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."
Probably so that people that just washed their mouth with Listerine aren't driving illegally
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%.
This is incompatible with an infrastructure that is so hostile towards public transportation (outside of some lucky big cities). I live in some backwater suburb in FL and I can't get to a pub to have a couple of drink with a buddy without incurring an extra 20$ in cab fare? In Europe this was easy, you just hop on the bus/U-Bahn/tram and viola. Also in the suburbs.
All this will result in is more arrests. The average Joe isn't going to know the difference between .08% and .05%; the only result will be a larger probability in jail time for someone who would otherwise be considered fine to drive today. 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.
So, right now, there's a huge negative stigma associated with getting a DUI. It's rare enough, and heinous enough, that society views it as a serious mistake.
If you reduce the BAC threshold enough, then getting a DUI will become so common that the negative social stigma will be gone, which will defeat the purpose of having the law to begin with.
Why not make 0.02% BAC universal? I understand that there are practical limits, but should you really be going out for dinner, downing a bottle, and driving home?
(a 750ml bottle of wine over 2 hours for a 180lb person @ 0.08 = legal)
Have a glass of wine or a beer with dinner. Heck, go ahead and have two. But if you're going to drink any more than that DON'T FUCKING DRIVE A CAR.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The majority of accidents are caused by people well over the insipid .08 B.A.C in the first place. B.A.C. isn't a good indication of driving impairment or base levels of intoxication. You can't really measure something arbitrary like drunkeness with a simple blood test. When you can use BAC as an indication of intoxication, it's already too late. Lowering the threshold isn't going to do anything more than increase the amount of people with DUI's, it won't do a damn bit to prevent accidents or make the roads safer. Some people are a danger on the road sober lets focus on them first.
I got here through a series of tubes
Not every city is as great as New York or where the fuck ever these people making the rules are living. There is not always such a thing as public transportation that is worth a shit. Or taxi drivers that are few and far between if they exist at all. Just throw us all in jail right now and get it over with.
If firearm and drunk driving fatalities only occurred to the people mishandling the firearm or drinking the alcohol, sure. Unfortunately they don't :-(
...get serious about chasing drink driving regardless of the number.....US traffic stops with any probable cause for DUI need to get scientific, every gets to blow in the bag, non of this walk in a straight line, recite the alphabet backwards nonsense. And above all drink-driving needs to be properly stigmatized socially, I was stunned how many people drank and drive when I moved to the US from Europe, folks regularly drink many times the limit and drove when public transport/taxi is a viable alternative
You mean the same episode where it showed being tired or distracted by cell phones or anything else were actually significantly more impairing than the alcohol?
I don't think we should get rid of drunk driving laws by any stretch of the imagination. However, there are already plenty of distracted/reckless driver laws that exist. I just don't see the a need to create specific laws for every single possible way someone can increase their danger while driving.
The world certainly would be entirely safe from driving accidents if nobody was ever allowed to drive. 0% is physically impossible: alcohols are a broad class of naturally occurring organic chemicals, that will be present at some (tiny) level in any human body, even if you have never taken a drink in your life. If you want to permit anyone to drive, then you'll need to set a non-zero limit somewhere; preferably above natural fluctuations in baseline level and measurement error. So, where to set the level? Do you need to check whether the driver has consumed a drink in the last year? Week? Hour? Minute? Rather than setting a useless/impossible "0 is lowest, so it must be best" limit, one should look at *actually available data* to determine how alcohol levels correlate with actual increases in accidents.
P.S.: do you ever stay up an extra 10 minutes at night, to finish reading that book chapter / checking your favorite news site? If you do, do you avoid driving the next day, because you've *knowingly decreased your driving ability* by sleep deprivation? And, if you didn't know before, you do now --- so don't even think about stepping in a car if you've stayed up the least bit past your bedtime.
We need to do the same with sleeping pills, pain pills, lack of sleep, cell phones, paper reading material, makeup, cigarettes (you seen what happens when a driver drops a cigarette in their lap and it rolls down their groin?), caffeine (large amounts can cause lack of focus in some people), benzodiazepines, getting blow jobs from a passenger, people driving home after seeing a dentist in some cases...
Holy shit, I could do this all day...
kids in the car yelling, passengers talking, sign spinners, bill boards, radio advertisements, cops running radar, red light cameras, dashboard instrument panels with their flashing lights, wearing headphones while driving, radios and all the buttons you can fiddle with...
Outlaw them all. Why allow someone to knowingly decrease their ability to drive?
We'd prevent many accidents and most of the fatal ones if we forced everyone to drive no faster than 15 miles an hour.
