I would not go so far as to say that 0.10% BAC is a "safe" way to be driving... I don't believe it is.. But, I can say... several years ago, when I took the time to really delve deeply into the statisitics... it was clear than drivers with 0.08% BAC were not at ANY greater risk of being in a fatal accident than were people with no alcohol reading at all.
At 0.10%, there was a slight uptick in the fatality rate... although, it was arguable as to whether is was 'significant'. As you got to 0.12% and above, the statistics changed dramatically....
Clearly to me.. 0.10% was VERY near the line of true risk.. and, given the innacuracies in measurement of impairment that I mentioned in earlier posts... not really a good place to begin applying severe punishment. I think, most people have come to understand this. And, that is why there is NOT universal support for harsher penalties.
Interestingly to me, I've made an attempt to find the same kinds of statistics now... and, it seems, the statistics are reported differently now. All I can find is, stats for OVER 0.08% BAC... nothing that breaks out the accident rates correlated with levels of intoxication. Perhaps, there is political agenda at work in the data collection?
“Interestingly to me, I’ve made an attempt to find the same kinds of statistics now... and, it seems, the statistics are reported differently now. All I can find is, stats for OVER 0.08% BAC... nothing that breaks out the accident rates correlated with levels of intoxication. Perhaps, there is political agenda at work in the data collection?”
Remember that recent study that found most studies are biased?
Academia is corrupt. If Harvard published a study finding that gravity sucks, it would only make me wonder if we’d all been wrong all this time.
Don't know if there is an agenda or not, it's already impossible to find data that is acceptable to many, some won't accept anything, so I'm giving up.
I just know there is a problem by what I've seen and what I know about first hand.