Drunk driving laws could be changing: The National Transportation Safety Board has recommended that states make it illegal to drive with a blood-alcohol content above .05. Right now the limit is .08.
Because opinions are so polarized on this issue, I’ve been hesitant to wade into this debate. As my fiancé was killed in a head-on collision with a drunk driver in the 70’s, and I once had a job where I had to deal with the immediate results of accidents, I have strong feelings about the matter.
Over 100 countries already have blood alcohol limits of .05 or lower – the USA is lagging behind in updating our laws. Here is a look at BAC limits world-wide:
On the other hand, I can’t help but think about the impact such changes will have on the restaurant and bar industry. Not only would restaurants be affected, but the change would also trickle down to lower wages for restaurant staff – remember that tips are based on the total bill, of which alcohol pays a large part, but also liquor suppliers, as they could potentially have lower sales.
From the National Traffic Safety Board (NTSB) –
Today, investigators cited research that showed that although impairment begins with the first drink, by 0.05 BAC, most drivers experience a decline in both cognitive and visual functions, which significantly increases the risk of a serious crash. Currently, over 100 countries on six continents have BAC limits set at 0.05 or lower. The NTSB has asked all 50 states to do the same.
The research shows that drivers with a 0.05 percent or higher blood alcohol content are at significantly greater risk of being involved in a fatal crash. One study found that crash risk was 38 percent greater at 0.05 than at 0 percent and that when a driver’s blood alcohol content reaches 0.07, crash risk is doubled.
According to alcohol impairment charts, both males and females who weigh 140 to 160 pounds are at .05 after just two drinks – defined as 1.5 oz. of liquor (and most bars pour more than that), 12 oz. of beer or 5 .oz of table wine. True, the BAC goes down as you linger over dinner, but you would still run a significant risk of being over the limit.
You can’t help but think that many restaurant patrons are going to think twice before ordering a full bottle of wine, or even a couple of cocktails.
This potential change doesn’t even address the problem of drivers using electronic mobile devices, which many studies have shown equal or even exceed the risk of driving while intoxicated, though some states are raising the fines substantially – in Alaska, texting while driving could result in a $10,000 fine and a year in prison. Last I heard, a bill in the California legislature would raise penalties to $1,200 for the first infraction.
As you can tell, I have very mixed feelings on this proposal. A change in the BAC will clearly affect the income of many people, but has the potential of lowering needless deaths on our highways. I’m curious to know – what do you think? Feel free to comment below.
Kathy Russo says
As a mother, sister, daughter, friend and the owner of a restaurant and taproom I fully support the new proposed level. We encourage our patrons to dine and if they drink without a designated driver, to cab, walk or take the streetcar. Luckily we are located in a place where there is mass transit options. Please drink responsibly.
Food Dude says
I think this would be an easier pill for many to swallow if Trimet ran later hours.
One Swell Foop says
As someone who used to live in Portland and now lives in a city of similar size but with little public transport (and what it has is badly done and rarely used), and someone that works in a restaurant, I can tell you that:
.08 isn’t drunk
People that are going to drive at .08 or higher are going to drive at .05 or higher
If you want people to not drive, provide alternative transport options at the hours that most people drink and in the hours following, and ensure that there are places to keep their cars where they will not be towed and impounded by the time the person can get back to them.
blackhook says
.05 has *nothing* to do with “drinking responsibly”. It has to do with our federal government spouting off ignorantly, just like it has done for decades with marijuana. It also has to do with shrill neo-prohibitionists who would rather ban alcohol altogether. And importantly, it has nothing to do with impaired driving.
First, the pot parallel… the feds have for years pretended that pot is a “gateway drug” …which is true only if caffeine, wine & beer are gateway drugs. Tens of millions of us – including at least the last six U.S. Presidents – have recreationally enjoyed marijuana, without causing any problems. Federal law classifies marijuana as a Schedule One drug – equivalent to crystal meth, cocaine & heroin. This designation would be laughable if it were not so pathetic. Thanks to this nonsensical posiition, no college student in America believes anything the federal government says about drugs (and compounding the idiocy, the feds separate “alcohol” from “drugs”).
The neo prohibitionists that are pushing for the lower drinking limit – which corresponds to drinking one or two beers – are of the same ilk that, over 90 years ago, bizarrely convinced a majority of states to ban alcohol altogether. These people were largely women who sought an easy way to stop their menfolk from visiting taverns after work, just like today’s absurdly-over-the-top lobbying groups like MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving); SADD (Sisters Against Drunk Driving); DADD (Daddies Against Drunk Driving); BADD (Brothers Against Drunk Driving); and EGADD (Elderly Grandmothers Against Drunk Driving). Alcohol prohibitiion led to everyday citizens thumbing their noses at the federal government, not to mention that it directly enabled the rise of the American mafia.
Today’s neo-prohibitionists offer no link between a .05 blood alcohol level & an impaired level of driving – because there is none. It’s time to rise up against this stupidity, and to better enforce the laws we already have. For example, the guy in Seattle who recently killed two people & seriously injured two others – including a 10-day-old infant – had a blood alcohol level of .22; i.e., he was *blind drunk*. Further, he was driving on a suspended license & had not installed a madated ignition interlock from another recent DUI arrest. If Washington State had better oversight of existing laws, these innocent folks might not have been at risk. Let’d stop pretending that ever-lower BAC limits will accomplish anything, or have any relation to impaired driving.
