We should just try Prohibition again...

[airdvr 198]

We obviously didn't get it right the first time.

U.S. safety board proposes tougher drunk-driving threshold
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol/index.html

Quote

The safety board recommend to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that it provide financial incentives to states to implement the changes.

Follow the money.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[normiss 622]

That's always been the case.
Nothing constitutionally wrong with using blackmail is there?

[ManagingPrime 0]

airdvr

We obviously didn't get it right the first time.

U.S. safety board proposes tougher drunk-driving threshold
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol/index.html

Quote

The safety board recommend to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that it provide financial incentives to states to implement the changes.

Follow the money.

I don't see what this has to do with Prohibition.

It's not the worst idea.

I'd prefer to see some kind of incentive from the federal government and insurance providers to have interlock devices installed on vehicles.

[billvon 2,425]

Since when does "don't drive drunk" = "prohibition?"

Is this NRA logic?

[airdvr 198]

billvon

Since when does "don't drive drunk" = "prohibition?"

Is this NRA logic?

When allowable BAC is lowered to .05. The obvious answer to curtailing drunk driving is re-instate prohibition. This is typical left-wing 'solve it by passing a law' thinking.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,425]

>When allowable BAC is lowered to .05. The obvious answer to curtailing drunk >driving is re-instate prohibition.

Ah. So it is NRA logic. Thanks.

[normiss 622]

The hospitality industry would love a law like this.
Curious what the cost would be.

Although after a family dinner a few days ago at a well known restaurant and seeing what they charge for alcohol these days....it's already a major risk reduction for us.
We decided we had much better drinks at home.

[Kennedy 0]

airdvr

We obviously didn't get it right the first time.

U.S. safety board proposes tougher drunk-driving threshold
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol/index.html

Quote

The safety board recommend to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that it provide financial incentives to states to implement the changes.

Follow the money.

No one is suggesting prohibition. How do I know? Like you said: follow the money. They make too damn much money on taxing alcohol. No one wants to ban drinking. Drinking and driving is a whole other ball game. Considering the physiological effects of .04 bac, I have no problem dropping from .08 to .05 bac.

Like I've said before. Driving on public streets and highways is dangerous. The numbers of deaths and injuries each year make that abundantly clear. The fact that so many of those fatal wrecks are alcohol related speaks to the reason for strict DWI laws. Personally I'm in favor of making any second DWI conviction where the date of offense follows date of first conviction is a felony. Everyone knows being inebriated impairs your ability to perform divided attention tasks. What is driving if not a potentially deadly divided attention task?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[labrys 0]

Quote

The obvious answer to curtailing drunk driving is re-instate prohibition.

Same logic implies that the obvious answer to curtailing obesity is to ban food.

Owned by Remi #?

[Kennedy 0]

You beat me to it.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[faulknerwn 36]

Do you propose similar felony charges for talking on cell phones? Multiple studies have shown that talking on cell phones is equivalent to a BAC of .08 or so in reaction time.

2 beers or glasses of wine puts me over .05. That isn't much at all. All I think this law would do would be give a lot more people criminal records..

[billvon 2,425]

>Do you propose similar felony charges for talking on cell phones?

Why do you want to BAN CELL PHONES?

[Kennedy 0]

I think that study was "using" mobile phones, not talking on them. Big difference between holing a conversation and pushing/dialing/texting/ all the other stuff a phone can do. I am a fan of laws against texting and any other butting pushing in the car. The problem is it is nearly unenforcable. It is also different from DWI law because you can put down the phone, but you can't just turn off impairment.

Also, unless you're a VERY small guy, I really doubt two drinks out you at a .05 bac, unless you and I pour very different sized drinks. It's a lot harder to get to .08 than people think. Look into SFSTs, ARIDE, and the DRE program. DWI science is very clear about abilities above .04 bac.

As an aside, if you're comfortable with current bac levels, how do you feel about drug related DWI? In many states, any amount of some drugs is a DWI (coke, heroin, etc). Why no levels for that?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,425]

>Big difference between holing a conversation and pushing/dialing/texting/ all the
>other stuff a phone can do.

Actually not that much. Most of the distraction in using a cellphone comes from the conversation, not from dialing the phone. Hence while car kits help they do not come close to solving the problem.

