In the 1980s and '90s, a push to lower the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit for getting behind the wheel took the country by storm. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) was formed in 1980, and in 2000, President Bill Clinton signed into law the nationwide .08 BAC limit—conditioning the provision of federal highway funds on state compliance with the new limit.
Drunk driving rates are far lower today than several decades ago—falling by around half since the early 1980s, according to the National Institutes of Health. Even so, controversy over the legal limit has found renewed life, with a campaign to push for even further reductions in the permissible BAC level for driving.
Not with the Haitians driving around now. For values of driving.
ReplyDeleteIf you can't enforce compliance 100% then compliance is voluntary. In the case of DUI, well, can you say impaired judgement?
This is a case of the "WHO" playing Simon Says, and looking to see who will fall in line... ...FUCK the WHO...
ReplyDeleteBackdoor prohibition. That's what we get for allowing a nation of Karens to drive legislation.
ReplyDeleteThe current system is a one size fits none approach . Some folks handle the booze better than others. I've met people who appeared cold sober but had a BAC that would leave me unable to crawl.
ReplyDeleteThe tests need to be based on the person's ability to respond at the level of intoxication. Frankly it should go back up to .012 for now.
Fuck Joe Biden!
DeleteStunning.
DeleteBrave.
It will do nothing to lower DUI deaths, but it will do wonders for improving the income of lawyers, judges, and the po-po who stand to benefit from all the extra fines they'll be collecting. And like the article stated, the majority of DUI crash fatalities come from people who are already well over the legal limit and often are repeat offenders. Just follow the money cause this hasn't got anything to do with safety.
ReplyDeleteWinner winner chicken dinner!!!
DeleteStrictly a revenue-enhancing move. Bonus points for it being in an election year.
Delete"... poor and blacks most affected."
amen
Deleteyeah it will be a revenue raiser. which is what traffic stops are mostly about.
DeleteYou are over the target, this is nothing more than a revenue generation scheme
DeletePeople with an 'agenda' are bored.
ReplyDeleteNo, it won't. But it will increase the number of fucking random stops 'because you were driving like you were intoxicated.' I wish I had a copy of the Road&Track from the 1980s/1990's where they ran an experiment in a parking lot with their writers. A cone road course and alcohol. Most of their writers got worse as the bottle when on, but one of them actually got better. Pity no one can afford to do an actual medically precise study to show that no two people's alcohol consumption vs imparement are the same.
ReplyDeleteKinda like Venus Flytrap on WKRP, huh?
DeleteI believe it was Johnny Fever who was getting more sober the more he drank.
DeleteHiker Mike
Yup, it was. My bad.
DeleteNobody under 40 knows what WKRP is or where my pit Zsa Zsa got her name.
DeleteU of Saigon, that's a real shame, because they missed out on two of the funniest lines in TV history:
Delete"As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly"
And
"Chy-Chy ROD dri gweeze."
DUI arrests have little to do with drunk driving. It is a tremendous money maker for counties, judges and lawyers.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget to include the insurance companies with their added surcharges.
DeleteI remember reading years ago that in the vast majority of accidents caused by alcohol, the drivers had BACs of something like 1.5 or above.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is, who's going to vote against lowering the limit without being vilified and losing votes. I think people texting and driving should get the same penalty as someone blowing a .08. They prolly cause more accidents.
Well the Dem Congresscritters seem to manage to vote en-block against good and needful legislation, (Voter integrity laws, force deportation of criminal illegals, etc.) without much penalty...
DeleteTexting while driving is even worse, most people don't drink and drive with their kids in the car. But ever Karen in the country is texting with her kids in the car.
DeleteDrunks
ReplyDeleteI live in an area where 50% of the people don't wear seatbelts and constantly do 20+ over on 35mph roads even though both are mandatory. So what makes anyone think the boozers are going to worry about a lower blood-alcohol content law?
ReplyDeleteFor aviators, the BAC is half of the most restrictive for auto drivers. Still, even with probable long term loss of employment as a penalty, there are pilots who fly while inebriated.
DeleteIt's a human thing. People playing the odds that they won't get caught.
The state isn't as serious as they should be.
12 hours bottle to throttle!
DeleteDrunks, like mass shooters, don't pay attention what's legal.
ReplyDeleteFedpost much?
DeleteFencepost much?
Delete“I’m going to get drunk and do 110 in a school zone right now…”
DeleteThis is an example of a FLEA post. When you made the evening news, they’d say your three bottles was a liquor store and you had a 200 count shot glass collection.
VC
I think the bac level is too low now. They ought to up it. Drink two beers in an hour and if stopped you ass is grass. I think that's bullshit and I don't even drink.
ReplyDeleteMADD is BADD. Despicable meddlesome cackling witches. And ditto my other brother Anonymous comment "DUI arrests... money maker for counties, judges, and lawyers." Money money money is the name of the game for the courthouse clique. Might as well lower the standard to minus -5.00 and imagine how much money you'll get then. And seat belts should be a matter between me and my insurance company's actuaries. Click It or Ticket? Hell no; you can Stick It.
ReplyDeleteMADD is like unions. Both were needed at one point in history. Both have outlived their value.
DeleteMADD is a modern day temperance movement. Period.
Deletedhmosquito--
DeleteTemperance Ladies: "Lips that touch liquor shall not touch ours."
Me: (Checks photo) "Deal."
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.D-3fUHTnFYCfBRcG4J9F4wHaHa%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=4b15535a9fff09cb569d4ae146e7cc3af3adf2d271d9dfaab9ad4cb3a0fa3b3a&ipo=images
We need to have a strict Zero Tolerance for any alcohol in the system or require the government to actually prove impairment. And playing Simon Says on the side of the road is not proof. The way the law is written now a person has no clue if they are breaking it or not.
