The NTSB wants to lower the legal driving blood alcohol content to .05 from .08. This hasn’t proved to be as popular as I would have guessed, though it appears most commenters at OTB approve.
No surprise, but I’m not a huge fan of the idea. But, as a compromise, I’ll sign on to this if we were to start making a legal distinction between driving impaired/intoxicated (say, .05 to .12) and driving while blasted (higher than .12). There’s an argument to be made for pushing more people off the road, but current law relies a great deal on treating milder offenders like the truly dangerous save for prosecutorial discretion.
My drinking days are mostly behind me. I was the inheritor of the leftover liquor content of Leaguefest 2012 and despite there having been maybe 10oz left over, I still haven’t finished it. My weekend trips to the music bars where my regular consumption was seven beers over four hours or so are likewise done. So the Fish-You-I-Done-Mine part of me says “Sure, lower it.” Safer roads and all.
But at least a part of me remains a little exasperated by the contradictions of society. We pose drunk driving as a unique evil, and then proceed to use drunk driving as a metric to prove that other things are just as bad. Drunk driving is uniquely bad, but using a phone while driving is as bad as drunk driving.
By which they mean, it’s as bad as driving with a BAC of .08. If we lower the BAC to .05, then we open the door for more things that are “just as bad as drunk driving.” Fortunately, Ray LaHood’s proposal to disable cell phones while driving didn’t go anywhere, and probably won’t.
And even though sports radio may be just as dangerous as drunk driving, it probably won’t be banned any time soon. Cops in California are pulling people over for eating behind the wheel.
I expect smoking-while-driving to become expressly illegal (the food thing is discretionary enforcement rather than express law)at some point. I stopped smoking and driving years ago, but trust me when I tell you the danger of it does not come close to matching that of eating behind the wheel. But smokers, as always, are an easy target.
It all relates back to our society’s inability to accept risk. I fear that, ultimately, what gets legislated and enforced and what doesn’t will depend on which things we want to do because freedom, and which things others should not be allowed to do because safety.
Honestly, I’m pretty angry at this suggestion of lowering the limit to .05, particularly as the argument for it relies on claims that even a BAC of .01 is unacceptably dangerous. As it is, .05 comes extraordinarly close to being a zero tolerance level – someone with a BAC of .05 wasn’t drinking to get drunk, they were sharing a bottle of wine over dinner with a couple of friends. The NTSB isn’t even arguing that this will significantly reduce DD-related fatalities – even if you accept their undoubtedly inflated estimates, you’re looking at a reduction of at most 2 or 3 percent of reductions from the present levels, which themselves are already less than 50% what they were 30 years ago even before adjusting for population size.
This just smacks of neo-prohibitionism.
Welcome to the land of smokers… 🙂
I did some calculations with a BAC calculator some time back and my young man routine (7 or so beers in three or so hours) typically put me between .05 and .08, and I would have been a hazard on the road. So I think there are safety issues at play. But *not* the same safety hazard as .15, which is the really important thing to me. That we treat these things the same even though they are not (contrary to the “buzzed driving is drunk driving” signs… they’re not, actually). So I’d gladly trade a lowered BAC for making such a distinction.
Of course, that’s not what’s on the table. And in our enthusiasm to combat drunk driving, we can too easily forget that the laws can mess up lives, so there’s a real cost of going overboard here.
I disagree.
BAC has nothing to do with being dangerous.
It’s the dangerous activities which are dangerous.
Everything that can done dangerously while intoxicated is already illegal– speeding, swerving, dozing off, and anything else you can name.
Being intoxicated doesn’t make those things any more or less dangerous.
IMHO, intoxication should properly be an aggravating factor in sentencing rather than comprising a separate offense.
All I see in DUI laws is: Fourth Amendment, meet shredder . . .
I’ve heard the “DUI should be an aggravating factor and not a law” argument before. I understand the rationale for it, but ultimately can’t get on board. The threat here is significant enough that I am willing to overlook some things I would rather not.
But its the drinking that leads to the swerving, weaving, running into coffee stands, etc. DUI is a crime to try to stop people from drinking which than leads those things.
Is it possible to be in a state such that you’re obeying all traffic laws, but still have reduced capabilities (reaction time, etc) that makes you unable to respond to an emergent situation that you could have handled if you weren’t impaired?
Ultimately, that’s an empirical question, but my guess is that it is possible.
Sure, but this is also a possibility if you are changing the station on the radio, talking to a passenger, even looking for your exit in an unfamiliar area.
Sounds like the state of old age.
