Skip to comments.Even MADD Doesn't Just Want to Drop the Legal Limit for Drunk Driving
Posted on 05/18/2013 6:30:51 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
In an effort to cut down on the number of alcohol related accidents, the National Transportation Safety Board wants to lower the legal limit for driving from a 0.08 to 0.05 blood alcohol content in all states. That doesn't mean post-dinner-out driving standards will be more exacting anytime soon, though indeed, the fight is just now underway, and from some of the most unlikely of people.
Of course, the NTSB can't order the state or federal governments to do anything. They can only make recommendations about that one fewer beer. In fact, the recommendation to lower the legal limit isn't even receiving overwhelming support from those who typically campaign against drunk driving. "We don't expect any state to go to .05," said Jonathan Adkins, a (very realistic) Governors Highway Safety Association spokesman. "This recommendation is ludicrous," said Sarah Longwell, the (bottom line-focused) managing director of the American Beverage Institute. Even Mothers Against Drunk Driving the lobbying group that won a string of victories in getting the national BAC levels in every state down from around 0.15 to 0.08 in the first place isn't crazy about the new idea. They "would not oppose" the change, as the Times puts it, but ultimately the group supports other potential changes. This is the board "trying to focus on a group of people who are more social drinkers, who haven't been targeted in a while," said MADD rep J.T. Griffin, clearly seeking more widespread efforts on drunk driving.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlanticwire.com ...
They also have no comment on the propensity of illegal aliens to drive drunk and kill Americans.
“Drunks Against Madd Mothers” want it raised!
Of course, the NTSB can’t order the state or federal governments to do anything. They can only make recommendations about that one fewer beer.
Obviously written by a naive fool .... remember back to the 55 mph “suggestions”. You could ignore the mandate but the Feds would reduce or eliminate Federal matching funds for US Highway building and maintenance in the states refusing ... just ask Texas and several other Western states.
They could easily solve the problem by getting illegal mexicans off our roadways.
In Texas the EPA has been setting speed limits in major cities like Houston (can’t go above 60 on the highways because of “pollution”).
When the NTSB proposes to outlaw driving if over 80 years old, unless the driver can pass a simulator test, then I’ll know they’re serious.
But this reeks of an agency trying to look important enough to survive the 2% budget cut of sequester.
If your gonna be drinkin just call a taxi! Is what we do and the night is lighter and more fun a $20.00 cab beats $3000.00
And no worries! If you have a DD fine but don’t trust them they will want to join the party! I know it his or her liscense but it’s your life!
We have a party bus also that drops off and picks us all up for tips only! and works out good!
Puritans are people who are deathly afraid someone, somewhere might be haing fun.
This has less to do with drinking than it does control.
Correlation doesn't equal causation.
I understand that but guess what they do have control!
There are efforts being made to require that all persons working in a bar (including bands and strippers) have a BAC of 0.03 or below.
Sweden’s BAC is 0.01.
It’s a neoprohibitionist movement. Driving is just one part of it.
Near Dallas a couple of years ago, they were writing PI fines for adults ($500, no breath/blood test needed). Basically if you are observed drinking more than 2 adult beverages in an hour, you can be busted.
They are still deathly afraid to use the same severity on those caught driving-while-texting.
Niemöller just rolled over in his grave...
Drunk driving is SUCH a major problem in my state. We have SUCH a culture of drinking it’s absolutely weird and foreign to anyone looking at us from the outside! It embarrasses me, but I am obviously quite alone on this issue for some reason.
Why NONE of my legislators (or my Rock Star Governor) will address this issue and put some TEETH into our laws is BEYOND me. How many MORE innocent people have to DIE due to drunk people being allowed to drive around?
I SO hate to sound like one of those MADD Moms - and I’ve not lost anyone that I know personally to a drunk driver, but it still bugs the cr@p outta me!
Seriously! The latest legislation introduced deals with these selfish, alcohol-soaked, MURDERERS when they’re already on their 6th, 7th, 8th DUI ARREST!
It’s absolute insanity!
Be glad you don’t live in Texas. Drunk driving is rampant here. Texas is one of about 10 states that DO NOT have DWI checkpoints.
Our drunk driving fatalties are nearly the highest in the nation.
Targeting? I thought profiling was wrong.
In Texas the EPA has been setting speed limits in major cities like Houston (cant go above 60 on the highways because of pollution).”
Well, we have our usual May pollution but it’s coming from all the burning that Mexico, Central and South American do at least once a year.
I live near Houston and I can guarantee you that if traffic permits driving 80 you better get with it you will get run over. Tooling along at 60 when you could be doing at least 75 in the far left lane is not permitted.
