New York lawmakers want to lower the threshold for driving while intoxicated from 0.08 blood alcohol content to 0.05 — arguing the move would save lives and reduce drunken driving crashes in the state.
This is not making society untenable. Personally I support either going 0 tolerance for BAC, over the small amount that occurs naturally, or repealing Drunk Driving laws altogether and forcing people to be responsible for any harm they cause while driving drunk. Death penalty responsible.
This list comes from a Breathalyzer company: "There are countries with a zero-tolerance policy and as such, it’s illegal to have any alcohol in the blood while driving in these countries. Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, and Romania, are just a few countries with this limit.
At the 0.02% BAC limit, you’ll find China, Estonia, Poland, Sweden and others, and countries with the 0.03% BAC limit include Serbia, Japan, and Uruguay.
A .05% BAC legal limit is the most common and found in most Western European countries among others. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Taiwan, Turkey, and others all have this legal limit. "
Oh fuck you! The VAST majority of drunk driving accidents happen at much higher levels than .08%.
Are you worried about the touch screens that make you go through menus to do basic shit while driving? Want to change the temperature? Lemme look at my screen for 10 seconds. How many accidents does that cause? What about phones? How many accindents are caused from texting, talking, Wazing, etc...
I guarantee you that I can drive better at .08% than most people on the road and just because a bunch of left-wing, backwards countries do it, is no reason to want to jump on board.
Everybody needs to be responsible, but this is bullshit!
Naturally, I don't think this will be effective in any way. The people whose Blood Alcohol Content falls between .08 and .05 cannot not make up any statistically relevant percentage of alcohol-related traffic accidents. The people who are driving drunk enough to cause accidents don't give a damn what the legal limit is and this change will have no impact on their behavior - except perhaps for a few people who might have stopped after two drinks to stay under the limit now now don't bother to count their drinks because after one drink you are over the limit and thus no more legally guilty for six drinks than for one.
0.05 is the same level the Euroweenies have been mandating for decades. Pubs in Ireland are suffering since one pint of Guinness will put you over the top.
A while back, I saw that Mothers Against Drunk Driving did not support lowering the blood alcohol threshold because it wouldn't change anybody's behavior. Their position was that stronger enforcement of existing law would be much more effective at stopping drunk driving.
Money. More drunk driving tickets and arrests with tens of thousands of dollars each time. For no discernible improvement in the rate of drunk driving accidents. Inevitably, when you read of some horrible crash, the drunk is blowing 0.20 or worse, completely blitzed out of his skull. Don't even bother asking immigration status. Changing the law will not have any effect on those drunk drivers. Nope. Just the average man, taking his family out for dinner and having 2 beers. Not even a buzz, but will blow 0.05 on the way home at some mandatory stop and check point.
They're just applying logic similar to that of tobacco. Ad campaigns reminding us about its ills, yet it remains legal so they can tax the shit out of it. Gotta love that tax revenue.
I'm for putting it back up to 0.15. Crank the penalties up if you must, but I don't see how lowering the limit further does anything except increase revenue from tickets. We legalize marijuana, decriminalize hard drugs, and yet then do stupid shit like this? Society is a moron.
Saving one life by making society untenable is the goal. Now we can see why we keep finding
ReplyDeleteancient complexes of former cities that were abandoned.
This is not making society untenable. Personally I support either going 0 tolerance for BAC, over the small amount that occurs naturally, or repealing Drunk Driving laws altogether and forcing people to be responsible for any harm they cause while driving drunk. Death penalty responsible.
DeleteThis list comes from a Breathalyzer company:
"There are countries with a zero-tolerance policy and as such, it’s illegal to have any alcohol in the blood while driving in these countries. Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, and Romania, are just a few countries with this limit.
At the 0.02% BAC limit, you’ll find China, Estonia, Poland, Sweden and others, and countries with the 0.03% BAC limit include Serbia, Japan, and Uruguay.
A .05% BAC legal limit is the most common and found in most Western European countries among others. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Taiwan, Turkey, and others all have this legal limit. "
Oh fuck you! The VAST majority of drunk driving accidents happen at much higher levels than .08%.
DeleteAre you worried about the touch screens that make you go through menus to do basic shit while driving? Want to change the temperature? Lemme look at my screen for 10 seconds. How many accidents does that cause? What about phones? How many accindents are caused from texting, talking, Wazing, etc...
I guarantee you that I can drive better at .08% than most people on the road and just because a bunch of left-wing, backwards countries do it, is no reason to want to jump on board.
Everybody needs to be responsible, but this is bullshit!
Naturally, I don't think this will be effective in any way. The people whose Blood Alcohol Content falls between .08 and .05 cannot not make up any statistically relevant percentage of alcohol-related traffic accidents. The people who are driving drunk enough to cause accidents don't give a damn what the legal limit is and this change will have no impact on their behavior - except perhaps for a few people who might have stopped after two drinks to stay under the limit now now don't bother to count their drinks because after one drink you are over the limit and thus no more legally guilty for six drinks than for one.
ReplyDelete"Arguing the move would generate more revenue" (more accurate)
ReplyDelete- WDS
I’ve got to get the hell out of New York. Where shall I move?
ReplyDeleteTennessee's pretty awful. Not one decent play unless you go to Pigeon Forge for the Lumberjack Feud.
Delete0.05 is the same level the Euroweenies have been mandating for decades. Pubs in Ireland are suffering since one pint of Guinness will put you over the top.
ReplyDeleteA while back, I saw that Mothers Against Drunk Driving did not support lowering the blood alcohol threshold because it wouldn't change anybody's behavior. Their position was that stronger enforcement of existing law would be much more effective at stopping drunk driving.
ReplyDeleteSo you will be "legally" intoxicated after eating a sandwich...
ReplyDeletestupid
ReplyDeleteThe rich can afford to be chauffeured, unless you are mr. pelosi.
ReplyDeleteOh so they must have rectified all of the other societal ills; so now they can tromp on drunk drivers!
ReplyDeleteMoney. More drunk driving tickets and arrests with tens of thousands of dollars each time. For no discernible improvement in the rate of drunk driving accidents. Inevitably, when you read of some horrible crash, the drunk is blowing 0.20 or worse, completely blitzed out of his skull. Don't even bother asking immigration status. Changing the law will not have any effect on those drunk drivers. Nope. Just the average man, taking his family out for dinner and having 2 beers. Not even a buzz, but will blow 0.05 on the way home at some mandatory stop and check point.
ReplyDeleteAfter chasing taxpayers out of the state, this is simply a revenue generator for the state.
ReplyDeleteIt'd save a fuckton more lives to get rid of cellphones.
ReplyDeleteThe state wants the taxes brought in by alcohol sales. They just don't want anyone to ENJOY drinking.
ReplyDeleteThey're just applying logic similar to that of tobacco. Ad campaigns reminding us about its ills, yet it remains legal so they can tax the shit out of it. Gotta love that tax revenue.
DeleteIt's also punitive against men, who can generally drink more without intoxication.
ReplyDeleteI'm for putting it back up to 0.15. Crank the penalties up if you must, but I don't see how lowering the limit further does anything except increase revenue from tickets. We legalize marijuana, decriminalize hard drugs, and yet then do stupid shit like this? Society is a moron.
ReplyDeleteWhich is what it already is for anyone with a CDL there i believe.
ReplyDeleteThis is another way of taxing the public in nyc. Libturds, what can you do?
ReplyDeleteLeave the city and state.
Heltau
In AZ, if the cop testifies that you were "impaired to the slightest degree", you are convicted.
ReplyDeleteTom762