Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ntsb Wants To Lower DUI BAC To 0.05%. Thoughts?  
User currently offline4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 3040 posts, RR: 9
Posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2533 times:

Saw this on cnn.com today.
I understand that DUI is a huge issue, but I don't think that the people between 0.05 and 0.08% are the cause of the gory tales that accompany these stories. And the cnn story mentions that 0.08% equals 4 drinks per hour per some website, which sounds like alot, but actually 2 beers can get you to 0.08. It seems a little extreme to me, but wanted to know what you all thought..
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/nts...blood-alcohol/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
89 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8732 posts, RR: 42
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2533 times:

Quoting 4holer (Thread starter):
It seems a little extreme to me, but wanted to know what you all thought..

If you've drunk, you don't drive. That's all there is to it.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1391 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2506 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 1):

Very true, but .08 is low enough to cover this.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8913 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

While I used to be a nightly boozer, now I drink only occasionally (once every week or two), so alcohol affects me a bit more than it did before.

At my body weight, it would take 3 or 4 glasses of wine to get me to 0.08. I can promise you that if I've just slammed the better part of a whole bottle wine (a bottle typically holds 5 glasses), you would not want to let me anywhere near a wheel. I would definitely be tipsy, with poor motor control and reflexes to match.

For me, personally, I think 0.05 is perfectly legit. I know that some people can deal with it a lot better, but I would go on the side of caution on this.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1903 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

I like the way my province does it. The BAC required for a DUI conviction is still 0.08, but you can still be charged with reckless driving and/or have your license taken away if you blow between 0.05-0.08.

Quoting aloges (Reply 1):
If you've drunk, you don't drive. That's all there is to it.

But there are ways for alcohol to get into your system without actually having a beverage. It's necessary to quantify a point at which it is illegal, whatever level that is.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15810 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2478 times:

Quoting 4holer (Thread starter):
I understand that DUI is a huge issue, but I don't think that the people between 0.05 and 0.08% are the cause of the gory tales that accompany these stories.

It doesn't really matter. If you seem impaired, you can be arrested even with a BAC below .08, just as if you were impaired with something other than alcohol. It just isn't a slam dunk case.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8913 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2472 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 5):
It just isn't a slam dunk case

But that doesn't mean you should slam a case...

Sorry, couldn't help it...



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5599 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2453 times:

I like .05.

If you can't go out to dinner and stay under .05, you, either don't need to be drinking or don't need to be driving.

Driving drunk is a choice.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4747 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2397 times:

I wouldn't mind these targets, but it needs to be more relateable to people out drinking . There needs to be a quick simple otc test that people can choose to buy to help them make better decisions after drinking. For the most part, at my age, I don't go over the top when I am out, but it would be good to know in case I am having a bit too good of a time.


Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 2335 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 8):
There needs to be a quick simple otc test that people can choose to buy to help them make better decisions after drinking

There's really only the one sensible decision after drinking - any amount - and that's not to drive.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4747 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2310 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 9):
There's really only the one sensible decision after drinking - any amount - and that's not to drive.

Ummm what about 1 ml ? I oz? I liter ? There are varying degrees of impairment and susceptibility. There is also a timeline of impairment. Everything is relative .



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11760 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2254 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 2):
.08 is low enough to cover this

Not for everyone. Some people can blow a .08 and be just fine. Others can blow .03 and be kissing the canvas, as they say. I think the federal limit should be .05, but each state should be able to set their own limit and, at the same time, set their own limit for purchases of alcohol.

For example, California should be able to lower the BAC to .03 and lower the drinking age to 19 for California residents only while Nevada could set their BAC at .08 and keep their drinking age at 21.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15810 posts, RR: 27
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2240 times:

I'm really kind of ambivalent about the idea. It would increase DUI convictions, but perhaps not get more dangerous drivers off the road. I doubt cops can lower their threshold of suspicion when observing drivers to account for the difference between .05 and .08.

If you cross the centerline or signal the wrong way and a cop stops you, he won't let you drive away if you blow a .06. You might not get convicted of a DUI, but you won't be driving away in that condition either.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3144 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2228 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 11):
Not for everyone. Some people can blow a .08 and be just fine. Others can blow .03 and be kissing the canvas, as they say. I think the federal limit should be .05, but each state should be able to set their own limit and, at the same time, set their own limit for purchases of alcohol.

First of all I do not drink alcohol, and I agree mostly with your analogy.
The only problem I have is that a body can naturally produce .04 and never have a drink of alcohol.
That only leaves .01% tolerance. Now personally I would not trust a law officer that might have an agenda with a .01% tolerance but that is just me.
I can not speak for the people you know but the one I have known over the years that have been busted for DUI have always been well over the .08 mark so I just do not see where it is going to make much difference there.

States rights would be great, unfortunately the Federal Government controls drinking age and DUI limits by cutting off transportation funds for states that do no fall in line with their guidelines.

So right now I am fine with the .08 until I would have some evidence to convince me otherwise.

Okie


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17778 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2215 times:

These levels always seem a bit arbitrary. Why not just require a device in cars that prevents it from starting if the driver is drunk? It could test you randomly, every time, or somewhere in between as it senses how often you try to drive drunk.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 7):
Driving drunk is a choice.

It is, but I don't think many people know what their limit is, nor could tell the difference between .04 and .05. I bet if you screened people leaving the average bar, most would be drunk and most would be driving.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 9):
There's really only the one sensible decision after drinking - any amount - and that's not to drive.

Good luck with that.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5347 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2210 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 14):
It is, but I don't think many people know what their limit is, nor could tell the difference between .04 and .05. I bet if you screened people leaving the average bar, most would be drunk and most would be driving.

  

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 14):
Good luck with that.

Precisely. I don't know many people who haven't gotten behind the wheel at one time or another after overindulging, myself included. It's not something I condone, but you're just never going to get 100% compliance with drinking and not driving.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11760 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2199 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 14):
Why not just require a device in cars that prevents it from starting if the driver is drunk?

Some places have that and it is fine. For offenders. I don't mind if offenders have that device. However, if non-offenders want to drive, that is a different story.

Right this second, I have been drinking. I am home and not driving. Why should I pay $3000 more for my car when I am responsible? Many of us are responsible. Like gun owners. Not all of us are 5 years old. Not all of us have a record and buy at gun shows.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17778 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2183 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 16):

Some places have that and it is fine. For offenders. I don't mind if offenders have that device. However, if non-offenders want to drive, that is a different story.

That's fair, but ideally you stop the drunk driving before the driver becomes an 'offender', and these arbitrary changes in the BAC don't do much to that effect.

Quoting 4holer (Thread starter):
I don't think that the people between 0.05 and 0.08% are the cause of the gory tales that accompany these stories.

Also a lot of states won't penalize you if you're driving with a BAC below 0.08%, but will if you're below .08 and get into an accident, which seems like a little bit of double dealing: you're ok to drive, but you're not ok to get into an accident, even if it's 0.01. Makes you wonder how many DUI accidents weren't really DUI at all...



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2729 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2175 times:

This was a 1970's debate in Australia and they moved from 0.08 down to 0.05 in about 1979. The impact on reflexes between 0.05 and 0.08 rises EXPONENTIALLY, especially dangerous because you don't feel it happening. That's why most of EU, Australia and other have been on 0.05 for years or even many decades. The impact on road deaths was so marked no one could argue against it. I'm shocked this is being treated an an open issue in the US. It's not as if all the data is not available.


When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlineRabenschlag From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 1018 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2156 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 14):
It is, but I don't think many people know what their limit is, nor could tell the difference between .04 and .05. I bet if you screened people leaving the average bar, most would be drunk and most would be driving.

This, in my view, is a strong argument in favor of a zero tolerance policy. People may have a hard time telling a .04 from a .06. But with .00 it's much easier.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 15):
Precisely. I don't know many people who haven't gotten behind the wheel at one time or another after overindulging, myself included. It's not something I condone, but you're just never going to get 100% compliance with drinking and not driving.

That's not an argument against a stricter policy. It's like saying: "well, there will be always people shooting other people, so let's get rid of the laws sanctioning murdering people".


User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4118 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2147 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):
I'm really kind of ambivalent about the idea. It would increase DUI convictions, but perhaps not get more dangerous drivers off the road.
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 18):
The impact on road deaths was so marked no one could argue against it. I'm shocked this is being treated an an open issue in the US. It's not as if all the data is not available.

The second statement is very interesting, because I agreed with the first until then. I would think that people who are severely impaired and choose to drive nevertheless have no idea what their BAC is to begin with (and obviously don't care), so I can't see how lowering the limit would encourage them to change their behavior.

But if there is a body of evidence to show that the lower limit does make a difference, perhaps over time thanks to easier DUI convictions as proposed above, then I can see myself being in favor of the lower limit.

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 19):
But with .00 it's much easier.

It's impractical at best. There are medications, syrups and other ways to get above .00 unknowingly. It won't be "don't drink and drive," it will be "don't do anything and drive."



