I don’t understand this. Wouldn’t it be a lot cheaper to make the punishment fit the crime, and take away the driver’s license?
Some people are too impulsive to be good drivers. They could be wonderful people, but they just weren’t meant to drive. DUI should be decriminalized.
You’d still have to jail some people who were caught driving without a license. But if they can’t register a car, and can’t get on someone’s car insurance, most would move to someplace where they can get to work without driving.
I’m not arguing for anything. But I do have a question.
A lot of people are taking prescription drugs for various reasons. These substances can interact with alcohol metabolism and amplify intoxication.
Are there a lot of people on the road who are technically unimpaired for alcohol, but effectively impaired because of the other drugs in their system? If they get in an accident and their blood alcohol concentration comes back within the legal limits, but they have high concentrations of other stuff, are there any legal ramifications? Like, what if someone is right on the cusp of the legal limit for alcohol, but they cop to popping a benzo right before getting behind the wheel? Are they going to jail?
Lowering the limit seems ridiculous to me. As others have mentioned unless we can relate the BAC to something physical then many people will be breaking the law without the knowledge that they are breaking the law. This is just a way for cities to make more money.
Having worked in a prison intake and processing center many moons ago I can tell you that people have a wide range of reactions to the same BAC. I’ve seen people almost falling over with less than a 0.08 BAC and plenty of people walking and talking just fine with BACs well over 0.1. I saw one guy who had a BAC of 0.3 (usually the limit where you get your stomach pumped) and he looked, walked and spoke as though he was as sober as a church mouse. The arresting officer pulled the guy over for a broken tail light and smelled the booze. He passed the field test but blew a 0.3. The officer told me he was driving just fine. You’d never have known he was even drinking if you didn’t smell the booze. Turns out he was a hardcore alcoholic.
That happens, in addition to the other punishments imposed. In my state, the license is suspended for 6 months for the first offense, and longer for subsequent offenses. For that matter, refusal to submit to the breath test is an automatic license suspension for 6 months, in addition to any suspension imposed upon conviction.
Possibly. My state (and probably other states as well) has a “DUI-Other Substance” charge which can be applied to those under the influence of drugs, even drugs taken lawfully with a prescription. It is similar to what is sometimes called “common law dui” in that the conviction is based upon the arresting officer’s testimony about the various driving violations observed along with the defendant’s demeanor, and sometimes evidence obtained via a blood test.
Well, I believe Sparky’s saying that since there is no public interest served by having that beer either, then you or I just not having it is the simplest solution. After all we don’t need to have that beer.
Still I do wonder how reliably and significantly are the persistent drunk-driving casualties relatable to those drivers within the nominal legal BAC, as opposed to drivers flouting the law altogether. And how can we be sure the heavy drinkers will be any more deterred by 0.05 than by 0.08.
BTW, another thing to consider – if we were to adopt a zero or near-zero BAC standard, would we in effect be taking liquor sales out of the business plan of every eatery whose clientele is not mainly within walking distance or served by mass transit, or closing every bar with such circumstances? That could have an economic impact that may weigh on regulators’ decisions.
A lot of folks here are big supporters of lobbyists. Didn’t really expect that. If that’s not the explanation then I overestimated the general tendency to see through bullshit.
The difference between 0.05 and 0.08 only allows the authorities to sweep-up casual and incidental drinkers in their net. Truly dangerous drunks would either not test their luck with any measurable BAC or go for broke at whatever astounding level they achieve.
I somewhat agree. Look, the problem isn’t with dudes driving in the .07>.05 range, it’s the dudes driving in the .20 range and higher, those already with a DUI or two.
Second offense- the car is seized. If it doesn’t belong to the drunk , then the real owner can buy it back at the auction. Don’t lend a car to a drunk.
It’s not the skinny woman with one large glass of wine at dinner that’s the problem. It’s the repeat offender.
Everything, if you live by yourself, with widely spaced friends, family, and social activities in areas that are not connected by mass transit.
If you are in that situation, as I am, a zero-BAC rule would be exactly equivalent to bringing back Prohibition. (Except, I suppose, that I could legally sit in my house and drink alone. But I have no desire to do that.)
The cynic in me believes that is exactly the goal.
