This has nothing to do with lowering DUI deaths. This has everything to do with raising revenues and making more people criminals.
The term “Way” is a bit over the top.
They also split the vote with “Zero” and “Fine with me”
Done.
Used to have a job which involved (in part) reviewing photos of major traffic collisions. Also had a chance to work with one of the most recognized BA experts in SoCal.
It doesn't take very much booze before people are too impaired to drive properly.
Only exception is hard core alkies who have built up tolerance — but they usually are the ones with exceptionally high BA levels when they kill someone.
Here’s something that I’ve wondered about for a very long time...
Have any studies been done regarding the number of accidents caused by impaired drivers, corelated to the BAC?
When I mean is how many accidents are caused by people with a BAC of say, 0.2 vs 0.15 vs 0.1 vs 0.08...
The simple question I have is how will effectively legislating a “zero tolerance” BAC make any difference for someone who gets rip-roaring drunk and gets into an accident?
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?
Mark
I read some stats on this and it seems that the MADDs and others
consider it a “death averted” every time a DUI arrest is made.
Which is a steaming load of crap.
Can they show us any evidence lowering from .10 to .08 has made any difference?
The lower the legal limit the more limited freedom becomes.
I say we accelerate the google self driving car and make it the norm.
Imagine a world where...
I agree with this. I think a 35% BA should be just about right.
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.
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?
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.
Hmmm.... Guess I’ll have to walk to the bar and stumble home...
Cell phone use is about as deadly as a .08 BAC
Sober cell phone use is about as deadly as a .08 BAC
Texting while driving is many, many times worse than drinking and driving. Why are texaholics not being crucified?
We are doing everything we can to destroy the restaurant industry.
The drunk-driving legal crusade has become the current home of modern-day abolitionists. This has nothing at all with curbing drinking and driving, it has everything to do with drinking, period.
I have relatives in Vancouver and from what was related to me the police were given quite a bit of latitude in enforcement. When the law went into effect DUI check points sprang up like toad stools after a rain storm. Initially it was not unusual to go through several in the course of a week.
The police increased their traffic stops in sort a vehicular version of “stop and frisk” with a roadside sobriety test as the desired result. The initial stop would be predicated on a stated minor traffic infraction such as not signaling on a lane change. Then if license and registration were in order you got to blow in a breathalyzer. If you were negative the police had the option to cut you a break in the supposedly observed traffic infraction.
Granted a few were nailed initially. Pubs/taverns as well as some restaurants noticed a decrease in business and cab companies got more business. It has calmed down somewhat and there is push back thru the courts.
http://lifeafterimpairedcharge.com/canadian-impaired-driving-laws-2/british-columbia-introduces-stricter-alcohol-penalties/
From the article
Although a driver may not be charged criminally (unless there are obvious signs of impairment, and then an Impaired Driving criminal charge could be laid), the Province is providing DUI penalties for those found to have a BAC of between 0.05 and 0.08 while driving.
The new British Columbia law provides for harsh penalties for those drivers which include an automatic 3 day suspension, a 3 day vehicle impoundment and $400.00 in fines and legal fees.