U.S. safety board proposes tougher drunk-driving threshold (.05)

Mags

LDAR, bitch.
Donator
Oct 22, 2004
34,894
11,983
693
Ill Repute
#1
.05 is coming soon. Enjoy:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Washington (CNN) -- A decade-old benchmark for determining when a driver is legally drunk should be lowered in an effort to reduce alcohol-related car crashes that claim about 10,000 lives each year, U.S. safety investigators said on Tuesday.
The National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all 50 states lower the threshold from 0.08 blood-alcohol content (BAC) to 0.05.
The idea is part of a safety board initiative outlined in a staff report and approved by the panel to eliminate drunk driving, which accounts for about a third of all road deaths.
The board acknowledged that there was "no silver bullet," but that more action is needed.
"This is critical because impaired driving remains one of the biggest killers in the United States," NTSB Chairman Debbie Hersman said ahead of a vote by the panel on a staff report.
NTSB looks to technology to end drunken driving in the U.S.
Hersman said progress has been made over the years to reduce drunk driving, including a range of federal and state policies, tougher law enforcement, and stepped up national advocacy. But she said too many people are still dying on America's roads in alcohol-related crashes.
Lowering the rate to 0.05 would save about 500 to 800 lives annually, the safety board report said.
"In the last 30 years, more than 440,000 people have perished in this country due to alcohol-impaired driving. What will be our legacy 30 years from now?" Hersman asked. "If we don't tackle alcohol-impaired driving now, when will we find the will to do so?"
Under current law, a 180-pound male typically will hit the 0.08 threshold after four drinks over an hour, according to an online blood alcohol calculator published by the University of Oklahoma. That same person could reach the 0.05 threshold after two to three drinks over the same period, according to the calculator.
Supreme Court rules against police in drunk driving case
Many factors besides gender and weight influence a person's blood alcohol content level. And many states outlaw lower levels of inebriation when behind the wheel.
The NTSB investigates transportation accidents and advocates on safety issues. It cannot impose its will through regulation and can only recommend changes to federal and state agencies or legislatures, including Congress.
But the independent agency is influential on matters of public safety and its decisions can spur action from like-minded legislators and transportation agencies nationwide. States set their own BAC standards.
The board also recommended on Tuesday that states vastly expand laws allowing police to swiftly confiscate licenses from drivers who exceed the blood alcohol limits.
And it is pushing for laws requiring all first-time offenders to have ignition locking devices that prevent cars from starting until breath samples are analyzed.
In the early 1980s, when grass-roots safety groups brought attention to drunk driving, many states required a 0.15 BAC rate to demonstrated intoxication.
But over the next 24 years, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other groups pushed states to adopt the 0.08 BAC standard, the last state falling in line in 2004.
The number of alcohol-related highway fatalities, meanwhile, dropped from 20,000 in 1980 to 9,878 in 2011, the NTSB said.
Drunk-drive blood tests divide Supreme Court
In recent years, about 31 percent of all fatal highway accidents are attributed to alcohol impairment, the NTSB said. But most of the decline in highway deaths occurred in the first decade.
"I think .05 is going to come. How long it takes to get there, we don't know. But it will happen," said the NTSB's Robert Molloy, who helped guide the staff report.
For some, the vote struck close to home.
NTSB board member Robert Sumwalt noted that one of his relatives had been killed by a drunk driver, and another is serving a 15-year sentence in a related death.
Many of the recommendations "are going to be unpopular," Sumwalt said, "but if we keep doing what we're doing, we're not going to make any difference."
The NTSB said even very low levels of alcohol impair drivers.
At 0.01 BAC, drivers in simulators demonstrate attention problems and lane deviations. At 0.02, they exhibit drowsiness, and at 0.04, vigilance problems.
CDC: Teen drinking and driving rates cut in half
The safety board recommend to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that it provide financial incentives to states to implement the changes.
At Tuesday's meeting, the safety board also championed laws allowing police to confiscate a motorist's license at the time of arrest if the driver exceeds a BAC limit, or refuses to take the BAC test.
Some 40 states already use the administrative tool, which the NTSB believes is effective because it is swift and immediate.
And the board recommended more widespread use of passive alcohol sensors, which police can use to "sniff" the air during a traffic stop to determine the presence of alcohol.
The sensor is capable of detecting alcohol even in cases where the driver has attempted to disguise his breathe with gum or mints. If the sensor alerts, it is grounds for more thorough testing.
The NTSB timed the recommendation to coincide with the deadliest alcohol-related highway crash in U.S. history.
On May 14, 1988, a drunk driver drove his pickup the wrong way on Interstate 71 near Carrollton, Kentucky. The truck hit a school bus, killing 24 children and three adults and injured 34 others.
 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
Sep 15, 2004
46,674
6,860
693
F.U.B.A.R
#3
How about we take those stupid useless cunts and ship them to Africa, they can then help those poor fucks out.

Like proper do-gooders.


I fully support a drunk driving endorsement to licenses.
 

Mags

LDAR, bitch.
Donator
Oct 22, 2004
34,894
11,983
693
Ill Repute
#4
But it would potentially save 500-800 lives!
 

f kane

Known Traffic Menace
Feb 10, 2010
798
234
148
#6
Revenue generation for the government. That is all this is about. States and municipalities need the money because they've wasted it.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#7
Did a ride along with a town cop the other day. Asked her about checkpoints.

