Fed recmomendation .05% Alc level..getting a little crazy?

[HUGGY]

This is stupid. I'm 225 lbs and if I drank a sixpack within an hour I wouldn't drive. Two beers and I wouldn't hesitate as far as being able to safely drive a car. If you are a buck and a half or a hundred pound woman ..maybe two beers is impairment. It should be a personal judgement. Drive drunk and risk going to jail. .05 is rediculous.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

This is stupid. I'm 225 lbs and if I drank a sixpack within an hour I wouldn't drive. Two beers and I wouldn't hesitate as far as being able to safely drive a car. If you are a buck and a half or a hundred pound woman ..maybe two beers is impairment. It should be a personal judgement. Drive drunk and risk going to jail. .05 is rediculous.

Two beers doesn't affect everyone the same, you are correct. Which is why if you drank two beers in an hour and had something to eat with it, you might not reach .05. Maybe that's why you feel perfectly fine to drive after two beers.

Remember, also, that the fact that someone thinks they're fine to drive doesn't mean they are. Decisions about what constitutes impaired driving is not a subjective thing. It can easily be demonstrated by testing reaction times, basic driving skiills, etc. of people at a blood alcohol level of
.05. That's how impairment is determined, not by how okay-to-drive someone "feels."

 

[Cuyo]

This is stupid. I'm 225 lbs and if I drank a sixpack within an hour I wouldn't drive. Two beers and I wouldn't hesitate as far as being able to safely drive a car. If you are a buck and a half or a hundred pound woman ..maybe two beers is impairment. It should be a personal judgement. Drive drunk and risk going to jail. .05 is rediculous.

Agreed... I also feel that for anyone to check your BAC there ought need to be an underlying offense, eg drifting out of your lane or blowing a stop sign. Random stops are bullshit.

For those who propose the human interest stories/anecdote as evidence of the need for more stringent laws, I can assure you that distracted driving and aggressive driving are far bigger problems. They get less attention simply because they're harder to prove.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, distracted driving is a problem, and harder to prove. That doesn't mean alcohol-impaired problems shouldn't be addressed in the meantime.

 

[martybegan]

Amazing! The Right is so paranoid that they are willing to compromise safety so they can exercise their right to get drunker than they should behind the wheel!

Big government over reaction?

No, more like a complete abrogation of personal responsibility and then claim it as a protected right. Ridiculous!

BAC and impairment are not perfectly scalable on a person to person basis. ON AVERAGE a person with a BAC over "X" is usually impaired with regards for driving.

I would put my driving at a BAC of .10 against a stone sober crappy driver any day of the week.

You're so responsible! Congratulations! Driving with a blood alcohol level over the limit shows just how considerate you are. Tel that to the next person who has lost a loved one to someone with the same level of concern and responsibility as you.

Most accidents involving drunk drivers consist of people WAY over 0.10, usually the bastards are at 0.2-0.3 or higher.

The number is some arbitrary value determined by statistical analysis that says a person at BAC 0.XX is "probably" impaired and thus automatically guilty.

0.10 was just fine. anything less is silly

The reason I know I can drive fine at 0.10 is that I am a good driver sober, and 5-6 beers to be isnt really impairing anything.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, distracted driving is a problem, and harder to prove. That doesn't mean alcohol-impaired problems shouldn't be addressed in the meantime.

The question is, is .05% impaired? If so...is .04% etc.
At some point the level of impairment is no more than being tired - or less.
Should a person be put in jail for driving with less than 6 hours sleep? Certainly impairs driving.
Should a person be put in jail for driving after working 12 hours?
Look - I am VEHEMENTLY against driving drunk...in a BIG way - but I also have a brain that knows that drinking one beer in less than an hour does not make me drunk.

 

[Spoonman]

"Save more lives" - or just more over-reaching by the government?
You be the judge.
You weigh 180 lbs...eat dinner out with a good craft beer...finish that beer in less than an hour...you might go to jail.
Many craft brews have ABV between 7-9% ABV. About like drinking 1 1/2 crap yellow beers like Bud/Miller/Coors.
1 beer...or 1 1/2 beers in just under one hour. You could go to jail.
Too far?

pretty soon if a grape starts to forment in your mouth you'll be busted

 

[Spoonman]

Its simply the ongoing process that leads us right back to Prohibition.

Thats been the goal all along.

step by step the government is taking more control of our lives. they do it in little chunks so it is less noticable. and they grab from one category then move onto another, leaving the first one alone for a few years. first ists smoking, then fast foods, then performance auto parts, then soft drinks, then religion, then guns, then speech, the alcohol. then start the cycle over again

 

[whitehall]

Get used to it. If the federal government offers health care they assume the right to dictate safe and healthy lifestyles.

 

[hortysir]

Amazing! The Right is so paranoid that they are willing to compromise safety so they can exercise their right to get drunker than they should behind the wheel!

Big government over reaction?

No, more like a complete abrogation of personal responsibility and then claim it as a protected right. Ridiculous!

Then let's let them lower it to .02
Then .01
then.........

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Amazing! The Right is so paranoid that they are willing to compromise safety so they can exercise their right to get drunker than they should behind the wheel!

Big government over reaction?

No, more like a complete abrogation of personal responsibility and then claim it as a protected right. Ridiculous!

BAC and impairment are not perfectly scalable on a person to person basis. ON AVERAGE a person with a BAC over "X" is usually impaired with regards for driving.

I would put my driving at a BAC of .10 against a stone sober crappy driver any day of the week.

You're so responsible! Congratulations! Driving with a blood alcohol level over the limit shows just how considerate you are. Tel that to the next person who has lost a loved one to someone with the same level of concern and responsibility as you.

