mmarshall

There may be one more reason (already among many) to hold that next drink before you get behind the wheel. The NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board), which is non-regulatory itself but, by Federal law, investigates major transportation-related accidents and recommends solutions, is now proposing a major reduction in blood-alcohol levels (BAC) for a DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) conviction from .08 to .05. Earlier, the agency was successful in persuading most state governments to drop the standard from .10 to .08. My own state, Virginia, is unique in that it has no separate DUI/DWI statutes...everything is classed under DUI (Driving Under the Influence), but the same .08 drunk-driving standard remains for a conviction.

This is not official law or state-government policy (yet), but simply a safety-recommendation from the NTSB. States, at this point, are free to either accept or reject the findings. But it is significant that many other countries have already dropped their standards to .05.

I'm a teetotaller myself (no alcohol at all)...and have sometimes been a Designated Driver when my own friends have overdone it.

http://www.ksat.com/news/tougher-dri...i/-/index.html

A decade-old benchmark for determining when a driver is legally drunk should be lowered in an effort to reduce alcohol-related car crashes that claim about 10,000 lives each year, U.S. safety investigators said on Tuesday.

The National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all 50 states lower the threshold from 0.08 blood-alcohol content (BAC) to 0.05.

The idea is part of a safety board initiative outlined in a staff report and approved by the panel to eliminate drunk driving, which accounts for about a third of all road deaths.

The board acknowledged that there was "no silver bullet," but that more action is needed.

"This is critical because impaired driving remains one of the biggest killers in the United States," NTSB Chairman Debbie Hersman said ahead of a vote by the panel on a staff report.

Hersman said progress has been made over the years to reduce drunk driving, including a range of federal and state policies, tougher law enforcement, and stepped up national advocacy. But she said too many people are still dying on America's roads in alcohol-related crashes.

Lowering the rate to 0.05 would save about 500 to 800 lives annually, the safety board report said.

"In the last 30 years, more than 440,000 people have perished in this country due to alcohol-impaired driving. What will be our legacy 30 years from now?" Hersman asked. "If we don't tackle alcohol-impaired driving now, when will we find the will to do so?"

Under current law, a 180-pound male typically will hit the 0.08 threshold after four drinks over an hour, according to an online blood alcohol calculator published by the University of Oklahoma. That same person could reach the 0.05 threshold after two to three drinks over the same period, according to the calculator.

Many factors besides gender and weight influence a person's blood alcohol content level. And many states outlaw lower levels of inebriation when behind the wheel.

The NTSB investigates transportation accidents and advocates on safety issues. It cannot impose its will through regulation and can only recommend changes to federal and state agencies or legislatures, including Congress.

But the independent agency is influential on matters of public safety and its decisions can spur action from like-minded legislators and transportation agencies nationwide. States set their own BAC standards.

The board also recommended on Tuesday that states vastly expand laws allowing police to swiftly confiscate licenses from drivers who exceed the blood alcohol limits.

And it is pushing for laws requiring all first-time offenders to have ignition locking devices that prevent cars from starting until breath samples are analyzed.

In the early 1980s, when grass-roots safety groups brought attention to drunk driving, many states required a 0.15 BAC rate to demonstrated intoxication.

But over the next 24 years, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other groups pushed states to adopt the 0.08 BAC standard, the last state falling in line in 2004.

The number of alcohol-related highway fatalities, meanwhile, dropped from 20,000 in 1980 to 9,878 in 2011, the NTSB said.

In recent years, about 31 percent of all fatal highway accidents are attributed to alcohol impairment, the NTSB said. But most of the decline in highway deaths occurred in the first decade.

"I think .05 is going to come. How long it takes to get there, we don't know. But it will happen," said the NTSB's Robert Molloy, who helped guide the staff report.

For some, the vote struck close to home.

NTSB board member Robert Sumwalt noted that one of his relatives had been killed by a drunk driver, and another is serving a 15-year sentence in a related death.

Many of the recommendations "are going to be unpopular," Sumwalt said, "but if we keep doing what we're doing, we're not going to make any difference."

The NTSB said even very low levels of alcohol impair drivers.

At 0.01 BAC, drivers in simulators demonstrate attention problems and lane deviations. At 0.02, they exhibit drowsiness, and at 0.04, vigilance problems.

The safety board recommend to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that it provide financial incentives to states to implement the changes.

NYKnick101

I wouldn't be surprised... drinking and driving is a real touchy subject around my area. Im upstate NY where in my area, there is no concrete public transportation so if you don't have a car your kinda screwed. There are taxi's but only one cab company with 4 cars for a 25 mile radius. For a town with 12 bars, and only 4 cabs, its hard

Its also touchy because there are DUI arrest every weekend, and accidents relating to driving under the influence. I personally don't condone drinking and driving but i have a friend who had a situation where he needed to get home, couldnt wait an hour for a taxi and NEEDED To get home, (you can say life an death situation) and he ended up getting a dwi that same night. Its a real touch subject to discuss

FrankReynoldsCPA

I'm all for it. Hang em by the *****.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

eh why not. more of a deterrent

mmarshall

If there aren't any good local alternatives for getting home when drunk, then all the more reason not to get drunk in the first place. That's just common sense.

I don't see it as touchy at all......just the same stuff, over and over again. How many Judges and Magistrates, presiding in Traffic Court, listen to the same stories, every day, from defendants standing there in front of them..........