I have always thought it was interesting how anyone can justify selling gasoline and alcohol at the same place. Seems to me like I’ve read lots of articles lately about illegals being arrested for their 5th or more DWI. When I bought gas last week guy coming out of the quick stop had 4 very large cans all in brown bags. And he certainly wasn’t Amish or Black!
Also wonder if deaths would go down if you couldn’t buy cold beer anywhere in the state but had to buy it non-refrigerated from package stores.
“Be glad you dont live in Texas. Drunk driving is rampant here. Texas is one of about 10 states that DO NOT have DWI checkpoints.
Our drunk driving fatalties are nearly the highest in the nation.”
hmmmm I wonder why....
Lower the drinking age to ten years old. Not many deaths due to drunk bicycle accidents, just scrapes and bruises. Then, by the time they’re old enough to drive a car, drinking will be so “ten year old like” that they’ll have moved on.
FWIW, in Canada, drunk driving falls under the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC). If your blood alchohol concentration (BAC) is above 0.08% (or 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood), police will usually charge you with BOTH operating a vehicle while impaired (CCC §253.1) AND operating a vehicle with a BAC in excess of 0.08% (CCC §253.2). I believe that the §253.1 charge is also included, in case §253.2 fails. Both provide identical sentences, a $1000 fine and a 12-month driving prohibition across Canada. Ii is a criminal offence to you refuse the breathalizer, reasulting in sentencing exactly the same as a conviction. Sentences also increase for subsequent convictions and increase if someone is injured or killed.
In addition, each Province has its own administrative license suspensions, where BAC is less than 0.08%. The criteria vary by Province, (ie: reasonable grounds/suspicion of impairment, 0.04, 0.05% BAC) and suspension of license (1st time) for 12, 24, 72 hours; some Provinces increase the suspension for subsequent infractions.
In all cases of a short term suspension, license and keys are taken, and the car is towed to the impound lot. To ‘spring’ the car, keys and license is therefore, a rather expensive proposition!
“Also wonder if deaths would go down if you couldnt buy cold beer anywhere in the state but had to buy it non-refrigerated from package stores.”
Don’t you think that our country would be better if we just banned all alcohol sales?
Been there, done that. The only long-lasting effect of prohibition was the rise in influence of the bootlegger Kennedy clan. I don't think we really need a new batch of those, do you?
Guess they have not heard of State Hwy 130 which runs north-south parallel to I35 about 15 miles east. From I-10 on the south to US 290 on the north, the posted speed limit is 85.
North of 290, I do not know the limit.
I believe 0.05 is too low. I’m not convinced 0.08 isn’t too low. I’m more of a 0.10 guy, but hey, I could be wrong.
More than the beer, it’s where your head is at when you drink and drive. If you’re serious about driving decently, I know you can do it at 0.10.
That doesn’t mean you should. We have to drive responsibly.
I have driven far worse when sober than I have when I’ve had some drinks.
It has nothing to do with any safety factor. There’s HUGE money collected from DWI/DUI. They need more money in the coffers.
I agree to a certain extent. If there wasn’t a standard set, folks would still be drinking at 0.25. There has to be some intervention IMO.
I’ve seen moves to buffalo the public into accepting guilt ff they are caught driving under the legal limit too. They call it driving under the influence.
I believe I’ve read where folks have had problems with this.
I don’t approve at all.
Why 80? I know a man who still drives to work three days a week at the age of 83. Nothing wrong with him.
People driving at .08 aren’t the problem.
I’ve done drunk driving enforcement ride-alongs and can never remember picking up anyone under .10. .05 might scare some folks into avoiding that third beer, but it won’t do anything to stop the serious drunks who get blotto, then drive the wrong way on the freeway until they hit someone head on.
This comment does not meet Federal/State/Local guidelines. Please prepare yourself for a trip to the nearest Re-education Facility for training.
And they would fascistcly order states for more enforcement after they would lay down hoses and count the number if vehicles exceeding their limit.
If a state didn’t comply they would hill back Federal highway funds. Hence the atrocious attention on areas such as speeding, seatbelt and cellphone enforcement. So cops aren’t out doing what they want which is to be very visible in their communities as a visible deterrent
Hmmm... Smacks of Utah.
They want to make us all criminals while giving the real criminals the vote.
Ban alcohol? I would hope you’re kidding.
It’s a tolerated practice for people to stop and get a cold one or two or three in a brown bag to drink while driving home from work, probably on an empty stomach, yet we rail about the consequences of people driving while intoxicated.
I don’t care whether people drink or not unless they are doing so while sharing the same stretch of highway that I’m on. I had suggested that one option to consider in thinking about ways to cut down on excessive auto accidents in Texas caused by people who have been drinking while driving is to reduce the access to the cold beer. I have never found warm or hot beer to taste very good, maybe some people have.
