What do you think of the US DUI Level

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.

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.

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.

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%.

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.

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.

Do you feel speed limits are similarly unjust?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.


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).

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.

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

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:

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.

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.


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

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