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5599 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2143 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 14):
It is, but I don't think many people know what their limit is, nor could tell the difference between .04 and .05.

They should learn their limits and what external things influence that limit.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 15):

Precisely. I don't know many people who haven't gotten behind the wheel at one time or another after overindulging, myself included. It's not something I condone, but you're just never going to get 100% compliance with drinking and not driving.

We don't have 100% compliance on the speed limit. You get caught, you get a ticket. Same thing with drinking and driving. Plenty of people get behind the wheel of a car, everyday, who have had just one too many and make it home safely everyday. Some of those folks even shake their heads when they get home and say "wow, maybe I shouldn't have driven".
Problem is, that even if you're driving just a little buzzed (one drink too many) you are impaired. Your reaction time is slowed. Your judgment may be just a little off. .05 is what? 1 1/2 drinks per hour.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 14):
Why not just require a device in cars that prevents it from starting if the driver is drunk?

Only for those under a court order. I should not have to submit to such an invasion without having proven myself incapable of making that decision.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17778 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 21):

They should learn their limits and what external things influence that limit.

That's a tall order. Everyone should floss and send their mother a card on mother's day but that ain't happening either.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2729 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 20):
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 18):
The impact on road deaths was so marked no one could argue against it. I'm shocked this is being treated an an open issue in the US. It's not as if all the data is not available.

The second statement is very interesting, because I agreed with the first until then. I would think that people who are severely impaired and choose to drive nevertheless have no idea what their BAC is to begin with (and obviously don't care), so I can't see how lowering the limit would encourage them to change their behavior.

But if there is a body of evidence to show that the lower limit does make a difference, perhaps over time thanks to easier DUI convictions as proposed above, then I can see myself being in favor of the lower limit.

It has to be massively enforced and so it is in a lot of countries with a 0.05 limit. In Oz, it is a massive operation. Most Australians can count on being tested randomly at least twice a year. Here in France, I only drive on weekends and have been breathalysed 3 times in the past few years.



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4118 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2128 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 23):
It has to be massively enforced and so it is in a lot of countries with a 0.05 limit.

Then we are screwed. By the nature of the position I have held well before the current one, I would drive home on days and hours when many others could be going home drunk, and I have not been randomly tested twice in my life! I have been stopped, asked about alcohol consumption, but not tested...



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5599 posts, RR: 15
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2181 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 22):
That's a tall order. Everyone should floss and send their mother a card on mother's day but that ain't happening either.

My not flossing or calling my mother does not have the potential of getting people killed.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2183 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 5):
It doesn't really matter. If you seem impaired, you can be arrested even with a BAC below .08, just as if you were impaired with something other than alcohol. It just isn't a slam dunk case.
Quoting casinterest (Reply 10):
Ummm what about 1 ml ? I oz? I liter ? There are varying degrees of impairment and susceptibility. There is also a timeline of impairment. Everything is relative .

Agree with both the above. I'll likely get pilloried for it, but I think stay with the 0.08 for a conviction, 0.05 for a 24 hour suspension.

If you go to a hard 0.05, you will gut the hospitality industry and put tens of thousands out of work. Many will say that's putting jobs ahead of lives, but, know what ? We do that everyday. Mining, construction, to name a couple of areas.

A few years back, the Transportation Safety Council of Canada analysed accident data w.r.t. alcohol involvement. Yes, 90% of fatalities involved alcohol. Importantly, 90% of those accidents involved drivers with twice the legal limit, i.e., 0.16 or higher. At that point, they're staggering. Very poor reflexes, tunnel vision, etc.

It's also interesting to note that several tests have shown that cell phone use while driving causes as much impairment as driving at 0.08. Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8LuM92Twm8



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineRabenschlag From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 1018 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2185 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 20):
It's impractical at best. There are medications, syrups and other ways to get above .00 unknowingly. It won't be "don't drink and drive," it will be "don't do anything and drive."

I do not agree.

First, if a product contains enough alcohol to result in a measurable effect on BAC, it must be labelled as such. I think this is already the case, at least in Germany. Otherwise, people who are not allowed to ingest alcohol for medical reasons would be constantly at risk to get above .00 unknowingly. So, I suppose the consumer can always know that she is consuming alcohol.

Second, if a medical product indeed pushes your BAC above .00, one might consider not to drive or work with dangerous machinery while under the influence.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17778 posts, RR: 46
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2164 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 25):

My not flossing or calling my mother does not have the potential of getting people killed.

Or speeding, or smoking, or trying meth, or any number of any things--take your pick. If humans were as rational as you think should be and made choices based on future consequences, we wouldn't have a fraction of the problems we do.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2152 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 10):
Ummm what about 1 ml ? I oz? I liter ? There are varying degrees of impairment and susceptibility. There is also a timeline of impairment. Everything is relative .

If the limit is very low indeed, then it should be able to account for inadvertent amounts of alcohol cough syrup or whatever, though the fact is labeling on such products should allow someone to decide whether it's likely to cause problems.

But what you say, about varying degrees of impairment etc, and how one might get there, really hits the nail on the head. There is no such thing as 'one beer' or 'two beers' will take you over - people process differently and can tolerate differing amounts. Therefore, the ONLY safe thing to do is never drive after alcohol. As far as the timeline goes, if you drank a significant amount then you don't drive the next day either. It's not rocket science. The relative differences you refer to are a more of a reason to not drink at all, not less.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5599 posts, RR: 15
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2131 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 28):
Or speeding, or smoking, or trying meth, or any number of any things--take your pick. If humans were as rational as you think should be and made choices based on future consequences, we wouldn't have a fraction of the problems we do.

But we do have standards for those and we do cite, arrest and/or prosecute when necessary. I know what the speed limit is, I know it's illegal to manufacture, distribute and use meth, etc., etc., etc.

I'm simply saying that you should know the limit and know how it applies to you. What you do with that information is up to you.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11760 posts, RR: 15
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2119 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 17):
you stop the drunk driving before the driver becomes an 'offender', and these arbitrary changes in the BAC don't do much to that effect.

It seems, these days, people are better at not driving under the influence. Many of my friends will not drive after having one or two drinks. So, I think lowering the BAC will have little impact.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 17):
Also a lot of states won't penalize you if you're driving with a BAC below 0.08%, but will if you're below .08 and get into an accident,

That is strange. CA, WA, OR all have stiffer penalties for driving under the influence, even if BAC was under .08.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4747 posts, RR: 3
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2108 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 29):
The relative differences you refer to are a more of a reason to not drink at all, not less.

But then you get into a compare and contrast ratio of what impairment is. What about folks on the radio, or the folks taking pain meds , or the folks with allergies or a cold that have no medicine in their body but are impaired.

there is a certain degree of responsiveness and timeliness for alcohol. Your solution is much the same as don't swim , because you might drown.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2107 times:

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 27):
First, if a product contains enough alcohol to result in a measurable effect on BAC, it must be labelled as such. I think this is already the case, at least in Germany. Otherwise, people who are not allowed to ingest alcohol for medical reasons would be constantly at risk to get above .00 unknowingly. So, I suppose the consumer can always know that she is consuming alcohol.

Not the case in Canada. Various OTC products contain alcohol, as well as mouthwash, and this is only noted in the fine print noting "Ingredients" on the back of the container.

Mouthwash you say ? My grandmother used Listerine (alcohol-based) and SWALLOWED the damn stuff. I think it was the alcohol.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently onlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6157 posts, RR: 29
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2095 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It is all about making money. More convictions means more money for local and state governments.

Time and time again I hear about how distracted driving (text, talking on the phone, eating) is just as dangerous as drunk driving. So if it was really about saving lives the penalties would be just as stiff for those infractions as it is for drunk driving.

There are still prohibitionists out there and they are in the guise of anti drunk driving groups and their real purpose to to get people to stop drinking. They hide behind drunk driving because nobody likes drunk drivers.

A person killed by a person who was texting is just as dead as somebody who is killed by a drunk driver, but the drunk will face much stiff penalties. That is just stupid.

What about states were marijuana is legal? How will a driver be tested for his impairment while driving after smoking pot? Getting stoned is just as big of impairment as drinking when it comes to driving. If we want to stop impaired driving than driving under the influence of legal marijuana needs to be treated exactly the same as drinking and driving.

I am sure I'll hear the pot smokers say something like "weed doesn't impair your ability to drive" or " I driver better stoned because I am more focused" I have heard those excuses from pot smokers but it is just BS, because it slows down your reaction time.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineRabenschlag From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 1018 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2091 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 34):
A person killed by a person who was texting is just as dead as somebody who is killed by a drunk driver, but the drunk will face much stiff penalties. That is just stupid.

Well, in Germany, texting is illegal, so is using the phone without a hands-free system. Drinking and driving is legal within limits. In other words, texting is more restricted than drinking. And rightly so, I think.

