Posted on 05/17/2013 8:46:37 AM PDT by Altariel
Federal accident investigators recommended Tuesday that states cut their threshold for drunken driving by nearly half, matching a standard that has substantially reduced highway deaths in other countries.
The National Transportation Safety Board said states should shrink the standard from the current .08 blood alcohol content to .05 as part of a series of recommendations aimed at reducing alcohol-related highway deaths.
More than 100 countries have adopted the .05 alcohol content standard or lower, according to a report by the board's staff. In Europe, the share of traffic deaths attributable to drunken driving was reduced by more than half within 10 years after the standard was dropped.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
“Why not just re-instate the 18th amendment.”
You have hit on the motivation here 100%. DUI laws were once about public safety, but not anymore. DUI laws have become the modern-day refuge of the abolitionist movement.
There was nothing wrong with the laws we had 25 years ago, the problem is that they were not being enforced. Now, DUI has become this terrible stigma. There really is no serious impairment at .08% as it is; probably less impairment than monkeying with the iPod, sending a text, or eating a Big Mac while driving.
It’s all about The Crusade, you know.
If you hold a CDL (Commercial Driver License) it is .04 in your own personal vehicle.
It’s also cute how CDL holders can’t take defensive driving to get a ticket erased from their record, even if the ticket was issued while the person was driving their car. :-/
Sigh.... Fact is, the incidence of increased risk of causing a vehicle accident doesn't occur until well above the present 0.08% BAC. Lowering the limit further serves no legitimate purpose.
On my favorite liberal web site I got into a thread like this thinking that this was one thing both could agree on. I was astounded that all the liberals there thought this is a wonderful idea.
They are all ove the zero tolerance thing without giving a moment’s thought about how this works in the real world.
But that is the core reason they are liberal.
Is there any research on the safety benefits of .05 vs. .08?
Add Taxi drivers and the localities that extract fees from them, and limo companies, to your list.
The planning of the American Revolution began in taverns. Many of those brave souls during the pre - and early days of the revolution were considered tavern mongers and wharf rats. The working stiffs.
Reducing the alcohol limit has always been about people control. Reducing it further will kill off what is left of the tavern and bar business and reduce the number of people congregating to bitch about government over a beer. All part of the plan my friends, but for such a good cause. After all, who can support drunk driving? Matters not that one person may be intoxicated at .10 and another at .125.
Sure, that’s one argument. However, your argument was that this was tantamount to ‘prohibition’. Let’s at least get an honest argument.
I’ve never driven after having a drink. It’s not particularly hard to accomplish this.
I drive as designated driver all the time. Not particularly hard to do that either. Everyone has plenty to drink and has a good time.
“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against - then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
-Atlas Shrugged
You might as well ban mouthwash.
Well, Mr Newby, drive all you want but don't dare pollute one scintilla. Not hard.
Perhaps we should have full disclosure. How many prior DUIs?
It’s gotten so bad in my area, the cost of a taxi ride anywhere in town is $20 dollars, but a hotel room is only $40.
Which is good, because it really doesn't accomplish anything, so you're not out much effort.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-14/drunk-driving-limit-should-be-lowered-to-05-ntsb-says.html
MADD, which advocates for reducing drunken-driving deaths, said redefining driving while intoxicated isn’t part of its three-part plan to make roadways safer.
Sanctimonious zero tolerance types can’t be reasoned with. So, sit back and enjoy this:
http://drunkard.com/issues/07_02/madd_dog.htm
I’d like to see the stats on how many deaths there were for drivers between .05 and .08 since they claim its about saving lives, not revenue.
It’s the ultimate dream of both the GOP and the Democrats.
The GOP who “supports law and order” and cheered the creation of DHS.
...and the big-government loving democrats.
Let’s not pretend that the hydra has only one head.
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.