The obvious problem is that it is impractical, likely to severely impact average individuals, and frankly a pretty lousy tradeoff of "freedom" versus safety. I use freedom in quotes, because yes, "driving is a privilege not a right". On a side note, those who make the idiotic argument that the internet should be a "right" because it is almost impossible to live without it are on far more untenable ground than claiming that driving ought to be a "right".
Likewise, with drinking, there are similar practical, freedom versus safety, and impact arguments. I personally fall on the, "the government doesn't give a crap about safety and wants to scam citizens for millions of dollars each year" side of the issue.
I can assure you, on a real road, people tend to stay a bit more alert after consuming a few drinks.
Well, I'm certainly glad that we've got the accurate scientific evidence of the assurances of an Anonymous Coward to set us straight!
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
making a mockery of the entire scientific process.
On Mythbusters, you say?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
What are you going to do? Turn the inside of a car into a sterile wasteland and ban every possible thing that might decrease someone's ability to drive by event the smallest amount? Hey, no radio, phone, GPS, and definitely no talking to the driver. No driving hungry, or after taking cold medication, or after a Red Bull. All of those things could impact your driving in some minor way.
It's a question of proportionality. There is a point of diminishing returns beyond which the effort required to prevent people from driving after drinking becomes absurd. We can't even successfully prevent all idiots from driving at .08, despite millions in enforcement and PR campaigns. Imagine the pointlessness of spending an order of magnitude more to also fail to stop people from having a beer with dinner.
There is a point at which alchol impairs your ability to drive a car to the extent that you are an unacceptable danger. That point may be .08 or it may be .05, but it's definitely not "anything above 0".
Life needs more saving throws.
Taking away driving privileges over 60? No. Requiring regular re-testing/re-certification? Absolutely... provided that you require it for *everybody*. If we *all* needed to go re-test for driving every 5 years (for example), there'd be a huge reduction in the number of accidents over-all, and people would be more likely to keep abreast of changes to the laws and safety standards.
As for raising the driving age to 22? I've been saying for years that we should raise the driving age to 21, and lower the drinking age to 14. That way you have a chance to learn to drink in a supervised setting with adults who (theoretically) know how to drink safely, and you have a chance to get all the stupid "hey guys, check this out!" stories out of your system before you're ever allowed near the wheel of a car.
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:
GeeZ!!!
Lowering it to the .08 was too LOW to begin with.....
You can blow .08 and not be too impaired to drive...
Good Lord, are we going to let MADD start us back on the road to prohibition next???
But, more to the point the OP was making. Depends on the state you live in.
I asked a lawyer in my state what to do if pulled over after having a few. He said if you know you're at the limit, don't say a damned thing and put your hands out for the cuffs and go quietly. Refuse tests, don't do field sobriety test (that is NOTHING more than evidence gathering). At worst for first offense you'll get reckless driving and maybe suspended license of which you can get permits to drive to work for food, etc.
Tough yes, but better than a DWI on your record.
Like with anything dealing with the cops, first thing to do is shut up, and lawyer up.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Or people with certain types of diabetes that generate natural blood alcohol.
I'm the AC that wrote that. Drive over 0.08 all the time. I've never had a problem.
You're not statistically significant.
And the key word there is "Associated".
Do you know what kind of depravity Dihydrogen monoxide exposure has been "associated" with?
- Nearly 100% of all felons were exposed to Dihydrogen Monoxide within just hours prior to their arrest.
- DHMO use is almost universal amongst child rapists.
- DHMO exposure actually kills children
- DHMO is dangerously addictive, killing most addicts who attempt to abstain from it within just 3 days!
Hows that for association?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I agree with this. As much as I'm all for legalizing every drug under the sun, that freedom must come with responsibility, including internalizing all of the risks. If you operate heavy machinery in a factory, chances are they require you to have a 0.0% BAC on the job. Why should it be any different for machinery that actually moves around in public, in a system where driver's licenses are handed out like candy with no serious training standards?
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
I can assure you, on a real road, people tend to stay a bit more alert after consuming a few drinks.
Assure me by citing evidence supporting your case.
peer reviewed studies >>> mythbusters > AC's personal testimony.
Last three times I almost had an accident was because of a buxom woman in either a low top or shorts. So add that to the list.
Driving dangerously should be the issue, period. We shouldn't need to make five thousand laws for five thousand contexts. If you are reckless and dangerous on the road because of texting, talking on the phone, parenting your children in the back seat, watching videos on your laptop in the passenger seat, or just sheer stupidity or old age -- it should all fall under the same category and impact your license to drive.
