U.S. safety board proposes tougher drunk-driving threshold (0.08 to 0.05)

[dsavillian]

Kind of related:

How does everyone feel about the zero-tolerance rule for BAC for drivers with a GDL?

I'm curious if the general consensus differs from that of the 0.05 "limit" for regular drivers.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

Personally I can't wait for the day where you have to pass a breathalyzer test to start your vehicle. The tech already exists and should be mandatory for every vehicle.

blood test too? Maybe even a semen sample?


Anyways, here is my solution to stopping drunk driving. Have the government put a couple hundred billion towards this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by SebC

People who live in the Beltline don't have this problem, except when their friends want to go out to suburban drinking establishments. And that's where cabs/transit come into play (or would if Calgary had late-night transit).

That's when we start making excuses about having to work-late or watching the kids. It's come to the point where if I can't walk to the bar, and don't have a ride, chances are I'm not going. Cabs here are too much of a hassle, and transit is usually not a viable option to most suburban spots, especially at night.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Joborule

The only people that kill people are the actual drunk drivers that are way above the limit.

Not true.

Originally Posted by Joborule

Nothing is being done against them, but we continue to penalize the general citizen for the problems they cause. Such BS.

Also not true.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

Kind of related:

How does everyone feel about the zero-tolerance rule for BAC for drivers with a GDL?

I'm curious if the general consensus differs from that of the 0.05 "limit" for regular drivers.

Personally, I'm in favour of zero tolerance for drivers with a GDL. They don't have their full license yet. What makes them think they've mastered driving sober let alone with a drink in them?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Not true.



Also not true.

Obviously they aren't the only people that kill people, but the reaction in Alberta (and most jurisdictions) seems to be to go after people in the 0.05-0.08 range as opposed to those who are well over the limit. I'm pretty sure there were a few studies cited here previously that showed that the latter group was many times more likely to be in a deadly accident than the former (did a quick search and couldn't find them so I may be mistaken).

Of course the manner in which you go after those groups is completely different, with one you simply write more tickets, make more arrests and collect more fines. With the other you have to actually jail people, and incur costs, so it's not surprising to see the path most places have taken.

[CaramonLS]

Are there any distribution charts which link the level of severity to BAC? I'm honestly curious if the 0.05 crowd really causes an amount of accidents to be worried or concerned about.

[Coach]

They're going the wrong way this I think. I agree with Table that there should be harsher, more black and white punishments, but I don't think lowering the limit from an already pretty low limit is going to stop the people that are actually the problem. All this does is punish people having a drink after work. They should have an upper limit instead with harsher punishments.

Blow .08, automatic 6 month suspension. Blow .12, 2 year suspension

2nd time .08 automatic 2 year suspension. .12, automatic one year jail time.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Are there any distribution charts which link the level of severity to BAC? I'm honestly curious if the 0.05 crowd really causes an amount of accidents to be worried or concerned about.

One of the reasons to implement a .05 law is so that you can actually convict people who are over .08. It takes about an hour from road side blow to your second blow on the machine they use in court. So in that time period you sober up by about .02. Which means to have a realistic shot of conviction you need a person to be around .12 when they first are pulled over.

So I would be interested in seeing a distribution of accidents but you would really need to be careful in how you looked at the numbers and how they were collected.

[driveway]

Taiwan just put in some new drunk-driving regulations.

Under 0.15 BAC - not impaired.
0.15-0.25 - $NT 15,000 fine ($500 CAD) - But only if you have held your license for less than two years, are diving without a license, or are a cab driver. If not, no fine.

0.25-0.4 - $NT 22,500 ($770 CAD)
0.4-0.55 - $NT 45,000 ($1500 CAD)
0.55+ - $NT 67,500 ($2300 CAD) and criminal charges.

Yes, that's right, in order to get criminally charged with a DUI in Taiwan you need a BAC of 0.55 mg or more, a level of intoxication which is characterized by wikipedia as having "A high risk of poisoning and possibility of death."

