Many defense lawyers and drivers have complained that the blood-alcohol level used by states is too low and allows charges for relatively low amounts of alcohol consumption. Nevertheless, it appears that the National Transportation Safety Board will recommended that all states drop the blood-alcohol level at which motorists can be charged with driving drunk to .05, down from the current rate of .08. That will mean that an average woman will cross the threshold with only a single drink. For men, it will be a two drink maximum.
What is striking is the statement of NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman, who explained that “Our goal is to get to zero deaths because each alcohol-impaired death is preventable.” That would seem to favor a .00 BAL. While all agencies work to avoid all injuries and deaths, few consider it a functional goal since there are few attainable absolutes in regulations. All regulation tends to be a trade off between rivaling goals or practices. Drinking is legal and most people believe that they can drive safely with a single drink. There is no question that the alcohol diminishes driving ability even with a single drink but the new level could result in a massive expansion of drivers under court supervision or suspension.
In defense of NTSB, they claim that more than 100 countries have adopted the .05 alcohol content standard or lower. Yet, this is a change that will receive little debate outside of the NTSB. An issue of this importance used to be the subject of considerable debate in Congress (or more importantly, in state legislatures) but with the rise of the “Fourth Branch” of federal agencies, such decisions are increasingly decided by federal bureaucracies that are fairly insulated from the public. They are then imposed on the states through federal conditional spending.
Many states are likely to balk at the decision given the already vocal opposition over the current standard. However, the federal government is expected to threaten states with the loss of federal funding for highways if they do not do exactly what they are told. No state (particularly in this economy) can afford to forgo federal funds for roads. While the Supreme Court suggested in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that the federal government could go too far in coercing states (in that case by threatening Medicaid), it has long allowed the use of federal conditions for highway funding. This encourages Congress to take in more taxes than it needs to return the money to the state with conditions or federal mandates.
States may also be ordered to implement alcohol ignition interlock devices. The cost of these devices is imposed on the drivers in the form of a $50 to $100 purchase price plus a $50 a month fee to operate.
With the increasing use of sobriety roadblocks where drivers are asked if they had anything to drink (and most answer truthfully), the result could be a much higher “yield” in arrests.
What do you think about the new regulation on BAL?
Source: USA Today
Oops/typo 300-80=220
Bron,
There are websites like John Williams’ Shadowstats.com that I/we can go to & get more realistic govt economic stats.
Do you know of any sites where we can get realistic death/disease rates for states/USA.
I’ve seen the govt is blocking info related to Cancer clusters, radiation hot spots etc…
I’m interested in the stats & the charts as I believe there is a mini war on against us babyboomers.
A large reason for the govt to do so is because they’ve/Wallst have already stolen the pension funds & they are hoping if the kill us off they can get out of paying.
ie: 300mil gen pop less 80 mil babyboomers equal 240 mil.
mespo:
thanks for the explanation.
Bron:
“keeping drunk drivers off the road is a bad thing?”
*****************
It’s all in the definitions. “Drunk driving” is defined in law as operating motor vehicles while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. When I first started practice, the threshold number for blood alcohol content was too high at .15% by weight, by volume. That changed in the late 80s/early 90s when the number was properly brought down to something approaching a reasonable number of .10% The injuries and deaths from DUI dropped dramatically. According to the Century Council, “[After] this period of time alcohol-impaired driving fatalities have declined 35%, and among our nation’s under 21 population such fatalities have declined 58% since the Council’s formation. [20 years ago].Last year 41 states and D.C. had decreases in the number of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities. Consumption rates nationally and among those under the legal drinking age showed marked decreases in 2011 reaching historic low levels.”
Seeing an opportunity to profit, insurance pressure groups began strategies to reduce damage awards and took up the cause. These insurance executives took over grass roots groups like MADD and SADD and pushed for legislation to reduce the BAC even further. The number has come steadily down to .08 and now the ridiculous .05 suggestion. This isn’t public health; it’s profit enhancement by the carriers who can charge more for drivers with past DUI arrests and also limit damage awards. You can tell this is true because the states who reduced the BAC also limited punitive awards fro drunk driving. Virginia’s is stuck in the mud at $350,000.00 no matter what the wealth of the defendant happens to be.
BACs of .05% criminalizes the 175 lb guy who wants to stop after work for a couple of beers. We’ll get to a point where driving after gargling with mouthwash will be defined as “drunk driving.” It’s a solution in search of a problem.
Gene H:
make fun all you want Gene but you know that hot sauce made on Avery Island? Well I would not use that stuff anymore if you want the boys to stay the size of walnuts if you know what I mean. Yes they have even gotten to that. I said they were everywhere. They are even targeting coon a$$es.
