[Stranger On A Train]

Completely agree. The limits are definitely too low. Those who are in favor of lowering the limit but who still might want to have a glass of wine at dinner should probably go get Breathalyzed at some point just to see. You would be shocked to find out how little alcohol people can have and still be legally "impaired."This is a disingenuous argument, implying that a single glass of wine would cause someone to reach the legal threshold for impairment. A 0.08% BAC would be equivalent to having 3-4 beers or glasses of wine in the span of an hour. (See this online calculator (http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm).) If you have had three or four beers in that span of time, you will definitely experience a degradation of judgment and ability to estimate time and distance, even if you don't display any outward signs of reduced mobility or awareness. The ability to self-judge the degree of impairment is notoriously unreliable.

Stranger

[Rumor_Watkins]

The current legal limit is laughably low, and exists purely as a money maker.

no, it doesn't. it exists because scientific data has demonstrated that BAC level to be one where there is significant/sufficient degradation in an average person's capacity to control multiple tons of steel at high speeds.

also, I think most people should really stop using faulty nomenclature - this really is a case where people's misunderstanding and misuse of terms skews their conception of the topic. you write "the current legal limit" - I have attempted to explain (and if you don't believe me, feel free to do your own research) that there is no legal limit for alcohol consumption when driving a car. if you are impaired while driving, you are DUI, even if you are under the per se threshhold.

why is this significant? because what you speak as a problem with the "legal limit" only applies to people who would not be impaired while operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of greater than .08. To the genuine .001% of people to whom this applies, too bad - we don't write criminal laws that account for 100% of behaviors by 100% of citizens 100% of the time, society focuses their energy and efforts at the means (the other 99.999% who think that they can drive at that BAC or above, you're just shining youreslves on).

[MeanOldLady]

This is a disingenuous argument, implying that a single glass of wine would cause someone to reach the legal threshold for impairment. A 0.08% BAC would be equivalent to having 3-4 beers or glasses of wine in the span of an hour. (See this online calculator (http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm).) If you have had three or four beers in that span of time, you will definitely experience a degradation of judgment and ability to estimate time and distance, even if you don't display any outward signs of reduced mobility or awareness. The ability to self-judge the degree of impairment is notoriously unreliable.

StrangerThat was in response to the highly-absurd notion that the BAC level should be comfortably dropped to zero.

[suranyi]

So there's no way my wife and I can go out for dinner, and enjoy a couple of glasses of wine without coughing up an additional $50 to $100 for a cab ride home?

I see.

So what would you do in the Czech Republic, say, where the limit IS zero?

And they certainly drink alcohol there.

[constanze]

I choose something else because of the ambiguity. Assuming that BAC means blood alcohol in percent, and not in promille (and that's why the numbers are all off by one digit), we used to have a limit of 0.08, but it got lowered.

I'm frankly astonished at how many people believe that they or others can drive safely with a BAC of up to 0.08 (0.8 promille)! The ADAC (German auto club) does these tests regularly - they invite a group of men and women to drive a simulated car route while non-drunk and then have only a few glass of beer or wine. When the BAC is measured, it's under 0.08, but even after one glass, reactions are impaired, tunnel vision starts, etc.

Sadly, one of the first brain centers that's affected medically by alcohol is self-image. People don't notice that their actions are impaired, they firmly believe that they are still capable of driving safely, if they just compensate a bit. When they see how badly compared to before their simulator run is, they are shocked.

I wish it was financially possible (Simulators are expensive) to do this at every bar, so people would see how much one glass of beer affects them.

As for those who say "But others are driving impaired, too - texting, eating etc." - don't your traffic laws forbid every activity that distracts the driver??? Don't your cops stop drivers doing this?

[2square4u]

Some folks have mentioned here and in other threads that there is scientific evidence justifying a level of 0.08 or lower, I would be interested in taking a look at that if anyone has a link.
My google-fu ain't too great, but you could start checking out the references quoted here (http://www.icap.org/PolicyTools/ICAPBlueBook/BlueBookModules/16BloodAlcoholConcentrationLimits/tabid/176/Default.aspx) (bolding mine):
Alcohol consumption is known to impair reaction time and affect an individual’s ability to execute a range of motor tasks (e.g., Grant, Millar, & Kenny, 2000; Parks et al., 2002; Roldán, Frauca, & Duenas, 2003). Driving is an activity that requires precision, relying heavily on motor skills, reflexes, and the ability to make quick decisions. Reaction time of an inebriated driver may be reduced by 10 to 30% as compared to a sober individual. In addition, vision is blurred, and the judgment of distance, speed, and hazards is impaired (Davis, Quimby, Odero, Gururaj, & Hijar, 2003).

