Slashdot Mirror
NTSB Recommends Lower Drunk Driving Threshold Nationwide: 0.05 BAC
Officials for the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board have recommended a nationwide lowering of the blood-alcohol level considered safe for operating a car. The threshold is currently 0.08% — the NTSB wants to cut that to 0.05%.
"That's about one drink for a woman weighing less than 120 lbs., two for a 160 lb. man. More than 100 countries have adopted the .05 alcohol content standard or lower, according to a report by the board's staff. In Europe, the share of traffic deaths attributable to drunken driving was reduced by more than half within 10 years after the standard was dropped, the report said. NTSB officials said it wasn't their intention to prevent drivers from having a glass of wine with dinner, but they acknowledged that under a threshold as low as .05 the safest thing for people who have only one or two drinks is not to drive at all. ... Alcohol concentration levels as low as .01 have been associated with driving-related performance impairment, and levels as low as .05 have been associated with significantly increased risk of fatal crashes, the board said."
Look this is not ideal for folks who want to go out and have a large drink with dinner. But on Mythbusters, they've done a number of driving myths at .07999% BAC, and the results are pretty dramatic. You are definitely impaired at .08%.
If we're going to change the numbers in this manner, why not just make it 0% and at least be clear about the message: Drink at all, and you'd better be willing to not drive for a couple of hours.
Because machines made by man aren't perfect. You can be completely free of alcohol and blow a 0.01.
So basically you're suggesting we give police carte blanche to arrest any driver at any time.
This MADD crusade really has to end. This is not going to "save lives" and instead is going to be a revenue source for the government and a life wrecker for those stopped. From Reason.com:
Because machines made by man aren't perfect. You can be completely free of alcohol and blow a 0.01.
So basically you're suggesting we give police carte blanche to arrest any driver at any time.
Annnh, they already have it. STOP RESISTING!! You are under arrest for resisting arrest.
So will total prohibition. Neither is acceptable. Drunk driving is deadly, but this is a step too far when even the government admits a limit this low this is de facto prohibition. Unless we also want to outlaw other distractions, like screens, radios, cupholders, pets, and passengers, we're just choosing what rights we're OK with giving up.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
There is significant literature from EU authorities (and each of the member states local DOT).
Bottom line is:
* 0.08 is the last "safe" limit. Performance is already decreased, but It is approximately equivalent to driving with children in the backseat. Not the best, but acceptable risk. About twice as bad as 0.05.
* However, above 0.08, performance decrease sternly and exponentially. At 0.1, chances of death or dismemberment become alarmingly hight. It is not obvious for a driver to make the distinction between 0.08 "happy" and 0.1 "drunk", since one may not feel impaired, but he is, really.
* Anything over 0.12 is classical "drunk driving" as understood by common folks. Chances of accidents are extremely elevated.
* 0.05 is the bottom of the exponential curve. There are still benefits from driving with a lower BAC, but the lions share of the exponential decrease is passed. The difference with 0.08 is significant (half less chances of accident, or more, more pronounced for young drivers). Below that, chances of accident continue to decrease, but not as quickly, so there is little benefits to be reaped going even lower.
Another interesting point is that effect of BAC on drivers is very age related. Being drunk at 0.1 when you are an experienced driver in your 30's puts you back at the same risk as when you were 16 and road racing everywhere and everyone (this is bad, indeed). However, a teen driver at 0.08 is already at extreme risk (as if he was an experienced driver at 1.4 or more from my memory), the statistics I read just showed this result, but didn't explained why. Could be that most 30+ have acquired some sort of higher alcohol resistance, or that it requires more focus from teen drivers, focus that cannot be achieved when intoxicated, even mildly. Anyway, teens that consume alcohol should never drive, even at legal concentrations.
The states really don't have much choice in taking federal money. Because the federal tax rate is so high, there's a limit to how much a state can tax before their taxable residents and businesses move elsewhere. The feds know this, so they tax more and offer the states the money back in exchange for the forfeiture of their 10th amendment rights. As long as 1 state keeps taxes low with federal money, no state can refuse the cash and keep its tax base.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
You could walk/bike or segway 1.6 miles in much less time that this. Not blaming you, just listing options you may not have thought about.
The BAC was reduced last year from 0.08 to 0.05. in our province. It did not lead to a huge rise in BAC convictions, nor it did not lead to any lessening of the social stigma associated with drunk driving. What it did is make our roads safer.
Anarchists never rule
Reducing the BAC to 0.05 and implementing random breath testing has been very effective in reducing road deaths. We reduced the BAC limit to 0.05 in the 90's and this is why Australia has 5.7 deaths per 100,000 people (8 per 100,000 vehicles) and the US has 12.7 deaths per 100,000 people (15 per 100,000 vehicles). Because it sure as shit isn't because Australian's can drive.
Meanwhile, I predict that prosecuting people for .05 DUIs is going to be expensive. Most will try to fight it; you're getting into the range where a breath test might not be accurate enough. I question whether the the cost to society for enforcing the rule might not exceed the cost of implementing it.
The answer to this is simple.
First, offer all people caught with a DUI a blood test. Breathalysers can be inaccurate if not configured correctly (but they are accurate if configured correctly) however a blood test eliminates this problem. Breathalysers often show a lower BAC than a blood test would so if you get caught DUI by a breathalyser and are pissed _DO NOT_ opt for the blood test as it is likely to show a higher BAC.
Second, increase fines and suspensions for DUI to pay for it.
Third, loser pays. If you fight a DUI and lose, you get an extra fine.
In recent years, Australian courts have ordered the installation of Alcohol (Ignition) Interlock Devices into cars driven by people with multiple high range DUI convictions. Personally I'd rather these people have their licenses torn up for life and their cars auctioned off, but that's just me.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.