NTSB proposes .05 BAC limit

WINE TALK
41

Yes - I have lived in Victoria and totally agree with Anthony. It is not an issue even with serious hard core drinkers. Most people plan around this limit when planning an evening out. Designated driver, taxi, public transport…

In Australia the priority has always been on increasing road safety and decreasing the negative impacts that drink driving have on society. Both in terms of lost human lives and the financials costs. It has never ever been about all the other issues raised in this thread.

I read many of the posts here and have to shake my head at their attitude and perspective to a measure that is designed to save lives and reduce to cost to society. Why assume ill intent from the NTSB? Their mission is to make the roads safer not raise revenue etc …


Alcohol impairment on judgment and reaction time is well established. The most common global limit of 0.05% BAC limits represent a common sense practical compromise.

Drink well and be safe

Brodie

42

Or yelling at the kids in the back seat.

43

Taking your argument to the extreme, the best way to save maximum lives is to ban all driving. We could continue from there to ban many foods (Bloomberg is a real thought-leader here), most sports and (ironically) lethargic lifestyles. I know, I know…for all the grammar police out there, I understand that’s not probably the perfect way to use a derivative of “ironic”, but you get my point.

So back to the issue at hand. If the NTSB were equally diligent re: all forms of high risk driving, I think the argument would be more genuine and consistent, and one that I could possibly agree with. They are not. Hence my problem with it. Example - the NTSB has not suggested a general federal mandate on texting while driving, has not threatened to take away federal funding for those states that don’t comply, etc. Why not? They rely on “studies” to determine level of danger do they not? There are a number of studies out there re: the dangers of “text driving”, and I dare say those studies suggest a level of danger that equals or exceeds those of driving at .05 BAC. So…if the matter is “safe highways, safe roads, safe driving” why doesn’t the NTSB address each of these issues in rank order of safety importance?

As in - “we’re going to take on the #1 most dangerous issue first, the #2 most dangerous issue second…” and so forth. Here, the choice of metric for assigning #1, #2, etc is probably important. Number of deaths per category of driver? Probably not. Sober drivers in aggregate have more deadly accidents than drunk ones. And we’re probably not going to ban sober drivers just to save maximum lives. So…maybe something like deaths by driver category per 10,000 miles driven. In which case we should immediately look at banning all motorcycles, whether or not the driver is sober.

And out of curiosity, I start to look for other ways to save lives. From 2005-09, we have had an average of 3500 non-boating drownings per year. My knee jerk reaction, given the numbers involved, would be to ban all swimming. Accidental home poisonings result in 5000 deaths per year. We should likely ban any poisonous material from retail sale. Teen drivers? 2700 deaths. Ban them I guess.

But somehow those sound ridiculous, don’t they? And let’s take that last one - teen drivers. Fun with numbers time, and as mentioned above, the choice of metrics is important. How many teen drivers do you suppose there are in the US? How many folks who drive at .05-.08? Per the above, the real metric might be denominated by “driver miles” for each category. But my point is twofold. First, there is no discussion by the NTSB of accident RATE or death RATE by driver category. At some level, ANY person on the road has a chance of being in an accident that kills them. No study I have seen has suggested that the fatality rate related to accidents involving .05-.08 is demonstrably higher than any other “risky category”. Yet it is the only category being picked on. And the reason is obvious. Alcohol is “really, really bad”. Texting - just kind of bad. Old folks driving that shouldn’t be - c’mon…bad? Are you kidding me? No, we just feel sorry for them.

I just think it is way too easy to say “wow…we could save 3000 lives if we got rid of this BAD thing”, where “BAD” is in the eye of the beholder. I hate snowmobiles. On a deaths / mile driven basis, snowmobiles are right up there. But as much as I don’t like them, I am not so disingenous to suggest that they should be banned to save a proportionately significant number of lives.

It’s a standard fun with numbers, or more specifically, “fun with LARGE numbers” strategy. And that’s the basis for my reaction. Not trying to pick on you. Agree with your general concerns. Simply suggesting that the issue may not be as simplistic as you suggest above.

Cheers,
JVP

44

When any government or regulatory body can credibly modify “drink driving” to “high risk driving” in both their mission statement and subsequent strategies and actions, I might be more supportive.