A person’s risk of being involved in a traffic crash and likely injury severity increase exponentially with the amount of alcohol consumed (Blomberg et al., 2009; Borkenstein et al., 1964; Global Road Safety Partnership [GRSP], 2007; Moskowitz, Blomberg, Burns, Fiorentino, & Peck, 2002; Moskowitz & Fiorentino, 2000; Mounce & Pendleton, 1992). There is evidence that even drivers with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level between 0.2 and 0.4 mg/ml are 1.4 times more likely to be involved in crashes than those who have not been drinking. Involvement in fatal crashes is much more likely for drivers with BAC levels over 0.5 mg/ml than in drivers who have not consumed alcohol (Blomberg et al., 2009; GRSP, 2007; Zador, 1991; Zador, Krawchuk, & Voas, 2000).

It's because of studies like these that many the 0.02% legal limit in many countries really is a zero limit with a safety margin thrown in (since no chemical analysis is failproof).

ETA: I, and more or less everybody I know never drink and drive. Not even a couple of beers of glasses of wine. If you've been drinking anything alcoholic, you don't belong behind a steering wheel. Period.

[constanze]

You do know you can get a DUI for sleeping in your car right?

That needs to be changed at the same time.

I also agree that "open container" laws are ridicouls. (As is the fact that in many US states, it's forbidden to drink in public or be drunk in public as pedestrian! I thought you guys were done with prohibition? Apparently not.)

[Rumor_Watkins]

That needs to be changed at the same time.

I also agree that "open container" laws are ridicouls. (As is the fact that in many US states, it's forbidden to drink in public or be drunk in public as pedestrian! I thought you guys were done with prohibition? Apparently not.)

Do you think open container laws in vehicles are asinine?

[constanze]

So what would you do in the Czech Republic, say, where the limit IS zero?

And they certainly drink alcohol there.

1) Designated driver: one person stays sober

2) Take a walk or public transport - they do have cities in Czech, not everybody lives out in the woods miles and miles and miles away like in the US.

3) Meet at somebodys home and stay overnight.

Germany has lowered the BAC from 0.08 to 0.05 (and to 0.00 for beginning drivers), and during the Octoberfest, there are millions of people getting drunk. They take cabs and public transport. (And the police sets up roadblocks all around).
When the young people want to party, cities offer party bus lines that pick the people up at designated spots, drive to different clubs and discos, and then drive them back to the stops in the middle of the night.

When a middle-aged couple wants to have a nice evening in a good restaurant, they either take public transport or the wife (many women I know don't like to drink much alcohol anyway) stays sober.

[constanze]

Do you think open container laws in vehicles are asinine?

Yes. We don't have that law here and stop drunk drivers fine. The problem is not a container of beer in the car; the problem is the alcohol in the blood of the driver. If the rest of the people in the car have a high BAC, but the driver is sober, no problem. That's why the police has the breathalyzers. If the driver was drinking and passes his container on, his breath will still show up. If the rest of the car was drinking, the drivers breath is clean.

What does the container law accomplish for road safety?

There is one danger with open containers in general: they can tip and spill, distracting the driver. But that's true for apple juice or coffee in a thermos, too. And drivers should know that they never, ever take their eyes of the road no matter what tips over in their car. If you drop a cigarette onto your pants, you aren't allowed to look down to pick it up, you have to pull over to the side. Or show common sense by securing things in the first place!

[Leaffan]

In Canada 33.8% of motor vehicle deaths were associated with alcohol use.

I just read that on Wiki.

That means that 76.2% of motor vehicle deaths were associated with sober drivers.

Clearly sober drivers should be the main concern here.

[Rumor_Watkins]

Yes. We don't have that law here and stop drunk drivers fine. The problem is not a container of beer in the car; the problem is the alcohol in the blood of the driver. If the rest of the people in the car have a high BAC, but the driver is sober, no problem. That's why the police has the breathalyzers. If the driver was drinking and passes his container on, his breath will still show up. If the rest of the car was drinking, the drivers breath is clean.

What does the container law accomplish for road safety?


dude, haven't you been paying attention in this thread? There are people here who swear, swear i tell you, that they (or they know of people who) can drive just fine with multiple drinks in their system. Encouraging them to keep drinking by allowing them to drink *while they're driving* is stupid - there's no reason to let them do it anyways.

Sadly, I wish we didn't need such a law and could rely on people not to do it. Unfortunately, this thread has proven that my wishes are probably best left as wishes.

[WhyNot]

In Canada 33.8% of motor vehicle deaths were associated with alcohol use.

I just read that on Wiki.

That means that 76.2% of motor vehicle deaths were associated with sober drivers.

Clearly sober drivers should be the main concern here.

Have a beer and check your math. ;)

[constanze]

I don't know (so I didn't answer the poll). But occasionally I hear of someone being hit by a drunk driver, and the response is "We need to get tough on drunk driving"—but then their suggestion for doing so is to lower (i.e. make more restrictive) the maximum allowable blood alcohol level. Which doesn't make any sense at all, unless the drunk driver involved had a level that was within the currently-legal limit. (In fact, I suppose lowering the limit could even be counterproductive, if it disincentivizes a slightly tipsy person from taking over the driving from a seriously drunk person.)

From what I've heard, the biggest problem from drunk drivers is from those who are already over the legal limit but drive anyway.

"Getting tough" should mean both - a look at the law and a better enforcment (more stops and checks, more police) of said laws.

