yes they are much more likely than the .00 level JUST like the ,08 are more likely also.
You can go claim no citation all you want to, but that doesn't make it true. There are many studies that show impairment established at .08. Deny them all if you wish, its your dime.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/New-fact-sheet03/Point08BAC.pdf
This is codswallop. You may like gov't propaganda, but I don't. Where to begin.
First of all, the data about increased risks of fatality are based upon a review of fatalities, not upon an analysis of overall driving.
This is the same junk science methodology that gun grabbers use to claim that if you have a gun in your house, you are 47 (or whatever) times more likely to be killed. It's junk methodology.
Compare the amount of miles driven by people in various states of sobriety and drunkeness (and good luck getting that data) and see how many casualties result. That would be science.
The "Point-Counterpoint" section is pathetic. They don't reapond to the points raised, they just duck them. Example:
They abuse the wording of the GAO report (just like you did earlier) to ignore the fact that 0.08 laws take place not in a vacuum but "in combination with" other factors. Don't pretend to have isolated a factor when you haven't.
Also, I find it comical that they deny in a "counterpoint" that they are working incrementally to zero, yet in a later section they wax lovingly about how other countries and studies show 0.05 is a much better number. "Most subjects in these studies were significantly impaired at .05 BAC"
SD