And don’t forget what the Mexi-can’ts are doing to the average taco, Bron.
Making them better.
Oh. Wait. Maybe that wasn’t the best example.
Bron, but you don’t know what the queers are doing to the soil.
Leave the DUI per se level at .08%. Europe isn’t a viable model as their transportation alternatives are so much different than the United States.
At .08% there are an awful lot of social drinkers that might exercise bad judgement and get caught and convicted of DUI. Think of the person that foolishly thinks they can drive the few miles home after imbibing too much at the Holliday party. I dare say that should this occur, a vast majority of these individuals will never come close to conduct that ever exposed them to the chance of a second offense DUI.
About the second offense DUI. A typical sentnece includes among other things, a mandatory 7 days in jail. There are frequently ways to avoid even that 7` day term.
My view, the person that gets a second DUI either:
1. hasn’t learned anything and isn’t likely to in the future,
2. has anti-social personality disorder and doesn’t give a damn about
yours or anyone elses safety, or most likely
3. is an alcoholic who is very likely drinking and driving all of the time.
In my opinion, the second time offender by far reflects the greatest risk to the community. An average cost to a person convicted of a first offense DUI is around $10,000. Much more if private counsel is retained. That is a very steep penalty for an .08 DUI. It would be unfair for an .05 DUI.
My preferred way of addressing the DUI/public sfety issue would be to reduce the penalty on first offense DUI with a blood/breath alcohol level at or below .12%. For a second offense there should be a mandatory minimum of six months in jail and compelled treatment as well as a substantial fine, ignition interlock, denominated license plate etc. Any third offense should be a felony with a three year prison term. The recidivist DUI offender have proved that they are driving drunk alot. They are likely the people that are a menace on the road every night and exactly the kind of motorist we all least want ourrselves and our loved ones exposed too.
OKy1:
I used to work for the govt. You know the place. We used Starlings for vectors for biological agents. Those tumors you are seeing and think are coming from GMO? Think again. Also the nukes leaking radiation? That is something else, those power plants are being used as fronts for some really freaky stuff. All I can say is population control.
You think you are seeing clearly but it is all smoke and mirrors, they are everywhere. The aids/cancer in the vaccines are just the tip of the iceberg. They are putting aids virus in condomns sold in San Francisco and LA. Papusas and tortillas are being laced with drugs which cause sterility. The list is endless, and the white fascist nationalists are conducting this bloodless assassanation of Obama.
You dont know the half of what you just said.
The apocalypse is coming.
http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/nature/post/two-bald-eagles-in-air-battle-crash-land-at-airport/
Americans have made a grave error when when we went from a Sheriff Tayor/Mayberry RFD local type policing system to allowing a National Gestapo/Fuhrerland type policing model.
**
Military ‘Power Grab’ Goes Into Effect: Pentagon Grants Itself Authority Over Civil Disturbances
Jed Morey **
http://www.infowars.com/u-s-military-power-grab-goes-into-effect-pentagon-unilaterally-grants-itself-authority-over-civil-disturbances/
Oky1,
Horse flies! Yuck.
The number one cause of automobile accidents is distraction, DUI is third.
The furor over the third leading cause is due to church / state violations of the Establishment Clause.
Sharon Foster 1, May 15, 2013 at 7:30 am
There are what… 40,000 deaths per year on our highways? Many of which can be attributed to one or more alcohol-impaired drivers? I think that sounds like a fine standard. “One for the road” has to stop. We’re not driving horse carts anymore.
Roman Berry 1, May 15, 2013 at 9:52 am
The standard ought to be based on impairment, not some random number pulled out of thin air. I doubt seriously that someone with a BAC of .05 percent could be said to be too impaired to drive. A sleepy driver or a texting driver or someone engrossed in a cell phone conversation (or maybe even just trying to handle their hot coffee or their in-car fast food lunch) is almost surely a greater threat than someone with a ,05 BAC. And what of drivers on prescription meds?
No. Just no.
===============================================
The real story, the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, requires another focus:
(Driving Miss Crazy). The furor over “alcohol related driving” numerology comes from a church-state violation of long standing:
(Church Chat). That post points out that some Methodists, including one minister, became Senators and rammed their religious doctrine down government’s throat.
Like they did with the 18th Amendment … seeking their own righteousness they gave us organized crime.
Blouise,
Sell the Rolls, buy a used pickup with at least one dent & put a NRA or GOA sticker on the back glass.
Buy at least one more pickup to put in the yard, up on blocks, that can be seen from the street.
