One drink DUI? Feds want lower threshold for drunk driving

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jihadin**

WASHINGTON – A federal agency is proposing that states lower the threshold for drunken driving to the point where a woman could be charged for driving after one drink and a man after two in a move officials say would save thousands of lives.

The National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all states drop the blood-alcohol level at which motorists can be charged with driving drunk to .05, down from the current rate of .08 that all 50 states impose. The threshold is a matter of state law, but the federal government can pressure states to meet its standard by threatening to withhold highway funding.

"Our goal is to get to zero deaths because each alcohol-impaired death is preventable."

- Deborah Hersman, chair of NTSB

"Our goal is to get to zero deaths because each alcohol-impaired death is preventable," NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said. "Alcohol-impaired deaths are not accidents, they are crimes. They can and should be prevented. The tools exist. What is needed is the will."

More than 100 countries have adopted the .05 alcohol content standard or lower, according to an NTSB report. In Europe, drunken driving deaths were cut by more than half a decade after the stricter standard was implemented.

Studies show a woman weighing less than 120 pounds can reach .05 after just one drink, while a man weighing up to 160 pounds reaches .05 after two drinks.

New approaches are needed to combat drunken driving, which claims the lives of more than a third of the 30,000 people killed each year on U.S highways — a level of carnage that that has remained stubbornly consistent for the past decade and a half, the board said.

"Our goal is to get to zero deaths because each alcohol-impaired death is preventable," NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said. "Alcohol-impaired deaths are not accidents, they are crimes. They can and should be prevented. The tools exist. What is needed is the will."

But the recommendation to lowering the alcohol content threshold to .05 is likely to meet strong resistance from states, said Jonathan Adkins, an official with the Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents state highway safety offices.

"It was very difficult to get .08 in most states so lowering it again won't be popular," Adkins said. "The focus in the states is on high (blood alcohol content) offenders as well as repeat offenders. We expect industry will also be very vocal about keeping the limit at .08."

The lower alcohol content threshold was one of nearly 20 recommendations aimed at reducing drunken driving made by the board, including that states adopt measures to ensure more widespread use of use of alcohol ignition interlock devices. Those require a driver to breathe into a tube, much like the breathalyzers police ask suspected drunken drivers to use.

The board has previously recommended states require all convicted drunken drivers install the interlock devices in their vehicles as a condition to resume driving. Currently, 17 states and two California counties require all convicted drivers use the devices.

However, only about a quarter of drivers ordered to use the devices actually end up doing so, NTSB said. Drivers use a variety of ways to evade using the devices, including claiming they won't drive at all or don't own a vehicle and therefore don't need the devices, staff said.

The board recommended the National Highway Safety Administration, which makes safety grants to states, develop a program to encourage states to ensure all convicted drivers actually use the devices. The board also recommended that all suspected drunken drivers whose licenses are confiscated by police be required to install interlocks as a condition of getting their licenses reinstated even though they haven't yet been convicted of a crime.

Courts usually require drivers to pay for the devices, which cost about $50 to $100 to buy plus a $50 a month fee to operate, staff said.

The board has previously called on the safety administration and the auto industry to step up their research into technology for use in all vehicles that can detect whether a driver has elevated blood alcohol without the driver breathing into a tube or taking any other action. Drivers with elevated levels would be unable to start their cars.

But the technology is still years away.

Studies show more than 4 million people a year in the U.S. drive while intoxicated, but about half of the intoxicated drivers stopped by police escape detection, the NTSB report said. The board made several recommendations aimed at increasing both the visibility and effectiveness of police enforcement, including expanded use of passive alcohol devices. The devices are often contained in real flash lights or shaped to look like a cellphone that officers wear on their shirt pockets or belts. If an officer points the flashlight at a driver or the cellphone-like device comes in close proximity to an intoxicated driver, the devices will alert police who may not have any other reason to suspected drunken driving.

The use of the devices currently is very limited, the report said.

Dramatic progress was made in the 1980s through the mid-1990s after the minimum drinking age was raised to 21 and the legally-allowable maximum level of drivers' blood alcohol content was lowered to .08, the report said. Today, drunken driving claims about 10,000 lives a year, down from over 18,000 in 1982. At that time, alcohol-related fatalities accounted for about 40 percent of highway deaths.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/14/feds-recommend-lower-drunken-driving-threshold/#ixzz2TK4iuIqw

I'm all for it

**motyak**

I think we have .05 or .01 here at the moment, although I wouldn't bother comparing our countries in terms of rates, since driving here is quite different to driving there.

