“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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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?
