Mandatory In Car Breathalyzers

[Napoleon the Clown]

Why not just go with .08? That's the legal limit in a lot of states.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Why not just go with .08? That's the legal limit in a lot of states.

Because some people can still be impaired below .08. Most of those states also say it is illegal to drive impaired or with a BAC of .08.

[Srynerson]

Just throwing this out there: what about emergency situations in which someone actually needs to operate a motor vehicle despite being intoxicated? E.g., wife and husband are drinking, husband begins smacking wife around, she flees the house, runs to the car and.... I'm not saying that this is an especially common event, but I would expect a string of stories about people (particularly women since on average they become intoxicated more quickly than men when consuming the same amount of alcohol) being robbed, beaten, raped, murdered, etc., because they ended up trapped by being unable to operate a car.

[Darth Wong]

Just throwing this out there: what about emergency situations in which someone actually needs to operate a motor vehicle despite being intoxicated? E.g., wife and husband are drinking, husband begins smacking wife around, she flees the house, runs to the car and.... I'm not saying that this is an especially common event, but I would expect a string of stories about people (particularly women since on average they become intoxicated more quickly than men when consuming the same amount of alcohol) being robbed, beaten, raped, murdered, etc., because they ended up trapped by being unable to operate a car.

How does her own stupidity give her a right to endanger the lives of others?

[Srynerson]

Just throwing this out there: what about emergency situations in which someone actually needs to operate a motor vehicle despite being intoxicated? E.g., wife and husband are drinking, husband begins smacking wife around, she flees the house, runs to the car and.... I'm not saying that this is an especially common event, but I would expect a string of stories about people (particularly women since on average they become intoxicated more quickly than men when consuming the same amount of alcohol) being robbed, beaten, raped, murdered, etc., because they ended up trapped by being unable to operate a car.

How does her own stupidity give her a right to endanger the lives of others?

I'm sorry, is it your view that in my hypothetical the woman is "stupid" because she's in an abusive relationship in the first place or "stupid" because she failed to anticipate being beaten before she started drinking? Further, am I understanding correctly that your view is that if people drink to the point of being legally intoxicated, they are only morally permitted to escape an emergency situation by (a) calling for help or (b) walking?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Just throwing this out there: what about emergency situations in which someone actually needs to operate a motor vehicle despite being intoxicated? E.g., wife and husband are drinking, husband begins smacking wife around, she flees the house, runs to the car and.... I'm not saying that this is an especially common event, but I would expect a string of stories about people (particularly women since on average they become intoxicated more quickly than men when consuming the same amount of alcohol) being robbed, beaten, raped, murdered, etc., because they ended up trapped by being unable to operate a car.

How does her own stupidity give her a right to endanger the lives of others?

I'm sorry, is it your view that in my hypothetical the woman is "stupid" because she's in an abusive relationship in the first place or "stupid" because she failed to anticipate being beaten before she started drinking? Further, am I understanding correctly that your view is that if people drink to the point of being legally intoxicated, they are only morally permitted to escape an emergency situation by (a) calling for help or (b) walking?

You should be asking yourself whether it's ever okay to endanger the lives of others to save yourself?

[Darth Wong]

How does her own stupidity give her a right to endanger the lives of others?

I'm sorry, is it your view that in my hypothetical the woman is "stupid" because she's in an abusive relationship in the first place or "stupid" because she failed to anticipate being beaten before she started drinking?

So she gets drunk with a guy who is prone to violence, and you can't figure out why that might be stupid?

Further, am I understanding correctly that your view is that if people drink to the point of being legally intoxicated, they are only morally permitted to escape an emergency situation by (a) calling for help or (b) walking?

Yes.

[Sea Skimmer]

Why not just go with .08? That's the legal limit in a lot of states.

Because some people can still be impaired below .08. Most of those states also say it is illegal to drive impaired or with a BAC of .08.

Anyone too impaired to drive a car at a .08 is probably too stupid to safely drive a car under any circumstances. The .10 limit was more reasonable, it was enough to allow most people to drink two beers and still be legal, and very few people are impaired to a significant degree from two beers. Passengers, radio controls, and cell phones are all more dangerous. In my state DUI arrests have gone up significantly since they lowered the limit, and yet the number of DUI related highway deaths is significantly higher then it was in the early 1990s, well before the .08 limit, and when the state had a significantly higher population to boot! Unreasonable laws only breed contempt for the law, which helps nothing and hurts reasonable safety efforts.

[Broomstick]

Anyone too impaired to drive a car at a .08 is probably too stupid to safely drive a car under any circumstances.

Please provide some evidence to back this up.

The .10 limit was more reasonable, it was enough to allow most people to drink two beers and still be legal, and very few people are impaired to a significant degree from two beers.