Where do you stop though? It’s not the speeding, swerving, dozing off, etc. that are a problem, after all. It’s the auto wrecks they cause. Can we say that the fellow driving on the left-hand side of the road doesn’t deserve a ticket because the oncoming traffic managed to get out of his way?
No harm, no foul.
That’s exactly my point: That the potential of danger is inherently different than the realization of danger.
Can we agree that a person with a BAC of 0.00 driving on the left-hand side of of the road is engaged in a dangerous act, whereas a person with a BAC of 0.12 driving on the right-hand side and obeying all traffic laws is not?
To say that a matter is criminal is the strongest form of sanction a society might give.
Is it truly appropriate to criminalize potentialities?
will,
Don’t we criminalize (or at least ticket) people who are driving too fast for the current conditions?
I think we ought to at least CONSIDER the idea that the drunkenness of a person ought to impinge on their driving… (Which is to say: if you’re going to say — anyone using double the recommended following distance isn’t going to get stopped for being a “bad drunk driver”, I could be down with that. That’s a person clearly flagging themselves as being “somewhat impaired, drive near me at your own risk” and taking precautions).
England has a BIG problem with that.
No, we can’t.
Increased reaction time??
I’m sorry, but speeding while drunk is quantifiably different than speeding while not drunk, in terms of the dangers you pose to other people on the road.
I think this approaches an actual problem (drunk driving accidents) from the wring approach (legal blood limit). Most people who cause deadly DD accidents do so after a pattern of being caught making bad driving decisions, including drinking and driving. In our current system we fine them (usually tiny amounts that do not deter) and allow them to continue to drive. Even most people who have had licenses suspended or revoked continue to drive.
I do not see the point of changing the blood limit ceiling rather than the corrective system.
This.
The inherent problem with the corrective system is that taking a persons license away is often the best idea if they are a terrible driver but it is really hard to work and live in many places without being able to drive. Here in Anchorage it would be possible to shop by bus or walking although in the winter that would be much more difficult if not almost impossible. Getting to work, well that could be super hard for many people. So they drive since it is almost impossible not to. So some people say we shouldn’t take away their license since it isn’t workable. There isn’t really a good solution although i think something like the ignition/breathalyser might be the best way to go.
Getting to work, well that could be super hard for many people. So they drive since it is almost impossible not to.
Rural states used to issue 14-year-olds school licenses because of the problems and expenses of getting farm kids to school in town. If you were caught in a situation where you were clearly not going to or from school — eg, two towns over at 10:00 on Saturday night — then you lost your driving privileges. Or caught 100 hours of community service from the county or municipal judge — where and when I was at that age, the judges were big on minors doing community service. Could something analogous be done for people with a history of irresponsible driving, but who live where driving is a necessity for getting to work?
I mentioned below that it would be nice to have something to do a quick test of visual acuity and reflex speed, since that could catch more than a breathalyser would. Eg, one of us old farts who neglected to take our meds this AM. Of course, then you’re into “the assailant wouldn’t have caught me if I hadn’t had to spend 20 seconds proving to the car that I was competent” territory.
They are pretty tough on drunk driving in Oregon. They give you the breathalyzer on your ignition, they suspend your license for a certain period of time and it gets longer if it’s your second offense, you can get a hardship license if you apply, and they restrict the hours of the day you can drive (no driving between 1 am and 6 am, or something). I’ve had a few friends get DUIIs. I believe if you get 3, you are no longer eligible to have an Oregon driver license.
Fun fact, people will just smoke instead of drinking if they have the breathalyzer on their car. Not wise, but people do it.
Some drunk drivers get conditional licenses that allow them to drive only at specified times and routes. Basically the time they are going to work, coming home from and can only go on a direct line to work.
It would be great if we could move to tests of visual acuity and reflexes for many things.
I’m certain that at least one really good driver I know would fail a reflex test (ya know the dropping ruler one? hits the floor every time). The thing about reflexes is that there are ways to compensate (more following distance, better awareness of danger — basically priming to eliminate the need to “decide”)
Colorado is currently trying to deal with “impaired driving” rules for the reefer at the same time that this is going on. In the same vein, they have no idea what they’re really going for and, as such, are choosing really really low levels as a starting point… without taking into account the differences between drunk driving (trying to take a curve that should be taken at 25mph at 45 or 50) and stoned driving (waiting for a stop sign to turn green).
Sadly the advent of fancy car fobs which beep or flash the car lights when you unlock has been a major boon to stoned smokers. I hear tell that back in the day most stoners couldn’t even find their cars when stoned which made them really safe drivers.
It all relates back to our society’s inability to accept risk.