However, lowering the allowed per se limit together with an awareness campaign can alert all those people who "only" drink a couple of glasses (and stop before the legal 0.10 or 0.08 limit), because they feel in control, but actually are impaired.

Here in Germany, we have a points system, and if your BAC is way beyond the limit and/or your driving is visibly impaired, you not only loose your licence for some months, you have to take a psychological test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Psychological_Assessment) to determine why you have a problem with alcohol. The assumption being that if you drive with a lot of alcohol, you have a problem with self-evaluation; and also, the higher your total BAC, the more you have "trained" your body (that is, the body adapts to regular drinking and thus people don't keel over dead at BACs over 0.3), which is a bad sign regarding control of drinking.

[Leaffan]

Have a beer and check your math. ;)

:smack::smack::smack:

psssttttt!!! (The sound of a can opening)

[WhyNot]

:smack::smack::smack:

psssttttt!!! (The sound of a can opening)

That's okay. I love statistics abuse, sober or otherwise. :p

[MeanOldLady]

no, it doesn't. it exists because scientific data has demonstrated that BAC level to be one where there is significant/sufficient degradation in an average person's capacity to control multiple tons of steel at high speeds.I do not believe anyone is saying DUI laws exist purely as a money-making mechanism. The argument is the laws, as they are currently written, are more effective at generating revenue than they are keeping impaired (i.e. dangerous) drivers off the road.

why is this significant? because what you speak as a problem with the "legal limit" only applies to people who would not be impaired while operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of greater than .08. To the genuine .001% of people to whom this applies, too bad - we don't write criminal laws that account for 100% of behaviors by 100% of citizens 100% of the time, society focuses their energy and efforts at the means (the other 99.999% who think that they can drive at that BAC or above, you're just shining youreslves on).Really? .001% of the population can safely operate a vehicle at .08 BAC? I think that's what the argument is here: Yes, we do have to draw the line somewhere, and no we're not going to make a drunk driving license test (drat!), but we've drawn the line at a place a lot of people here don't think should fairly warrant an automatic DUI, because it doesn't fit anywhere near 99.999% of the population. If we were to bring it back up to .10, or even .15 which is where it originally started, it is still possible, as you've pointed out, to be arrested for DUI. That's why god invented field-sobriety tests. The breathalyzer is not the end-all be-all of measuring sobriety.

My personal opinion is it's fine where it is. My immediate thought was to say it's too low, but I recognize that most people are lightweights. Also, I agree with Blackberry's view that lower BACs that are technically over the limit, for drivers who are otherwise driving safely, should be treated as a ticketable offense, but the mandatory jail time and the fees are exorbitant and disproportionate to the crime. Tickets for driving while text messaging (come on, you're not even looking at the road!) range from something like $20-$100 for first time offenders.

[constanze]

dude, haven't you been paying attention in this thread? There are people here who swear, swear i tell you, that they (or they know of people who) can drive just fine with multiple drinks in their system. Encouraging them to keep drinking by allowing them to drink *while they're driving* is stupid - there's no reason to let them do it anyways.

I'm not your dude, friend. :)

And I'm not arguing for drinking while driving - where do you get that from? I'm arguing for lowering the BAC level of per se; allowing to sleep off your drink as long as the car is not moving; and allowing open containers in the car.

If driving drunk with a BAC over 0.08 or lower is forbidden, how do you get to people being allowed to drink while driving, if the open container law is cancelled? I honestly don't get that. Driving while drunk is already forbidden under current US laws, so what does the container law accomplish?

I just can't see the sense, if a cop stops a car with five people, and lets the driver take a breathalyzer test, and the driver comes out sober with BAC of 0, to punish him because the people in the back have an open can of beer. This does not increase safety in any way.

The scenario you paint - people being allowed open containers of alcohol in the car leading to more drinking - just means that you need more controls. So some idiots believe they are in control despite a BAC of 0.07 and keep chugging that beer - the cop stops them and lets them breathe, and with the lowered BAC of 0.05, they get a ticket. How does that change if the container is open or closed, hidden or visible? People who don't understand how alcohol works won't stop driving drunk because they can't drink in the car - they'll just get drunk in the bar first, so you need control stops.

[2square4u]

dude, haven't you been paying attention in this thread?dude, haven't you been paying attention to what constanze said?

In many European countries, the police don't bother with open containers, they check the driver him/herself. They don't need any excuse for making you take a breathalyzer test, and if you refuse the breathalyzer, that's a justifiable reason for taking you in and making you take a blood sample. You can even be pulled over and asked to take a breathalyzer test as a part of a routine control.

With routine breathalyzer tests, "open container" laws are unnecessary. As long as the designated driver has zero BAC, the passengers can drink all they want to.

[MPB in Salt Lake]

I had no idea that in Germany (as we all know, a country where the DUI laws are much stricter than in most of the USA) passengers were allowed to drink while riding in a car.

There are a few states that still allow this (Louisiana, Wyoming, Montana, Texas) but it's not the norm in America.

