Feds recommend lower DWI limit

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

"A federal panel on Tuesday recommended that states reduce the
allowable blood-alcohol concentration to 0.05 percent, down from 0.08
percent. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/us/legal-limit-drunken-driving-safety-board.html?hp


I don't drink, but is this going too far?

[Larry Sheldon]

I do. And no.


--
Idioten aangeboden. Gratis af te halen.
h/t Dagelijkse Standaard

[jgar the jorrible]

On May 14, 11:33 am, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> "A federal panel on Tuesday recommended that states reduce the
> allowable blood-alcohol concentration to 0.05 percent, down from 0.08
> percent. "
>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/us/legal-limit-drunken-driving-safe...

>
> I don't drink, but is this going too far?

The problem with lower level concentrations of alcohol lies both with
it's paradoxical effect and the relatively greater effect of
variability.

Alcohol is a depressant, the paradoxical effect comes with its initial
depressing of inhibitions. The variability refers to both the
different metabolism between individuals, and within a given
individual.

So you have a range from the petite mom who has a couple of wine
coolers before mother's day dinner, takes off her clothes and drives
the Subaru into a police car, to the big fat habitual drunk who has a
sixer and shows no noticeable effect at all one day, then catches
cold, takes an over-the-counter remedy and drives the minivan full of
kids into oncoming traffic on the expressway.

This converts what could be a good idea into a bridge abutment too
far. Police claim to be able to spot drunks, but like most self-
evaluation, is complete bullshit. All of a sudden someone bending
over to retrieve a dropped phone is too distracted to drive, just like
they are drunk. You can't make stupidity illegal, so you blow off
rights to work around that limitation. When it gets to the courtroom,
blap blap, guilty.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/lindsay-lohan-car-accident

[Andrew M. Saucci, Jr.]

This comes from the school of "if a little of something is good, a
lot is better." If this federal panel were cooking, its food would reek of
garlic, cinnamon, pepper, and whatever other otherwise useful condiments one
can find in a kitchen pantry to the point at which it would be inedible. But
anyone who opposes this will be "pro-drunk driver." The arguments will be
strictly emotional and not reasonable.

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:e9de4d1d-d956-4aea...@e9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...

[Harry K]

On May 14, 6:43 pm, "Andrew M. Saucci, Jr." <spam-o...@saucci.local>
wrote:

>         This comes from the school of "if a little of something is good, a
> lot is better." If this federal panel were cooking, its food would reek of
> garlic, cinnamon, pepper, and whatever other otherwise useful condiments one
> can find in a kitchen pantry to the point at which it would be inedible. But
> anyone who opposes this will be "pro-drunk driver." The arguments will be
> strictly emotional and not reasonable.
>

> <hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message

>
> news:e9de4d1d-d956-4aea...@e9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > "A federal panel on Tuesday recommended that states reduce the
> > allowable blood-alcohol concentration to 0.05 percent, down from 0.08
> > percent. "
>

> >http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/us/legal-limit-drunken-driving-safe...

>
> > I don't drink, but is this going too far?

And they will all be the same old, same old ones recycled from when
they dropped it to .08.
No more valid now than they were then.

Harry K

[H.B. Elkins]

In article <avfhqi...@mid.individual.net>, Larry Sheldon says...

>
>On 5/14/2013 1:33 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> "A federal panel on Tuesday recommended that states reduce the
>> allowable blood-alcohol concentration to 0.05 percent, down from 0.08
>> percent. "
>>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/us/legal-limit-drunken-driving-safety-board.html?hp
>>
>>
>> I don't drink, but is this going too far?
>
>I do. And no.

I don't oppose a lowering of the DUI threshold, but I do oppose the feds pushing
it on the states. It will start out as a suggestion, but it will eventually
become a mandate. I think states should be free to set the BAC level as they see
fit. Some may prefer to keep it at .08 or even raise it back to where it used to
be at .10, and some may prefer to lower it to .05 or even lower.

It should be a state decision.

So long 10th Amendment, it was nice knowing you.


--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictorplate"

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 15, 11:57 am, H.B. Elkins <hbek...@gmail.com.restrictorplate>
wrote:

> It should be a state decision.
>
> So long 10th Amendment, it was nice knowing you.

The 21st Amendment is quite explicit that alcohol regulation is a
state responsibility.

In theory, the Feds have no authority in alcohol regulation. But the
Feds hold the purse strings and simply withhold road funds from states
that fail to comply.

I wonder if we should get rid of the Federal gasoline tax and trust
fund and let the states build and maintain Interstates themselves at
their own discretion.

[Arif Khokar]

Why bother with criminalizing a specific DUI level. I don't care
whether someone crashes because they're drunk, or because they're
senile. The punishment should be the same for both.

[Sancho Panza]

The difference might be the actions or inactions of the individual.