And I also agree regarding eating while driving. I think it is rather dangerous to consume full meals or drinking hot drinks while driving.

So, instead of saying "let's keep the drinking because we allow other dangerous stuff" I'd say "let's ban all the dangerous stuff".

[Edited 2013-05-15 09:52:21]

User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17778 posts, RR: 46
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2080 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 31):
That is strange. CA, WA, OR all have stiffer penalties for driving under the influence, even if BAC was under .08.

Really? What's the penalty for driving under the influence, under the limit?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 31):
It seems, these days, people are better at not driving under the influence. Many of my friends will not drive after having one or two drinks. So, I think lowering the BAC will have little impact.

Thankfully it seems to have become a real taboo, which is a good thing, plus cars have gotten much safer, and the two together have reduced injuries/deaths significantly. Just anecdotally, I see a lot of people asking 'are you ok to drive', responding 'yah', when no one is safe to drive, I assume.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6834 posts, RR: 12
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2066 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 8):
I wouldn't mind these targets, but it needs to be more relateable to people out drinking . There needs to be a quick simple otc test that people can choose to buy to help them make better decisions after drinking. For the most part, at my age, I don't go over the top when I am out, but it would be good to know in case I am having a bit too good of a time.

Here a law was recently passed forcing people to have 2 breathalyser kits in their car, so that when you're out and have had alcohol you use one and can show it to authorities (who would still test you if suspicious).

Now the application is somewhat in limbo since those test kits are very inaccurate and don't like the hot nor the cold, so keeping them in the car is a bad idea.

In my opinion the most important thing is to have a plan beforehand, either a designated driver who will have one drink at most, go out using mass transit, sleep where you spend the night, etc. You should never go back to your car wondering if you have had too much to drink, because by that time you might not wonder and just take the car.

Quoting okie (Reply 13):
The only problem I have is that a body can naturally produce .04 and never have a drink of alcohol.

This argument is used here against those who'd like to lower the current 0,05 limit to 0,02 or something, so I guess for the current limit it's not a problem, and really I doubt that 0,04 number unless you have a really strange metabolism or have eaten strange things.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently onlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6157 posts, RR: 29
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2068 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 36):
Really? What's the penalty for driving under the influence, under the limit?

That seems kind of dumb to me. Why have a limit at all if you still commit a crime if you are under it?

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 35):
So, instead of saying "let's keep the drinking because we allow other dangerous stuff" I'd say "let's ban all the dangerous stuff".

I agree with you. I just don't get the double standard. People always talk about throwing the book at drunk drivers, but people who do things that are just as dangerous don't fave a penalty as harsh or at all.

You can't text and drive in a lot of places, but the penalty isn't even close to a DUI. If both are just as dangerous than both need to have the same penalty. If tough DUI laws reduce drunk driving than tough distracted driving laws will reduce those kinds of wrecks.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15810 posts, RR: 27
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2048 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 26):
Agree with both the above. I'll likely get pilloried for it, but I think stay with the 0.08 for a conviction, 0.05 for a 24 hour suspension.

My big point of skepticism is how this would change enforcement. Convictions are merely a deterrent. The goal isn't to convict drunk drivers, the goal is to keep them off the roads. So to that end, for the cop on patrol, how does he change his standards for who gets stopped for a suspected DUI and who doesn't if the threshold goes down? How different does a driver look at .05 versus .08?

I'm not convinced that lowering the threshold will make roads safer but might clog up the legal system with more DUI cases.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1391 posts, RR: 3
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2024 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 11):

For example, California should be able to lower the BAC to .03 and lower the drinking age to 19 for California residents only while Nevada could set their BAC at .08 and keep their drinking age at 21.

We already have a hard enough time getting new residents to register their cars as it is. I don't think having more favorable rules in neighboring states will help with this one...

Quoting seb146 (Reply 11):
Others can blow .03 and be kissing the canvas, as they say.

Wow. I realize different folks have different tolerances, but isn't there a background of up to .02 sometimes? Seems pretty close to go from there to drunk with no median.

Quoting okie (Reply 13):
Now personally I would not trust a law officer that might have an agenda with a .01% tolerance but that is just me.

I know enough cops to know that there really aren't agendas here, at least not the way you're putting it. Mostly, the agenda is "I'm going to see how much of this shift I can not get out of this car."

DUI, DWI, OUI, etc all involve a lot of paperwork and time at the jail, and in many cases, you will make bail or get ROR'd before your arresting officer is done there. It's really not something they want to do anymore than you want to get busted.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 14):
It is, but I don't think many people know what their limit is, nor could tell the difference between .04 and .05. I bet if you screened people leaving the average bar, most would be drunk and most would be driving.

I agree. I have no idea what my limit is, since I've never been tested, but I'm sure I could not tell you what .04, .06, etc "feel" like to me.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 14):
Why not just require a device in cars that prevents it from starting if the driver is drunk? It could test you randomly, every time, or somewhere in between as it senses how often you try to drive drunk.

I'd be OK with this. Just write it off as a safety feature.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 21):
Only for those under a court order. I should not have to submit to such an invasion without having proven myself incapable of making that decision.

Do you feel the same about headlights? Brakes? Child safety seats? Liability Insurance? There are all kinds of rules out there that we have to live by if we want to drive, and given how dangerous this can be, there's no reason to be against any of it. When it comes to driving, you can submit to whatever the state tells you to. It's a privilege and if you can't respect that, you need to take the Bus.

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 27):
First, if a product contains enough alcohol to result in a measurable effect on BAC, it must be labelled as such. I think this is already the case, at least in Germany.

We certainly do not have that rule, but it sounds like a good idea.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 34):
It is all about making money. More convictions means more money for local and state governments.

At times, I can see it like that too. But let's don't forget the legal cottage industry building up around it as well. I've heard of rates of up to $4500 for legal defense on this here, & wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 34):
Time and time again I hear about how distracted driving (text, talking on the phone, eating) is just as dangerous as drunk driving. So if it was really about saving lives the penalties would be just as stiff for those infractions as it is for drunk driving.

You hear right. That stuff is very dangerous and there should be a way to enforce this. I'm not sure how, but when methods for enforcement improve in reliability, I'd like to see this taken more seriously. As of now it is (in CA) only a $159 no pointer.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 34):
What about states were marijuana is legal? How will a driver be tested for his impairment while driving after smoking pot? Getting stoned is just as big of impairment as drinking when it comes to driving. If we want to stop impaired driving than driving under the influence of legal marijuana needs to be treated exactly the same as drinking and driving.

Since Pot is covered under DUI/DWI here and in a lot of other places, I'm guessing there are methods for detection, but I couldn't even begin to say what the levels of precision there are.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 34):
I am sure I'll hear the pot smokers say something like "weed doesn't impair your ability to drive" or " I driver better stoned because I am more focused"

You'd be amazed what folks will tell you when they're stoned.

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 35):
Well, in Germany, texting is illegal, so is using the phone without a hands-free system. Drinking and driving is legal within limits. In other words, texting is more restricted than drinking. And rightly so, I think.

And that's a good thing. It should be like that here as well, since texting/driving likely has a much higher incidence of occurrence than DUI/DWI.

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 35):
And I also agree regarding eating while driving. I think it is rather dangerous to consume full meals or drinking hot drinks while driving.

I remember (late 90's IIRC) shopping at a BMW dealership and asking the sales lady why there are no cupholders in these things. She said that even regular drinking was illegal or frowned upon in Germany and that BMW didn't see a need to make a separate version for export on that basis.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 38):
That seems kind of dumb to me. Why have a limit at all if you still commit a crime if you are under it?

I think the idea is to regulate the severity of the penalty.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 38):
People always talk about throwing the book at drunk drivers, but people who do things that are just as dangerous don't fave a penalty as harsh or at all.

I'd be fine with that! In my universe, there is a special place in hell for folks who pass on the right, ride brake all day, lane dive for an exit (since you know, going missed is sooooooooo hard!), operate vehicles in an unsafe condition, and probably a few other things I'm not catching just this second.

We need to take road safety seriously, and yes, it's both frightening and irritating how many folks don't.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 38):
You can't text and drive in a lot of places, but the penalty isn't even close to a DUI.

It needs to be. There's no question it has a serious effect on reaction times.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2729 posts, RR: 4
Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 26):
Agree with both the above. I'll likely get pilloried for it, but I think stay with the 0.08 for a conviction, 0.05 for a 24 hour suspension.

My big point of skepticism is how this would change enforcement. Convictions are merely a deterrent. The goal isn't to convict drunk drivers, the goal is to keep them off the roads. So to that end, for the cop on patrol, how does he change his standards for who gets stopped for a suspected DUI and who doesn't if the threshold goes down? How different does a driver look at .05 versus .08?

I'm not convinced that lowering the threshold will make roads safer but might clog up the legal system with more DUI cases.

Like I already explain above, in countries that are serious about this, you WILL be randomly tested several times per year on average. If you are in the habit driving over 0.05, you are likely to get busted. This achieves the aim you mention: massively raised awareness.



