Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Poll to FREEP, NTSB Board for states to lower blood alcohol limit from .08 to .05
State Journal Register ^ | May 15, 2013 | Steelers6

Posted on 05/15/2013 8:38:01 AM PDT by Steelers6

One recent recommendation by the National Transportation Safety Board was to reduce states’ drunken-driving threshold from .08 to .05 blood alcohol content. What do you think?

That’s way too strict. 42%

Sounds good to me. 35%

The standard should be zero. 21%


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: control; drinking; limit; ntsb; states; tooltocontrol; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last
To: BenLurkin
It doesn't take very much booze before people are too impaired to drive properly.

Most elderly drivers are far more 'impaired' and there are no 'tests' administered for their ability to drive properly, at least not in my state.

21 posted on 05/15/2013 8:59:49 AM PDT by Right Brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

If you can’t manage to have a drink or two and drive your car, that’s a YOU problem.


22 posted on 05/15/2013 9:00:52 AM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (So?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
I've never seen any official studies... That's NOT a popular subject. But, many years ago (about 20) I spent a few days doing my own research into traffic statistics. What I found was:

There was NO statistical difference in the mortality rate between non-drinkers and drinkers until the measured BAC content was >>0.12 - 0.13

BAC analyzers are a scam... they only measure alcohol in your BREATH, and not very well at that. The correlation to alcohol in your blood has a pretty wide error margin.

IMO, We should be looking at RAISING The legal limit back to 0.10, and dramatically INCREASING the penalties for being caught.

23 posted on 05/15/2013 9:01:03 AM PDT by SomeCallMeTim ( The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steelers6

Shouldn’t be a numerical standard anyway. Some people are impaired at 0.01, while long-time alkies are probably functional at 0.12. Nothing but going back to a performance-based test is acceptable. If you think it’s too subjective because it relies on the officer’s judgment, then use some kind of automated, but still performance-based, test.


24 posted on 05/15/2013 9:03:58 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelers6

Now everyone has to give up using Listerine in the morning.


25 posted on 05/15/2013 9:04:13 AM PDT by Mortrey (Impeach President Soros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass

Problem is there are lots out there that cannot but think they can. They are the ones that will kill members of yours or my family.

It is called personal responsibility. Nobody takes it anymore. I have no sympathy for anyone that has any alcohol in their system if they get popped. It is a totally avoidable circumstance, unless you are Cary Grant in North by Northwest.


26 posted on 05/15/2013 9:04:44 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan
Can they show us any evidence lowering from .10 to .08 has made any difference?

Yes, local, state and federal governments have increased their coffers dramatically along with the attendant lawyers. It was and is all about the money.

27 posted on 05/15/2013 9:05:03 AM PDT by VRW Conspirator (Cyprus - the beginning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
However, by instituting a zero tolerance BAC, what will this do to the restuarant/bar industry? How many people in the hospitality industries would lose their jobs and how many businesses might have to close down?

But if it saves even ONE liberal sacred cow, isn't it worth it?

28 posted on 05/15/2013 9:05:45 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steelers6

Why not ban alcohol altogether?

After all it is against Islam.

Obama didnt drink his when he toasted the Queen. (watch the video of that ass-clown messing up the toast)

He had a ‘beer-summit’ with that racist college professor who got himself arrested, but did any one see him drink?

Or, how about a BLT sandwich, or pork chops, any one ever SEE him actually eat pork?


29 posted on 05/15/2013 9:05:53 AM PDT by Mr. K (There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and democrat talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Also had a chance to work with one of the most recognized BA experts in SoCal.

Some people's job title gives away their bias. People who are OK with reasonable alcohol levels while driving don't become BA experts.

It doesn't take very much booze before people are too impaired to drive properly.