**azazel the cat**

As someone who takes an if-I'm-driving-I'm-not-drinking approach, I have absolutely no problem with this idea.

**Alfndrate**

azazel the cat wrote:
As someone who takes an if-I'm-driving-I'm-not-drinking approach, I have absolutely no problem with this idea.

The problem is that in our country, the "legal limit" is a guideline anyways. If I had 2 drinks at the bar with a full meal and I leave, and if I'm swerving or giving the officer any reason to pull me over for drunk driving, he can haul my ass in regardless of whether or not I'm over, above, or under the legal limit. Lowering the limit won't change anything really...

**Grey Templar**

Its more of a level where they can arrest you regardless of how much your driving was effected.

They can haul you away for unsafe driving even if you aren't legally drunk.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Yeah, I don't see much of a change or difference

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:
As someone who takes an if-I'm-driving-I'm-not-drinking approach, I have absolutely no problem with this idea.

Quick! Everyone check their pulse!

I agree with azazel here!

oO

**Relapse**

Since there are more people killed by drunk drivers than by gun crime I'm all for it.

**Ouze**

This would not bother me. If I know I'm going to be driving, I don't drink at all - I'm a lousy enough driver to begin with. I arrange for transportation previously if I think I'm going to want to drink.

**SilverMK2**

Relapse wrote:
Since there are more people killed by drunk drivers than by gun crime I'm all for it.

But surely passing laws regards the use of alcohol and the penalties for doing so in a way harmful to society won't stop criminals from buying and using alcoholic beverages in whatever way they see fit

**Grey Templar**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Since there are more people killed by drunk drivers than by gun crime I'm all for it.

But surely passing laws regards the use of alcohol and the penalties for doing so in a way harmful to society won't stop criminals from buying and using alcoholic beverages in whatever way they see fit

Because guns and alcohol are clearly identical in how criminal elements can use or obtain them.

**SilverMK2**

Grey Templar wrote:
Because guns and alcohol are clearly identical in how criminal elements can use or obtain them.

We need less regulation on alcohol, not more. When every American has a pint in hand, this land shall be free from the fear of people using alcohol irresponsibly!

For too long we have had to concealed carry our booze in paper bags when we walk the streets - we should be able to proudly display our booze in hip flasks and drink in public places!

**Grey Templar**

Booze isn't a constitutional right throws a wrench into the works on that line of thinking though.

Although I'd be down for making it one

**Somedude593**

Grey Templar wrote:
Booze isn't a constitutional right throws a wrench into the works on that line of thinking though.

Although I'd be down for making it one

The Founding Fathers were hammered all the time! We could argue that it was implied!

**Bromsy**

And let's go ahead and shuffle texting while driving in with this, while we're at it.

**rubiksnoob**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Because guns and alcohol are clearly identical in how criminal elements can use or obtain them.

We need less regulation on alcohol, not more. When every American has a pint in hand, this land shall be free from the fear of people using alcohol irresponsibly!

For too long we have had to concealed carry our booze in paper bags when we walk the streets - we should be able to proudly display our booze in hip flasks and drink in public places!

If you outlaw high-capacity assault drinks, then only outlaws will have them. . . and that's no fun, goddammit.

**SilverMK2**

That's the spirtits guys! (And mine will be a double!)

We should lower the purchase age of alcohol as everyone knows that responsible alcohol users teach their children how to drink properly. The only people who are against alcohol are those who have not grown up around it.

We also need to reduce the red tape in buyinh beer by ensuring that beer sold at beer shows or in private sales doesnt need to be reported and you dony nred proof of age or id.

Throw the soft drinks in the harbor ans stagger on washington!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Because guns and alcohol are clearly identical in how criminal elements can use or obtain them.

We need less regulation on alcohol, not more. When every American has a pint in hand, this land shall be free from the fear of people using alcohol irresponsibly!

For too long we have had to concealed carry our booze in paper bags when we walk the streets - we should be able to proudly display our booze in hip flasks and drink in public places!

If you outlaw high-capacity assault drinks, then only outlaws will have them. . . and that's no fun, goddammit.

Damn straight! I shoild be able to buy drinks of any proof i want in any size i want! If i want tp havr a pint of 150% proof i should be able to buy and use iy no questions asked!

**KalashnikovMarine**

I feel like we're generating a new rule of OT.

1st Law of OT: Culpabit Victima!
2ns Law of OT: The thin skinned shall be fed to Frazz's wiener dogs.
3rd Law of OT: If it exists, it can be Godwin'd
4th Law of OT: Any thread, no matter how disparate the subject can become a gun thread at any time.