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2025 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
My big point of skepticism is how this would change enforcement. Convictions are merely a deterrent. The goal isn't to convict drunk drivers, the goal is to keep them off the roads. So to that end, for the cop on patrol, how does he change his standards for who gets stopped for a suspected DUI and who doesn't if the threshold goes down? How different does a driver look at .05 versus .08?

I'm not convinced that lowering the threshold will make roads safer but might clog up the legal system with more DUI cases.

Of course, law enforcement officers can decide, based on a number of criteria, that a person is impaired. BAC, field sobriety test, erratic driving, etc. If an officer sees erratic driving, or a blown stop sign, he/she has reasonable cause to pull the driver over and inquire. Doesn't matter what the legal limit is. If a BAC comes back between 0.05 and 0.08, I'd say prudence indicates a 24 hr suspension. This is administrative, not criminal, therefore does not involve the courts. I don't think it really matters what the driver "looks" like. If the BAC comes in over 0.08, then it's a different matter indeed.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15810 posts, RR: 27
Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2019 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 40):
I'd be OK with this. Just write it off as a safety feature.

Of course you would.   You want the government out of your bedroom, but get them out of the garage too.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 40):
I remember (late 90's IIRC) shopping at a BMW dealership and asking the sales lady why there are no cupholders in these things. She said that even regular drinking was illegal or frowned upon in Germany and that BMW didn't see a need to make a separate version for export on that basis.

Porsche USA people apparently began sending large American drink cups back to Stuttgart with instructions telling the engineers that they need to accommodate them on new models.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 41):
Like I already explain above, in countries that are serious about this, you WILL be randomly tested several times per year on average.

That's a horrible plan. Checkpoints are exceptionally offensive to any notion of freedom. Police should only stop or detain people if they have reasonable suspicion that they've actually committed a crime.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 42):
Of course, law enforcement officers can decide, based on a number of criteria, that a person is impaired.

Exactly. So it has to be asked whether or not lowering the limit would result in more stops for suspected DUI, and correspondingly more drunks off the road.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20203 posts, RR: 59
Reply 44, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2018 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):
I'm really kind of ambivalent about the idea. It would increase DUI convictions, but perhaps not get more dangerous drivers off the road. I doubt cops can lower their threshold of suspicion when observing drivers to account for the difference between .05 and .08.

We actually agree on something???

Bottom line: I'd rather than DUI be based on some objective measures of IMPAIRMENT, rather than a number on a machine.

What matters is NOT how much blood there is in your alcohol system   but how IMPAIRED you are. It's IMPAIRMENT that causes accidents, be it alcohol, sleep deprivation, or drugs.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 45, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2008 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 32):
there is a certain degree of responsiveness and timeliness for alcohol. Your solution is much the same as don't swim , because you might drown.

No it's not. Driving is dangerous enough without alcohol. If you want to drink, don't plan to drive. There is nothing difficult or extreme about that. As for pain meds, they are not supposed to be for pleasure, but in any event should be not combined irresponsibly with driving. In the UK if you are found to be impaired then you can be charged.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5729 posts, RR: 10
Reply 46, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1991 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 1):
If you've drunk, you don't drive. That's all there is to it.

I never drive when I am drunk... at least not that I can remember....
Seriously, I do drive after having drinks, I don't drive drunk.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 4):
I like the way my province does it. The BAC required for a DUI conviction is still 0.08, but you can still be charged with reckless driving and/or have your license taken away if you blow between 0.05-0.08.

I have heard it called a "wet-reckless".

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 5):
It doesn't really matter. If you seem impaired, you can be arrested even with a BAC below .08, just as if you were impaired with something other than alcohol. It just isn't a slam dunk case.

  

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 44):
Bottom line: I'd rather than DUI be based on some objective measures of IMPAIRMENT, rather than a number on a machine.

What matters is NOT how much blood there is in your alcohol system but how IMPAIRED you are. It's IMPAIRMENT that causes accidents, be it alcohol, sleep deprivation, or drugs.

  
Impairment is the issue, I do not see this random "target level" having any real meaning for people or doing anything to improve safety on the streets.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2729 posts, RR: 4
Reply 47, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1989 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 41):
Like I already explain above, in countries that are serious about this, you WILL be randomly tested several times per year on average.

That's a horrible plan. Checkpoints are exceptionally offensive to any notion of freedom. Police should only stop or detain people if they have reasonable suspicion that they've actually committed a crime.

Then you will continue to live with what were 1970's rates of alcohol related road deaths in more proactive countries.

Funny, I find US domestic airport 'checkpoints' far more 'offensive to any notion of freedom.'



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5599 posts, RR: 15
Reply 48, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1992 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 38):
That seems kind of dumb to me. Why have a limit at all if you still commit a crime if you are under it?

When I was growing up in NY, and learning to drive there, back in the 80's, there was driving while intoxicated (DWI) and driving while ability impaired (DWAI). I don't recall the thresholds, but there were different penalties.

Is this still the case in NY?

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 40):
Do you feel the same about headlights? Brakes? Child safety seats? Liability Insurance? There are all kinds of rules out there that we have to live by if we want to drive, and given how dangerous this can be, there's no reason to be against any of it. When it comes to driving, you can submit to whatever the state tells you to. It's a privilege and if you can't respect that, you need to take the Bus.

Fair enough. It is a privilege and not a right. I seem to recall making that point elsewhere myself.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 44):
Bottom line: I'd rather than DUI be based on some objective measures of IMPAIRMENT, rather than a number on a machine.

That would be nice, but is there really an objective measure of impairment that can be administered in the field, that can hold up in court without a scientific (breathalyzer) result?

Look, all .05 would do is catch more folks in the net. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be troublesome. What is we said .05 - .079 is considered "diminished ability to drive" and call it a moving violation?

I'll tell you, that working nights, sometimes I absolutely should not have been behind the wheel on the way home from work. My ability to drive was probably much more diminished then after a couple of beers.

Just saying.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20203 posts, RR: 59
Reply 49, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1982 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 48):
That would be nice, but is there really an objective measure of impairment that can be administered in the field, that can hold up in court without a scientific (breathalyzer) result?

Yes. There are ways to do this objectively. It will require development, but it can be done.

The simplest is some sort of "video game" that tests reaction time and attention.


User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1391 posts, RR: 3
Reply 50, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1975 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 48):
It is a privilege and not a right. I seem to recall making that point elsewhere myself.

These things happen, lol.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 48):
I'll tell you, that working nights, sometimes I absolutely should not have been behind the wheel on the way home from work. My ability to drive was probably much more diminished then after a couple of beers.

Just saying.


I experienced something like that last year a few times after a few of our infamous triple shifts.

Yeah, there certainly are a lot of other factors that can damage anyone's ability to operate safely. I think that alcohol has been "sexed up" a bit on this (which I guess is why I think that .08 is fine), and just from what I see out on the road everyday, there are certainly other things that need attention too.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 48):
Look, all .05 would do is catch more folks in the net. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be troublesome. What is we said .05 - .079 is considered "diminished ability to drive" and call it a moving violation?

A lot of places cover that with reckless endangerment and use it as a plea bargaining tool. A friend of mine had that happen when he blew a .078 in VA a while back. Still expensive as hell, but not quite the career killer a DUI would have been.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15810 posts, RR: 27
Reply 51, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1972 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 49):
Yes. There are ways to do this objectively. It will require development, but it can be done.

The simplest is some sort of "video game" that tests reaction time and attention.

They'll just do what athletes do to get back after a suspected concussion: tank the baseline tests.

If a cop stops some whose BAC is a .06 but they aren't okay to drive, they'll be off the road and down at the hospital or police station. At that point it most likely doesn't matter whether or not the case goes to trial or they get a suspension or fine. The bottom line is that the driver isn't going to be behind the wheel until they've sobered up.

The people who rack up a dozen DUIs are a different story, but I tend to think they aren't the borderline people anyway.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1391 posts, RR: 3
Reply 52, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1954 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 51):
If a cop stops some whose BAC is a .06 but they aren't okay to drive, they'll be off the road and down at the hospital or police station. At that point it most likely doesn't matter whether or not the case goes to trial or they get a suspension or fine. The bottom line is that the driver isn't going to be behind the wheel until they've sobered up.

Ok, I can buy that one.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12262 posts, RR: 35
Reply 53, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1950 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting falstaff (Reply 34):
What about states were marijuana is legal? How will a driver be tested for his impairment while driving after smoking pot? Getting stoned is just as big of impairment as drinking when it comes to driving. If we want to stop impaired driving than driving under the influence of legal marijuana needs to be treated exactly the same as drinking and driving.

There are field sobriety tests for drugs as well. Not as well studied (yet) as alcohol fst, but it can be done. You can then do blood/urine tests to determine if a person has a drug in their system.



