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%
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.
If you can’t manage to have a drink or two and drive your car, that’s a YOU problem.
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.
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.
Now everyone has to give up using Listerine in the morning.
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.
Yes, local, state and federal governments have increased their coffers dramatically along with the attendant lawyers. It was and is all about the money.
But if it saves even ONE liberal sacred cow, isn't it worth it?
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?
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.
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.
The Feds blackmailed states over the legal drinking age, too.
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.
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?
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...
Here’s a good conservative source of info. http://www.motorists.org/dui/myths
while long-time alkies are probably functional at 0.12. .....Hey! Hey! Hey! I resemble that remark!
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.
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.
Witnessing anecdotal tragedy is a poor basis for policy. The “expert” you cite is wrong.
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.