So the argument is that drunk drivers are simply one of the risks I should accept as a part of driving? Within limits, yeah. But when someone is given the privilege of operating an inherently dangerous (to others, not just themselves) device in a public place, there’s an ethical obligation to do so in a reasonably safe fashion. Tossing back three shooters, then jumping in the car and squinting one-eyed at the map app while trying to read the street names with the car in motion certainly doesn’t fit my definition of “reasonably safe”. Standards change over time — we used to think it was acceptable for long-haul truck drivers to stay behind the wheel for 18 hours straight.
It would be nice if technology could give us some sort of simple test for visual acuity and reaction time that you had to pass each time you got behind the steering wheel. So that in addition to the drunks and the stoners, we also catch the people who were overly affected by the meds with the “do not operate heavy machinery” warning, or who had been up for 36 hours, etc. And do some simple situational analysis — your cell phone doesn’t work when you’re doing >50 mph in heavy traffic, say. I’ll entertain proposals about catching the eaters.
The whole “danger to others” thing is true, and not unimportant, but only takes you so far.
For the record, I think that driving while plastered should be illegal.
But I think that eating, smoking, drinking (non-alcoholic beverages), and listening to sports radio should be legal. I’m iffy on laws against talking on the cell phone while driving. I’d be pretty much opposed to phones not working, though, because cars also have passengers, people ride the bus, and so on. It’s not that I think people should be able to text or surf while driving, but rather I think their kids in the back seat should allowed to, or the husband in the passenger seat to coordinate plans and arrival times. Those are the big problems I had with the LaHood plan. His response, “Safety!” falls directly into the category that some degree of risk is necessary.
Fortunately for me, most of the above is legal in most places. The reasoning, though, often seems to come down to “If I want to do it, it should be legal, but that thing that I don’t want to do, nobody should be allowed to.” Which is why I think smoking is probably in jeopardy in the long run (as soon as something happens that makes the papers).
With regard to
I tend to agree with this but i can’t help but imagine a guy with a cig in his left hand, a sloppy burger in his right, a mega gulp with a long straw between his legs , yelling loudly at the Jim Rome show on the radio, spit and food flecks flying at the windshield. While each part of that is okay ( especially yelling at Jim Rome) combining them altogether seems sort of risky.
We tried to make mega gulps illegal…
The big gulp law has been responsible for approximately 17% of every comment on this site for the last year. The LOOG owes bloomers a debt of gratitude.
I enjoy Jim Rome. Can we make it yelling at Skip Bayliss?
Thank you for admitting you like Jim Rome. The first step in healing is admitting you have a problem. Yelling at Skip Bayliss is certainly a good start and is in fact mandatory.
I’m thinking pounding the pud while driving ought to be illegal.
But then, some people need something to keep them busy while caught in traffic on the freeway.
Not so sure I care to go telling other people how to live.
Fairly certain I don’t care for cops to be out on patrol for that sort of thing.
Nor do I care of the thought of the courts attempting to adjudicate a definition of “masturbation.”
The mental rolodex could set me back a hefty fine on some days.
If people want to commute and self-soothe, well that is what trains are for.
There are a lot of places that have carjacking laws, from what I understand.
I’d be pretty much opposed to phones not working, though, because cars also have passengers, people ride the bus, and so on. It’s not that I think people should be able to text or surf while driving, but rather I think their kids in the back seat should allowed to, or the husband in the passenger seat to coordinate plans and arrival times.
The technology to have the phone in the driver’s seat disable itself if the vehicle is moving, while phones elsewhere in the vehicle remain functional, is straightforward (I don’t ever say “simple” about things involving RF), and cheap if mass produced. Getting it retrofit into existing cars and/or phones would be a much bigger problem; I suggest a small annual discount on insurance rates as a carrot. And “disable” could mean various things. For example, I might want first responders to be able to receive calls or texts.
Over the next 10-15 years, it is going to become common for something to know where your cell phone is down to a foot or so, at least on a relative basis (eg, driver’s seat versus elsewhere in the vehicle, or standing in front of a particular store display, or in a supposedly secured hallway). That information will eventually be pressed into public service of some sort.
A nontrivial number of people would try to read and text while holding their phone over the passenger seat. My phone is on the dash, much of the time. Plhs, I listen to rhapsody on it, which would not work if data was cut off (there’s also Google Maps, but maybe that’ll stop needing a data connection). My point is that use is not as simple as location within the vehicle.
I think there is actually a market solution that will get us further. Autoreading plus voice control. At which point the regulations you favor would completely stip working and would mostly become superfluous.