Andy says
Came here to say this. You beat me to it.
mczlaw says
Same “ilk” as the prohibitionists? Not really. Today’s anti-drunk driving forces are hardly the WCTU…meaning it has little to do with religion or morality. Most could probably care less if you sit home and drink yourself senseless every night. No, it’s folks who can’t get over the hurt of drunk driving’s impact on their lives and the lives of loved ones. Not sure I blame them, even if it does tend to drive (so to speak) a fairly austere agenda.
Say what you will about .05 not equating to impairment (and that’s variable), new lower BAC limits will almost certainly deter more drinking drivers from getting behind the wheel. Many will say that’s a good thing, You would be surprised how many citizens believe one should not drive after consuming any alcohol. The view has merit. If you know your science–and I’ve learned a bit presiding over DUII trials–good driving requires the ability to master multiple tasks simultaneously. Even “a couple of beers” detracts from that mastery. So the policy question is whether the law ought to prohibit driving that presents a low but still measurable level of increased risk–even if there are secondary effects on businesses that serve alcohol and drivers that are not classically “drunk.”
Given all the bad driving one sees every day among sober, but frequently inattentive drivers, and the complexity of navigating roadways shared by motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, there is ample justification for a stricter policy toward drinking and driving. The now customary shrill anti-government bleating doesn’t change that nor does the fact that not every drunk driver is caught. You can’t hire enough police officers to ensure 100% compliance under any standard.
Personally, I have mixed feelings about reducing the standard. But let’s not pretend there is no benefit to be realized from doing so. The question is how it stacks up against the cost. It is not a simple inquiry despite what the prior poster (and industry lobbyists) would have lawmakers and the rest of us believe.
–mcz
Food Dude says
It is interesting to note this statement from Mothers Against Drunk Driving:
blackhook says
mcz, you’ve got to be kidding. The folly of your statement is crystal clear …and yes, it smacks of neo-prohibitionism. You offer nothing to back up your bizarre, empty statements – except the same litany of temperance bs. Our society has come a long way since these narrow minded, ignorant views of the 1920’s, which you have repurposed out of the same agenda.
Food Dude says
“Bizarre, empty statements”? There are plenty of studies out there that show a .05 BAC causes impairment in some people. That being said, I think it is more important that we get people to quit using electronic devices, putting on lipstick, eating etc. I would hazard a guess that more people are doing that, than are driving drunk.
PS. blackhook, I took the liberty of correcting your spelling mistakes. They kind of gutted your credibility.
mczlaw says
Overstatement is no virtue. I have no dog in this fight. They can change the law to .05 or not. There are arguments that go both ways. It’s a policy choice for the political folks to figure out. Not my department.
As far as my “bizarre, empty statements,” I am far more prone to accept as reliable information from credentialed experts in the field of intoxicants and impairment than I am the rantings of an anonymous blog commentator who, apparently, can neither spell nor reason effectively.
–mcz
Sushiqueen says
Our family has also been impacted by drunk driving – when my husband was 5 he lost his father to a drunk driver.
I think the new proposed limit is overkill. I would be curious how many arrests are made today of drivers right at the .08 limit – my guess is that the majority of drunk drivers arrested are well over .10 (as in the example given by blackhook above). That’s not going to change no matter what the limit is.
What makes me nervous is being at that .05 level and being involved in an accident that wasn’t my fault. Suddenly, alcohol would be a factor in that crash where it may not have been considered before.
anon says
I think that money and effort would be better focused on enforcing no-texting laws.
tdown says
Since 1982 alcohol related motor vehicle deaths declined from 26,173 (60% of traffic fatalities), to 9,878 in 2011 (38%) of traffic fatalities. Clearly the laws and education about drunk driving have made an affect on people’s habits. So have safer cars, I’m sure. I really don’t see the need for even harsher sentences and lower limits. 2 drinks and you’re over the limit? I doubt there are stats on it available, but I wonder what the % of traffic accidents involving alcohol involve people with BAL’s of over .15 v under that level. I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of drunk driving related accidents involve people who are totally wasted.
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
Jon LaL:anne says
Yes they will .I saw it happen in Malibu California FIRST HAND.It disintegrated restaurant business. In the 80’s they taxed our tips.The government did not need the money.All they did was WASTE it on social welfare programs that are un-apportioned taxs.The government is in every aspect of our lives.They have no business in our business….. telling us not to hate , who to like, how to behave and how to speak.I’m writing a book about government social engineering that started with the Civil War.Communism has always been funded by the banks and these same banks enslave us to this day.We fought the American Revolution over exorbitant taxes by the bank of England.Well folks the bank of England usury based financing is the model for US banking in 2013.READ THE original CONSTITUTION people.The Government overstepped it’s boundaries in the Civil war using military FORCE to invade the south and socially engineer and reconstruct. them instead of peaceful measures the rest of the world used to end slavery” the military industrial complex” ..yes the same one that controls the world we live in.DUI is pre crime and is completely unconstitutional Karl Marx’s “Racism” is nothing more than personal preference and the government has no business telling people who to like either.A good compromise would be a 3 to 4 drink limit NOT one.