BS. Most anyone that drinks alcohol (has any level of tolerance) can be at .10 and indicate about zero negative reaction times. I got to partake in one of those road shows where everyone has a few drinks and then jumps into the driving simulator. Guess what, person after person after person was demonstrating no impairment. After my fourth scotch and second passing score, the tester wouldn't allow me to try again. Apparently, it was sending the wrong message...the truth I guess.

The truth is that most totally sober people who are day dreaming will have a much slower reaction time than a focused person with a BA of .1.

No I'm not promoting drunk driving, just stating that this nanny state crap has gone way too far. The dangerous drunks out there aren't at .08, they are at more like .25. I've known four people killed by drunks on the road. Everyone of the drunks involved had already lost their license, were driving illegally, and were hammered. Making the already silly limit even lower would have done nothing to prevent them from killing others.

Set the limit at a realistic level and then enforce the hell out of it on those who cause accidents. Prison time.

30 posted on 05/15/2013 9:06:38 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Spartan302
More people are drinking because of the core problems of the country starting with the massive Obama failure, and thus now the vultures circling are growing in numbers and need more road kill, so they drop the BAC level, get billions more in revenues.

Like when they went from 0.10 to 0.08 and those lying sacks of shit at MADD cited a vast increase in drunk driving arrests to show you needed to donate money to them. [eyeroll] I hope there's a special section of hell for meddling busy-bodies.

31 posted on 05/15/2013 9:08:14 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

The Feds blackmailed states over the legal drinking age, too.


32 posted on 05/15/2013 9:08:31 AM PDT by .45 Long Colt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative
If you are drinking and driving you are the bad guy regardless. Stay home or get a ride.

Is that your assessment of the current political climate or your own opinion? If it's your own opinion, you're a very easily manipulated fool. No offense.

33 posted on 05/15/2013 9:11:01 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative
I have no sympathy for anyone that has any alcohol in their system if they get popped.

Even with no evidence of impaired driving?

Do you also support DUI-type penalties for the idiots texting and deep in engrossing conversation on their cell phone?

34 posted on 05/15/2013 9:13:50 AM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (So?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

If you have an accident...if you have ANY alcohol in your system, it will be blamed on the alcohol....not the fight you were having with your wife....or a sneeze...or the other guy...


Actually, if you have an accident, and they find that a PASSENGER had any in the system, it is “alcohol-involved” (which gets converted to “drunk driving or DUI in the propaganda). Same as if a drunk pedestrian stumbles into you path.

Here’s a good conservative source of info. http://www.motorists.org/dui/myths


35 posted on 05/15/2013 9:17:49 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Universal Background Check -> Registration -> Confiscation -> Oppression -> Extermination)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

while long-time alkies are probably functional at 0.12. .....Hey! Hey! Hey! I resemble that remark!


36 posted on 05/15/2013 9:20:19 AM PDT by Safetgiver ( Islam makes barbarism look genteel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Steelers6

Consider that reducing BAC limits to low amounts, or to zero DOES reduce alcohol-involved fatalities and accidents.

The problem is that it simply causes some of the folks who drank responsibly not to drink (out of fear of prosecution), so the same fatal accidents they have on the way home from the picnic or dinner are no longer classified as “alcohol-related.”

The accident risk at 0.10 is elevated, but no more than for sober drivers who are elderly, inexperienced, or distracted.


37 posted on 05/15/2013 9:22:04 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Universal Background Check -> Registration -> Confiscation -> Oppression -> Extermination)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

A fool that chooses not to drink. I have no sympathy for those that do and end up in the wrong.

I do think that this is a government money grab anyway you look at it but the easy way to avoid is to not drink and drive. Pretty simple.


38 posted on 05/15/2013 9:22:20 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Witnessing anecdotal tragedy is a poor basis for policy. The “expert” you cite is wrong.


39 posted on 05/15/2013 9:22:48 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Universal Background Check -> Registration -> Confiscation -> Oppression -> Extermination)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: .45 Long Colt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl2NBtI2PqE


40 posted on 05/15/2013 9:23:17 AM PDT by sopwith (don't tread on me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson