Front Page  »  

Feds promoting lower alcohol limits

May 14, 2013

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAFederal transportation officials Tuesday recommended a much lower alcohol level to determine a person’s ability to operate a motor vehicle — from the current .08 to .05 blood alcohol — as a means to crack down on drunk driving. (Louisville Courier-Journal)

The National Transportation Safety Board made the recommendation, noting that drunk driving is responsible for one-third of all traffic-related deaths. Board officials unanimously said the lower limit would bring the U.S. into conformity with more than 100 other nations.

State law enforcement officials should exploit new technology to prevent impaired drivers from operating their vehicles and to toughen up on repeat offenders, according to board members. The board also promised to assist state agencies in securing funding for the efforts.

“Impaired driving remains one of the biggest killers in the United States,” NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said.


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


22 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So we can be like a 100 other nations, start that and then we change allot of things. To be just like them should never be the reason, this country is about not being just like them. Funding this effort, sadley is like a business investment, will generated more than needed to cover the investment. A good time to invest in a limo.


0

IMHO, bad idea…


0

Did you know SLO County is already a “zero tolerance” zone? That’s right, kids; Any amount of alcohol or drugs (prescription or otherwise) gets you a “wet and reckless” citation. Big deal, you say? If you get a DUI within 10 years of this, they “convert” your wet & reckless into your first DUI. Currently that means one year DL suspension, 12 or 18 months of classes, fees, fines and fun to the tune of about $10,000.


0

If you are going to exercise the privilege of driving, piloting a two to four ton vehicle down the road that is capable of killing in an instant, why wouldn’t you have a “zero tolerance” policy for yourself when you get behind the wheel? If you know you are going to drive, DO NOT DRINK, period. Pretty simple, really.


0

Any person that makes the initial BAD decision to get behind the wheel after drinking any amount of alcohol will not be altered by reducing the “legal” limit. Personal accountability and responsibility is at the core of this issue. IMO, proposing tougher consequences for driving under the influence might be a better approach.


0

Revenue enhancer:–(


0

This borders on ridiculous. Are the owners of bars or restaurants really going to limit people to just one drink? I think not.


0

Vagabond is right. The relationship between alcohol and accidents is correlational and NOT causal. The truth is that since they began cracking down on drunk driving, the rate of deaths from automobile accidents has not decreased AT ALL! They constantly cite statistics that are between a limited number of years so that they can show progress where there is none.


0

BTW, I am NOT saying that driving drunk is ok or that it does not cause accidents.. What I am saying is that for them to say that one third of all traffic deaths are caused by alcohol is misleading, and manipulating people with bad information is probably the cause of a lot more deaths in this world.


0

In larger cities you can walk back to your place after drinking; problem solved. Move next to a drinking etablismnet or get one closeby in your neighborhood


0

That makes just too much sense. You would think that local governments would be on board with that. Just try to get a license for a neighborhood bar. HAHAHAHA


0

Then they will get you for “public drunkenness.”


0

oh, you are right about that


0

Gee, what are they going to do when the limit is zero and we still have the same amount of accidents?

Just because one third of accidents have a person over .08 driving does not mean that the cause of the accident was because of the alcohol. What causes the other 2/3rds? Maybe we would save way more lives with continuing driver training and testing.


0

Should we require that everyone take driver training classes when they’re drunk???


0

Ha ha, probably not a bad idea. But seriously, where is the outrage and bazillion dollar studies addressing the 2/3rds of traffic fatalities that don’t have ANY alcohol involvement?


0

“Gee, what are they going to do when the limit is zero and we still have the same amount of accidents?” Um, how can you assert that there will be the same number of accidents? And how can also assert that someone who has had an accident, has been determined to have a b/a of .08 or over did not have that accident due to their impairment? Perhaps they had a “second” of distracted driving (fiddling with their radio, looking at a text message, trying to dial their phone, etc.) but due to their impairment of being DUI, they could not handle the distraction and that is why they had their accident.


0

It’s all SPECULATION. There is no more proof that alcohol caused a accident or complete incompetence did. And I will guess that there are far more incompetent drivers than drunk ones, how else do you explain the other 2/3 of fatal accidents? Did their car just magically fail to avoid the situation? Sure, there are incredibly rare situations where mechanical or unavoidable things happen, but for the vast majority, if the person driving was competent and followed traffic rules and had a high degree of skill there would be no accident at all, probably even if they were marginally impaired.


0

Okay, at least you owned up to speculating in your first comment. As for the cause of accidents on the roadway, I am in the camp that believes that there is no such thing as an “accident”; of course there are collisions, which probably 99% of incidents are some form of a collision, but most collisions are able to be determined who caused them (whose fault it was) and most of those can be explained as someone not paying attention to what their 3000 lb. speeding projectile is doing or where it is going. Running a stop sign is not “an accident”, that is someone not paying attention; same thing for running a red light, not yielding to a pedestrian in a cross walk, colliding with another vehicle in another lane on a multi-lane highway/freeway, someone passing out behind the wheel due to medications – all of these possibilities are due to people not paying the attention that is needed to be operating a motorized vehicle on public streets. Even in the instances where you have been collided with by another vehicle that is absolutely no fault of yours, most likely the person that collided with you wasn’t paying attention or was DUI.


0
1 2