what about the people who are permanently impaired? Driving While Stupid. Lot more of these than "drunk" people

 

9800+ too many!!


+1

 

Of course they have. That's (mostly) because, during that period, the DWI standard went from .15 to .10 to .08. But there are still too many drunk-driving casualties.

 

By simply reducing the levels from .08 to .05 this can save anywhere between 500 to 800 lives per year ........ if it saves even just one life and the pain , suffering that family will experience then I think it's worthwhile.

 

I absolutely endorse a lowering of the BAC limit, but sadly many hard-core alcoholics will not be deterred.

To make a very long story short, my stepbrother killed himself in a single-vehicle vs bridge structure many years ago. He likely fell asleep at the wheel following a heavy night of drinking. There was much precedent; at least one prior DUI, and a subsequent fleeing the scene of a minor accident while drunk. My dad had earlier married his alcoholic mother and fell into the rut of drinking-buddy; I distinctly remember while visiting on many occasions they would spend the night partying/drinking/dancing and forget where they parked the car the next day. She finally killed herself by a lifetime of smoking/drinking/aggravating and my dad quickly returned to his daily habit of a single shot of Jack Daniels. Needless to say, it made a severe impression and I don't drink.

A lower BAC will influence most law-abiding citizens, but the most egregious offenders will likely shrug it off and continue with their deadly addiction. While self destructive behavior is constitutionally enshrined, alcohol has the potential to kill and maim in most gruesome fashion.

 

I don't drink, either. Sorry to hear of the loss of your relatives...my condolences.

Is the FAA BAC standard for aircrews still .04 and/or 8 hours bottle-to-throttle? That's what it was when I was a pilot years ago.

 

Thanks Mike!

The FAA maintains the .04 and/or 8 hours bottle-to-throttle. An advisory recommends the passage of at least 24 hours of time to be safe!

My employer maintains a zero-tolerance policy defined as less than .02 and at least 8 hours from drink to the "start of duty." Informally, that suggests 8 hours from drink to setting foot on an airport with the intent to perform in the cockpit. For the international crews, it is wise to understand some countries maintain a 0.00 standard! For decades prior to the merger with Continental, we had a 12 hour window of abstention. At one time, United actually imposed a 24 hour period of bottle-to-throttle, a ruling that almost certainly was challenged on a daily basis.

There exists a protocol to rehab alcohol abusers, but the critical threshold is advance disclosure rather than the embarrassing, newsworthy, and potentially career-wrecking event of discovery on the job.

 

And ruin the lives of possibly tens of thousands of people that otherwise would have been completely legal by today's standards. I read a report recently that 80% of drunk driving deaths were caused by those with a .10 BAC or higher. Hence the reason lowering the BAC level by 38% will only lower the death rate by 5-10% - diminishing returns. Even setting the BAC level at zero will not completely eliminate drunk driving deaths. Personally, I think the BAC measurement should be eliminated all together and replaced strictly by actual impairment measurements.

 

Not sure I follow you here. If 80% of the BAC deaths involve .10 or higher, then that means that a good 20% of them or more come from lesser BAC levels. That, of course, is at least several thousand lives in that 20% (obviously, I can't give you an exact number). Personally, I think that saving several thousand lives is not a light matter....especially if one of those lives is yours or mine.


Well, when police stop someone, they usually do use a number of individual-impairment tests...not just the Breathalyzer. I listed some of them previously...letter/number recital/combinations, walking a reasonably straight line, standing on one leg, touching two opposite fingers together, etc....

The police have to do their homework at the scene and accurately verify, by a number of methods, that the person is in fact legally drunk (or under the influence of illegal drugs)....otherwise the evidence, especially with slick defense-lawyers, may not stand up in traffic-court. Even with some legal drugs/medications (prescription or OTC), some people can overdo it and not be fit to continue driving.

As I mentioned earlier, that is one reason why police-cadets get such long and intensive training on how to arrest people. One cop told me that the arrest-training course he took, even without the rest of the police-training that was mandatory, was some six months long.