“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
User currently offline4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 3040 posts, RR: 9
Reply 54, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1891 times:

A question for those of the "zero tolerance" crowd:
Would you be agreeable to a lesser and more general "reckless driving" or such charge for lesser BACs? As it is right now, any DUI is, as stated above, a career killer. Or putting it another way, should two-beer-guy continue to be grouped with and punished the same as falling-over-drunk-guy?



Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17778 posts, RR: 46
Reply 55, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 38):

That seems kind of dumb to me. Why have a limit at all if you still commit a crime if you are under it?

I know of at least several states that if you cause an accident where someone is injured or killed and you have any alcohol in your system, well under the BAC limit, you can be charged with it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
The goal isn't to convict drunk drivers, the goal is to keep them off the roads.

Yeah I just don't see how lowering the limit does that

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 44):
What matters is NOT how much blood there is in your alcohol system but how IMPAIRED you are. It's IMPAIRMENT that causes accidents, be it alcohol, sleep deprivation, or drugs.

  

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 47):
Funny, I find US domestic airport 'checkpoints' far more 'offensive to any notion of freedom.'

Touche...but they've saved a lot more lives than drunk driving has killed. Oh wait--they haven't saved any 
Quoting 4holer (Reply 54):
As it is right now, any DUI is, as stated above, a career killer

Is it? I don't think it is, in fact I find people to be pretty flippant about it. It's frustrating because if you injure or kill someone, you are shunned, but if you drive drunk or blacked out it's almost like, "whoops silly me! let's do brunch and tawk about it!," even though both outcomes start the very same way. Again I'd rather focus on avoiding DUI's in the first place, than punishing people forever for making a stupid mistake.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7966 posts, RR: 51
Reply 56, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1857 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 55):
Is it? I don't think it is, in fact I find people to be pretty flippant about it. It's frustrating because if you injure or kill someone, you are shunned, but if you drive drunk or blacked out it's almost like, "whoops silly me! let's do brunch and tawk about it!," even though both outcomes start the very same way. Again I'd rather focus on avoiding DUI's in the first place, than punishing people forever for making a stupid mistake.

It's a career killer for the military (at least if you're an officer.) They always tell us it's the quickest way out of the military. Seen many careers end, some before they began (seen ROTC cadets lose their chance to commission.) It's so bad in flight school that if you have any alcohol related incident you're done. In other words, you do something slightly stupid/get in an accident and they find you've been drinking, you're gone. It's pretty harsh, but they do have a point--thousands would love to be in our spots

Not sure about all of the civilian world, but it's a big deal for some jobs



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2729 posts, RR: 4
Reply 57, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1853 times:

Quoting 4holer (Reply 54):

A question for those of the "zero tolerance" crowd:
Would you be agreeable to a lesser and more general "reckless driving" or such charge for lesser BACs? As it is right now, any DUI is, as stated above, a career killer. Or putting it another way, should two-beer-guy continue to be grouped with and punished the same as falling-over-drunk-guy?

In Australia and I think France and other EU countries, it's like speeding, there's DUI at 0,05+, but brackets of degree and associated penalties.



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17778 posts, RR: 46
Reply 58, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1848 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 56):
Not sure about all of the civilian world, but it's a big deal for some jobs

Judging by the number of incidents involving commercial pilots over the limit, it seems like less of a big deal. Do they even get fired?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7966 posts, RR: 51
Reply 59, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1844 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 58):
Do they even get fired?

IDK. I think the unions help keep them in (not trying to bring unions into this convo, trust me.)

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 58):
it seems like less of a big deal.

In my lifetime (keep in mind I'm fairly young) it seems like DUIs have become a much bigger issue. And I wasn't around, but I heard "back in the day" about cops pulling you over and making sure you drove home ok (vs just arresting you due to the strict laws we have now) and about bars at the end of runways giving free beers to pilots before they took off so times seem to have changed



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineRabenschlag From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 1018 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1836 times:

Given that there is such an easy and 100% safe way to avoid having your career going down the sink, what's the big deal? Would we want to introduce a .08 limit for commercial pilots just because right now flying drunk is a career killer for them? No, of course not. So - stay sober and drive safely. Or get busted but then take a taxi.

User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14127 posts, RR: 62
Reply 61, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1826 times:

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 23):
It has to be massively enforced and so it is in a lot of countries with a 0.05 limit. In Oz, it is a massive operation. Most Australians can count on being tested randomly at least twice a year. Here in France, I only drive on weekends and have been breathalysed 3 times in the past few years.

But the way we do it here in Europe or you guys in Australia with random spot checks (police blocks a road and everybody passing gets checked, not just for blood alcohol and other drugs, but also if he is wanted by the police and if his car is roadworthy, not stolen and has all the necessary paperwork, lkie tax, insurance and a valid roadworthiness test) would be unconstitutional in the US, so that the police can effectively only react if the driver is either visibly impairedor has already caused an accident.

Jan


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6834 posts, RR: 12
Reply 62, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1798 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
Of course you would. You want the government out of your bedroom, but get them out of the garage too.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
That's a horrible plan. Checkpoints are exceptionally offensive to any notion of freedom. Police should only stop or detain people if they have reasonable suspicion that they've actually committed a crime.

Well driving drunk is not freedom and shouldn't be a right.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 57):
In Australia and I think France and other EU countries, it's like speeding, there's DUI at 0,05+, but brackets of degree and associated penalties.

Yes in France 0,05 will get you a mandatory 6 points loss on your driving license (out of 12 points, so if you've lost some already, you can easily lose the license) and a 135€ fine. Over 0,08 it becomes a criminal matter, with a court appearance and a judge will decide the sentence, going from some months of suspension and a fine, to prison and loss of the car. I don't think an arrest is made in either case, as long as you're not dangerous to yourself or the cops, they will wait for someone/taxi to pick you up, and may detain your license/car keys.

It's certainly not a carreer killer either way and before getting prison (even suspended) you have to really try.

As for checks they're not that common and not numerous enough in my opinion, they're mainly done when youth are expected to come out of night clubs friday and saturday nights, and far less often during weekday afternoons where older people could easily get caught (since eating at a restaurant with a bottle of wine midday is still common).



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 63, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1792 times:

Road blocks for driver checks are not unconstitutional in the U.S. (at least not in Tennessee). I kinda think they SHOULD be unconstitutional, but that is probably a different thread.

And, Tennessee has just upped the anty for DUI checks. Not long ago, one could refuse a blood-alcohol test under the "implied consent" law (one consents to being alcohol level checked when receiving a driver license). If you refuse a check you are not charged with DUI (no proof of alcohol level) but you automatically lose your license for a year.

The new law says you MUST submit to a blood test, even by force, if you are suspected to be over the limit. Locally, breahtalyzers have fallen out of favour and not used anymore, even by the State Troopers because of their "unreliability" and too many cases being thrown out of court

And as I mentioned when opening, it is common, ecpecially during holiday seasons, for roadblock "checkpoints" for alcohol, driver license, registration and insurance papers. "Vill you show me your papers, pleeze?" regards...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15810 posts, RR: 27
Reply 64, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1779 times:

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 53):
There are field sobriety tests for drugs as well. Not as well studied (yet) as alcohol fst, but it can be done. You can then do blood/urine tests to determine if a person has a drug in their system.

True. The point is that most likely just as many people will probably be taken off the road with a .05 limit as .08, it's just a matter of whether or not and what type of conviction it might turn into afterwards. If you don't seem okay to drive a cop isn't going to let you leave in your car even if you pass a roadside breath test.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 59):
IDK. I think the unions help keep them in (not trying to bring unions into this convo, trust me.)

The union got some Chrysler workers back to work after spending lunch drinking and smoking (probably not tobacco either).

Quoting Aesma (Reply 62):
Well driving drunk is not freedom and shouldn't be a right.

Plenty of things aren't freedoms, but cops don't stop me randomly and ask me if I've committed wire fraud. They don't stop me and search for weapons either, but that's just because I'm white.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 63):
Road blocks for driver checks are not unconstitutional in the U.S. (at least not in Tennessee). I kinda think they SHOULD be unconstitutional, but that is probably a different thread.

It's not unconstitutional (I don't think it's covered at all specifically) but it damn well should be.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 65, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1716 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 26):
If you go to a hard 0.05, you will gut the hospitality industry and put tens of thousands out of work.

Will it? My parents used to run restaurants before retiring and they say the result was the exact opposite when it happened there. People made sure to have a plan for how to get home. It may have been taxi or a designated driver. Sure you lost a bit on the designated driver but the others compensated that several times over since they did not hold back so they could drive home.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 34):
More convictions means more money for local and state governments.

Does it? Love to see you support this is I expect costs are much higher than the money coming in. Looking forward to see it black on white.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
You want the government out of your bedroom, but get them out of the garage too.