Yeah. Cell Phone works when I’m doing twenty, have put on my flashers (for 10seconds) and then am calling in the obvious crime I saw three streets back.
There should be a law distinguishing between having a good buzz going and getting a headrush.
Getting a headrush while driving is inherently more dangerous than merely having a good buzz going.
Read a few years back about a UK study of young men; the lowest numbers of accidents were amongst pot smokers, the research suggested this is because they tended to drive below the speed limit.
“(waiting for a stop sign to turn green)”
Priceless.
It does remind me of a college experience that, umm, a friend had: playing Hearts under the influence of some stuff, getting a crappy hand, putting it face down on the table, and being very annoyed that after being picked back up it was the same crappy hand.
I hate it when that happens.
Especially when it happens over and over.
So when I first heard of this a few days ago, or whenever, I sent the following message to my friend: “If they lower the legal limit to .05 instead of .08, I’m going to need an apartment in Portland down the street from an awesome bar.” (Yep, I actually went back and found the message to copy and paste it here.) Which is to say, at the ripe old age of 26 I’m not as far past my drinking days as you, Mr. Will.
.05 is just silly. I already live in a rural community and getting around after drinking poses quite the problem. If I can’t even have one drink with dinner and then drive home we are going to have a seriously unhappy (and sober!) Mary on our hands. No one wants that.
People with a blood alcohol of 0.01 to 0.05 (or some such middle range) cause almost no accidents compared to those with a blood alcohol of zero or of 0.10 and above. (It’s in the alcohol awareness stuff they make DUI people study, and posted on various insurance websites). My conclusion is that we should make [i]everyone[/i] take a shot before they get behind the wheel. That or the non-drinking drivers put in way more road miles than people who decided to go to a better bar after the first drink.
In any event, some women would be over the new limit after just one drink, and most men would be over the limit after just two. The administration is pointing to European data (apparently a lot of countries go with the 0.05 limit) to support their claims that this change would have a tremendous impact. I would question the simple comparison since Europe has a quite different driving situation than the US due to their denser urban centers, and also ask whether the drop in their drunk driving fatalities was more due to increases in car safety (basically, whether its a coincidental result of other changes that were occurring over the same period). Perhaps they applied such diligence to their study, but given the crazy things that have been going on, I also wouldn’t be surprised if the new limit was just a way to target rednecks in between IRS audits.
Are there any states currently using the 0.05 standard so we could have a comparison using American cars in our own urban/rural mix? Also, how much of the decrease in drunk driving deaths would come from removing people in the 0.05 to 0.08 BAC range, versus the more likely truth that the lower limit keeps more people from even thinking they were okay because they wrongly figured they were below 0.08 limit? (Is the decrease in accidents caused by removing 0.05 to 0.08’s, or is it because it greatly reduces those who drive while 0.08+?)
From what I understand, you’re going to blow a non-0.0 on a breathalyzer if you did something as simple as eat some carbs recently enough to still be digesting them.
This, coupled with lowering the numbers, troubles me somewhat.
European car safety is very very different from American car safety.
As long as it disproportionately affects certain age groups and minorities, I suppose it’s ok.
I feel this proposal could be made much better by negotiating mandatory police brutality for minorities during traffic stops.
Just a thought.
You mean musicians and bar employees?
IIRC, the actual rationale behind this is…harder to swallow. It’s not that the 0.5 to 0.8 people cause a lot of accidents. It’s that by cracking down harder, it might get the 0.8+ people to stop drinking earlier.
A sense of “make the rule stricter than it has to be, so that people who habitually violate it start worrying and pull back earlier than they would otherwise”.
Not sure it’s a terribly compelling reason for a law, although I wouldn’t outright say it wouldn’t work. (It’s surprising the number of little things that can make big differences that way).
.
The problem I have is that impairment is relative to people. Not everyone is impaired at .05 or .08. Not to mention that these laws have destroyed the constitutional protections.
Indeed, some people are impaired at .00.
One other problem is that the federal government intends to use its coercive powers to compel states to comply, even against the clearly expressed will of the people in the states, to produce a statistical social outcome so some unelected bureaucrat gets a bonus – or something.
It seems intuitive to me that worrying about dangerous driving period makes more sense than worrying about someone driving after a couple drinks absent a reason to stop them and find out how many.
As some have mentioned, the number isn’t hard & fast for everyone. If this blood alcohol calculator I found is even close, I for example could theoretically drink 6 beers in an hour (which I never do) & still be under the current limit. Benefit of being a large man I suppose — not that I’d test it. I do my big drinking at home anyway.