[Arif Khokar]

But the end result, if anything happens, is the same. Whether the
head-on crash is due to the driver being drunk, falling asleep at the
wheel, or paying attention to some gadget in the vehicle instead of the
road is immaterial to the end result. Why should the punishment for the
result be any different because of the cause? Why should there be any
punishment for something that doesn't result in anything happening?

[Sancho Panza]

One big reason is because MADD is virtually an indomitable lobby. And no
legislators, including the young ones, really want to vote against their
elders.

[gpsman]

On May 16, 3:27 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
> Why should the punishment for the
> result be any different because of the cause?

Because there are degrees of negligence.

> Why should there be any
> punishment for something that doesn't result in anything happening?

Really. We should be allowed to drive on sidewalks as long as we miss
pedestrians.
-----

- gpsman

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 16, 3:27 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:

>  Why should the punishment for the
> result be any different because of the cause?  Why should there be any
> punishment for something that doesn't result in anything happening?

So anyone caught driving without a license but not hurting anything
should not be punished? (Including kids too young to drive or
violating their Cinderella license?)

[Arif Khokar]

On 5/16/2013 9:28 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On May 16, 3:27 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Why should the punishment for the
>> result be any different because of the cause? Why should there be any
>> punishment for something that doesn't result in anything happening?
>
> So anyone caught driving without a license but not hurting anything
> should not be punished?

Why should one be punished for not hurting anything? Is the percentage
of the population that will only do things that are potentially
dangerous unless there are pre-existing laws against those behaviors
substantially above zero?

[Arif Khokar]

On 5/16/2013 9:19 PM, gpsman wrote:
> On May 16, 3:27 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Why should the punishment for the
>> result be any different because of the cause?
>
> Because there are degrees of negligence.

That doesn't mitigate the harm the victim suffers as a result. If he
lost a child as a result of the crash, does it make a difference whether
the other driver was drunk or simply sleepy?

>> Why should there be any
>> punishment for something that doesn't result in anything happening?
>
> Really. We should be allowed to drive on sidewalks as long as we miss
> pedestrians.

Are people not driving on sidewalks simply because it's illegal to do
so? I wouldn't start driving on them even if it wasn't illegal. I
suspect the vast majority of drivers would do the same. Are you any
different in that regard?

[gpsman]

On May 16, 11:37 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
> On 5/16/2013 9:19 PM, gpsman wrote:
>
> > On May 16, 3:27 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Why should the punishment for the
> >> result be any different because of the cause?
>
> > Because there are degrees of negligence.
>
> That doesn't mitigate the harm the victim suffers as a result.  If he
> lost a child as a result of the crash, does it make a difference whether
> the other driver was drunk or simply sleepy?

False dilemma.

> >>   Why should there be any
> >> punishment for something that doesn't result in anything happening?
>
> > Really.  We should be allowed to drive on sidewalks as long as we miss
> > pedestrians.
>
> Are people not driving on sidewalks simply because it's illegal to do
> so?  I wouldn't start driving on them even if it wasn't illegal.  I
> suspect the vast majority of drivers would do the same.

Were it not prohibited you suspect the vast majority of motorists
would not avail themselves of the sidewalk to make a RTOR when waiting
behind a motorist going straight...?

This really seems more like a discussion you should have with your
parents or one of your 5th grade teachers.
-----

- gpsman

[jgar the jorrible]

On May 16, 8:37 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
> On 5/16/2013 9:19 PM, gpsman wrote:
>
> > On May 16, 3:27 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Why should the punishment for the
> >> result be any different because of the cause?
>
> > Because there are degrees of negligence.
>
> That doesn't mitigate the harm the victim suffers as a result.  If he
> lost a child as a result of the crash, does it make a difference whether
> the other driver was drunk or simply sleepy?

Saying there should necessarily be damage for criminal behavior is
wrong. That may be perfectly fine for civil punishment, but the idea
here is to prevent really stupid stuff from hurting people and
property. The problem then becomes where to draw the line. We'd all
like to think a civilized society should have norms of behavior, but
really, get a clue from the internet how people behave when
unconstrained.

>
> >>   Why should there be any
> >> punishment for something that doesn't result in anything happening?
>
> > Really.  We should be allowed to drive on sidewalks as long as we miss
> > pedestrians.
>
> Are people not driving on sidewalks simply because it's illegal to do
> so?  I wouldn't start driving on them even if it wasn't illegal.  I
> suspect the vast majority of drivers would do the same.  Are you any
> different in that regard?