Just as last time you made this argument you fail to distinguish that location matters. You can do just about anything as long as you stay in your garage. It is when you do it on public roads there may be a problem.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 55):
Yeah I just don't see how lowering the limit does that

The problem with 0.08 is that you can drink and be "safe." The limit needs to be so low that you don't think you can have a drink or two and still be "safe" yet high enough to not create problems with natural occurrence. Isn't the limit 0.04 for commercial drivers?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 64):
cops don't stop me randomly and ask me if I've committed wire fraud

They do however check wire transfers...


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5729 posts, RR: 10
Reply 66, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1706 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 65):
The problem with 0.08 is that you can drink and be "safe." The limit needs to be so low that you don't think you can have a drink or two and still be "safe" yet high enough to not create problems with natural occurrence. Isn't the limit 0.04 for commercial drivers?

Just curious, what is the death rate and the accident rate for drinking and driving? Lets say per miles or hours driven?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4747 posts, RR: 3
Reply 67, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1670 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 66):
Just curious, what is the death rate and the accident rate for drinking and driving? Lets say per miles or hours driven?

Tugg

Not sure, but for teens and young adults I read that there were 2400 deaths last year from Alcohol which is 25 % of the deaths total. For measurement, there were 2700 for texting while driving. Not sure what the delta was of texting while drunk.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 68, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1658 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 66):
Just curious, what is the death rate and the accident rate for drinking and driving? Lets say per miles or hours driven?

I'm sure you can google that without problem. Let's address the issue you avoid mentioning. How often must people die (per mile or whatever other measurement) before you think it is too many and you arrange transportation or enjoy an evening without alcohol.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15810 posts, RR: 27
Reply 69, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1650 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 65):
Just as last time you made this argument you fail to distinguish that location matters. You can do just about anything as long as you stay in your garage. It is when you do it on public roads there may be a problem.

There is no point in the government continuing to drive up the cost and complexity of cars for little purpose. We're safe enough, life doesn't need to be stupidproofed.

The real problem with changing the alcohol limit is that all the softball star dudebros will have to get new jerseys that say .05 instead of .08.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 70, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1647 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
We're safe enough

You mean you have not been killed.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5729 posts, RR: 10
Reply 71, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1623 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 68):
I'm sure you can google that without problem.

And you can't? You appear to be implying that drinking and driving is a real problem but where is the data?

As you said:

Quoting cmf (Reply 65):
Does it? Love to see you support this is I expect costs are much higher than the money coming in. Looking forward to see it black on white.

So what is the rate?

Quoting cmf (Reply 68):
Let's address the issue you avoid mentioning. How often must people die (per mile or whatever other measurement) before you think it is too many and you arrange transportation or enjoy an evening without alcohol.

I am not avoiding anything, everyone else, what it the rate? And you are concerned about people dying? So am I, but that is still avoiding the question of how much of a problem is it at the current level? And what is teh expected reduction if it is changed? And is that significant? And before you get sanctimonious and say every life is precious, or "how about if it were your own loved one" etc., there are risks for everything and at some level we find those risks to be acceptable, from aviation, to manufacturing, and even drving.

So I am asking: What are the risks? You tell me to google it but you are the one advocating the need for the change.

So the question is: Is there a real problem?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 72, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1606 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 71):

Lets try to break your boxed thinking. The rate you ask for doesn't make sense. It is nothing but an attempt at presenting it in a way to get a small number to justify a behavior that isn't justifiable by any normal standard.

For data that makes sense consider more than 50 billion USD in cost per year. Because people think they can walk the tight rope over the canyon over and over and always get away with it. There is nothing wrong with driving. Nor is there anything wrong about enjoying alcohol. But they don't go together. So if you need a kick in the but to to behave like an adult then lets be kind and give you that kick in the but.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6834 posts, RR: 12
Reply 73, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1602 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
There is no point in the government continuing to drive up the cost and complexity of cars for little purpose. We're safe enough, life doesn't need to be stupidproofed.

Well the cost or complexity of the car doesn't make much of a difference when it runs me over. Don't forget it's not just the driver at risk.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinemelpax From Australia, joined Apr 2005, 1639 posts, RR: 1
Reply 74, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1602 times:

As others have already said, the .05 limit is very heavily enforced here. But it's also backed up with education & heavy advertising, especially around periods like Christmas/new year, big sports events like the AFL Grand Final and the Melbourne Cup, etc. Basically the ads enforce the fact that there is heavy enforcement, and that if you're drinking, it's best to make other arrangements as there is a high likelyhood that you'll be caught. It's not unkown for the police to set up breath testing units outside venues after an event so that nearly every driver is tested. Also in Melbourne at least, the police will set up roadblocks on the freeways heading out of the city late on Friday & Saturday nights as well. Also have seen them out conducting tests of a morning as well. (you can still be over the limit the morning after...) All police cars are also equipped with breathalyser units & they must breath test you when they pull you over, no matter what the reason. If you refuse to submit to a breath test, the penalty is more severe than if you were caught for DUI (quite common for loss of licence between 12-18 months here, depending on what level you were...)

As others have said, when we plan a night out here, we either have a designated driver, or we will use public transport or taxis. Not worth getting caught, and it's seen as socially unacceptable to be convicted for Drink Driving.

http://www.tacsafety.com.au/campaign...paign/drink-drive-campaign-history



Essendon - Whatever it takes......
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5729 posts, RR: 10
Reply 75, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1584 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 72):
Lets try to break your boxed thinking. The rate you ask for doesn't make sense. It is nothing but an attempt at presenting it in a way to get a small number to justify a behavior that isn't justifiable by any normal standard.

For data that makes sense consider more than 50 billion USD in cost per year. Because people think they can walk the tight rope over the canyon over and over and always get away with it. There is nothing wrong with driving. Nor is there anything wrong about enjoying alcohol. But they don't go together. So if you need a kick in the but to to behave like an adult then lets be kind and give you that kick in the but.

You are the one that is being boxed, you are claiming that this is a good idea and yet do not provide anything showing what the improvement will be if the level is lowered to .005.

What will the improvement be?

The USA is not the rest of the world, blanket enforcement stops will not be set up, officers will still only be able to respond to those that are showing signs of impairment, so how much of an improvement, how much of a reduction in accidents etc, will you see if you implement this?

By the way, though I do not expect an honest answer, have you ever driven after drinks? Ever driven after say three beers? What do you consider too much? I have already noted that I do drive after I have been out and had drinks, I do monitor myself and I do not drive drunk. But then, what is drunk? Is being impaired? Or is it some arbitrary number on a machine?

What will actually improve if the level is lower? Come out of your box and tell me.

Oh and I forgot:
Quoting cmf (Reply 72):
For data that makes sense consider more than 50 billion USD in cost per year.

Source? The black on white?

Tugg

[Edited 2013-05-17 08:51:42]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 76, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1564 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 75):
You are the one that is being boxed

Am I? I am not making up irrelevant forms of data and ask you to provide the numbers just because I want a small number that doesn't look bad because it isn't understood to justify irresponsible behavior.

I'm not trying to find a way to say that x number of people killed per year is OK because I can't figure out how do drink without driving.

I asked you before what the number must be before you think you need to arrange transportation or not drink. Not that I'm surprised you refuse to address how the numbers you request will be interpreted.

The answer is that there isn't ever justification for driving after you have consumed alcohol. Already the first drink makes you a worse driver. This isn't like other places where we accept a certain number of deaths because the use of a technology that brings a lot of good will at times fail. Drinking alcohol and then driving is just irresponsible laziness. It is playing roulette with other peoples lives without them having a say in it.

The numbers you ask for is nothing but an attempt to bring the discussion away from that there isn't ever a reason to drive after consuming alcohol.

B.t.w. the supreme court disagrees with your statement "officers will still only be able to respond to those that are showing signs of impairment." Some states, I think 11, have banned it but other states have check points and I fully expect there to be several here around Miami Beach next weekend, just as there has been most other years.

I have no problem answering if I have drive after drinking or not. But first you need to explain how it is relevant to the discussion.

The 50 BUSD is from CDC. That site will provide you with a lot of data that you should have known before trying to justify keeping status que. Now that you have it I ask you to justify spending 50 BUSD per year on alcohol related costs, since you argue to keep current limits.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5729 posts, RR: 10
Reply 77, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1548 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 76):
Am I? I am not making up irrelevant forms of data and ask you to provide the numbers just because I want a small number that doesn't look bad because it isn't understood to justify irresponsible behavior.

You still have no data. No "black on white" as you say, so I assume there will be no improvement by lowering the number?


Quoting cmf (Reply 76):
I'm not trying to find a way to say that x number of people killed per year is OK

So what rate does the FAA use for aviation failures? It is somewhere in the multi-millions of hours of operation. What do other industries do, how do they figure out what is an acceptable risk?

Quoting cmf (Reply 76):
because I can't figure out how do drink without driving.

Has nothing to do with that.

Quoting cmf (Reply 76):
I asked you before what the number must be before you think you need to arrange transportation or not drink. Not that I'm surprised you refuse to address how the numbers you request will be interpreted.