That said, in all my travels in Germany, I have never felt the need of renting a car, as public transportation is excellent, at least by my standards.

For me, one of the great pleasures of spending time in Europe is sitting at an outside cafe, and having a beer or glass of wine in the early afternoon without having the rest of the people around you glare at you like there is something debauched with the notion of a quiet, civilized drink during daylight hours.

[Skammer]

I voted "about right." I guess part of it is that it doesn't affect me directly - I'm 250lbs and rarely have more than two drinks in a night (if any), so I'm never close to the limit. I do think there needs to be a "bright line" that is not dependent on subjective on-the-scene impairment tests. Some people may be able to drive competently at .08, but some only think they can, and given the danger I'd rather err on the side of caution.

[Rumor_Watkins]

Ok, what purpose does allowing open containers of alcohol in a car serve? So that your buddies can all get loaded on the way from Party A to Party B?

The need for the law is self evident - there are many stupid people who can't be trusted to not actually drink and drive. They effectively need to be prevented from doing harm to themselves and others because they're too immature to prevent it themselves.

(you presumably are foreign, so keep in mind that open container laws are usually written in a way that they don't apply to limos/party busses/etc)

[MeanOldLady]

In Canada 33.8% of motor vehicle deaths were associated with alcohol use.

I just read that on Wiki.

That means that 76.2% of motor vehicle deaths were associated with sober drivers.

Clearly sober drivers should be the main concern here.Drunken math aside, what does "associated with alcohol use" even mean? Depending on who you ask, it can refer to alcohol-caused impairment of the driver, or that anyone else involved in the accident, even if it is a pedestrian with a very low BAC. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the U.S. defines a fatal crash as alcohol-related if either a driver or a non-motorist had a measurable or estimated BAC of 0.01 g/dl or above. (http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/alcoholcountries/background_&_intro.htm)

[Rumor_Watkins]

With routine breathalyzer tests, "open container" laws are unnecessary.

no, they're not. open container laws also prevent future DUI - i.e. there is the possibility of stopping someone from drinking while driving before they actually consume the alcohol.

[2square4u]

In Canada 33.8% of motor vehicle deaths were associated with alcohol use.

I just read that on Wiki.

That means that 76.2% of motor vehicle deaths were associated with sober drivers.

Clearly sober drivers should be the main concern here.That reminds me that I really ought to quit drinking coffee. More than 80% of all avalanche victims are coffee drinkers.

[Leaffan]

Drunken math aside, what does "associated with alcohol use" even mean? Depending on who you ask, it can refer to alcohol-caused impairment of the driver, or that anyone else involved in the accident, even if it is a pedestrian with a very low BAC. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the U.S. defines a fatal crash as alcohol-related if either a driver or a non-motorist had a measurable or estimated BAC of 0.01 g/dl or above. (http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/alcoholcountries/background_&_intro.htm)

They linked to a report which simply states "A motor vehicle fatality was considered to be alcohol involved if there was at least one drinking driver or pedestrian in the fatal crash." I don't see any further breakdown by level of impairment or BAC.

[Necros]

I voted "about right." I guess part of it is that it doesn't affect me directly - I'm 250lbs and rarely have more than two drinks in a night (if any), so I'm never close to the limit.
Again, are you SURE you're never close to the limit? Again, I understand what the charts say, and I have seen real-life scenarios, and they do not always jibe.

[Disheavel]

I think the 0.08% is too high for a very simple reason. Drink 3-4 alcoholic drinks even during the course of an entire day means that a person is drinking for the sake of drinking and not complimenting a meal or drinking as part of a social event or any other addition. So I view that if you are drinking for drinking's sake, you need to arrange your transportation as part of your event.

So I would support a <0.04% BAC limit with the penalty of loss of license for one year as a first offense. This would make it clear that going to a bar means that you preplan your way home- no excuses. If you have a glass or two of wine with dinner, that is fine.

[MeanOldLady]

I think the 0.08% is too high for a very simple reason. Drink 3-4 alcoholic drinks even during the course of an entire day means that a person is drinking for the sake of drinking and not complimenting a meal or drinking as part of a social event or any other addition.False.

[Rumor_Watkins]

Drink 3-4 alcoholic drinks even during the course of an entire day means that a person is drinking for the sake of drinking and not complimenting a meal or drinking as part of a social event or any other addition.

Hi! The temperance movement called. They want their moralizing back.

[constanze]

Ok, what purpose does allowing open containers of alcohol in a car serve? So that your buddies can all get loaded on the way from Party A to Party B?

No, it just prevents cops from abusing silly laws to arrest people without serving a good reason. After all, the current container law doesn't stop people drinking - they just do it sneakily. (Just like "forbidding drinking in public" leads to hiding the bottle in a paper bag).

The need for the law is self evident - there are many stupid people who can't be trusted to not actually drink and drive. They effectively need to be prevented from doing harm to themselves and others because they're too immature to prevent it themselves.

Again, why don't you stop the drunk drivers with control stops? As you can with or without container laws, just by the BAC level?