Actually, because my reactions to alcohol vary considerably, I feel that I can be significantly impaired after just one drink - which has a lot to do with why I just flat out don't drink if I'm going to be driving. Cold sober, however, I am a good driver and in 25+ years of driving somehow managed to avoid getting into an accident or getting any form of ticket, warning, or other penalty despite your assertion that because I can't hold my liquor like a manly man such as yourself I must be "too stupid" to operate a motor vehicle.

The fact is, just one drink will have a measurable effect on anyone's ability to drive. Fortunately, one does not have to be perfectly alert to drive safely (fortunate given distractions you point out like passengers, etc.) but the amount of tolerable impairment is small.

[Sea Skimmer]

Please provide some evidence to back this up.

Why? The lowing of the limit to .08 wasn’t based on any real evidence either, it was based on the political power of a certain organization in my state demanding that all the politicians vote for what they wanted or else face a multi year smear campaign. Some voted against and the smear campaign is still ongoing. Since then arrests are up, a very large percentage of which fall in that .08-.1 gap and yet DUI deaths are up too. My theory is its because certain people simply stopped caring about the limit at all and now just do as they please. Nationwide alcohol related deaths are down from the 1980s, but throughout the 1990s and 2000s the numbers are relatively static despite just about every state lowering its limit in that timeframe. Cars have gotten a whole lot safer in that timeframe too, somthing which is known to have saved thousands of lives on its own, though I have no idea how many of those would be DUI deaths avoided.

Course the statistic are a bit screwed up to start with, since a drunken pedestrian being hit by a sober driver counts as an alcohol related death, and I’ve never been able to find statistics which purely count accidents caused by an impaired driver.

Actually, because my reactions to alcohol vary considerably, I feel that I can be significantly impaired after just one drink - which has a lot to do with why I just flat out don't drink if I'm going to be driving. Cold sober, however, I am a good driver and in 25+ years of driving somehow managed to avoid getting into an accident or getting any form of ticket, warning, or other penalty despite your assertion that because I can't hold my liquor like a manly man such as yourself I must be "too stupid" to operate a motor vehicle.

Liquor and beer aren't the same in how they affect people, I wont drink any liquor and drive. But if what your saying is true then it just points even more to a low limit being unhelpful. I’d like to see a return to the .10 limit, but also much stricter penalties for violation. Its just fucking insane to cost a person their job (DUI convictions will do that) for being .01% over a limit that impaired them less then a cell phone, while another guy can blow .273 and hit a tree, and then be back on the road in a year, sometimes even as little as 90 days with a good lawyer on a first offense. Even people on their third or forth DUI conviction are allowed back on the road, this strategy just makes no fucking sense.

This is all why I also advocate spending money on improving vehicle safety, not

The fact is, just one drink will have a measurable effect on anyone's ability to drive.

I highly doubt that; I probably drive better after one drink because simply knowing I’ve had a drink makes me paranoid.

Fortunately, one does not have to be perfectly alert to drive safely (fortunate given distractions you point out like passengers, etc.) but the amount of tolerable impairment is small.

Too bad BAC doesn’t really even tell you how impaired a person is since the heavier a drinker you are the lower you’ll blow, and yet the alcohol still does affect the brain. Anyway once every state bans cellphones while driving, enforces passing on the left and use of turn signals and has real criminal penalties for DUI I’ll be more amiable to accepting a low limit. As for now, I’m going to keep seeing it for what it is, a politically motivated slogan of a ‘solution’ that has accomplished little to nothing.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Why? The lowing of the limit to .08 wasn’t based on any real evidence either, it was based on the political power of a certain organization in my state demanding that all the politicians vote for what they wanted or else face a multi year smear campaign. Some voted against and the smear campaign is still ongoing. Since then arrests are up, a very large percentage of which fall in that .08-.1 gap and yet DUI deaths are up too. My theory is its because certain people simply stopped caring about the limit at all and now just do as they please. Nationwide alcohol related deaths are down from the 1980s, but throughout the 1990s and 2000s the numbers are relatively static despite just about every state lowering its limit in that timeframe. Cars have gotten a whole lot safer in that timeframe too, somthing which is known to have saved thousands of lives on its own, though I have no idea how many of those would be DUI deaths avoided.

While the .08 BAC might have been decided due to political pressure you can't ignore the fact that people with .08 BAC do show signs of significant impairment which can't be turned off like a cell phone.

I don't see how you can conclude that just because the BAC limit went down people would just say "fuck it" and go drive and put everyone on the road at risk. Your coorelation is very weak. It's weak because you haven't considered any other possible reasons like more cars on the road, or more teens on the road, or a rise in alcohol abuse in your area.

