Whoever stated that on the radio needs to take a math class. In other words, it is bad information and a scare tactic.

 

Scare tactic? How so? And yes, 2 drinks in a 1 hour period CAN get you right to the .05 limit, depending on your size, gender and less easily measured how your body processes alcohol. And, just for antidotal evidence...I'm 6'5, 330 pounds. I don't drink very often any more, did much more in my younger days but I may go weeks now without an alcoholic drink. When I do drink, I may have a couple of beers or, my fav, hard apple ciders. I don't know what I would blow after having two in an hour, but I will tell you, if the definition of being "impaired" means you are below your baseline reaction time, then 2 in an hour will impair me.

 

And, quite honestly, if this "scare tactic" keeps people from drinking and driving, all the better. I have 0 tolerance for it, as should everyone on this board, as should everyone in this society.

Listen lets call a spade a spade. DUI laws today have little to do with public saftey and more to do with generating revenue. DUI fines, lawyers costs etc.., are big business. Lowering the limit is about generating more revenue. We have the technology right now to end DUI's if we wanted. We could force all car makers to put the breathalyzer in every car. But again this is a government money maker, it's the biggest cash crop for local governments. The whole DUI process is corrupt and how the laws are written are hysterical.

 

To answer your question should they lower the limit further? No. A DUI arresst can already be subjective, a breathalyzer in the field can not be used in court anyway. We have bigger fish to fry in this country than this issue.

Maybe we should just get rid of DUI laws altogether...would that be better?

 

Breathalyzers in cars is a great idea but there are several cases where these have been court ordered and people have found a way around it by having their kids blow into the tube to get car started for drunk dad.

My biggest issue with current DUI laws is that too often they get plead down. In Kentucky and most states each instance of DUI conviction the penalty goes up, but too many times I see 2nd and even 3rd DUI arrest get plead out as something to stop the acceleration of penalty. Making the deterrent isn't as strong as it should be.

Maybe we should just get rid of DUI laws altogether...would that be better?

 

Breathalyzers in cars is a great idea but there are several cases where these have been court ordered and people have found a way around it by having their kids blow into the tube to get car started for drunk dad.

 

I don't think we need to get rid of all DUI laws. I do think the entire system needs revamped because it is corrupt. I would like a unbiased study that actually showed the impact of lowering .08 to .05 would have on society. .05 is such a small amount. A women could have 2 glasses of wine with dinner after work and not be allowed to drive. Some may say fine, I just think Nanny state has to stop somewhere and people have to use common sense at some point.

Scare tactic? How so? And yes, 2 drinks in a 1 hour period CAN get you right to the .05 limit, depending on your size, gender and less easily measured how your body processes alcohol. And, just for antidotal evidence...I'm 6'5, 330 pounds. I don't drink very often any more, did much more in my younger days but I may go weeks now without an alcoholic drink. When I do drink, I may have a couple of beers or, my fav, hard apple ciders. I don't know what I would blow after having two in an hour, but I will tell you, if the definition of being "impaired" means you are below your baseline reaction time, then 2 in an hour will impair me.

 

And, quite honestly, if this "scare tactic" keeps people from drinking and driving, all the better. I have 0 tolerance for it, as should everyone on this board, as should everyone in this society.

 

Your average beer is probably around 4 to 4.5% alcohol and two of them will not get most people to .05. You would have to be a tiny chick or undersized jockey. They article also mentions "1 shot or 1 glass of wine in one hour."

No Way!

 

The standard comparison is one beer to one shot to one glass of wine. Not two to one to one.

 

Here is a good link to calculate BAC levels:

 

Blood Alcohol Calculator Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself

Small women and jockeys don't count? And actually no, you don't have to be all that small a woman either, though the average man might not quite get to that level, still again depends because EVERYONE is different. And yes I brought up a ba calculator as well, and I'm sure all of them won't give you the exact same "average" either.

 

What I am wondering is...why are you debating this so hard with me? I take it that you do not agree with me that if you drink at all, then you shouldn't drive? Just on the surface looks like you are trying to find and acceptable level of drinking and still being able to drive. Just my take. I say 0.