Why do you go on about people dieing when you drink? We are not talking about that. We are talking about if a BAC level will determine if someone is drunk. Whether that person will actually kill someone is a different subject (yes being drunk increases that risk unacceptably).

Quoting cmf (Reply 76):
I have no problem answering if I have drive after drinking or not. But first you need to explain how it is relevant to the discussion.

The issue is whether "drunk driving" is the same as having a BAC of .005.

So? Do you have an answer?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 78, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1538 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 77):
You still have no data. No "black on white" as you say, so I assume there will be no improvement by lowering the number?

I have the numbers. They are extremely simple to find. But since it was you who decide on a specific type of numbers it is on you to provide those numbers and comment on them. Not tell others they must provide your numbers and then use it to argue irrelevancy.

Quoting tugger (Reply 77):
So what rate does the FAA use for aviation failures?

You brought it up so you tell us. But again, this is another example of your boxed thinking. The two numbers are not related. Flying provides a lot of benefits. Driving while under influence doesn't. All you do in that case is playing roulette with innocent peoples lives because you're too lazy and irresponsible to do the right thing.

Quoting tugger (Reply 77):
Has nothing to do with that.

As explained above, it has everything to do with it.

Quoting tugger (Reply 77):
Why do you go on about people dieing when you drink? We are not talking about that.

Lowering the limit is all about reducing deaths, and injuries, and all other damages caused by driving under influence of alcohol because some insist on being idiots. I hate to bring it up again but it is another example of your boxed thinking. You only look at how far you can push and still be within the legal requirements when you should know that there are no valid reasons to drive after you have consumed alcohol. It doesn't matter if you are below the legal limit. Drinking and then driving is a confirmation that you haven't matured enough.

Now, are you going to continue to be obstinate and continue to ask for data you should have or isn't relevant or are you going to be constructive?


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9192 posts, RR: 11
Reply 79, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1540 times:

I am 6 foot, at one time, I weighed in at 230 pounds. One bottle of Budweiser and I was gone. One bottle on an empty stomach, and I could not find my mouth with my fork. I did not drive. If you drink, don't drive as they say. I like the 0.05 limit. It is time.


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5729 posts, RR: 10
Reply 80, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1509 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 78):
I have the numbers. They are extremely simple to find. But since it was you who decide on a specific type of numbers it is on you to provide those numbers and comment on them. Not tell others they must provide your numbers and then use it to argue irrelevancy.

So you still have no numbers and no source? OK, well just say so, and stop pretending and trying to get others to do your work. If they were "extremely simple" I am sure you would present them. But I am also suspecting you don't do so because they don't prove your intended point (that lowering the limit will produce a measurable net benefit).

Quoting cmf (Reply 78):
The two numbers are not related. Flying provides a lot of benefits. Driving while under influence doesn't.

Your statement is in error, driving provides many benefits just like flying provides benefits. Flying when there is a problem has less benefits, just driving when there is a problem does.

And wait, I brought up aviation and numbers so I am supposed to provide them, yet you brought up that lowering the limit is a good idea and a benefit but you won't provide numbers.... OK I get it.

I'll just say that I do not know the numbers and basically threw out aviation as an example is because of our common interest here and hoping someone could provide some quick numbers. Of course in essence failure of the level we are speaking of here (death) is engineered out as much as possible, and if an element is discovered it is worked on to correct to reduce any likelihood of future occurrence as failure is essentially unacceptable. But even still there are numbers backing up everything.

Quote:
The goal of risk analysis is not to find the most lenient program that still squeaks under the risk factor upper limit. Any reasonable action which reduces the risk should be included as part of the correction program (keeping in mind the principles of prioritization discussed in the previous installment).

On the other hand, zero risk is unattainable without grounding the fleet. Also, the plot of risk factor versus impact on resources reveals an asymptotic relationship; in other words, at some point, any additional reduction in risk factor comes only at great increase in the required resources. That particular point varies from situation to situation. The engineer must decide if the additional burden on the fleet is worth the reduction in risk.
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert...ia/risk_analysis_corres_course.doc

Quoting cmf (Reply 78):
As explained above, it has everything to do with it.

You saying one thing and thinking another. You say you want to reduce deaths and then say that reducing the limit will do that but do not show what a .03 reduction will achieve. What will a .08 driver do that a .05 driver won't? What is the data? You are claiming something but providing nothing to show that it will achieve what you desire: Reducing deaths. You are making assumptions that lower will do something but not willing to actually test that first and prove anything. But I suspect that it will not do anything real.

Quoting cmf (Reply 78):
Lowering the limit is all about reducing deaths, and injuries, and all other damages caused by driving under influence of alcohol because some insist on being idiots.

No it is about trapping more people whether they are drunk or not. Just on whether they are under and arbitrary number. Why .05? Why not .04 or .03? Would .06 be OK? Why or why not? Would .06 not prevent enough deaths? Wouldn't .02 prevent more and be better? Why THAT number? What are the numbers behind the numbers? What is the science?

Quoting cmf (Reply 78):
I hate to bring it up again but it is another example of your boxed thinking. You only look at how far you can push and still be within the legal requirements when you should know that there are no valid reasons to drive after you have consumed alcohol. It doesn't matter if you are below the legal limit. Drinking and then driving is a confirmation that you haven't matured enough.

Well I hate to bring it up but you still have answered my above question on whether you have driven after drinking. I am suspect you are being a hypocrite. I am being open about my situation. I do have a valid reason to drive after having a drink, to get home, to get my family home. those are very good reasons to drive. Now if I am unable to drive safely I do not drive, it is that simple. That is why I do not drink that much and never have (drinking just isn't "my thing"), but I wouldn't be surprised that I am over .05.

Quoting cmf (Reply 78):
Now, are you going to continue to be obstinate and continue to ask for data you should have or isn't relevant or are you going to be constructive?

Yes, of course. Why on earth would you not want data behind things like this?

I am not advocating that drunk driving is OK and or that any deaths resulting from people driving under the influence is acceptable. But I am absolutely advocating for data, and that we should actually use the most effective means to prevents accidents and deaths from drunk driving because otherwise you spend, time, money, and efforts and prevent less. Why would anyone want to do that?

Tugg

[Edited 2013-05-18 00:18:20]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 81, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1491 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 80):
So you still have no numbers and no source? OK, well just say so, and stop pretending and trying to get others to do your work.

Dude, yet again, It was you who brought the stupid accidents per mile and hour. It is your work.

Quoting tugger (Reply 80):
Your statement is in error, driving provides many benefits just like flying provides benefits. Flying when there is a problem has less benefits, just driving when there is a problem does.

Yes, driving provide benefits. Driving under influence under alcohol does not any additional benefits. Thus you have to choose. Drive and don't drink or drink and arrange transportation some other way.

Quoting tugger (Reply 80):
And wait, I brought up aviation and numbers so I am supposed to provide them, yet you brought up that lowering the limit is a good idea and a benefit but you won't provide numbers.... OK I get it.

Your boxed thinking is amazing. Yes I have stated lowering the level is good. I stated it should be so low and you don't think you can drink something and still be under the limit yet high enough that you don't get caught by natural occurrences.

Then you made up the stupid ratio and claim that is what is needed to support my statement. Since then you have made claim after claim without looking out of the box you created.

If you need numbers to show that lowering the level then they are plenty and anyone should be part of what anyone who is arguing the subject should know from the most basic research.

Just a few examples:

Quote:
This chapter provides a scientific review of the evidence regarding the benefits of
reducing the illegal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for driving. Numerous independent
studies in the United States indicate that lowering the illegal BAC limit from .10 to .08 g/dL has
resulted in 5 to 16% reductions in alcohol-related crashes, fatalities, or injuries. The illegal limit
is .05 BAC in numerous countries around the world and several international studies indicate that
lowering the illegal per se limit from .08 to .05 g/dL BAC also reduces alcohol-related fatalities.
Laboratory studies indicate that impairment in critical driving functions begins at low BACs and
that most subjects are significantly impaired at .05 g/dL BAC. The relative risk of being involved
in a fatal crash as a driver is 4 to 10 times greater for drivers with BACs between .05 and .07
g/dL compared to drivers with .00 g/dL BACs. There is strong evidence in the literature that
lowering the BAC limit to .05 g/dL is effective.
http://www.aaam.org/BAC.pdf

Quote:
In order to determine the relative crash risk of drivers at various blood alcohol concentration
(BAC) levels a case-control study was conducted in Long Beach, CA and Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Data was collected on 4,919 drivers involved in 2,871 crashes of all severities. In addition, two
drivers at the same location, day of week and time of day were sampled a week after a crash,
which produced 10,066 control drivers. Thus, a total of 14,985 drivers were included in the
study. Relative risk models were generated using logistic regression techniques with and without
covariates such as driver age, gender, marital status, drinking frequency and ethnicity. The
overall result was in agreement with previous studies in showing increasing relative risk as BAC
increases, with an accelerated rise at BACs in excess of .10 BAC. After adjustments for missing
data (hit-and-run drivers, refusals, etc.) the result was an even more dramatic rise in risk, with
increasing BAC that began at lower BACs (above .03 BAC).
http://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/t2002/actes/pdf/(06a).pdf

There, now I have done the job you should have done before starting your ignorant objections.