Course the statistic are a bit screwed up to start with, since a drunken pedestrian being hit by a sober driver counts as an alcohol related death, and I’ve never been able to find statistics which purely count accidents caused by an impaired driver.

An alcohol related death is different from a DUI related death. There is a distinction, and you can find it.

Liquor and beer aren't the same in how they affect people, I wont drink any liquor and drive. But if what your saying is true then it just points even more to a low limit being unhelpful. I’d like to see a return to the .10 limit, but also much stricter penalties for violation. Its just fucking insane to cost a person their job (DUI convictions will do that) for being .01% over a limit that impaired them less then a cell phone, while another guy can blow .273 and hit a tree, and then be back on the road in a year, sometimes even as little as 90 days with a good lawyer on a first offense. Even people on their third or forth DUI conviction are allowed back on the road, this strategy just makes no fucking sense.

Who has gone to jail for DUI for only be .01%? If a guy who blew .273 got off it's because the cop screwed up some part of the ridiculous DUI process...

I highly doubt that; I probably drive better after one drink because simply knowing I’ve had a drink makes me paranoid.

The science says otherwise. Alcohol will effect your mind immediately. The first process to be impaired is judgment.

Too bad BAC doesn’t really even tell you how impaired a person is since the heavier a drinker you are the lower you’ll blow, and yet the alcohol still does affect the brain. Anyway once every state bans cellphones while driving, enforces passing on the left and use of turn signals and has real criminal penalties for DUI I’ll be more amiable to accepting a low limit. As for now, I’m going to keep seeing it for what it is, a politically motivated slogan of a ‘solution’ that has accomplished little to nothing.

It's accomplished little to nothing because our criminal justice system has been compromised by stupid loop holes.

I know on piece of shit that was let off of a DUI because the officer initiated a level 3 stop before he had developed reasonable suspicion to actually do so.

So, because the cop turned on his overheads before he was legally justified in doing so the case was thrown out. It's not the lower limit that's fucking the system...it's the interpretation of our bill of rights.

[Durandal]

Seems like a pretty good idea to me. Even if you don't actually enforce it, meaning that the breathalyzer doesn't lock the ignition, I kind of think just having a breathalyzer in every car would be a good psychological tool. If you just left the bar and got in your car, seeing a breathalyzer sitting there might just make you think twice about turning the key, even if you don't blow into it. Kind of like having a beat cop on your street.

[Broomstick]

Please provide some evidence to back this up.

Why?

Because you made a statement implying that it was fact and on this board you can be asked to back up your statements at any time.

The lowing of the limit to .08 wasn’t based on any real evidence either, it was based on the political power of a certain organization in my state demanding that all the politicians vote for what they wanted or else face a multi year smear campaign.

Then how do you explain the lowering of the limit to .08 in other states?

Actually, because my reactions to alcohol vary considerably, I feel that I can be significantly impaired after just one drink - which has a lot to do with why I just flat out don't drink if I'm going to be driving. Cold sober, however, I am a good driver and in 25+ years of driving somehow managed to avoid getting into an accident or getting any form of ticket, warning, or other penalty despite your assertion that because I can't hold my liquor like a manly man such as yourself I must be "too stupid" to operate a motor vehicle.

Liquor and beer aren't the same in how they affect people, I wont drink any liquor and drive.

I believe that's what I said, yes.

But if what your saying is true then it just points even more to a low limit being unhelpful.

How so?

My personal limit for drinking and driving is zero - a considerably lower limit than either .08 or .10. Assuming I adhere to that rule (and I see no reason I won't) I will never be in an accident where my own alcohol impairment is a factor.

I’d like to see a return to the .10 limit

Why? Do you make it a habit of boozing before getting behind the wheel?

The fact is, just one drink will have a measurable effect on anyone's ability to drive.

I highly doubt that; I probably drive better after one drink because simply knowing I’ve had a drink makes me paranoid.

Bullshit. It has been demonstrated multiple times that even one drink will have a measurable impact on ANY driver. As I said, it is fortunate that one does not have to be perfectly in order to drive within acceptable limits. Your "knowing I've had a drink makes me paranoid" will NOT change the fact that your reaction time and judgment WILL be adversely affected by even one drink.

Fortunately, one does not have to be perfectly alert to drive safely (fortunate given distractions you point out like passengers, etc.) but the amount of tolerable impairment is small.

Too bad BAC doesn’t really even tell you how impaired a person is since the heavier a drinker you are the lower you’ll blow,

What the fuck?

A high concentration of alcohol in the blood will show up. Granted, an acute alcoholic will be so physically dependent on alcohol as to need it to prevent shakes, delerium tremens, and in bad cases convulsions but no matter how well they appear to be speaking or walking the are still impaired and they are still not safe to be on the road.

