+1. I think most people would agree that changing the BAC from .08 to .05 would probably prevent SOME accidents, thus reducing the number of people killed or injured due to DUI. But trying to quantify the effect might be highly speculative, and there are obvious costs and disadvantages involved. It’s one thing to talk about public transportation alternatives in large cities, but obviously there are more sparsely populated areas where public transportation alternatives are sparse to non-existent.
I would rather see the various constituencies come together to hash out a more comprehensive solution to DUI, as opposed to a “one-size fits all” approach such as lowering the BAC to .05.
It would certainly increase the arrest rate, but I do not see how it will prevent any more accidents. People will drive impaired regardless of what the letter of the law is.
I think it will, certainly, prevent some amount of accidents, and therefore likely deaths. But if you want to get into the ugly, if sometimes necessary, business of quantifying the value of human lives, then it should probably be considered how this measure will affect total costs as well. These include enforcement costs, fines, legal costs, the costs to businesses who lose patrons or whose patrons no longer imbibe. More importantly there are less-easily quantified costs, such as the stigma and negative impact upon those who are now caught between .05 and .08. And this in addition to the lost jobs or promotions people will suffer when associated with these crimes. As an attorney, I know that state bars are interested and you may face professional censure, though one offense is, I believe, unlikely to trigger a formal rebuke.
But I think that you have to admit that it will save some lives. It may take time, but eventually most people who are currently inclined to chance driving after a drink or two or three, will reduce the amount they drink before driving. You can attack these measures as shortsighted, as too costly, as draconian, as a nanny-state measure, as unfair, as anti-business, and on a number of other grounds, but the statistics will show that one thing they aren’t is ineffective. It’s just a matter of saying what gain at what cost?
I agree with Bill. Prohibition doesn’t prevent action; it just punishes it.
Michael: what statistics? How is changing the drinking limit going to prevent accidents? I don’t know what my BAC is when I drink a glass of wine or two. Making it .05 won’t change that. All this is going to do is increase the number of people who are arrested for driving while intoxicated. If the punishments were more severe, thus scarier, I could see the accident rate decreasing. Give people less of an incentive to drive under the influence to drive drunk instead of making more people fall under the definition.
I will agree that lives might possibly be saved, but is that number statistically significant or meaningful.
I know that one life saved is worth more than any quantifiable amount, so I am not trying to argue any costs that you point out.
To really solve the problem, there needs to be a zero tolerance for driving while under the influence of ETOH…I mean zero BAC. No mouthwash or medicinal excuses…zero. THAT would save lives. A couple point here and there won’t stop anybody.
Isn’t this just a logical fallacy born of wishful thinking though? I mean, certainly many will comply. Some portion of those who do not comply will be caught, punished, and then will comply. Some portion will reoffend, some of those will then comply, etc. They attach harsh penalties to these things to insure compliance. I don’t agree with a lot of the police state in this country, but they know how to turn the screw when they want to do so. I’ll give them that.
I’m not saying it is good, or right, or just, but I suspect it would have some measurable effect. As Jim pointed out above, making any consumption prior to operation a DUI would have the greatest impact of all, that doesn’t mean its the right thing.
FWIW, I think that a general prohibition on an activity, such as consumption, elicits a very different response than something like driving. Having a drink, or even drug use, is a response to deeply held set of desires. Driving while drinking is not really the same thing. So if you are to say that prohibition doesn’t prevent behavior, I suggest that it does prevent some behaviors better than others, though of course you can never assure total compliance. In Thailand they shoot drug dealers. I suspect you can still find drugs in Thailand (of course this gets into sets of economic realities the discussion of which is really an entirely different topic, but I think the point is still illustrative).
I don’t want to come off as dismissive. My point is that a two or three point drop in the legal definition of a DUI might save a dozen lives, or it might cut the national number by 25%. Which of those warrants all the work on the front end and enforcement/punishment on the back end? I don’t know either.
Agreed. But what would the impetus for such an abatement be? Would it take a Sandy Hook type event where scores of very young children were killed at the hands of a legally impared driver?
Please, no politics or gun control debate as I am just asking what the circumstances would be. Thanks.
The ideal number of drinks before driving is zero. Does anybody seriously disagree with this? Think of the Venn diagram. Ideally drinking and driving don’t overlap. Our current laws allow a small overlap. Proposed rules shrink the overlap, albeit not to the ideal solution. Oh yeah, this is terrible.
Before coming down for or against this the statistic I’d really like to see is how many accidents occurred where the person was in the .05-.08% level (as opposed to people driving illegally at the higher limit). Without that there seems no evidence that this would make any difference whatsoever.
I’m so happy to live in an area with great public transportation…
Reminds me of the seat belt law. Why are we are legally required to wear a seat belt? We are told it is to prevent drivers/passengers from being ejected from the vehicle…Then why do we allow motorcycles?
I wonder what (if anything) happened down under to change the tolerance? Or in Norway - perhaps they’ve always had low societal tolerance of DUI (it does kinda make sense…)?
The ideal solution is that anything which may affect driving safety should be a felony?
That would seem to include a lot of things besides someone having had one or two glasses of wine with dinner: talking on the phone, changing the disk in your CD player, eating, arguing with the kids in the back seat, being young, being old, changing the radio station, looking at something off to the side of the road, drinking some water, looking at directions to where you’re going, not having gotten enough sleep last night . . .
But why even allow motorcycles, if getting thrown from your vehicle causes injury? With a motorcycle, any impact over 10 mph causes you to be thrown off the bike!
We’re required to wear seat belts because they prevent further injury that I may be legally and financially responsible for. Seat belts are a part of “mitigating damages” in civil cases.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}