(you presumably are foreign, so keep in mind that open container laws are usually written in a way that they don't apply to limos/party busses/etc)

I wasn't thinking of party buses; but US laws are often written and interpreted in bad ways. Like in Texas, where the law forbids drinking in public places ... and public places include bars (http://www.cracked.com/article_18620_6-completely-legal-ways-cops-can-screw-you.html). (Item Nr. 4)

[kushiel]

I'd like to see a study comparing different types of influences on driving erratically. Like, people with 0.08, people texting, people with loud passengers, people with music at some obscene number of decibels, etc.

[constanze]

In many European countries, the police don't bother with open containers, they check the driver him/herself. They don't need any excuse for making you take a breathalyzer test, and if you refuse the breathalyzer, that's a justifiable reason for taking you in and making you take a blood sample. You can even be pulled over and asked to take a breathalyzer test as a part of a routine control.

What do you mean, in many European countries? Are you saying that despite a law with a fixed per se BAC level of currently 0.08, police in the US can't stop you and test your BAC? Really? Am I understanding you correct? In that case, that's the first thing you need to change!
Is there any reason for why not?

[constanze]

I had no idea that in Germany (as we all know, a country where the DUI laws are much stricter than in most of the USA) passengers were allowed to drink while riding in a car.

It's rather that passengers are not forbidden to drink. They aren't especially allowed to, but then, passengers are only forbidden from disturbing the driver. So a sober passenger who shouts at the driver or puts his hands over the drivers eyes because he is horsing around will get into trouble under general rule, but a drunk passenger quietly drinking beer is in no trouble.

I don't see why the law should care about passengers. We want one sober driver to transport his 3 or 4 drunken buddies home, so as long as driver is clean, the passengers can do what they like. They can also use the phone, eat, smoke, sleep - all of which is too distracting for the driver.

[billfish678]

I'd like to see a study comparing different types of influences on driving erratically. Like, people with 0.08, people texting, people with loud passengers, people with music at some obscene number of decibels, etc.

I'm sorry son. Your radio dial was set to 11. Afraid I am going to have to take you in :)

[constanze]

I'd like to see a study comparing different types of influences on driving erratically. Like, people with 0.08, people texting, people with loud passengers, people with music at some obscene number of decibels, etc.

These studies have been done in simulators, and texting as well as talking on the phone (even with handless sets) is very distracting. Talking to a passenger is slightly distracting (psychologists say that a passenger will react to the traffic flow, while the driver will put priority over an unseen person on the phone).
Music is slightly distracting, depending on how much attention the driver pays to it. But it can also help with getting dulled by straight roads, so it depends a lot.

Loudness itself is less of a problem, since elderly and deaf people can drive, too, they just pay more attention.

[Chronos]

Every time this question comes up, someone says that it's too low, because it penalizes light drinkers who have only had 4 or 5 drinks in the past hour, and they personally can drink that much without being impaired. There are two problems with this: First of all, 4 or 5 drinks is not, by any reasonable standard, light drinking. Light drinking is more like that much per week. Second, while it may be true that there are a handful of people who can drink that much and still drive safely, they're very, very rare... But almost everyone who drinks that much thinks they're one of those rare few.

As for the argument that the typical drinker at .08 is no more impaired than someone texting while driving, or subject to other distractions, well, that may be so. But that doesn't mean that the .08 drinking laws are too strict; it means that we're not strict enough against other driving distractions.

[Crafter_Man]

Ok, what purpose does allowing open containers of alcohol in a car serve?
Freedom of others to drink?

So that your buddies can all get loaded on the way from Party A to Party B?
Why should that be illegal?

[Drunky Smurf]

No, you should have the willpower not to have that oh-so-precious glass of wine with dinner. There are plenty of non-alcoholic drinks you can choose from.

Please note, the above is not anywhere near close to my opinion -- it's the argument I've seen offered up by the 0%BAC-types in the past. The current legal limit is laughably low, and exists purely as a money maker.

I agree with the first two sentences. People should be drinking chocolate milk. :p

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=592498

[Rumor_Watkins]

Freedom of others to drink?

wow, they really can't control themselves and their imbibing that they need to have the freedom to drink in a passenger car? I think I'm ok with abridging this freedom


Why should that be illegal?

because it's probable that the driver is going to want to partake, and balancing that probability against the hardship of not being able to booze in a car isn't such a hard test to me.

[MeanOldLady]

because it's probable that the driver is going to want to partake, and balancing that probability against the hardship of not being able to booze in a car isn't such a hard test to me.:rolleyes: Have you ever heard the term "designated driver"? Believe it or not, some people can be in the vicinity of alcohol, attend parties and bars, and not partake. I'm not one of these people, but I know them, and they drive me around a lot.

[2square4u]

What do you mean, in many European countries? I mean that I don't know the rules in all European countries. Thus the modifier ("many").
Are you saying that despite a law with a fixed per se BAC level of currently 0.08, police in the US can't stop you and test your BAC? Really? Am I understanding you correct? In that case, that's the first thing you need to change!
Is there any reason for why not?Really, don't ask me. I live on the east bank of the pond, just like you apparently do. You gotta ask some Americans about that, but when I lived in the US some years ago, my American colleagues were pretty shocked that our police could pull you over for a breathalyzer test just as a matter of routine.