In every thread there is at least one ignoramus post....and in this one...

 

[Nosmo King]

Amazing! The Right is so paranoid that they are willing to compromise safety so they can exercise their right to get drunker than they should behind the wheel!

Big government over reaction?

No, more like a complete abrogation of personal responsibility and then claim it as a protected right. Ridiculous!

Then let's let them lower it to .02
Then .01
then.........

If a lower BAL reduces fatalities, then it should be lowered. How can anyone make the claim that, if indeed fewer impaired drivers make for safer highways, we should NOT lower the BAL?

The rationalization is eerily reminiscent of the gun debate. Fewer assault weapons make the community safer. Then gun nuts argue that adding guns makes us safer, like adding gasoline to the fire makes it go out. But it's drunks who say the BAL should remain the same because "I" can drive alright whenever I'm buzzed up on a six pack or two. It's those other guys who screw things up/. Like it's those other guys who shoot up theaters and school yards screwing up our fun with deadly weapons.

Who's going to be the first hammerhead to step up and say "When the alcohol limit goes down, only criminals will drive drunk!"

 

[JWBooth]

It would be a great money maker for the government.

We have a WINNAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It's all about revenue enhancement. That and more control over the lives of the populace.
When arrested your fingerprints get taken...DWI is a "reportable" offense and the prints get shipped to whatever state agency collects them and the FBI.
This provides the govt with an even bigger database of citizen information.

 

[hortysir]

Amazing! The Right is so paranoid that they are willing to compromise safety so they can exercise their right to get drunker than they should behind the wheel!

Big government over reaction?

No, more like a complete abrogation of personal responsibility and then claim it as a protected right. Ridiculous!

Then let's let them lower it to .02
Then .01
then.........

If a lower BAL reduces fatalities, then it should be lowered. How can anyone make the claim that, if indeed fewer impaired drivers make for safer highways, we should NOT lower the BAL?

The rationalization is eerily reminiscent of the gun debate. Fewer assault weapons make the community safer. Then gun nuts argue that adding guns makes us safer, like adding gasoline to the fire makes it go out. But it's drunks who say the BAL should remain the same because "I" can drive alright whenever I'm buzzed up on a six pack or two. It's those other guys who screw things up/. Like it's those other guys who shoot up theaters and school yards screwing up our fun with deadly weapons.

Who's going to be the first hammerhead to step up and say "When the alcohol limit goes down, only criminals will drive drunk!"

So you're okay with your government deciding, for you, how much is too much.
Where's the line?
.003?

Guess HJMick was right.
Better to just stay home. That way Big Brother knows where you are.

 

[JWBooth]

Amazing! The Right is so paranoid that they are willing to compromise safety so they can exercise their right to get drunker than they should behind the wheel!

Big government over reaction?

No, more like a complete abrogation of personal responsibility and then claim it as a protected right. Ridiculous!

Fine, bring back prohibition, everybody is safe.

 

[SillyWabbit]

I stay home and drink--but I also smoke crack just to fuck with 'em.

 

[Nosmo King]

Amazing! The Right is so paranoid that they are willing to compromise safety so they can exercise their right to get drunker than they should behind the wheel!

Big government over reaction?

No, more like a complete abrogation of personal responsibility and then claim it as a protected right. Ridiculous!

Fine, bring back prohibition, everybody is safe.

Let me walk you through this so your bumper sticker thinking can understand it. If lower speed limits prove to be effective in saving lives on the highways, wouldn't lowering the speed limit make perfect sense?

If fewer impaired drivers are on the road, would there me more or fewer accidents as a result?

If lowering the blood alcohol limit results in fewer impaired drivers, would that increase or decrease the number of fatalities on the highways?

Now, lowering the speed limit to 10 mph would in fact save lives, but it would be impractical. Lowering the blood alcohol limit would take more impaired drivers off the roads, wouldn't it? And it's as if you never heard the term "designated driver".

 

[Nosmo King]

Then let's let them lower it to .02
Then .01
then.........

If a lower BAL reduces fatalities, then it should be lowered. How can anyone make the claim that, if indeed fewer impaired drivers make for safer highways, we should NOT lower the BAL?

The rationalization is eerily reminiscent of the gun debate. Fewer assault weapons make the community safer. Then gun nuts argue that adding guns makes us safer, like adding gasoline to the fire makes it go out. But it's drunks who say the BAL should remain the same because "I" can drive alright whenever I'm buzzed up on a six pack or two. It's those other guys who screw things up/. Like it's those other guys who shoot up theaters and school yards screwing up our fun with deadly weapons.

Who's going to be the first hammerhead to step up and say "When the alcohol limit goes down, only criminals will drive drunk!"

So you're okay with your government deciding, for you, how much is too much.
Where's the line?
.003?

Guess HJMick was right.
Better to just stay home. That way Big Brother knows where you are.

I think, no, I know that for many when they've had too much that decision making section in the brain gets water logged with alcohol and no longer makes the wise, responsible choice.

 

[whitehall]

It's a win-win for the feds. They get to dominate State governments and they offer the trial lawyer lobby a windfall with double the DUI cases. If the feds had it their way we would be back to 30 mph electric cars.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

If fewer impaired drivers are on the road, would there me more or fewer accidents as a result?

If lowering the blood alcohol limit results in fewer impaired drivers, would that increase or decrease the number of fatalities on the highways?

Now, lowering the speed limit to 10 mph would in fact save lives, but it would be impractical. Lowering the blood alcohol limit would take more impaired drivers off the roads, wouldn't it? And it's as if you never heard the term "designated driver".