Posted on 03/12/2017 6:01:58 AM PDT by C19fan
Utah could soon have the strictest DUI threshold in the nation after state lawmakers on Wednesday night voted to lower the limit for a driver's blood-alcohol content to 0.05 percent, down from 0.08 percent. The measure heads to Utah's governor, who has said he supports the legislation.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I would say that 90% of the people at .05% are impaired enough that they should not be driving.
Most Ignition Interlock devices are set at .03%. Based on expert analysis and experience that is about right
I have both lost people personally, and seen horrific accidents—not one of them caused by someone anywhere near.05% or even .10%. I hate drunk driving, but I hate tyranny more. If a person is legitimately impaired, then they should face the consequences; however, if the “impairment” is an arbitrary standard imposed just to raise revenue through unconstitutional means then hell no.
The BAC of drunk drivers causing fatalities averages .15%. The government used to publish statistics on BAC levels, but for some reason now conveniently groups all accidents as over .08%.
Even using suspect government statistics, drunk driving accounts for ~30% of traffic fatalities, and BAC limits have shown little to no effect on those rates—or the actual BAC levels of the drivers. Little to no effect on safety, but millions of dollars raised by corrupt governments at the expense of many people’s reputation and livelihood.
It has been empirically proven that texting while driving is more dangerous than drunk driving. It is also a rising threat. When you agree to charge those driving whole on cell phones with a felony and impose an average $10,000 fine, then we can talk. Oh, let’s also pass a law that batteries must be removed, and random searches for cell phones or other electronic devices be instituted for the safety of everyone.
Please do.
This is one subject that seems to turn FReepers into the Stasi because they have bought into all the propaganda.
I really don’t think this lower limit will save any lives. At some point, human nature kicks in, and the thought process is ‘screw it, one drink already put me over the limit, so I might as well have another’...so who knows, the lower limit may actually be counter-productive.
At some point, the lower limits have to be recognized for what they really are - revenue producers.
If this was really about saving lives, states wouldn’t have diversion programs where you could buy your way out of a dui. Keep the limit realistic and eliminate diversions - that would be a pro-life stance. Instead states are pushing for the dui version of a speed trap.
i know many guys that can drink 10-15 beers and drive fine and have been doing so for 50-60yrs. it’s texting while driving that needs to be abolished. i have a beer while driving all the time(not condoning) but i am damned sure going to pull over to talk and certainly text.
If Utah puts 0.05 into place, other states will fall in line.
This happened years ago when it was 0.10, some states went 0.08 and then it became 0.08 for everyone or lose Fed funding.
Alcohol is the new Tobacco. High revenue generator.
No worries...people will enjoy themselves, out and about, high as a kite with their legal/illegal drugs - without a breathalyzer fear in the world./sad sarc
I honestly don’t drink at all myself, but just find it interesting that drinking while driving gets singled out so much.
Obviously if someone is weaving all over the road, then they need to be pulled over.
This is goofy.
The standard should be some sort of sobriety test.
Alcohol effects people differently, some people are sober when far over the limit.
MADD madness.
Agree - one state starts and other states follow when they see how much money they can make off of it. Same thing with the seat belt laws. Texting, drinking sodas, all other kind of ‘distractions’.
Reckless driving used to cover most if not all. While all of these things can be very hazardous even fatal. Naming every endless thing which can cause accidents with a law about it isn’t the problem. It is personal responsibility. If someone is driving recklessly, then they should be given tickets/locked up/license taken away, etc.
Fatal accidents occur for many various reasons. Most are the RECKLESS drivers fault. You couldn’t make enough laws to rule out everything. Seems like I remember one place trying to outlaw drinking soft drinks and eating while driving.
An alcoholic/habitual drunk driver most likely already are driving without a license. This happens all the time. And most often are the ones in fatal drinking driving accidents. Not the person who just had a drink or two with their family dinner.
It is just another way to control ‘social’ behavior (people) and create revenue. Like nearly all the other laws.
One has to wonder what will happen 20 years from now when all cars are self-driving.
Will it be against the law to be a drunken passenger???
No issue with this, need stronger response to arrest and conviction. If you drink, get someone else to drive. What is the big deal. Make 0.04 like for commercial drivers.
I dare to say yes. It appears the end of this is to stop drinking entirely or create a strong anti-social stigma on it. They already know they can go after anything and say it costs other people money/safety/etc. then everyone will support punishing the ‘offender’ to great extremes. Therefore, abolishing the perceived offense.
When you take the limit below .08 like to .05 then the margin of error and false trips becomes a factor.
Yes I have, my brother on October 30, 2001 so you don't have claim to moral superiority in this conversation.
Maybe the problem is vehicles since people are killed every day in accidents that don't involve alcohol...Or maybe just ban motorcycles.
June 2, 2016, right behind the yellow pickup that turned in front of him are the remains of my buddy's motorcycle. While Gary survived, his wife was thrown into the oncoming lane where she was struck and killed by another vehicle.............NO ALCOHOL WAS INVOLVED
This seems to me like ‘test balloon’ for ‘gun safety’ laws they keep saying if it saves only one life, etc. You can never get low enough for the ‘if it saves just one lifers’ without ‘total elimination’.
Their statistics are always self-serving and questionable. And no matter how much you change the law to be less and less freedom to more and more ‘safety’, it is never enough.
I have worked countless DUI incidents in nearly 30 years on the job. (FD/Paramedic) I can’t remember one where the BAC was 0.05 or even 0.08. I do remember plenty where it was 0.25 or some such.
We need to go after the repeat offenders. We need to go after the people who are impaired to the point of not being safe.
What ever floats your boat pal. Just pray that .06 doesn’t smack you head on.
Screw you punk. I’m no liberal. But, anyone like you that wants murdering drunks on the road crashing into innocent people, killing them, making vegetables out of them, you keep on ranting your BS. Perhaps one day you may see one head on when that .06 hits you and you get destroyed. Write me then when your hanging on in the hospital, with tubes in every inch of your torn up body. Yup, punk, keep on ranting. We’re done here, I can see stupidity when it types behind a stupid keyboard manned by you. Now, go slug a beer and drive home from your favorite watering hole.
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.