[faulknerwn 36]

Actually the first cell phone studies were done back before the days of smart phones and they really were just talking

Actually I went to a couple websites. For a 130 pound female 2 beers in an hour or 2 glasses of wine websites were putting me at between .05 and .07.

[airdvr 198]

faulknerwn

Do you propose similar felony charges for talking on cell phones? Multiple studies have shown that talking on cell phones is equivalent to a BAC of .08 or so in reaction time.

2 beers or glasses of wine puts me over .05. That isn't much at all. All I think this law would do would be give a lot more people criminal records..

My point exactly. I'm wondering how anyone can make a judgement that .05 is so much better than .08.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[quade 3]

airdvr

***Do you propose similar felony charges for talking on cell phones? Multiple studies have shown that talking on cell phones is equivalent to a BAC of .08 or so in reaction time.

2 beers or glasses of wine puts me over .05. That isn't much at all. All I think this law would do would be give a lot more people criminal records..

My point exactly. I'm wondering how anyone can make a judgement that .05 is so much better than .08.

The level of science required would be about the level of a high-school science fair.

Hypothesis - People can operate motor vehicles more safely at lower levels of alcohol in their blood stream.

Methodology - Using 100 participants, test perceptual, reaction and motor control skills at various levels of blood alcohol content (BAC). Take baseline readings while completely sober, at .05, .08 and just for shits and giggles .12 BAC.

Plot result.

Pretty fucking obvious.

Not saying .05 is or isn't the right level for legality, but the methodology for determining .05 is "better" than .08 is trivial.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ManagingPrime 0]

And the winner is.......

***

[mistercwood 287]

faulknerwn

Do you propose similar felony charges for talking on cell phones? Multiple studies have shown that talking on cell phones is equivalent to a BAC of .08 or so in reaction time.

2 beers or glasses of wine puts me over .05. That isn't much at all. All I think this law would do would be give a lot more people criminal records..

Australian BAC limit has been 0.05 since I was a kid. Penalties for violation are nasty. Recent changes to laws regarding cellphone usage in cars means you can push a button to answer a call, that's pretty much it. Penalties for violation are nasty. Why? It deters people. Road safety is quite important to the majority of our populace - we don't think so much about the restriction on ourselves, we think about the drunk driver running a red light at 90 and killing a family of four. No one wants to be that guy.

Now that I'm actually thinking about it, I can't think of anyone (of age) I know that can't calculate BAC quite easily off the top of their head. We're a drinking culture, sure, but we don't like fines and we like keeping our licenses... If you need help (if the limit drops to .05 for you) - males can have 2 standard drinks in the first hour, and one every hour following that. Females are 1 per hour. Standard drink is 30ml spirit, 100ml wine (13%), 285ml beer (4.8%).

I just thought about it some more. The proposed change means basically one less drink at the end of the night, or waiting an extra hour and having some water before driving home. If that's such a huge imposition, leave the car at home and take a cab. Or just stay home where you can get really wasted...

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[billvon 2,425]

> I'm wondering how anyone can make a judgement that .05 is so much better than .08.

By testing people's reactions at those BAC's perhaps?

NY had a "driving while impaired" level at .05 and a "driving while intoxicated" at .08. The .05 was basically a traffic ticket with license implications (and you could lose your license for 90 days) .08 was jail time. Seemed to work OK.

[OHCHUTE 0]

faulknerwn

Do you propose similar felony charges for talking on cell phones? Multiple studies have shown that talking on cell phones is equivalent to a BAC of .08 or so in reaction time.

2 beers or glasses of wine puts me over .05. That isn't much at all. All I think this law would do would be give a lot more people criminal records..

The prison industry which is owned by wall street needs more cells filled...its about selling stock and getting returns for shareholders. More easily to break laws equals more criminals.

[quade 3]

faulknerwn

Actually I went to a couple websites. For a 130 pound female 2 beers in an hour or 2 glasses of wine websites were putting me at between .05 and .07.

Whoa! Did you say TWO drinks?
http://youtu.be/lIv96reVlAE

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[faulknerwn 36]

That video is hilarious!

[normiss 622]

Excellent.


kebaaaaabs.