My car was totaled by a drunk driver and I have injuries that will remain with me the rest of my life. Cars should be used to take you to and from a destination, not as a phone booth, place to catch up on all your text messages or as a temporary bar. Those activities can wait until you get home.
My question is what is the correlation of driving accidents to persons with a 0.05 blood alcohol content? A person may have some alcohol in their system but the impairment from that alcohol may have not been the cause of the accident. There are things that can happen driving a car whether one is sober or not.
For instance, my daughter was driving her car at 11:00 PM when she rode over a piece of sharp metal bracket. It ripped open her tire and cause her to cross over the center line an into oncoming traffic. Luckily there were no other cars on the road. If this resulted in a deadly crash and my daughter had alcohol in her system, she would have been charged with driving under the influence. If she was over the 0.05 blood alcohol content, she would have had a DWI with the new limit. It also would have been reported as an accident due to alcohol. I am thinking the statistics are lying to promote an agenda.
Doing the taxi or party bus thing isn’t something that’s available in the majority of the US. It must be unique to someone living in an urban area and close to the restaurants and bars.
They call it driving under the influence.
DUI differs from DWI I think, as it includes pot, alchohol, legal (Rx) and illegal drugs.
I found out many years ago that local cops will do anything to bring in $$. Here, a DWI is a County offense and local police get a kick-back from the County for each one nabbed.
On the way home during an ice storm, I stopped at a pizza place and ordered one to go. While waiting, I had ONE mug of draft beer. The freeway wasn’t crowded and most of us were only driving about 35mph because it was slick. I went around a curve and my SUV slid a bit into the middle lane. ......Yep. Cop pulled me over and arrested me for Public Intoxication, because he knew I wasn’t DWI. ...Night in jail, $85 fine, cost of getting truck out of impound, missing a day of work, etc. ....All for just having one draft beer and local cops being so hell bent on racking up fines on their records.
They should treat consumers of alcohol the same way they do smokers. Ban them from drinking in bars and restaurants and tax the hell out of alcoholic beverages.............
Oops, I almost forgot, sue the hell out of the manufacturers first for all the death and destruction their alcohol products have proven to have caused......
Yeah, the guys had to be a little tweaked to write you up for sliding in the snow. You can be sober as a preacher on Sunday morning, and slip on the snow and ice.
I am shocked to see so many nanny state posts on FR. The Republic is truly lost.
The books are cooked somewhat. In this state, if you are sitting at a red light and someone rear ends your car, ordinarily, the driver who hit your car would be considered at fault. Not so if you are above the legal BAC limit: not only is it an "alcohol involved" accident, it is your fault (presumably because you are over the limit).
I avoid drinking any time I got out to a restuarant. If you eat dinner with your family, both adults could likely have 2 glasses of wine. Thay will put anyone over the .08 limit. If I got pulled over on the way home, they could get me for a DUI. .05 would such take someone like me who doesn’t to access wheb they are having dinner with their family from not having any alcohol. I think restuarants would have unnecessary lost revenue. At least the streets will be safer. There is no price to high when it comes to safety, even when it doesn’t do squat to alleviate the problem.
“Why 80? I know a man who still drives to work three days a week at the age of 83. Nothing wrong with him.”
Statistics. I know a guy who drives drunk nearly every weekend. Never a problem. But, statistically, both the 83 year old and the drunk are MUCH MORE likely to kill someone else. So if we’re going to arrest the drunk for something that he might do, we should arrest the old guy for the same.
(although I am willing to make an exception for the old guy, if he can prove his ability...but not the drunk)
>>Tooling along at 60 when you could be doing at least 75 in the far left lane is not permitted.
Good. The essence of good transportation is speed. Slower traffic keep right generally is the law.
“Ban alcohol? I would hope youre kidding.”
It was satire, Grams.
But you do know though, one of our past Presidents, before he was the Prez, bragged about his relaxation technique of taking a bunch of cold beer, his beagle and driving in his Cadillac for 100 or so miles of Texas interstate which passed thru his ranch bought up during his tenure in the House, benefit, no doubt, of big time insider trading.
Re my ban alcohol response, I am sure there are lots of folks who would like to do just that.
In the meantime, we just had a LEO in Houston killed today by a drunk driver who the news identified as a “non-resident citizen”. Must be the new CBS code word for illegal. Wasn’t the guy’s first DWI either. Harris County tops the list in Texas for DWI deaths.
Maybe instead of doing pressers about tearing down old buildings the Houston Mayor and Chief of Police could concentrate on taking DWI drivers permanently off the streets and send all those “non-resident citizens” back across the border.
No, but warm beer drinking would go up. Drunks are drunks, and making it taste a little worse is no deterrent. About all that can be done is prohibition, which demonstrably didn’t and won’t work, or punish very, very harshly for those who do it and get caught.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.