 

Who cares? I don't mean that negatively, so hear me out.

Firstly, as it has already been mentioned this will have no effect upon those that habitually overindulge. Yes, alcoholics were mentioned, but what about the millions upon millions tgst go out every weekend & indulge with only abregard as to how they "feel" as a determination whether they are fit to drive? Lowering the limit will have no effect upon them.

Secondly, this does nothing to improve overall driving ability and public safety. It attacks one aspect of one issue. Imagine how many THOUSANDS of lives per year would be saved with properly mandated driver education. Make a license harder to obtain and retain, and suddenly you will find that people will have a new respect for it, how they operate their vehicle, and the requisite skillset that is sadly currently lacking.

Lastly, it's really just hypocrisy and revenue generation. Each DUI/DWI is thousands of dollars injected into the legal system and municipalities. It would be just as effective to actually strengthen the enforcement of the current mandates as it is to tighten them - yet tightening them increases the pool of offenders. Plus you get to do all of this under the banner of savings lives/public safety. When was the last time a law was changed that genuinely made you more safe than if the existing one had been properly enforced?

 

the ones that heavily drink will always be .08 or up, how does lowering it to .05 stop them from doing that? You are now dipping into the realm of the regular drinker and potentially turning them into criminals. Instead of lowering it to .05 why not make the penalties harsher for the .08 and above drivers?

why are we screwing around then, why not lower it to 0%?

 

Simple drinking, by itself, does not necessarily makes one a criminal....unless one drinks while underage and/ or is drunk in public, which are misdemeanors. Drinking and Driving, though, to DUI/DWI standards, is another matter.....that can be a very serious issue. Many states have made it a felony.

IMO, to answer your question, making the penalties for those with .08 or above harsher won't get to the root of the problem.......all of the accidents and damage caused by those between .05 and .08. As I and Fly4u have pointed out, alcohol impairs most people to the point where the FAA even considers .04 to be drunk.


Well, that was once called Prohibition, and it didn't work.

Actually, in states with phased-in driving regulations for teenagers, there is sometimes a zero-alcohol requirement (along with curfew hours, car-occupant restrictions, etc....) if a new driver is under a certain age. That is gradually relaxed over time if the new driver has no accidents or infractions.

 

Simple drinking, by itself, does not necessarily makes one a criminal....unless one drinks while underage and/or is drunk in public, which are misdemeanors. Drinking and Driving, though, to DUI/DWI standards, is another matter.....that can be a very serious issue. Many states have made it a felony.

IMO, to answer your question, making the penalties for those with .08 or above harsher won't get to the root of the problem.......all of the accidents and damage caused by those between .05 and .08. As I and Fly4u have pointed out, alcohol impairs most people to the point where the FAA even considers .04 to be drunk.


Well, that was once called Prohibition, and it didn't work.

Actually, in states with phased-in driving regulations for teenagers, there is sometimes a zero-alcohol requirement (along with curfew hours, car-occupant restrictions, etc....) if a new driver is under a certain age. That is gradually relaxed over time if the new driver keeps his or her nose clean and has no accidents or infractions.

 

The reality is people are going to drink and some people will drive.

How do you know you're okay to drive? How about making breathalyzers available to people. I have absolutely no idea how much one costs, but how about making them affordable so that you can see if you're under the legal limit.

It's it's a device that's $100, it might be something people can have at their homes or in their cars. For example, you have friends over for dinner and have wine. Before your guests leave, have them blow into the breathalyzer to see if they're good to go. If they're over, you'll just have to sit it out a little longer. Simple. Let people nanny themselves.

If the government wants to proactive, how about giving people rebates or tax incentives for owing a breathalyzer. Have them available at bars or restaurants for people to use. Encourage the use of them. Lowering the limit if fine and dandy, but that doesn't solve the problem of knowing when you're above the limit.

 

so if lowering it supposedly works, then why doesnt lowering it even more not work? This is like lowering the speed limit because "if it saves one life it will be worth it"