ReplyDeleteI've been hit twice by drunk drivers. Totaled cars both times. Both times I sustained injuries. Once cost me over 2 months of work due to my injuries. Two Drs said I had the worst whiplash they'd seen in 30 yrs of practice. Decades later I still feel it. I have to be careful how I turn my head. I used to black out if I turned my head just so.
ReplyDeleteOne drunk was a highway patrolman fired that day for continued alcoholism. He pulled his service pistol on me went I went to see if he's okay. His employer had coddled him until they couldn't any longer. It turned out he had wrecked a patrol cruiser and caused an accident before mine, because of being drunk.
My sister has had multiple surgeries because of being hit be a drunk. Her back is fused in several places. She is unemployable since then and is on strong medication for the rest of her life. Yes, she has implants for pain management.
A local judge had seven DUIs dismissed. Then in broad daylight while drunk driving he hit a young girl riding her bicycle. She died. His defense was he had blacked out therefore was not in control of his vehicle. He remained on the bench. No time served.
I say, first offense, cut off an important body part. 2nd offense, a .22 behind the ear. If injury or death occurs, 1st offense is death sentence.
I understand that some people have difficulty in acting responsible. They should at least know not to drive if drinking.
Rather than the state stepping in to pretend to enforce responsibility, I say ea more serious approach is necessary Every qualified* citizen is hereby empowered to carry out justice before the fact. You see a drinker getting behind the wheel? Go ahead, administer justice.
* Qualified by the same standards currently in place for owning a firearm.
Yeah, I know, anecdotal. A real sob story. But if ever again I come across a drunk driver, it will be his last breath.
Kenny, I know you moderate and delete some of my comments. I don't complain about that. I do prefer you let this one slide
Um, I'm pretty sure I haven't had a problems with your past comments.
DeleteRick, really sorry to hear how your family has suffered such a rash of accidents. Don't have much support to give for officials who get a free pass after breaking the law, either.
DeleteBut to keep this relevant to the story, and discussion, do you know the BAC of the DUIs that your family had accidents with? Because if they were over .08, the current limit, your experience supports NOT lowering the BAC to .05.
As for the judge, was he/she in any accidents or just caught under the influence?
The facts matter and are necessary to make a valid assessment. Whether they support anyone's personal agenda or not.
Oh, okay. Maybe it's blogger or goggle.
DeleteAnyway, keep up the good work, Kenny. Thanks
Frank, if I did know their BAC I have forgotten it.
DeleteThe judge had caused two multi vehicle accidents. At least twice he was found slumped behind the wheel with motor running. One of those times, his car run up over a curb. The only injury he caused was the one fatal to the girl.
My point is that govt using BAC as basis of enforcement is stupid. It allows technicalities in the penalty phase. Plus allows judgement calls in the field.
To your argument of fact based, the irony is using BAC circumvents facts in that it tries to quantify behavior.
A crass analogy would be the rapist was only part way in so on the sliding scale he's only a little bit guilty.
Drinking and driving should be yes or now, did or didn't. Not, well only a little bit.
Doesn’t matter. It’s a simple money maker for the road pirates. End stop.
ReplyDeleteCIII
meanwhile they let murders go because sanctuary city. it was never about safety
ReplyDeleteUsing law enforcement for revenue generation creates an unjust tax. One that should be dumped into the harbor.
DeleteNot paying attention (cell phone) has killed as many people as anything.
ReplyDeleteMy best friend’s daughter got her BFF killed by gabbing with the other 3 girls in her car. Ran a red light, didn’t even see it.
Being buzzed makes it harder to pay attention.
In my state, 1st DUI costs a MINIMUM of $8000, 10 days in jail and an Ignition Interlock Device for a year($$). That dollar amount? That’s only if the judge loves you.
Under 21? Anything over 0.00 is an automatic DUI.
The penalties only get worse with 0.15 and over.
If you get a 3rd DUI within 7 years of the 1st one, mandatory prison time!
If you’re an alky, live In Wisconsin. Their laws are gentle in comparison to AZ.
Sorry Kenny, forgot to add that the fines and fees in AZ are worth 80 - $100 cab rides and you still have lawyer fees on top of that.
ReplyDeleteIt. Ain’t. Worth. It.
meanwhile, many states keep wanting to legalize pot. a high driver is also an impaired driver.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, fuck the WHO.
ReplyDeleteFTA: From 2016-2018, there were an average of just over 33 drunk driving deaths per year in the Beehive State, including a particularly deadly 2018, which saw 48 deaths alone. In 2019, the first year of the .05 law, deaths plummeted to 27 and the law was heralded as a massive success.. This is statistic bullshit as they cannot measure the same results using different humans. In other words, they would have to duplicate the research by reusing the same original drivers to get actual results.
And lastly: fuck the WHO.
Yes, fuck the WHO. They need to be defunded of their US contributions, and then told to relocate all of their US offices to some other country.
ReplyDeleteThis incrementalism is just another form of slow boiling the frogs. The legal BAC limit should be put back up to 0.10.
When so many of our DUI and fatal vehicular accidents are being caused by illegals, how about we just put a bullet in the back of the illegals that are caught violating traffic laws and leave them to rot alongside the road. Bet that will lower the accident rates.
In Arizona, the law reads "impaired to the slightest degree", and if the cop says you were impaired, you are found guilty/responsible.
ReplyDeleteTom762
I read an interview with the top officer of my state who said "at .08" these people aren't even on our radar. We don't notice them. They aren't on our radar. They can drive just fine.
ReplyDelete