I live in a country with a 0.02% BAC limit for per se DUI plus the "risk" of being pulled over for no apparent reason, whereby a polite police officer asks me nicely if I would blow in his instrument (uh, that didn't come (oops!) out exactly as I intended...). I'm fine with that, maybe because I've had the rather dubious pleasure of administering first aid to a guy who drove drunk and subsequently died from it :dubious:

[Terraplane]

I had no idea that in Germany (as we all know, a country where the DUI laws are much stricter than in most of the USA) passengers were allowed to drink while riding in a car.

There are a few states that still allow this (Louisiana, Wyoming, Montana, Texas) but it's not the norm in America.

I don't know about the other states but Texas hasn't allowed this since 2001.

[CPomeroy]

Just a few random observations; it seems like part of the difference of opinion here is based on how much alcohol an individual and their friends typically consume. For example, in my world, 4-5 drinks in a night is light drinking. That does not seem to be the case for some of the folks who favor very strict per se DUI standards. In my experience there also is a generational component. I have noted that people my age (44) or older tend to be more tolerant of mild drinking and driving than the younger folks that have been brainwashed, I mean educated, about the evils of alcohol. I expect any negative affect that alcohol has had on your life may also play into it.

[SandyHook]

I said it was too low because you have no business driving if you've been drinking.

My personal rule is 1 1/2 hour wait if I've had, for instance, one beer with lunch.

The next day if I've had more than one.


There have been a few times in the last 15ish years when I've fudged a bit on this, but not lot. These very few lapses were only when I really, really had to be someplace. Generally I just forgot I had something to do, had a couple with lunch and then realized the problem.


After reading the entry above mine I guess I should add that on the whole I drink a fair amount. There's rarely a day I don't have something to drink.


Second edit: After re-rereading my entry I need to change line one to - I said it was too high. . . .
Been drinking you know.

[Rumor_Watkins]

:rolleyes: Have you ever heard the term "designated driver"? Believe it or not, some people can be in the vicinity of alcohol, attend parties and bars, and not partake. I'm not one of these people, but I know them, and they drive me around a lot.

do you pop a colt 45 while you're being driven around? ever feel sad that you couldn't because of open container laws?

[Rachellelogram]

I think .1% is fine. I also know that the times I've driven tipsy I was less impaired than the time I and my longish-distance boyfriend broke up on my birthday and I had to drive 3 hours home through a fog of tears.

[Blackberry]

do you pop a colt 45 while you're being driven around? ever feel sad that you couldn't because of open container laws?

I've drank in cars when someone else was driving. It wouldn't be a big deal not to do it, but it's not a big deal to do it either.

And that's not even all there is to open container laws, at least here in WA. It's illegal to have a container that has ever been opened (unless it's in the trunk), even if no one in the car is drinking. There have been times I was taking an opened bottle of alcohol to a friend's house, hadn't been drinking, and wasn't going to start until after I got to the friend's. Still illegal. (I'm not worried about it because it wasn't in plain view and nobody was going to be searching my car, but it's still a silly law.)

[suranyi]

1) Designated driver: one person stays sober

2) Take a walk or public transport - they do have cities in Czech, not everybody lives out in the woods miles and miles and miles away like in the US.

3) Meet at somebodys home and stay overnight.

Germany has lowered the BAC from 0.08 to 0.05 (and to 0.00 for beginning drivers), and during the Octoberfest, there are millions of people getting drunk. They take cabs and public transport. (And the police sets up roadblocks all around).
When the young people want to party, cities offer party bus lines that pick the people up at designated spots, drive to different clubs and discos, and then drive them back to the stops in the middle of the night.

When a middle-aged couple wants to have a nice evening in a good restaurant, they either take public transport or the wife (many women I know don't like to drink much alcohol anyway) stays sober.

That's fine, my question was directed more to Leaffan, who objected to lowering the BAC. The point is that people find a way to enjoy themselves just fine, with alcohol at dinner, even with a BAC limit of zero.

[Leaffan]

People who abuse the system infringe upon my ability to consume a reasonable amount of alcohol and drive in a perfectly safe manner.

[kushiel]

These studies have been done in simulators, and texting as well as talking on the phone (even with handless sets) is very distracting. Talking to a passenger is slightly distracting (psychologists say that a passenger will react to the traffic flow, while the driver will put priority over an unseen person on the phone).
Music is slightly distracting, depending on how much attention the driver pays to it. But it can also help with getting dulled by straight roads, so it depends a lot.

Loudness itself is less of a problem, since elderly and deaf people can drive, too, they just pay more attention.

I didn't want to bring up specific examples because I thought I might get piled on, but a car full of teens or a car with crying/arguing/yelling children can be just as dangerous as any BAC, but you'd never ever say it was bad for a parent to drive around with their children. There are laws now in some places for new drivers saying how many people can be in the car with them/what age they can be though.

