lowering the DUI BAC to 0.5
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,410
lowering the DUI BAC to 0.5
Its been in the news for a couple of days about lowering the DUI limits 0.5 BAC. What do you think about this? Will it help lowering drunk driving accidents or will this just be a revenue for the States?.
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 211,439
Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Washington
Posts: 456
I saw that too. I doubt anything will come of it but it would certainly snare many who don't have problem drinking proplems since we all metabolize it differently.
I've never gotten a DUI on the way home from a meeting!
I've never gotten a DUI on the way home from a meeting!
Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 429
I saw that too. Honestly I dont think it would pass. And if it does I really cant see them getting more DWI arrests, most people that get DWI's blow over .10 ( or in my case much more than that)
The bottom line is people need to truly have only a couple or make other arrangements.
The bottom line is people need to truly have only a couple or make other arrangements.
Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,949
Half the cars out there on a late Friday night could blow that. It's for more revenue for sure. Everybody hates a drunk driver. Easy moneymaker for the state. btw it's 0.05 not 0.5. At 0.5 you most likely would be dead
Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Somewhere USA
Posts: 238
Revenue pure and simple. Just like red light camera's. I think it will put a real dent in the bar business too.
When I got my DUI I was well past that so..
the nanny state continues its progress unabated.
When I got my DUI I was well past that so..
the nanny state continues its progress unabated.
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 211,439
We've had .05 in Australia for a while now (over 20 years in most places) so I don't see the fuss.
The rule for provisional drivers (new drivers, or those under 25) here in my state is 0.0: No alcohol when in charge of a motor vehicle.
The rule of thumb for .05 is 2 standard drinks in the first hour and then 1 per hour after that for males, 1 drink an hour for women.
Personally I don't find that unreasonable - for normal drinkers.
D
The rule for provisional drivers (new drivers, or those under 25) here in my state is 0.0: No alcohol when in charge of a motor vehicle.
The rule of thumb for .05 is 2 standard drinks in the first hour and then 1 per hour after that for males, 1 drink an hour for women.
Personally I don't find that unreasonable - for normal drinkers.
D
Last edited by Dee74; 05-15-2013 at 03:49 AM.
Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: CAPE COD, MA
Posts: 1,020
Originally Posted by Dee74 
We've had .05 in Australia for a while now (over 20 years in most places) so I don't see the fuss.
The rule for provisional drivers (new drivers, or those under 25) here in my state is 0.0: No alcohol when in charge of a motor vehicle.
The rule of thumb for .05 is 2 standard drinks in the first hour and then 1 per hour after that for males, 1 drink an hour for women.
Personally I don't find that unreasonable - for normal drinkers.
D
The rule for provisional drivers (new drivers, or those under 25) here in my state is 0.0: No alcohol when in charge of a motor vehicle.
The rule of thumb for .05 is 2 standard drinks in the first hour and then 1 per hour after that for males, 1 drink an hour for women.
Personally I don't find that unreasonable - for normal drinkers.
D
Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,949
Originally Posted by Dee74
We've had .05 in Australia for a while now (over 20 years in most places) so I don't see the fuss.
The rule for provisional drivers (new drivers, or those under 25) here in my state is 0.0: No alcohol when in charge of a motor vehicle.
The rule of thumb for .05 is 2 standard drinks in the first hour and then 1 per hour after that for males, 1 drink an hour for women.
Personally I don't find that unreasonable - for normal drinkers.
D
The rule for provisional drivers (new drivers, or those under 25) here in my state is 0.0: No alcohol when in charge of a motor vehicle.
The rule of thumb for .05 is 2 standard drinks in the first hour and then 1 per hour after that for males, 1 drink an hour for women.
Personally I don't find that unreasonable - for normal drinkers.
D
This new standard will kill the bar/restaurant business in suburbs and and rural areas. This is already a very tough business to make it in. In the US the public transportation is very poor and scattered outside the big cities. I don't see people renting an expensive cab ride every time they want to go out for a couple drinks to the local pub. Some places don't even have cab services. The police are going to have to entrap drivers to catch them drunk driving at those bac levels. That means more checkpoints, police spies in bars, and police camping out next to bars cherry picking some poor guy that only had 2 beers. I'm all for safer roads but if they are going to make it 0.05 they might as well make it 0.00 to make for the safest roads possible.
former walking pharmacy
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Watertown, CT
Posts: 146
As mentioned before, a huge confound in this is the massive difference people have with regard to alcohol tolerance.
Someone with a .05 BAC and low tolerance could most certainly be unfit to drive, whereas someone with a higher tolerance might be acting completely 'sober' at a .1 BAC. (DRINKING AND DRIVING IS BAD REGARDLESS)
Sadly, I don't see this being something explicilty made to keep roads safer. Just another way to bring in more cash. Yay!!!
Someone with a .05 BAC and low tolerance could most certainly be unfit to drive, whereas someone with a higher tolerance might be acting completely 'sober' at a .1 BAC. (DRINKING AND DRIVING IS BAD REGARDLESS)
Sadly, I don't see this being something explicilty made to keep roads safer. Just another way to bring in more cash. Yay!!!
Forum Leader
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 16,945
Saying this will "kill the bar indsutry" is total folly. We of all people here at SR should know that the urge to drink in a problem drinker or active alcoholic pays no heed to any laws or other life concerns. We will drink...period.
Having said that, I think the people driving around at .10 plus are a much worse problem. How about enforcing existing laws rather than creating more unenforceable ones? Every monday our local news has a laundry list of DUI arrests over the weekend, many of them multiple arrests. And the majority of them have BAC's of well over .10 - many over .20.