Quoting tugger (Reply 80):
No it is about trapping more people whether they are drunk or not.

OK, this will be fun. Since you have been so much about me providing numbers I'm sure you will be able to back up this statement with numbers  
Quoting tugger (Reply 80):
Why .05? Why not .04 or .03? Would .06 be OK?

This is the first good point I have seen from you.: 0.05 isn't the right level. It means going to what most of the rest of the developed world did long ago. A better number would be 0.04 as that is what most states have as limit for commercial drivers. But the level should be 0.02. It is the number that is low enough that no-one think they can drink and stay below and high enough not to catch things that isn't from drinking.

Look at the below chart and you will also see that after that risks are quickly increasing/
http://dc.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Picture-112.png

Quoting tugger (Reply 80):
Well I hate to bring it up but you still have answered my above question on whether you have driven after drinking.

Because you have, still, not explained what it adds to the discussion. All you want is to call me a hypocrite. You want to change the discussion from what is the right to others are failing so we should keep on failing.

Quoting tugger (Reply 80):
I do have a valid reason to drive after having a drink, to get home, to get my family home. those are very good reasons to drive.

NO. They are poor excuses for drinking and driving. If you need to get home and can't arrange other transportation, don't drink. You don't need to drink to be able to drive home. It is you who decide to play roulette with other peoples lives by combining drinking and driving.

Quoting tugger (Reply 80):
Now if I am unable to drive safely I do not drive, it is that simple. That is why I do not drink that much and never have (drinking just isn't "my thing"), but I wouldn't be surprised that I am over .05.

You say you're over 0.05. As shown above that isn't safe.

Quoting tugger (Reply 80):
I am not advocating that drunk driving is OK and or that any deaths resulting from people driving under the influence is acceptable.

Yet you just did. Your example of driving home with above 0.05 is just that.

Quoting tugger (Reply 80):
But I am absolutely advocating for data, and that we should actually use the most effective means to prevents accidents and deaths from drunk driving because otherwise you spend, time, money, and efforts and prevent less. Why would anyone want to do that?

I have no problem providing data. I do it frequently in the threads I participate in. What I don't do is provide stupid data someone else is defining to prove their point, especially not when the point is to provide a misleading number.

So I have provided data supporting that lowering the level does have significant positive effects. Now it is up to you to support your claims AND stop being obstinate about having others provide your numbers.


User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12262 posts, RR: 35
Reply 82, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1424 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting melpax (Reply 74):
All police cars are also equipped with breathalyser units & they must breath test you when they pull you over, no matter what the reason.

Are you sure? That sounds like an awful lot of unnecessary work for the cops. I would hate to have to breathalyze every person I stop if I have no indications of alcohol use.



“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
User currently offlinemelpax From Australia, joined Apr 2005, 1639 posts, RR: 1
Reply 83, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1312 times:

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 82):
Are you sure? That sounds like an awful lot of unnecessary work for the cops. I would hate to have to breathalyze every person I stop if I have no indications of alcohol use.

Afraid so, been in force for the past 10 years or so here. Quite a few times I've been pulled over for speeding where the cops have said 'I know you haven't been drinking, but I have to do this anyway... ' It does reinforce the drink-drive message & the cops do make a big point of this when they run their drink-drive ads over Christmas, 'every police car is a booze bus'...



Essendon - Whatever it takes......
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 84, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1278 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 80):
So you still have no numbers and no source? OK, well just say so, and stop pretending and trying to get others to do your work. If they were "extremely simple" I am sure you would present them. But I am also suspecting you don't do so because they don't prove your intended point (that lowering the limit will produce a measurable net benefit).

Facts sure made you quiet. Not surprised that someone who can't support their own statements with anything but screaming for others to provide data and increasingly more aggressive personal attacks can't handle facts, still disappointed.

You called me a hypocrite, well, we now have in black and white that the hypocrite is you. All you want is to drink and drive without risking legal repercussions. It is because people like you we need the lower limit. It is all fine if you want to play roulette with your own life but when you do it with bystanders then you have crossed the line.


User currently offlineJLB67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2013, 12 posts, RR: 0
Reply 85, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1218 times:

It can only be a good thing I suppose. I don't see why people need to mix the two? A car is the most dangerous thing the majority of the population uses each day.

User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12262 posts, RR: 35
Reply 86, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1195 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting melpax (Reply 83):
Quite a few times I've been pulled over for speeding where the cops have said 'I know you haven't been drinking, but I have to do this anyway...

That's bizarre

Quoting melpax (Reply 83):
'every police car is a booze bus'...

I have the required equipment in my car, but I choose when to bring it out.



“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
User currently onlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8420 posts, RR: 9
Reply 87, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1191 times:

The first person in my high school class to die was from a drunk driver. That

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 18):

This was a 1970's debate in Australia and they moved from 0.08 down to 0.05 in about 1979

And, most importantly, the Aussies will randomly stop and test you. Had done once driving up to Kalamunda. Cops pulled me over, got my license details and told me it was a random booze test. I told them that I had been a very good boy for years so I could blow up the balloon with east - and they told me they hadn't use the balloon devices for years. We laughed, I blew into a tube and we went our separate ways.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 20):
There are medications, syrups and other ways to get above .00 unknowingly.

I've have various version of them over the years and I don't drive when I take the meds - OTC or Rx. I also know to wait 7 days after a general anesthetic before driving.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 21):
I should not have to submit to such an invasion without having proven myself incapable of making that decision.

When you are on public roads I believe your rights to privacy are severely diminished.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 26):
If you go to a hard 0.05, you will gut the hospitality industry and put tens of thousands out of work.

The Aussie's have a thriving and profitable hospitality industry. The biggest problem with the US industry is the $3.50 and hour wage for workers getting tips - that leaves me with little sympathy for those US businesses worried about their booze sales.


User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 88, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1133 times:

How about instead of punishing people who have two glasses of wine with dinner instead of one (pretty much what .05 to .08 will do) we actually go after repeat offenders who repeatedly chase their gallon of wine with a pint of vodka?

The problem this country has with drunk drivers is NOT with first time offenders. If I blow a .26 I SHOULD NOT have a license! Sure people change, make them prove it, dont just give their keys back and say "good luck society, they paid their debt". There was a link put here a few years ago that showed the rate of fatal, alcohol related accidents and something like 85% had been charged with a DUI previously. Hold people accountable for their damn actions the first time around and you will see a change.

But of course, we are no longer allowed to hold people accountable for their actions; what was I thinking?



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 89, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1127 times:

I can see this idea from both sides; to start with, If I had my way, the tolerance would be .000 How much tolerance does a professional airline pilot have when he comes to work ? ( no alcohol in the last 8 hours ? ) I'm not against people drinking, especially if they know when to stop; ( many people don't ) what I am against is, people who drive while impaired; the big problem being, no two people have the same tolerance for alcohol; I solved that problem about a year before I retired from professional driving; I quit drinking anything with alcohol in it; I figured if I could quit smoking when I was 35, I could damn sure quit drinking the very small amount of beer I drank when I was about 64; that was 16 years ago, and I can only remember drinking one can of beer since I retired in 1997.

I don't really care what they make the legal limit, but I can tell you this; it has nothing at all to do with "safety"; it's ALL about making more $$$$ from fines. I think the whole thing is a huge rip-off, but I suppose that's easy for me to say,
BTW.... I'm sure glad to hear that I'm not the only non-alky drinker on A.net !



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Minimum Wage Bill To Lower Wages In 7 States posted Thu Aug 3 2006 01:53:50 by NWDC10
Anyone Going To Canberra Tomorrow (21st April 05) posted Wed Apr 20 2005 14:14:39 by Wunala
GOP Wants To Change Rules To Protect Tom Delay posted Wed Nov 17 2004 18:09:13 by Falcon84
Saudis To Lower Oil Prices To Influence Election posted Mon Apr 19 2004 22:37:17 by Diamond
MTA Restores Subway Service To Lower Manhattan posted Fri Sep 20 2002 23:23:22 by Lubcha132
France, UK To Give Missiles To Syrian Rebels posted Thu Mar 14 2013 17:34:38 by Aesma
Going To Miami, What To Do? posted Thu Jan 31 2013 23:31:56 by B747forever
Iran Claims To Send Monkey To Space And Back posted Mon Jan 28 2013 15:17:42 by RussianJet
Just Moved To Canada; How To Get A Mobile Phone? posted Fri Sep 28 2012 15:05:03 by SmithAir747
Software To Rip CDs To Flac posted Sat Jun 23 2012 07:45:28 by ZANL188