Personally, I know passengers talking affect me more than a drink. But I do try to avoid either scenario.

[constanze]

I didn't want to bring up specific examples because I thought I might get piled on, but a car full of teens or a car with crying/arguing/yelling children can be just as dangerous as any BAC, but you'd never ever say it was bad for a parent to drive around with their children. There are laws now in some places for new drivers saying how many people can be in the car with them/what age they can be though.

That seems really .... strange. On the one hand, in the US, cops have incredibly wide latitude, like seizing your property under the anti-drug laws. On the other hand, laws are made so narrow as to be idiotic.

Children are not automatically noisy and distracting, so limiting how many / how old people in the car can be is dumb. Instead, drivers should be educated and aware enough to know that they are endangering others and should stop. For those who aren't aware of this, the cops stop them and apply the general traffic law* to them.

Of course German families drive with their cars full of children, too. But the parents issue the rule of "If you don't stop making noise, I will stop the car" and follow through, just like parents follow other areas of discipline and rules. (My father also did not start the car before everybody was belted in. No discussion about it, that was the rule, and it made sense).

* The first paragraph of the German StVO- Traffic law is (paraphrased): Each participant in traffic (=pedestrians, bikers, cars, inliners...) is responsible to always act in a manner that neither endangers nor hinders anybody else.
From this prinicple the other rules are derived and also practical applied, so e.g. there are general speed laws, but if its foggy or snowing, you have to drive slower than posted to not endanger others.
Likewise, there's a specific rule about alcohol, and a general rule about not driving impaired that includes medications and non-alcohol drugs (though they are harder to test for).

So if you are upset enough to cry, or have a cold with fever and headache, you don't belong behind the wheel of a car! If you are unable to act as responsible adult, then the cops will stop and ticket you, so threat of punishment will stop you, if insight is not enough.

[MeanOldLady]

do you pop a colt 45 while you're being driven around? ever feel sad that you couldn't because of open container laws?What does my answer to this question have to do with anything? Does whether or not open container laws are silly depend on whether or not MeanOldLady has ever drank in a vehicle while someone else was driving? It really shouldn't. If you're dying to know about my personal habits, my answer is: I own three flasks. Well, three traditional flasks.

[filling_pages]

do you pop a colt 45 while you're being driven around? ever feel sad that you couldn't because of open container laws?

There have been plenty of times - trips to the beach, for instance, or even just from house to bar after having predrinking with friends - that I had a sober driver and would have enjoyed sipping a beer on the way. The only thing stopping me was the law. What damage would I have done by drinking that beer?

[MeanOldLady]

There have been plenty of times - trips to the beach, for instance, or even just from house to bar after having predrinking with friends - that I had a sober driver and would have enjoyed sipping a beer on the way. The only thing stopping me was the law. What damage would I have done by drinking that beer?Ah, you missed his earlier response. The answer, you see, is if you have a sip of beer in the back seat, the designated driver will feel compelled to join in and drink while he's driving, thereby getting drunk and crashing the car.

[filling_pages]

Ah, you missed his earlier response. The answer, you see, is if you have a sip of beer in the back seat, the designated driver will feel compelled to join in and drink while he's driving, thereby getting drunk and crashing the car.

I saw that, I was just hoping he'd offer a more real life answer.

[Guinastasia]

Ah, you missed his earlier response. The answer, you see, is if you have a sip of beer in the back seat, the designated driver will feel compelled to join in and drink while he's driving, thereby getting drunk and crashing the car.

A more believable answer would be that you'd have someone drinking while driving, and then if they get stopped, just lie and say it was only the passengers.

It's still stupid, but slightly less so than his original one.

[Declan]

I was just looking at a thread in Great Debates, and it got me wondering what people think of the typical 0.08 BAC threshold for DUI in the US.

Please provide suport for your opinion if you feel so inclined. I will check back and post my thoughts after the poll has been posted for a while.

I would be comfortable with the BAC between .10 and .12 and let the cops prove impairment. Our current yellow zone in ontario is .05 has more to do with political grandstanding with the fiberals, and MADD.

Declan

[The Universe Lashes Out]

Any actual research I've seen says that people who kill people while driving drunk, or otherwise cause serious accidents, are well above .08. So if you want to stop innocent people from being killed by drunk drivers, then focus on preventing the obscenely drunk (usually the habitual drunk drivers) from getting on the road. If you just want to prevent people from having fun in areas without 24/7 public transit, then I guess you should make rules against driving with the slightest bit of alcohol in your veins, even if it hasn't been shown to be dangerous.

I would say have graduated enforcements. If you are driving dangerously, then you get slapped with the ridiculous penalties we currently have for any drunk driver. If you are not, but still test at an elevated BAC level, then you get a ticket. We need to focus on harm reduction, not just making the most draconian penalties possible.

[constanze]

A more believable answer would be that you'd have someone drinking while driving, and then if they get stopped, just lie and say it was only the passengers.

It's still stupid, but slightly less so than his original one.