I understand that I have no basic right to have a beer and then drive. But it is a freedom, and like all freedoms, the government should have a legitimate state interest in outlawing such a thing. Since one drink and then driving would not endanger the public in any fashion, even if aggregated among everyone in the population, I can’t see such a legitimate interest.
What you seriously are against seat belt laws? What person could object to wearing something like a seat belt?
Look maybe it’s because I grew up wearing one in Australia my whole life that I don’t get this aversion to people wearing them. Shit mate if go through your windscreen or a kid gets hurt it’s the rest of society that as to pay for that!
0.05 BAC in Australia is a way of life, it’s pretty easy to say no or have a few lite alcohol beers or a glass of wine and remain under 0.05.
We have 0.00% for young drivers and bloody good idea it is.
Whilst we have 5.71 road fatalities a year per 100,000 people and the USA has 10.84 maybe just maybe you need to look at what other countries do and stop banging on about revenue and gubbernment taking my freedoms.
No…Prohibition meant no one could sell or possess alcohol. A zero-BAC rule is actually nothing at all remotely like that. You have a litany of options–designated driver, hosting parties at your home–even “sleep over” parties for drinking buddies, camping trips, taking a cab, staying at a motel/casino with a bar, etc.
Note that I do not advocate a zero BAC rule—and in fact, in this very thread I opposed lowering the limit to .05.
Spot on, again we are very used to having a designated driver or even booking a cheap room in town when we go out.
Zero BAC rule for new drivers (our legal drinking age is 18, the same time you can get a car licence) seems to work here but as the USA has a legal drinking age of 21 maybe not such an issue?
We are only talking about a lifestyle change not being locked up for possessing a few beers.
Yep. Most countries have lowered and lowered again the BAC, and put harsher sanctions for DUI. It’s not a serious issue, indeed. And I don’t buy the usual suspect “they do that only in order to make money from the fines”. It’s not difficult to avoid the fine, the suspended license, etc…Just don’t drink alcohol, or drink only a couple beers.
Estimating isn’t very hard, the tule of thumb being "a regular serving for alcohol = 0.02 (a beer, a glass of wine, a small glass of liquor…). If you’re unsure, just drink one glass less or not all. Or use a breathanalyzer. In France, now, you must have one in your car at all times, in order to be able to mesure yourself your level of intoxication if you’re in doubt.
Personnally, I’m clearly impaired at 0.08. I rarely drink at all, so maybe my tolerance to alcohol is just low. But maybe I just notice it more easily than someone who drinks more often, despite him being exactly as impaired as myself.
I disagree. It would change things fundamentally. So it’s been a long day at work and we want to stop and have a couple of beers. Do we get a hotel??? I have stuff to do at home later. Do we call the wives and leave our cars at work? They won’t be happy driving us back to work in the morning.
Do we just go to one another’s home and spend the night? The wives will really like that. Plus, there is something to be said of the social activity of being out and about. Designated drivers? Again, we’ve all got stuff to do. I’m sure that you’re not going to sit for 2 hours and eat peanuts while watching me make a fool out of myself while dinner is waiting on you at home, and the grass needs cut.
It’s not prohibition, but it’s damned well near close. In fact, it would encourage binge drinking as no longer would someone have one or two beers. If you can’t have one and drive, then you might as well turn it into a party…or just not drink at all. And the second choice seems to be the one that proponents of the .1 law, then the .08 law, now the .05 law, and those in this thread advocating the .00 law seem to be steering us towards.
I think that instead of creating an even more strict yet totally arbitrary rule that will affect an even greater number of drivers than the law currently does, we should think about ways to encourage safer, more polite driving in general.
Frankly, I’d much rather be on the road with a .05% BAC driver who is not an asshole than some of the people I share the road with on my morning commute.
So a co worker invites you out for a couple beers after work, and you’ve got no problem making time for that. Oakminster suggests a designated driver and - woah, hey man, “we’ve all got stuff to do”.
Planning for safety should be part of the “do I have time for drinking?” decision making process. The fact that it isn’t is a problem - regardless of whether or not a 0.08/0.05/0.00 BAC limit actually solves it.
Even if scientists invented magic tomorrow and globally prevented anyone from operating a motor vehicle after even a sip of alcohol, people would still find ways to go out with their buddies and drink excessively. It would look nothing like prohibition and plenty of folks already behaving in a safe and responsible way would not be affected at all.