Hang a Confederate flag off the front porch.
No one will come around causing trouble afterwards.
The pit bull on a chain is optional unless you live close to Wallst Bank/Insurance scum or a politician.
LOL:)
Also, I live nowhere near those 3rd world Bloomberg type ghettos they call the New York City, Chicago, DC areas.
My neighbors here is a herd of horses & we get along great.
Blouise,
You need to sell that Rolls for your personal security.
Buy yourself a used pickup with a least one dent & put an NRA or GOA sticker on the back glass.
Then buy at least one more to park in the yard up on blocks that can be seen from the street & then hang a Rebel Flag off the front porch.
A pitbull on a chain is optional unless you live close to a Wallst Banker/Insurance crook or a politican.
Works great for security for where ever you live in this Fascist US Reservation.
LOL:)
Here are some considerations.
I have done DUI / DWI enforcement during the time the legal limit was 1.0 and when it later became .08. In my view this did actually reduce the average of the BAC rates of those who I arrested. I would roughly estimate it reduced by .03 BAC. Though it did not affect those who were extremely intoxicated such as those above .25 (The highest I had personally witnessed was a .315)
For Standardized Field Sobriety Tests it becomes difficult to determine if the person is or is not above .05 if they are nearby that amount. .08 requires experience and training to determine if the person is at that level or higher. Above 1.0 it is more obvious. At .05 BAC it is going to be harder to differenciate “over the limit” with “has consumed alcohol” The two are not necessarily the same from a legal standpoint.
DUI roadblocks were ruled unconstitutional in WA in the early 80’s so I can’t really offer any experience on this.
Something you all might consider interesting is what happens here with Commercial Vehicle DUI and the DUI rate for minors. (WA)
The commercial vehicle DUI presumtive rate is a .04. A conviction for this can mean up to a 5 year revocation of their Commercial Driver License and if hazardous materials were being transported the revocation can be for life.
For those under 21 years of age the presumptive rate is a .02. Any consumption while driving is almost a guarantee of an arrest for “Being Under Twenty One Years of Age and Driving After Having Consumed Alcohol” (yes, the long winded name for Minor DUI)
I did not encounter many on the clock truck driver who I arrested for DUI so it is difficult for me to relate any statistics here but for Minors the change was dramatic.
When DUI for minors was the same presumptive level as adults I would estimate at least 15% to 18% of all the persons I arrested for DUI were under 21 years old. When I worked night shifts I probably averaged one every week or two. Six months after the minor presumptive rate became .02 the arrest rate I had for persons under 21 dropped to nearly zero. This included those who were between .02 and .08 and those above .08. In fact, it was about once every six months or so and sometimes much longer.
The drop for minors, who were already statutorily prohibited from consuming alcohol (in most situations) greatly affected the socialization of the youngsters who knew there almost a guarantee of a DUI for driving with any measurable amount of alcohol in their system. I would say that this was successful because the combination of alcohol use, lack of experience in driving, and a tendency to be careless/reckless was deadly.
Now for adults who are legally permitted to consume alcohol (most of them) is this a workable solution? For one, the extremely intoxicated drivers are essentially the career criminals of the DUI world. It is not going to matter if the rate is 1.0 .05 or even .15 they will be above it. They will be the ones who will continue to be arrested.
The issue is does our society want to make the consumption of any amount of alcohol and driving illegal which the true effect of this change of presumptive level will be. An average sized male with average absorbtion and response to alcohol is not going to be sufficiently impaired in my view to greatly effect their driving with only one or two drinks over an hour and a half time frame. This leads to whether or not the state has the authority to impose what could be regarded as an arbitrary limit since the state is going to have difficulty articulating an interest in regulating it.
At essentially low levels, where impairment is not established medically, it becomes just as arbitrary for the state to lower it as would be a law prohibiting citizens from wearing green shirts.
Lastly, the old trick drunks seem to use when asked “How much did you have to drink tonight?” (which probably 80% of them will say as follows) is going to be very damaging to their defense for a .05 DUI level:
“Two beers sir”
Oky1,
A bumper sticker on a Rolls?! Good god man, what underprivileged part of the country do you live in?!
This too is Obamaesque as JT is proud to say. It is totally sexist. We are not going to allow any of this Obamaesque apCray in the Cardinal Nation on the West Bank. This is one reason why we need a separate nation state with a seat at the UN on the West Bank.
Blouise,
You might want to think about pulling that Obama bumper sticker off your car.
Ever criminal in the country now knows Obama supporters are not packing & wanting victims.
LOL:)