That's the usual "reason" I hear from officials about this law, but it still doesn't make sense: if you let the driver use the breathalyzer, it won't help that he has passed the parcel; and if he is sober, he can continue transporting his three-quarters full bottle of scotch to his friend.

[constanze]

Any actual research I've seen says that people who kill people while driving drunk, or otherwise cause serious accidents, are well above .08.

I've never heard this. Who did these studies? What did they look at - accidents resulting in deaths being reported (to whom)? How did they determine the alcohol content of all parties accurately?

I know that many different groups, scientists as well as the ADAC, have done simulator studies and that even one glass of wine or beer shows measurable results in reaction time, tunnel vision etc.
Given that accidents have been caused (going by what comes up to the courts) by people being distracted for one second switching the radio channel, picking up a dropped cigarette, loud children, micro-sleep, etc., I wonder why only heavily drunk drivers would cause serious accidents. There could be some self-selection in that most people drink in the evening, and are thus driving home late at night, when the roads are mostly empty, compared to the normal distraction that occurs during daylight heavy traffic.

So if you want to stop innocent people from being killed by drunk drivers, then focus on preventing the obscenely drunk (usually the habitual drunk drivers) from getting on the road.

But the habitual drunk aren't observable by their bad style, because they are used to it. So the best way to capture the dangerous drunks would seem to me to check all drivers with breathalyzers - which it seems (I still haven't gotten a definite answer to that) is for some reason not usual in the US?

If you just want to prevent people from having fun in areas without 24/7 public transit, then I guess you should make rules against driving with the slightest bit of alcohol in your veins, even if it hasn't been shown to be dangerous.

If you want to be taken seriously, then I guess you should leave out hyperbole and unrelated topics.

If your country is so lacking in infrastructure that it has neither public transport (nobody says it has to be 24/7) nor any of the other options against drunk disco driving - party buses, designated drivers, the canadian drivers on call (volunteers who come to drive you home) etc. - then that is a seperate problem from people who are so irresponsible that they drive after drinking, instead of arranging things beforehand.

It would be one thing if we were talking about teenagers at 18 or 19 who do dumb things because they are still learning to think ahead. But I'm shocked at how many adult Dopers in this thread are convinced that driving a bit drunk is no problem. It really confirms the stereotype of a nation of teenagers who want all the freedom but none of the responsibility for their actions.
If you are an adult, and you want to drink, then you make sure you can get home safely without driving yourself. What's so difficult about that?

I would say have graduated enforcements. If you are driving dangerously, then you get slapped with the ridiculous penalties we currently have for any drunk driver. If you are not, but still test at an elevated BAC level, then you get a ticket. We need to focus on harm reduction, not just making the most draconian penalties possible.

What's draconian about loosing your license for some months for having a seriously high BAC? And for the smaller levels, yes, you get points and a ticket, but don't loose the license here.

[Harmonious Discord]

0% is a stupid limit as it would then be triggered by a sip of Communion wine, or use of mouthwash and be prosecutable. Having some actual penalties that were not a joke is what we need for impaired drivers. The person that has a 5th DUI shouldn't ever be able to get to that 5th DUI.

[Toxylon]

Here in the Nordic countries, where public transportation ranges from crappy to nonexistent outside big cities and long distances are the norm, allowing drunk people to have open containers of alcohol inside a car promotes safety. Drunk people will go to places using automobiles, no matter what the law. Allowing this, but demanding a sober designated driver works perfectly, as people can be law-abiding and still get drunk and go for a ride. If open containers were forbidden, there'd be little incentive to self-enforce the designated driver system by the populace, as people would be breaking the law and risking penalties no matter what. As it is, there's always a designated driver at hand for the partiers, usually a person who doesn't like to drink all that much, anyway, and now has a perfect alibi in a heavily booze-centric society.

[Toxylon]

Missed the edit window:

No, designated drivers aren't tempted to take a sip offered from the backseat, as the concept is clear even to school kids and honored by all but the seriously messed-up multi-offenders.

[2square4u]

0% is a stupid limit as it would then be triggered by a sip of Communion wine, or use of mouthwash and be prosecutable.Any sensible country enforcing a 0% limit would have some kind of safety margin thrown into the analysis work. Just as when the nice police offices pulls me over after lasering me and tells me I'm gonna get a ticket for driving 10kph too fast. If I'm fined for 10, the laser showed at least 13, but they routinely subtract a more-than-reasonable safety margin before writing me the ticket.

0% is perfectly enforcable provided you're able to understand that any measurement or analysis is prone to error and design your regulations accordingly.

[2square4u]

[...] to check all drivers with breathalyzers - which it seems (I still haven't gotten a definite answer to that) is for some reason not usual in the US?

Actually, I'd like to know the answer to that question as well, since I only have anecdotal impressions from one of the US states:

Is it possible to be pulled over in the US for a breathalyzer test without any apparent reason?

Do you have, as we have in Europe, "roadblocks" where every third, or seventh, or any random car is stopped and the driver required to take a breathalyzer test? And where refusing to take said breathalyzer test is considered to be reasonable grounds to take you in for a blood sample?