............."Your Honor, I just HAD to get home. It was a once in a lifetime situation, and I just couldn't wait. Yes, I know the law, but you just have to understand the circumstances".

Almost every drunk driver (with perhaps some rare exceptions) has a sob-story excuse as to why the law doesn't apply to them, and why they have to drive while under the influence. Though I can't comment more on your friend's specific situation without knowing more about it, probably 99% of the time those stories are just B.S.



And.....consider this: Even if one is drunk and not driving, simply being drunk in public, particularly if it is accompanied by disorderly conduct, is a misdemeanor in most places, and a cop can put you in a DeTox jail cell overnight to sober up.

mmarshall

Some may argue that dropping the DWI standard from .08 to .05 will just place an extra burden on cops/law-enforcement and add to overloaded traffic-court dockets. That is a fair point....I won't deny that. But it will help emphasize the negative effect alcohol has on driving-ability and (hopefully) eventually lead to some needed lifestyle-behavior changes.

If you think it's tough on drivers, when I was an active pilot, the FAR (Federal Air Regulation) for drunk-flying was .04 BAC and no alcohol at all in the last 8 hours before doing a pre-flight or getting into the cockpit. (That law was known as 8 hours Bottle-to-Throttle). And there were no warnings.....if caught, one could (and often did) receive a suspension or revocation of their Airman's Certificate (pilot's license). What's more, by law, any auto-related DUI/DWI case also went on one's flying record.

anthrax144

Wouldn't it make more sense to more harshly punish or more fully enforce the current laws we have in place already? I know too many people and have heard many, many stories of people with multiple DWI/DUI convictions that still have their license to drive. Jail time is almost non-existent until the third or fourth offense.

I can support mandatory ignition interlocks for first time offenders. Why isn't this mandatory already?

mmarshall

The article (see below) seems to address both of those points.

anthrax144

Honestly, those do nothing. These laws already exist and yet the courts are often times way too lax to deliver a harsh punishment. More laws won't change anything if the courts don't fully enforce them the way they aren't currently now.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

just because youre .08 doesnt mean you are impaired. Time to create more criminals. One of my friends is a lawyer that has done some drunk driving cases and he said the .08 is some arbiturary number and each person reacts differently. He's not even a drinker and he says the way they go about it is BS and the BAC% isnt an accurate way to judge impairment.

mmarshall

A lawyer's job (by your own admission) is to beat the rap on DWI cases and get his clients off or the charges/sentences reduced....not necessarily to represent the facts. Numerous studies have shown that .08 does significantly impair most people's driving abilities......even young teen-agers with high metabolisms that tend to burn off any alcohol in their bodies more quickly. In countries that have adopted the .05 standard, alcohol-related traffic accidents/deaths/injuries have dropped significantly. The NTSB is an enormously professional organization that takes their work very seriously and relies on some of the best modern data and investigation methods available. In fact, .08 impairs the average person so much that the FAA uses half of that (.04) for its own BAC standard for pilots.....plus an 8-hour rule for no alcohol at all before a flight.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

the key word you said was "most" The only true way to judge impairment is to do an impairment test. What about the elderly who are more impaired all the time than a younger driver. Nope nothing done about that. .08% in an old man vs .08% in a young man. Who is more impaired?

So the state always represents the facts? Never mind the fact that most breathalyzer machines arent FDA approved for accuracy or performance. Even the method of drawing the blood can affect the results, like using an alcohol wipe on the area where the blood is drawn. Alcohol free wipes must be used. Kind of a big deal if you are .75% and borderline. Just going to create more "drunk" drivers like how the standard for being diabetic has been lowered over the years so more people are "diabetic"

mmarshall

I agree that laxness is sometimes a problem. I suspect that, in some cases, it takes a new or inexperienced judge/magistrate some time on the bench, listening to drunk-driving excuses from defendants and their lawyers, before they start to get wise to those who are trying to pull one over on them. In other cases, particularly if a high-profile official is involved or if there are political implications (such as when the FAA chief himself got charged with a DUI here in VA), some judges may not want to open up a can of worms or set themselves up for a reprisal. I agree it's not right, but it sometimes does happen....just one of the things in life that aren't always fair. Look at how many times Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton, for example, have been in and out of court like a revolving door on these same issues, yet both have actually served only a couple of days each in jail.

mmarshall

Breathalyzers aren't the only tests, by any means, that cops use to determine intoxication from drugs or alcohol. A defendant may be asked to recite the alphabet, recite certain letter/number groups forward or backwards, answer simple arithmetic and addition/subtraction questions, walk a straight line, stand and balance on one leg/foot, touch two opposing fingers together, or do any one of a number of other co-ordination tests. And, of course, the more alcohol a person has had, the more it will likely smell on that person's breath even without a Breathalyzer. That is one reason why cops get such intense training in the police academy or as a cadet....one cop told me that he was trained for a full six months alone on nothing else but simply how to arrest someone.


The state's position is to represent the law, traffic-safety, and the good of society, which generally is based on facts.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

yea because the state follows the procedures 100% of the time, never make a mistake. Tell that to the charges dropped against some of his clients because the cops knowingly used expired and non calibrated breathalyzer yet continued to use them. Facts huh? Again key word "most"