You might try driving in certain European cities sometime. (20
seconds of googling: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-V5y5AVdWks4/Tbci62Hc-OI/AAAAAAAAAPA/uglR77G6gO8/s1600/IMG_1800.JPG
http://cdn4.vtourist.com/4/3829574-Parking_manners_in_the_street_on_the_sidewalk_Bucharest.jpg
)

If you have difficulty imagining it, think about how many bicycles
you've seen running stop signs/red lights, riding on sidewalks, riding
on the wrong side of the road, and just generally considering
themselves not vehicles. If you haven't seen that, please give up
your license and stop driving, you are a danger to yourself and
others.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.

http://www.cbs8.com/story/22272228/authorities-on-scene-of-fatal-crash-in-rancho-penasquitos

[Arif Khokar]

On 5/17/2013 9:36 AM, gpsman wrote:
> On May 16, 11:37 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:

>>>> Why should the punishment for the
>>>> result be any different because of the cause?
>>
>>> Because there are degrees of negligence.
>>
>> That doesn't mitigate the harm the victim suffers as a result. If he
>> lost a child as a result of the crash, does it make a difference whether
>> the other driver was drunk or simply sleepy?
>
> False dilemma.

Both examples of impairment can result in a crash. How is that a false
dilemma? Are you suggesting that a driver who is sleepy will inherently
be involved in a less severe crash as opposed to a driver that's drunk?

>> Are people not driving on sidewalks simply because it's illegal to do
>> so? I wouldn't start driving on them even if it wasn't illegal. I
>> suspect the vast majority of drivers would do the same.
>
> Were it not prohibited you suspect the vast majority of motorists
> would not avail themselves of the sidewalk to make a RTOR when waiting
> behind a motorist going straight...?

Yes.

[Arif Khokar]

On 5/17/2013 12:10 PM, jgar the jorrible wrote:
> On May 16, 8:37 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>> On 5/16/2013 9:19 PM, gpsman wrote:
>>
>>> On May 16, 3:27 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> Why should the punishment for the
>>>> result be any different because of the cause?
>>
>>> Because there are degrees of negligence.
>>
>> That doesn't mitigate the harm the victim suffers as a result. If he
>> lost a child as a result of the crash, does it make a difference whether
>> the other driver was drunk or simply sleepy?
>
> Saying there should necessarily be damage for criminal behavior is
> wrong. That may be perfectly fine for civil punishment, but the idea
> here is to prevent really stupid stuff from hurting people and
> property. The problem then becomes where to draw the line. We'd all
> like to think a civilized society should have norms of behavior, but
> really, get a clue from the internet how people behave when
> unconstrained.

What I was trying to get at was that just because there is a law on the
books doesn't mean that societal norms will drastically change. For
example, if a law requiring seat belts was repealed, the percentage of
people who use seat belts won't substantially change.

>> Are people not driving on sidewalks simply because it's illegal to do
>> so? I wouldn't start driving on them even if it wasn't illegal. I
>> suspect the vast majority of drivers would do the same. Are you any
>> different in that regard?
>
> You might try driving in certain European cities sometime. (20
> seconds of googling: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-V5y5AVdWks4/Tbci62Hc-OI/AAAAAAAAAPA/uglR77G6gO8/s1600/IMG_1800.JPG
> http://cdn4.vtourist.com/4/3829574-Parking_manners_in_the_street_on_the_sidewalk_Bucharest.jpg
> )

Do those European cities (or countries) lack such laws?

> If you have difficulty imagining it, think about how many bicycles
> you've seen running stop signs/red lights,

I've seen many cars running stop signs as well and occasionally one
running a red light. IMO, most stop signs are completely unnecessary
and many drivers and cyclists come to the same conclusion. As for red
lights, sometimes cyclists cannot trigger the light and have no choice
but to run it. In fact, such behavior is actually legal in VA (after a
2 minute period).

> riding on sidewalks, riding
> on the wrong side of the road, and just generally considering
> themselves not vehicles.

Which goes to show that having such laws on the books really doesn't
stop people from engaging in such behaviors (and essentially refutes
your assertion). I find such cyclists annoying as well, but if they
don't directly affect me in some way, why should I be concerned about it?

[Epstein's Mother]

When the State has to legislate good behaviour, you've already lost.

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

Whether by ordinance or "gentleman's agreement" or good marketing, virtually all bars in San Luis Obispo had alcohol testers back in the late 1980s. I remember getting pretty inappropriate and blowing a 0.055%. I did not think of myself as impaired, but I was certainly loose with my judgement.

The trick is that there is too much variability at the lower ends of the scale. The FAA prohibits private pilots from flying with more than 0.04%, The idea is that, at that level and below, any effects are fairly minor on most people. Establishing a 0.05% limit is, in effect, adopting "zero tolerance as far as we can detect without making you have to take a blood test for no reason". I'm not sure that we are ready to go that far.

I might be willing to allow citing for 0.05% and above after a mandatory test in case of a collision (which I *WOULD* support). But, not on an erratic driving stop or sobriety checkpoint. A 0.05% "per se" limit would give cops too much leeway just to stop everyone who touches the lane markers due to road crown or loose steering.