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by driveway

Taiwan just put in some new drunk-driving regulations.

Under 0.15 BAC - not impaired.
0.15-0.25 - $NT 15,000 fine ($500 CAD) - But only if you have held your license for less than two years, are diving without a license, or are a cab driver. If not, no fine.

0.25-0.4 - $NT 22,500 ($770 CAD)
0.4-0.55 - $NT 45,000 ($1500 CAD)
0.55+ - $NT 67,500 ($2300 CAD) and criminal charges.

Yes, that's right, in order to get criminally charged with a DUI in Taiwan you need a BAC of 0.55 mg or more, a level of intoxication which is characterized by wikipedia as having "A high risk of poisoning and possibility of death."

Taiwan's limits are in mg/mL, whereas BAC is usually measured in percent. To compare them, you need to move the decimal point by one place (there are approximately 1000 mg in one mL, so divide the mg of alcohol by 1000 then multiply by 100 to get the percent alcohol), so you can actually be criminally charged with a BAC of .055 percent in Taiwan. That's basically what the US is proposing to set their limit at.

The 500 CAD fine in Taiwan starts at a BAC of 0.015, which is less than a single beer for pretty much everyone. Those limits would put every non-urban bar in North America out of business.

[DuffMan]

I just don't understand why there is no NDDA in the US that is politically influential and is able to get the general gullible population into a frenzy about losing their rights to drive drunk.

.05 seems to be the norm in most civilized countries, these days. I think a lot of Europe is .05.

One thing I always thought was that you could get a get out of impound free or cheaper card for your car being towed if you were drunk. as in when I was younger a lot of us working dowtown or close to it would go out for drinks after work. Usually a couple of drinks led to a whole night of hard boozing. But your car is somewhere you cannot leave it overnight, so it will be towed or you're going to get a huge ticket. So you decide to move your car a couple of blocks so it will be OK, then you decide you might as well just drive it home so you don't have to leave it.
If you could put it in a parking lot over night and pay a 24 hour fee or something would help, maybe you can do that these days, I'm not sure.
I know better planning would have helped but at the time no one thought of it.

[ernie]

0.05...sounds good to me. There are very clear statistics from Europe that each drop in alcohol limit has led to not only decreased fatalities but also has led to an decrease in people that far surpass the limit. It works as a universal deterrent...even for the major idiots.

Of course we all know the disdain Americans have for statistics (after all gun control "hasn't worked" in Australia or anywhere else) so it is curious why they seem to get on board with something like this. It must be because everyone knows someone whose life was ruined by drunk driving.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by ernie

....
Of course we all know the disdain Americans have for statistics (after all gun control "hasn't worked" in Australia or anywhere else) so it is curious why they seem to get on board with something like this. It must be because everyone knows someone whose life was ruined by drunk driving.

I would bet it is simply because the NRA is more powerful than any of the pro-alcohol lobby groups.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by MattyC

They're going the wrong way this I think. I agree with Table that there should be harsher, more black and white punishments, but I don't thinklowering the limit from an already pretty low limit is going to stop the people that are actually the problem.All this does is punish people having a drink after work. They should have an upper limit instead with harsher punishments.

Blow .08, automatic 6 month suspension. Blow .12, 2 year suspension

2nd time .08 automatic 2 year suspension. .12, automatic one year jail time.

.08 is not a low limit, most people would be quite tipsy if they had that much alcohol in their blood. Also, impaired driving charges are the same across Canada, impaired operation of a motor vehicle and providing a breath sample of over .08. Administratively they can different across the country if you are lower that .08 mg% as it is then a motor vehicle act offence not a criminal code offence. In Newfoundland you may receive a 24 hour driving suspension whereas in BC you may receive a 3 day driving suspension.

There seems to be a move by governments to "decriminalize" impaired driving so as to reduce the burden of court trials. There is a lot of controversy about this in BC as people feel the government is circumventing a persons presumption of innocence and right to a trial.

[bc-chris]

just think of all the guys that will need to change their hockey jersey number from .08 to .05