Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There was a 0.08 DUI per se law, with 0.05 as DWAI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
It's a lower level that a police officer can cite a driver with if their driving seems "impaired". It doesn't have the same penalties as DUI. When I took my Colorado's driver's test in 1980, the limits were 0.10 for DUI and 0.05 for DWAI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
You are considered to be driving while ability impaired if your blood or breath alcohol content is .05 or greater."
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
Your own links show that 0.05 is prima facie illegal. That is, if you're charged with DWAI and no evidence is presented at trial except your BAC, you will be convicted. You can rebut the charge by proving you were not impaired, but that seems like a labor worthy of Hercules; how can you prove such a nebulous negative?
Precisely.
Quote:
Colorado law enforcement refers to drunk driving offenses as either:
• DUI (Driving Under the Influence), triggered by .08% or higher BAC, or
• DWAI (Driving While Ability Impaired), triggered by .05% BAC or higher (but less than .08% BAC).
Way more so than transit riders who pay for about 1/3 of the cost of the ride with the difference being made up by car drivers through the gas tax.
It is true that PT does not pay for itself. However, as transit use increases and becomes more commonplace, ridership rises and recovery rates will increase:
Quote:
Although Superstorm Sandy and its aftermath slowed ridership on some of the nation's largest transit systems, at least 16 systems reported record ridership numbers in 2012, says the American Public Transportation Association.
The gas tax should be enough to pay for road construction and maintenance. And is if you run the numbers. The reason it isn't is because governments made the conscious decision over the course of many years to defer maintenance, prolong new construction decisions and divert the "surplus" Highway User Funds from those decisons to the General Fund.
I don't know what numbers you mean, but here's what I see:
Quote:
Roads and surface transportation will only get about half their projected $1.7 trillion need for capital projects. Inland ports and waterways also are funded at about of their needs.
The era of automatic trust fund growth appears to be over, because annual vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) are no longer increasing at the 2% average rate experienced from 1960s until 2008. The
main immediate cause of stagnation in VMT was the sluggish economy, which has suppressed
growth in personal incomes (reducing leisure travel), reduced work-related driving, and also
weakened demand for freight shipments. Over the longer term, other forces are conspiring against
the trust fund mechanism. Most important, recent policy changes are weakening the link between
driving activity and motor fuel tax revenues. On August 28, 2012, the Obama Administration
issued new passenger vehicle fuel economy standards for vehicle model years 2017-2025. Under
these standards combined new passenger car and light truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) standards are expected to rise to as high as 41.0 miles per gallon in model year 2021 and
49.7 miles per gallon in model year 2025. Meanwhile, the expanding fleet of hybrid and electric vehicles will pay little or nothing by way of fuel taxes.
Roads and highways are funded by the state and federal taxes that drivers pay at the pump. Fewer petrol purchases means a drop in tax revenue. Since 2008 the federal Highway Trust Fund, which takes in gas-tax revenues, has had to borrow $41 billion from the Treasury to stay afloat. Officials warn it could go bust in 2015. State governments are facing similar shortfalls. How can they continue to pay for roads?
I think that the way all transportation is funded in the US is a mess. I believe that if you take funds from an activity, they should go directly to fund that activity to keep the numbers straight. That's why I agree that the idea of an alcohol tax is another messy way to fund transportation.
Vote maybe, if the tax money goes to providing late night service to provide people with better options to get home late at night, then it is worth it.
I'd support an increase on alcohol taxes to fund more late-night transit services.
At this point in my city there are numerous Owl Service Lines (probably about 30 across the city) and the rail only stops running for 2 hours or so on Fri-Sat and 3.5 hours other days. Perhaps a small tax on alcohol could make it so they can increase headways for the Owl Buses from 30/60 minutes to 20/45 minutes and run the rail lines all night on Fri-Sat and perhaps extend closing times to 2AM other days.
When I say a small sales tax on alcohol I mean something similar to the Measure R general sales tax, which is a half a cent. I believe that tax costs the average Angelino about 20 bucks a year.
I wonder if said tax would be for store-bought alcohol or just for alcoholic beverages sold in bars.
It's an interesting premise and I do think it would pass in Southern California if packaged and marketed correctly. I guess the biggest problem with something like this is that there is no "sunset", so it would be an indefinite tax as opposed to Measure R, which ends in 2030.
I'd support an increase on alcohol taxes to fund more late-night transit services.
At this point in my city there are numerous Owl Service Lines (probably about 30 across the city) and the rail only stops running for 2 hours or so on Fri-Sat and 3.5 hours other days. Perhaps a small tax on alcohol could make it so they can increase headways for the Owl Buses from 30/60 minutes to 20/45 minutes and run the rail lines all night on Fri-Sat and perhaps extend closing times to 2AM other days.
When I say a small sales tax on alcohol I mean something similar to the Measure R general sales tax, which is a half a cent. I believe that tax costs the average Angelino about 20 bucks a year.
I wonder if said tax would be for store-bought alcohol or just for alcoholic beverages sold in bars.
It's an interesting premise and I do think it would pass in Southern California if packaged and marketed correctly. I guess the biggest problem with something like this is that there is no "sunset", so it would be an indefinite tax as opposed to Measure R, which ends in 2030.
Many cities have late night transit now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