The only reason a few items might sensibly be specifically classified and identified is because of the intentional choices that go into them. For example, nobody accidentally drinks and drives or accidentally texts while driving.
That show is maybe one step ahead of your mom saying "just one puff of pot could be your last" when it comes to issues like that. And their "science" is maybe one step above your mom saying "because I told you so".
Right, because if it is not peer reviewed and published by Elsevier then it's completely garbage. There are no degrees in between. Either it's the "truth" (TM) or it has absolutely no scientific evidentiary value.
Glad you understand so well how data collection works.
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.
I could go for this, if you could get it to be actually enforced. Selective enforcement ("i think drunk drivers are bad, so i'll bust them, but texting, hey, everyone does that, it can't be bad") is a problem. Fill in your own law-enforcement preferred and hated activities. Not only do you have to get police to agree to actually enforce per measured-risk, you have to get cranky old judges who liked things the way they were back then to all be on the same page.
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".
Which explains why americans are so socially inept and so fat, and so selfish. Well done mister, don't stop, put a fence around your house and kidnap another 14 year old teenage.
That gets today's prize for most ridiculously over-the-top hate-and-assumption-filled response.
1) Social skills are learned in pubs, bars and the like, while drinking alcohol.
2) Staying out of bars, pubs, etc, will make you fat.
3) Failure to drink enough and be in the company of others while doing so will result in selfishness.
4) Americans are particularly vulnerable due to their lack of drinking.
5) People that disagree with you are child molesters. or is it "people that don't drink"? or "people with fences around their house"? you should clarify this point for us.
Anyone who drinks regularly is like not that impaired at those levels.
Well, they probably are similarly impaired --- they're just more used to the condition. And if they're correspondingly more cocky about how well they handle their liquor, they'll just be that much less reluctant to head out on the road and murder a bunch of folks. Just because you can hold down a bunch more vodka shots without puking, and have developed mental coping strategies to not seem like a total klutz when you walk or speak, doesn't mean you aren't still quite impaired (without knowing it).
What about the old bat that is more impaired than either of us to do age?
Well, one could work towards increasing availability of public transportation and services for the elderly/disabled. One might even be more accepting of involuntary impairments (getting old), versus voluntary impairments (chugging a few beers soon before driving) --- realizing that banning an elderly person without preexisting access to suitable transportation alternatives from driving at all is likely a far greater hardship to them than insisting that the young and healthy pick a designated driver or arrange their drinking needs not to immediately precede their driving needs.
My fantasy is to see a law that says a) all fines, confiscations, etc. go to the general fund, not any law enforcement agency, and b) the tax rates for year N+1 have to be adjusted down so that the net revenue collected from fines in year N is zero. That way maybe they'd be more inclined to enforce the law for the sake of public safety instead of revenue.
One can already be arrested for having less than a .08% BAC in Georgia, and many other states. I'm not sure about the statue on other states, but in Georgia, according to the O.C.G.A.(Official Code of Georgia Annotated), one is considered "less safe" if law enforcement can provide proof that the driver was "under the influence" at a level below the "legal limit". I have arrested many people under this portion of the DUI statue, in Georgia.
Usually, I would establish "less safe" with video and audio recordings of the driver's inability to maintain lane and other moving violations, as well as my encounter with the driver, and the sobriety tests administered during the stop of the particular individual. "Less safe" is important, as it removes bureaucratic roadblocks from stop those that aren't capable of possessing a certain amount of alcohol in their bloodstream and operating a motor vehicle. The NTSB is doing nothing that isn't already enforced in many, possible most or all states currently.
There are people that can safely drive with 0.08% BAC, and higher. While I personally don't consume alcohol, I do consume narcotics for severe pain relief. If one took my blood and observed the levels, they would probably wish to jail me on those numbers alone. The issue is that it's safe to allow me to operate a motor vehicle, as I'm not "under the influence"(I don't experience the negative effects of narcotics, and even have a high tolerance against some of the positive effects), or my state of alertness and readiness isn't impacted in the slightest. That is what the people should be concerned with, whether the driver is "under the influence", "less safe", or simply whether the individual isn't capable of safely operating a motor vehicle.
The idea that you're "not that impaired" is a fancy in your head with no basis in objective measurements. You get used to the side effects and you somewhat compensate for them in your gross behavior, but the low-level stuff like reaction times and visual/oculomotor responses do not show any appreciable effects of alcohol tolerance.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
There are many things that can impair driving. Kids fighting, dog puking, sun shining in your eyes, messing with the radio, and that's just off the top of my head. Who gives a shit if you can detect small changes in eye movement? Is that going to kill anybody? No? Then stop trying to push Prohibition back down our throats.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
The reason why they recommend lower and lower alcohol contents has more to do with the way they collect statistics than with any real effect.