1. They're illegal in Wyoming.
2. They don't work in places that they are legal.

MADD is behind this, as usual, and they're a neo-prohibition group that makes money off the poor saps that get caught drunk driving. They're in the drunk driving business.

One of the small parts of this story that isn't getting as much press is the increased use of passive alcohol sniffing devices like the flashlight with a sensor in it. This is some real police state shit.
 

Hog's Big Ben

Getting ass-***** in The Octagon, brother.
Donator
Jul 28, 2005
27,873
18,002
628
New York
#9
I don't even drink and this is enraging.
 

gleet

What's black and white and red all over?
Jul 24, 2005
22,543
13,852
608
Idaho
#10
One of the small parts of this story that isn't getting as much press is the increased use of passive alcohol sniffing devices like the flashlight with a sensor in it. This is some real police state shit.
I wonder if they give false hits on ethanol? I can smell the difference in exhaust fumes when I burn ethanol.

"My sensor indicated alcohol so I performed a field sobriety check and he failed."
 
Apr 30, 2011
35,219
93,271
358
CLT
#12
Somehow this is all Reese Witherspoon's fault.
 

f kane

Known Traffic Menace
Feb 10, 2010
798
234
148
#13
I don't even drink and this is enraging.

Same here. I have a beer after work about three days a week. That's it. I just don't like the direction this country is headed. Cradle-to-grave control of our lives.
 

Steve McQueen

heartless fuck
May 23, 2006
1,975
1,386
553
New York
#14
I can fucking juggle knives and sing the alphabet backwards at .05. Ridiculous.
 

Dikbag

Registered User
Dec 11, 2004
3,344
247
558
NW Ohio
#16
I think the limit in Michigan was just raised to .1 due to the .08 law expiring.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#17
Another tip I got from the local popo....

ALWAYS take your DUI to jury trial. Especially around here. They just won't convict drunk drivers unless there's an accident involved.
 

mascan42

Registered User
Aug 26, 2002
18,728
5,602
768
Ronkonkoma, Long Island
#22
Genuine question: how does MADD profit?
Someone convicted of a DWI may be required to attend a Victim Impact Panel, which is essentially a lecture where people from MADD tell you what a horrible person you are. Which in many states you have to pay a fee to attend. And in other states like California (where the fee is prohibited) you are instead shamed into making a donation to MADD.
 

Floyd1977

Registered User
Nov 1, 2004
12,133
6,097
631
#23
Genuine question: how does MADD profit?
This could be total bullshit and don't remember where I read it because it was so long ago, but when 0.08 was being initiated, MADD wasn't behind it because it's not the people teetering on the 0.08 threshold you need to worry about, it's the people who don't give a shit and go out hard core boozing and get behind the wheel where they're at a 0.25.

But aside from that, seems like this is just a congressional lay up "for the children" that only evil people will oppose. Although, I do wonder how low they can make it before they run afoul of whatever liquor lobbying groups are out there.

Maybe it's also revenge against conservatives for the failure of increased background checks for firearm purchases.
 

tattered

Uber-Aryan
Wackbag Staff
Aug 22, 2002
23,845
8,447
838
JERZ
#24
When you get a DUI, in many places you have to go to MADD classes that cost thousands of dollars.
Never heard of it being that high price wise and I live in one of the worst states to get a DUI in. I had to pay $280 for my IDRC (Intoxicated Drivers Resource Center) class that was 4 days 4hrs a day (16hrs total). My friend when he got his second had to pay like 450 for a 48hr class that was at a Christian camp ground. You got there Friday night and left Sunday night. If you leave the grounds and they find out (they did 3 head counts a day) you get arrested and you have to do a week in jail. IDRC classes they consider it like day reporting for jail.

They dont want to lower the limit for our safety. They want to do it because it is a huge money maker since they started doing the random check points. My first and only dui (which was even my first traffic violation. I never had a speeding ticket) cost me 7 month suspension, $800 in fines, $300 in random fees ($100 was an administration fee wtf is that) , $280 for IDRC, $3,000 in surcharges, $30 for a state id because they shred your drivers license at the court house when you pay your fines, and $45 for a new license. The shredding of your license thing annoys me because A. Why take it the computer system says your suspended B. Why not send that one back to me when my suspension is up and C. What if I dont have a way to get to the dmv to get a state id. Then it dawned on ne they do it that way so you not only have to go purchase a state id (you cant not have id pretty much these days) but you have to pay for a license again. The last part they dgaf about. Its a massive money grab
 

Ballbuster1

In The Danger Zone...
Wackbag Staff
Aug 26, 2002
102,844
16,621
839
Your house, behind the couch
#25
This could be total bullshit and don't remember where I read it because it was so long ago, but when 0.08 was being initiated, MADD wasn't behind it because it's not the people teetering on the 0.08 threshold you need to worry about, it's the people who don't give a shit and go out hard core boozing and get behind the wheel where they're at a 0.25.

But aside from that, seems like this is just a congressional lay up "for the children" that only evil people will oppose. Although, I do wonder how low they can make it before they run afoul of whatever liquor lobbying groups are out there.

Maybe it's also revenge against conservatives for the failure of increased background checks for firearm purchases.
MADD has always been pushing for lower limits.
It was in fact their lobbying that helped get the feds to go for the .08 limit
on a federal level and use the threat of cutting off federal funding for those
states that didn't fall in line with it.