"Less than 1.3% of 2001 fatalities involved a driver between .08 and .10 BAC vs. 12.4% at .15 or greater. Even the .00-.02 (trace level) range accounts for about 1.2% of fatalities... "Anyone with a modest understanding of this issue, and who is honest, " says NMA President Jim Baxter, "knows that drivers with low BACs such as .08% are no more likely to be involved in an accident than someone with a BAC of 0.0%."
See posts 105 and 108 for more data.
"Alcohol-related fatalities also dropped significantly in 2003, the first such decline since 1999, as more states adopted laws that allowed them to prosecute drivers at .08 blood alcohol content (BAC) and above."
"The fatality rate on the nation's highways in 2003 was the lowest since record keeping began 29 years ago, the U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta announced today. The number of crash-related injuries also dropped to a historic low in 2003."
I guess you would then be saying that just another BUSH administration official is telling lies then right?
Now to be fair, this decrease is due to several factors. Only one of which is that this is when all 50 states went to .08. Technology in vehicles also play major roles.
Please remember that not all people die in crashes and that hurt people matter too. When only discussing fatality you leave a major section of people out.
Baxter will have you turn off your air bags, http://www.motorists.org/issues/airbags/disconnecting.html
wants no laws against cell phone use while driving.
http://www.motorists.org/issues/cellphones/policy.html
opposes daytime running lights,
http://www.motorists.org/issues/cellphones/policy.html
opposes roadblocks, BAC, and even claims impairment begins at.15 when studies clearly show impairment for many functions is evident at.08.
The there is this: "We support increased penalties for repeat offenders, but maintain that rehabilitation be the primary goal in all but the most severe cases."
That sounds like something Hillary Clinton would say! Punishment doesn't work but "rehabilitation does" right? That is about as liberal as it gets.
Noone can 'rehabilitate' a persons own choices.
And then we have this :"We do not support age-based BAC standards (e.g., "zero tolerance") for persons under 21 years of age"
This says he (and the group he is president of) Thinks it is improper to punish KIDS for underage drinking or for underage drinking and driving. WOW.
"The current .10% BAC, now employed in most states, represents a lowest common denominator approach. "
A bit out of date there eh?