If any of the drivers involved in an accident has any alcohol blood content at all, it is recorded as an "alcohol related accident", NO MATTER WHO CAUSED THE ACCIDENT.
This is bias in the worst sense of the word, it's political propaganda at its worst.
Suppose you drank one beer and is stopped at a red light. Then a madd bitch rear ends you. It will be an "alcohol related" accident, pointing to the "need for stricter drunken driving laws", even though the madd bitch caused it.
Eventually your luck will run out, even if not necessarily because of being caught (we'll get back to that), but because you'll cause an accident. When the road situation is relaxed, you are safe. As soon as things get tight or there's something unexpected, your performance is impaired, and it's simple objective measures such as reaction times and visual acuity we're talking about.
Now, nystagmus leads to loss of visual acuity at higher spatial frequencies while, perhaps counterintuitively, boosting the contrast at lower spatial frequencies.
This means that if you get motion-induced nystagmus, as you're likely to at 0.08% BAC and up, you won't be able to read the fucking speedometer or even roadside signs, and your brain will be substituting expected values for actual ones. That's how some drunk drivers are getting caught, and they swear they were not speeding. That's how some military and aerobatic pilots end up with doing controlled flights into terrain in instrument conditions - they don't see the artificial horizon without realizing it.
What you may also find scary is that people's susceptibility to various ototoxins (substances that impair the vestibular system) can vary a lot, and alcohol is not the only ototoxin out there. You can get same problems simply by being exposed to organic solvents.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
How can this be modded insightful. 100 countries have adopted 0.05 due to the carnage caused by drunk drivers.
Because insight requires a little more thought than "50,000 frenchmen can't be wrong". Try doing an actual risk benefit analysis. How many additional people will we imprison by moving to 0.05 per year? What are the social costs of that? Is it more or less than the cost of losing 800 people a year? Are there ways we could save 800 people per year that cost less? Do those first.
This is the kind of reasoning that needs to go into an insightful comment on the issue. As it is, I doubt anyone has done this.
On second thought, this is the country that thinks so little of mass shootings in schools that they refuse to regulate the access to firearms. Deaths on the road due to drunk drivers is nothing when compared to that.
Actually, mass shootings kill less than 100 people per year. If the NTSB is to be believed, lowering the BAC limit to .05 would save eight times as many lives as if we eliminated all mass shootings in the US. But I'm not sure I believe the NTSB.
But you're right, we do think so little of mass shootings that we refuse to regulate the access to firearms. And we are absolutely correct to do so. 100 deaths per year in a country of 300 million is negligable. You'll save orders of magnitude more lives if you regulate fructose instead of guns.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
In 2011, 31,000 people died firearm-related deaths.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_deaths_are_in_the_US_every_year
In 2010, there were 10,000 deaths due to drunk driving, and that number is falling.
http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics
More crap and bullshit from the anti-gun-control crowd.
In Australia we have a 0.05 limit on BAC plus a 0 limit on provisional (usually under 21) drivers. 0.08 is the point where you are obviously going to fail at driving. 0.05 is where you think you can do it but more likely than not cannot.
After seeing how friends dealt with the 0 limit on provisional drivers and in light of the fact I don't drive myself, I'd support a 0 limit - it encourages a lot of caution and forethought, particularly the morning after when you can still be drunk and might think it's just a hangover.
The wiki answer is from the CDC.
The century council number is from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Those not authoritative enough for you?
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.
By the same logic, we should ban sound systems in cars and require all cellular phones to be placed in a Faraday cage. Children of all ages should likewise be in a soundproof compartment separated from the driver. Well, actually, that last one would probably be pretty popular.
Although mass shootings get all the headlines, controlling access to firearms will save a whole lot more than 100 lives per year. Most of the savings will come from reduced accidental deaths and suicides.
There is a widespread belief that having a gun in the house makes you safer: this is not true.
(other sources along those lines)
There is also a widespread belief a person who dies from suicide would have done so no matter what method: this also is not true. Most suicide attempts are impulsive acts, and most are unsuccessful. An impulse act with pills or slit wrists is unlikely to succeed: it takes time, the person may have second thoughts, and usually recovers through medical and psychological treatment. A suicide attempt by a gun is much, much more likely to succeed. If that suicidal person did not have ready access to a gun, and had to resort to a different method, the changes are good that most (i.e., more than 50%) of those people would still be with us today.