Anyway once every state bans cellphones while driving, enforces passing on the left and use of turn signals and has real criminal penalties for DUI I’ll be more amiable to accepting a low limit.

Know what the difference between alcohol, cellphones, and passing on the right is? It is conceivable that there might arise a situation where one needs to make a call while driving or pass on the right - but there is NO need, not EVER, to add alcohol to driving.

Personally, I could handle a .05 limit. A one-drink limit, shall we say. With severe penalties for violations.

[Broomstick]

Seems like a pretty good idea to me. Even if you don't actually enforce it, meaning that the breathalyzer doesn't lock the ignition, I kind of think just having a breathalyzer in every car would be a good psychological tool. If you just left the bar and got in your car, seeing a breathalyzer sitting there might just make you think twice about turning the key, even if you don't blow into it. Kind of like having a beat cop on your street.

That only works for normal, unaddicted people.

Alcoholics don't give a fuck. They make up excuses ("I'm a better driver after one drink because I'm more paranoid") and do what the fuck they want and consequences be damned.

[Darth Wong]

I can't believe Skimmer actually said that "better driver after one drink" bullshit. That's rather untypical of him; it sounds like something you would overhear in a trailer park.

[Durandal]

Seems like a pretty good idea to me. Even if you don't actually enforce it, meaning that the breathalyzer doesn't lock the ignition, I kind of think just having a breathalyzer in every car would be a good psychological tool. If you just left the bar and got in your car, seeing a breathalyzer sitting there might just make you think twice about turning the key, even if you don't blow into it. Kind of like having a beat cop on your street.

That only works for normal, unaddicted people.

Alcoholics don't give a fuck. They make up excuses ("I'm a better driver after one drink because I'm more paranoid") and do what the fuck they want and consequences be damned.

It doesn't take an addict to make a stupid decision after one-too-many drinks.

[Stark]

Wow, the limit in the US is .08? That's 60% higher than in AU.

[Napoleon the Clown]

What can I say? The US is soft on driving related issues compared to a lot of countries. I'd suspect it has a lot to do with the whole "Driving is a right!" mindset, nevermind that it involves people piloting thousands of pounds of steel and plastic at speeds well in excess of the sprinting speeds of even the fastest humans.

[Broomstick]

It has a lot to do with no viable alternatives to driving a car if you want to get home.

[Zac Naloen]

Wow, the limit in the US is .08? That's 60% higher than in AU.

I guess AU would rather have no alcohol impaired drivers which is fair enough.

As far as I know the UK law is 0.08 as well (80mg per 100ml of blood)

[Macunaima]

Wow, the limit in the US is .08? That's 60% higher than in AU.

I guess AU would rather have no alcohol impaired drivers which is fair enough.

As far as I know the UK law is 0.08 as well (80mg per 100ml of blood)

Brazilian Congress recently signed a bill that lowered the limit in the country to zero. Such a no-tolerance limit has sparked a controversy around here among the lines that Sea Skimmer mentioned, of a possible unreasonable law only breeding contempt for it, but overall the population has responded favorably to the new bill, and to the police effort (so far, at least) to enforce it.

[Darth Wong]

Casual drinkers are of the opinion that 1-2 drinks should be allowed and that any stricter standard is "draconian" for the simple reason that they wish to be able to drink 1 or 2 drinks and then drive. There is no other reason for it. It's a compromise between public safety and the convenience of social drinkers, just as (to be fair) many other compromises are made between public safety and economic factors.

[Dooey Jo]

I believe the reason we don't have a 0% percent limit here, is that several common food items, such as fil, contain small amounts of alcohol. Not nearly enough to affect someone, but apparently enough to show up on the breath tests.

[Broomstick]

That's why the legal limit for US pilots is not zero but rather a miniscule amount - wine in cooked dishes, tiramisu, and just plain old orange juice a couple days old won't ever get you drunk but do contain detectable amounts of alcohol. Basically, it allows for naturally occur tiny amounts in food items.

[Stark]

Casual drinkers are of the opinion that 1-2 drinks should be allowed and that any stricter standard is "draconian" for the simple reason that they wish to be able to drink 1 or 2 drinks and then drive. There is no other reason for it. It's a compromise between public safety and the convenience of social drinkers, just as (to be fair) many other compromises are made between public safety and economic factors.

Even with AU's 0.05% standard, it's generally considered an adult male can have 1-2 single drinks in the first hour, and a single drink per hour after that, and still be below the limit. It doesn't require that you not drink at all, simply that you drink responsibly.

It amuses me that 'drink driving' in NZ/AU was a non-issue in my father's day, but due to significant advertising and cultural pressure, even drug addicts consider drink driving a bad thing. Perhaps the higher limit in the US is due to their laws regarding breath testing, where if someone isn't OBVIOUSLY drunk the test can't even be applied?