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.
This is just getting stupid. There was nothing wrong with the old, common, .10 limit. Then a bunch of old busybodies got involved with MADD and whined until the federal government endorsed a limit of .08, and blackmailed the states (with threats of withholding their highway funds) to make it .08. Now the prohibition crowd wants to take it down even more. It's getting out of control. Lets face it, for many the real goal is simple prohibition, yet attacking things gradually achieves the same thing in a different manner.
I suspect that LE is supportive of this. It's another way to generate revenue and avoid actually fighting significant crime, like robbers, burglars, abusers, etc. Hey, lets make more law abiding people into criminals, there's more money in it!
There is probably some truth to what you are saying, but, consider this: Some people (those who don't believe laws/rules apply to them) are always going to stretch the limits, regardless of where they are set. The same folks who used to drive 90 MPH in a 75 MPH zone, now drive 75 MPH in a 55 MPH zone ... and, in an indirect way, safety is somewhat improved for everyone.
Likewise, the folks who at least thought about the impact of a DWI/DUI on their lives, used to feel (for example) that they could drink 4 beers and still stay under .10. But, when the limit went to .08, they thought "well, maybe 3 beers." At 0.5, these same folks will likely think, "since I'm driving, I better stop at 2 beers, before getting behind the wheel." The net effect is that about a third of the otherwise legally intoxicated drivers, may not be on the road. (Of course, the idiots with multiple DUI's on their record, will still presume that it doesn't apply to them ... or that "they can handle it." -- But, hopefully, there will be fewer other impaired drivers out there for them to 'plow into.')
There is probably some truth to what you are saying, but, consider this: Some people (those who don't believe laws/rules apply to them) are always going to stretch the limits, regardless of where they are set. The same folks who used to drive 90 MPH in a 75 MPH zone, now drive 75 MPH in a 55 MPH zone ... and, in an indirect way, safety is somewhat improved for everyone.
Likewise, the folks who at least thought about the impact of a DWI/DUI on their lives, used to feel (for example) that they could drink 4 beers and still stay under .10. But, when the limit went to .08, they thought "well, maybe 3 beers." At 0.5, these same folks will likely think, "since I'm driving, I better stop at 2 beers, before getting behind the wheel." The net effect is that about a third of the otherwise legally intoxicated drivers, may not be on the road. (Of course, the idiots with multiple DUI's on their record, will still presume that it doesn't apply to them ... or that "they can handle it." -- But, hopefully, there will be fewer other impaired drivers out there for them to 'plow into.')
I have no problem with your logic, and I tend to agree with your observations of human nature. According to a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) study of 168 people at various levels of BAC, they found impairment begins at around 0.02 BAC and increases significantly when it reaches 0.10 BAC (the highest range they tested).
A CDC study of alcohol impaired drivers found that those who drink and drive are also not likely to wear a seat-belt. So maybe this will be one of those self-correcting problems.
That really crystallizes the issue: The fact that it'll probably save half of all those killed by drunken driving each year is insignificant to the critics of the proposal as compared to the fact that it'll eat into the profits of restaurants and bars, or cramp their style. After all, the critics of decreasing the threshold will tell you, money and their own leisure is far more important than the health and lives of other people.
That really crystallizes the issue: The fact that it'll probably save half of all those killed by drunken driving each year is insignificant to the critics of the proposal as compared to the fact that it'll eat into the profits of restaurants and bars, or cramp their style. After all, the critics of decreasing the threshold will tell you, money and their own leisure is far more important than the health and lives of other people.
Instead of spending money on public transportation to save lives (as well as dozen other benefits) they are setting up booby traps (DUI checkpoints) to collect money for the state
If people weren't driving drunk thousands of law enforcement would be out of a job and MADD would need a new cause
Instead of spending money on public transportation to save lives...
There is no reason why they shouldn't do both, so don't bring up the latter as a rationalization for objecting to the former.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cougars
If people weren't driving drunk thousands of law enforcement would be out of a job and MADD would need a new cause
The March of Dimes helped cure Polio, and it's doing fine today.
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.
Tougher Drunken Driving Threshold From .08 To .05 Blood Level Recommended-That's Ridiculous Hurt Restaurant & Bars