Having said that, I think the people driving around at .10 plus are a much worse problem. How about enforcing existing laws rather than creating more unenforceable ones? Every monday our local news has a laundry list of DUI arrests over the weekend, many of them multiple arrests. And the majority of them have BAC's of well over .10 - many over .20.
Sober since 10th April 2012
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,047
Interesting topic. I wonder whether the statistics are there for before and after in Australia seeing it was introduced a long time ago?
I think you're right about it harming outlets serving alcohol in rural areas. It depends what price you put on road carnage. Most people here are very careful about their drinking if they have to drive, because it doesn't take much to put you over the limit if you're a woman. But people organise designated drivers etc when they go out.
I think you're right about it harming outlets serving alcohol in rural areas. It depends what price you put on road carnage. Most people here are very careful about their drinking if they have to drive, because it doesn't take much to put you over the limit if you're a woman. But people organise designated drivers etc when they go out.
Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 342
This post is not meant to offend - just extrapolating on a topic I find interesting and relevant, having travelled in the USA. There are a couple of differences in our respective policing of drink driving.
The main difference is in Aus police can perform a random breath test (and a random drug test). They can basically pull up any motorist they please and subject them to a roadside test. If you don't like it then you don't drive a motor vehicle on a public street.
Once you go over 0.05 you are charged with exceed the prescribed alcohol limit for a driver of a motor vehicle.
It is not permissible in the USA to perform RBT's. It would fly in the face of their constitutional rights (This may vary state to state I am unsure) Therefore, in the USA you require probable cause to suspect the driver of a motor vehicle is driving under the influence of alcohol ie. swerving and headlights out followed by slurred speech etc... before you can pull them up.
The point about blood alcohol content affecting people differently is correct, that is why DUI is a separate charge in Aus and relates to manner of driving due to impairment by alcohol.
Basically the driver of a motor vehicle in Aus does not need to exceed the legal limit of 0.05 to be charged DUI. I know people have come in at 0.04 BAC and still been charged DUI due to erratic manner of driving with no other obvious impairment being responsible.
From a legal perspective you could be charged DUI at 0.02 although it would be rare and dependent on other circumstances.
I know a lot of people baulk at this type of law enforcement power and consider it "Nanny State". I understand both arguments for and against.
From a lot of the posts I am getting that people don't see driving at 0.05 as being as serious as driving at higher level, say 0.15. and it is just revenue raising. I must say that personally I disagree and any alcohol has the ability to slow reflexes and affect judgement. Just my 0.02 cents
Feeling great, your question about the statistics I don't have a link handy but there is a big decrease in fatalities from when the legal alcohol limit was lowered early from 0.08 to 0.05 and RBT's were introduced. It was around the time legislative requirements were introduced to wear seat belts as well which may skew the stats somewhat. It is also hard to compare to nowadays with increased traffic flows and increased safety features ie. airbags and traction control better roads etc. You know what they say about statistics.
Once we have the cars they continually promise that can drive themselves we wont have to worry about road safety and the police can retire, roll on Nirvana.
The main difference is in Aus police can perform a random breath test (and a random drug test). They can basically pull up any motorist they please and subject them to a roadside test. If you don't like it then you don't drive a motor vehicle on a public street.
Once you go over 0.05 you are charged with exceed the prescribed alcohol limit for a driver of a motor vehicle.
It is not permissible in the USA to perform RBT's. It would fly in the face of their constitutional rights (This may vary state to state I am unsure) Therefore, in the USA you require probable cause to suspect the driver of a motor vehicle is driving under the influence of alcohol ie. swerving and headlights out followed by slurred speech etc... before you can pull them up.
The point about blood alcohol content affecting people differently is correct, that is why DUI is a separate charge in Aus and relates to manner of driving due to impairment by alcohol.
Basically the driver of a motor vehicle in Aus does not need to exceed the legal limit of 0.05 to be charged DUI. I know people have come in at 0.04 BAC and still been charged DUI due to erratic manner of driving with no other obvious impairment being responsible.
From a legal perspective you could be charged DUI at 0.02 although it would be rare and dependent on other circumstances.
I know a lot of people baulk at this type of law enforcement power and consider it "Nanny State". I understand both arguments for and against.
From a lot of the posts I am getting that people don't see driving at 0.05 as being as serious as driving at higher level, say 0.15. and it is just revenue raising. I must say that personally I disagree and any alcohol has the ability to slow reflexes and affect judgement. Just my 0.02 cents
Feeling great, your question about the statistics I don't have a link handy but there is a big decrease in fatalities from when the legal alcohol limit was lowered early from 0.08 to 0.05 and RBT's were introduced. It was around the time legislative requirements were introduced to wear seat belts as well which may skew the stats somewhat. It is also hard to compare to nowadays with increased traffic flows and increased safety features ie. airbags and traction control better roads etc. You know what they say about statistics.
Once we have the cars they continually promise that can drive themselves we wont have to worry about road safety and the police can retire, roll on Nirvana.
Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 342
Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SoCal, California
Posts: 990
This new standard will kill the bar/restaurant business in suburbs and and rural areas.
Will it reduce fatalities? Yes. That's happened every time the limit has been lowered.
The police are going to have to entrap drivers to catch them drunk driving at those bac levels.
Nanny state? Ha! I want this law to protect me from the impaired drivers out there - that's called self protection. Just like we have speed limits and laws against fraud.
Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 47
It's worth mentioning that a fair few local suburban/rural clubs in my area have free courtesy buses for members. I should imagine bars might consider this before calling it quits.. I've never understood the "revenue raising" argument; you don't want to pay, it's pretty simple to avoid.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