**Sigvatr**

If you drive, don't fecking drink. Period. Is that such a hard concept for some people to grasp?

Just get a zero tolerance rule in. Done.

/e: Also: guns.

**Ensis Ferrae**

whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
As someone who takes an if-I'm-driving-I'm-not-drinking approach, I have absolutely no problem with this idea.

Quick! Everyone check their pulse!

I agree with azazel here!

oO

I wouldn't worry too much Whembly, in Canada they ration Alcohol the same way they do healthcare

**d-usa**

Wouldn't the amendment ending prohibition make alcohol a constitutional right?

**Steve steveson**

Sigvatr wrote:
If you drive, don't fecking drink. Period. Is that such a hard concept for some people to grasp?

Just get a zero tolerance rule in. Done.

/e: Also: guns.

Zero tolerance dose not work. You need some leaway. Zero tolerance ends up arresting people for using mouth wash and cough medicine.

**LordofHats**

Steve steveson wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
If you drive, don't fecking drink. Period. Is that such a hard concept for some people to grasp?

Just get a zero tolerance rule in. Done.

/e: Also: guns.

Zero tolerance dose not work. You need some leaway. Zero tolerance ends up arresting people for using mouth wash and cough medicine.

And kids being suspended for pop-tarts.

**Valion**

I'm against it. Legal limit seems fine where it is now.

**LordofHats**

Honestly, this strikes me as being less about public safety and more about generating more revenue from traffic tickets.

**Frazzled**

Let me preface to say I lost a very good friend to a drunk driver decades ago, and the wife/kid’s life was changed by another drunk driver. Also a drunk pit bull is a gloriously funny thing but that’s an aside.
I am not a fan of this.
1) This is a state issue. I object strongly to the nanny state at the federal level.
2) The current standard is perfectly adequate. The concept of “no fatalities” from drunk driving is not realistic in a democracy with things like rights and personal freedom.
3) I’m already sick of constitutional violations with “no refusal” stops, blanket road searches of all vehicles, yet repeat offenders are allowed to repeat. If you get two DUIs you should go to jail until you die.

**kronk**

Ouze wrote:
This would not bother me. If I know I'm going to be driving, I don't drink at all -

I take the same approach.

Also, I want them to come down HARD on driving and texting. It's just as dangerous.

**Alfndrate**

The thing that I guess I'm missing is when people say, "When I drive, I don't drink." I guess I was assuming, "when I drive, I don't drink in excess"?

Like say Ouze and Mrs. Ouze go out to celebrate the success of the Flying Assault Butts Kickstarter and they head to Applebees and Ouze orders a nice beer while Mrs Ouze orders a cocktail from the bar to go with their 2 for $20 meal deal. Like are you going to be driving home or calling a cab? I'm assuming that 1 or 2 beers/drinks is fine because of the meal you're eating with the drinks. I realize in this example that Ouze or his wife could easily just not drink and be the DD.

Also as someone that participated in field sobriety training for police cadets, I can tell you that they can and will take you off the road if they even suspect that you've been drinking beyond your limits. I was sat down and told to drink, and then at regular intervals my name would be called, I would be told to finish my drink, and come get a new one (the 3 shots and 12 Jack & Cokes made for a fun afternoon). So basically for 2 hours I got to drink and play card games with friends while the police got me hammered. I blew a .0915 and then was handed over to the cadets for field sobriety. I failed with flying colors. Based on my speech, my balance and how polite I was being to the officers, they would have taken me in that night for driving drunk. One of my buddies was sober (he was the "constant") and was being carted in because he has a natrual eye twitch, which is what most cops in Ohio use to test for drunkeness. If your eye twitches a lot while they're doing the follow the finger thing (because your drunk eye is trying to focus on the finger/pen) they'll most likely take you in. My other buddy blew a .12 and passed field sobriety with flying colors, they said he was safe to drive (he was one of the drunkest ones there based purely on BAC from a breathalyzer.

**AlmightyWalrus**

As a damn filthy socialist I'd applaud such a move. 0,08% would almost be aggravated DUI over here in Polar-Bears-on-the-streets-land and well beyond the limit in most other industrialised nations.

**timetowaste85**

I'm definitely fine with it going down, as I don't have more than 1 beer when I go out, if I'm planning on driving. But a zero-tolerance policy would be absurd. There aren't enough jails for that kinda thing. My job requires extensive driving: I'm not about to risk it on getting schnokered.