Even teenage drivers can blow .02 so that Communion is protected, so it's never dipping below that.

 

It is funny that the legal maximum BAC is now closer to the "zero tolerance" minimum for those who cannot legally drink than to the previous maximum of .10. Personally, I think they should just lower it to whatever minimum they can hold up in court and take the decision on how many is too many out of drinkers' hands. There should be a bright line.

 

 

I agree, I think the fact that it's a guessing game with no real clear cut answer is what can get a lot of folks.

Heard yesterday on the radio that .05 would mean' date=' on average, 2 beers, 1 shot or 1 glass of wine in one hour, and probably less than that for some people I'm sure. And evidently some people are complaining about that. Here's a very simple rule that EVERYONE should follow. IF YOU HAVE BEEN DRINKING AT ALL, DO NOT DRIVE, PERIOD! Why is that so hard for some people to understand and follow? Our tolerance in this country for drunk driving is way too lax in my opinion.[/quote']

 

Agree.

Make DUI limit 0.05% blood-alcohol level' date=' NTSB says[/url']

 

Good move or not?

 

Good move. If you're going to drink, have a DD or plan for a taxi, call a friend or something. Do not get behind the wheel.

Listen lets call a spade a spade. DUI laws today have little to do with public saftey and more to do with generating revenue. DUI fines, lawyers costs etc.., are big business. Lowering the limit is about generating more revenue. We have the technology right now to end DUI's if we wanted. We could force all car makers to put the breathalyzer in every car. But again this is a government money maker, it's the biggest cash crop for local governments. The whole DUI process is corrupt and how the laws are written are hysterical.

 

To answer your question should they lower the limit further? No. A DUI arresst can already be subjective, a breathalyzer in the field can not be used in court anyway. We have bigger fish to fry in this country than this issue.

 

It wouldn't be such big business if idiots didn't drink and drive.

 

I don't think we need to get rid of all DUI laws. I do think the entire system needs revamped because it is corrupt. I would like a unbiased study that actually showed the impact of lowering .08 to .05 would have on society. .05 is such a small amount. A women could have 2 glasses of wine with dinner after work and not be allowed to drive. Some may say fine, I just think Nanny state has to stop somewhere and people have to use common sense at some point.

 

When you drink and drive you endanger others. It's apparent that relying on common sense isn't working.

When you drink and drive you endanger others. It's apparent that relying on common sense isn't working.

 

Is there a stat that can be shown what number of deaths are due to people with .05% bac? I just don't like stricter laws without proof the penalties put forth are worth it . I know this is study says it would decrease deaths by 500-800 but the calculation is flawed. I want raw data that shows x number of accident were caused by people with bac between .02% -.08%.

 

I personally agree if your going out for the night cab it don't be a moron. But I worry about the business man or woman who has 2-3 drinks for happy hour after work. .05% drivers aren't the problem. The problem is with people who drink a 12 pack and drive.

What I am wondering is...why are you debating this so hard with me? I take it that you do not agree with me that if you drink at all, then you shouldn't drive? Just on the surface looks like you are trying to find and acceptable level of drinking and still being able to drive. Just my take. I say 0.

 

Did you read my first post? If you did you would already know I said it is a good idea.

Small women and jockeys don't count? And actually no, you don't have to be all that small a woman either, though the average man might not quite get to that level, still again depends because EVERYONE is different. And yes I brought up a ba calculator as well, and I'm sure all of them won't give you the exact same "average" either.

 

You have still failed to address the issue, it is one to one to one. Not two to one to one. And, they are taking the extreme side of the argument. In short, it is a scare tactic. Total bias.

 

It is a shame too, there is nothing wrong with stating the "facts" straight down the middle, it would still make a compelling case to lower the limit.

Did you read my first post? If you did you would already know I said it is a good idea.

 

We also aren't addressing how unreliable field breathalyzers are. There is a reason they can't be used in court . Lowering the bar on those scares me.