45

As a member of D.A.M.M., I guess it’s time to pressure the officers of the organization to become more politically active. If a law like this passed, I’m sure our membership will soon triple.

46

This thread reminds me of the gun lobby proving that widespread gun ownership does not lead to increased crime or violent deaths.

47

You’re right. Guns kill.

Motorcycles kill. Snowmobiles kill. Swimming pools kill.

How about we tackle them all at the same time, once and for all;)?

Or perhaps I misread the intent of your post. You’re wording, on a second read, didn’t make it clear which position you were espousing. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Cheers,
JVP

48

Pre-edit: this post collided with Thomas’ post, but I will leave it otherwise as I wrote it.

Wow, we sound almost like the NRA talking about gun control!

49

The arguments from the anti-alcohol and anti-gun lobbies are quite similar in style, form and rallying against “bad”…so probably not surprising that a rebuttal against those similar arguments would have some commonality… [cheers.gif]

50

In California, that certainly seems to be the case.

51

Used to be 0.05 i Norway/Sweden, now it’s 0.02 and you wouldn’t believe the fines.

52

See below.

Jim,

The first part of your statement is simply not true, but don’t let that stop your rant. In point of fact, the NTSB did exactly that in late 2011 (and it brought out the same panties-in-a-wad reactions from the black helicopter crowd):

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2011/111213.html

As for taking away federal funding, the NTSB is not like the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), with powers to write and enforce regulations. The NTSB is primarily charged with investigating accidents – road, rail, air, etc. They can make recommendations (RECOMMENDATIONS) but have no power to legislate or enforce.

Sheesh!

53

Since we’re leaving I didn’t want to be the first to say it.

54

It is better than the NM standard, which is “impaired to the slightest degree,” whatever that means.

Nationwide, the average BAC for a drunk driving accident is around .17, and I have never quite understood the benefit of lowering the limit to less than half that. In Europe, driving is more challenging and restricted and public transportation more available, so lower limits make more sense.

That being said, I’d take the European limit in a heartbeat if we got the public transportation to go with it.

55

Having gone to UNM for four years in the early 90s, I saw the impetus for such restrictive DUI laws state wide. Weekly deaths due to ETOH and driving on NM 550, big pile ups on I-40, etc. I do not know what the magic number is, but NM needed some serious wrangling back then. I cannot think of another state that has massive billboards asking for people to call Five-O if they suspect an impaired driver. Also, BATmobiles conduction routine stops is another thing unique to NM from my experience.

56

CHP is given major funding to work overtime, set up additional DUI roadblocks during anytime of the week, told to look for the smallest infraction (license plate bulb out) to pull someone over and one of the first questions they ask is if you’ve had anything to drink.

So the state takes our money and uses it to pay them to take more of our money. CA has really gotten out of control.

I’m moving to Wisconsin.

57

Not a whole lot different in AZ IMO (home of Sheriff Joe). A few months ago I was pulled over, totally sober, going the speed limit, etc. I had no idea why. The officer told me I was pulled over for a license plate bulb that was out (of course I didn’t realize this). He was VERY friendly and respectful, and I guess he could tell that I hadn’t been drinking (although he didn’t ask specifically). He told me to fix it and wished me a good night, and I asked “that’s it?” He said “yeah, I was hoping you were drunk.” As I said, he was very friendly, but for some reason that really rubbed me the wrong way.

58

Wow.

59

Double WOW!

Kenney

60

I hesitate to wade into this one, but I do think that comparisons to other countries are often ill-fitting, due to the lack of viable public transport options in most places. I tend to take a cab, or sometimes stay home. Personally, I’d take the lower limits if I could have a realistic public option for my ride home. Cabs in many places can be pricey and frankly just hard to find at times. I’ve taken some long walks home rather than drive when calls to cab companies went unanswered or the promised cabs never arrived. And this is in the suburbs of large cities or those cities themselves, never mind rural areas. That said, inconvenience is better than the death of myself or a loved one. I do truly despise the idea that laws like this do more to fund our policing and prison industries than to actually save lives though. Overall it is a complex and nuanced issue and a difficult one to tackle. For my part I’d just be happy with some more trains and buses and streetcars and whatnot.