• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Now they want to lower the threshold for drunk driving to 0.05%

jdhu said:
Yup, and enjoying one or two drinks = slave who can't go without. Can't possibly be just enjoying a refreshing and tasty drink.
Click to expand...

youre missing the point, its not the alcholo, its that if youre in a situation where you would need to be required to drive a car/bike/tractor, you still have one anyway. its not having even a bunch of drinks, its having them knowing you need to afterwards go operate a vehicle

driving buzzed is dangerous and irrespobible, if the drink is worth more to you than the potential negative effects, then I pity you.


i dont go as far as my gandfather to say alcohol was the greatest evil ever unleashed upon mankind, but I really dont understand why so much of the human poplation drinks so much.
 
kevin 714 said:
if its just so occasional and its fine why feel the need to drink if you know youre driving? why not have your wife drive if you want a beer or 2? there sothing wrong with having a beer or two, but when you step into a car afterwrads I will say there is something wrong there.

why not have that beet at home? since I assume you eat the vast majority of your meals at home, where its perfectly fine to have a glass of wine or port afterwards, why do you need one when you go out? why not decide between the adults that youre with, who will skip the booze at dinner? or decide to all come home afterwards and continue the social scene where drinking and driving isnt an issue?
Click to expand...

Holy moly. If it's not illegal, and you can drive perfectly fine, what is the problem?

If you are driving somewhere to eat, it is likely a social event, dinner out with friends/gf, whatever. You may not know this, but people tend to like to drink when socializing.

Talk about a black/white view.
 
kevin 714 said:
youre missing the point, its not the alcholo, its that if youre in a situation where you would need to be required to drive a car/bike/tractor, you still have one anyway. its not having even a bunch of drinks, its having them knowing you need to afterwards go operate a vehicle

driving buzzed is dangerous and irrespobible, if the drink is worth more to you than the potential negative effects, then I pity you.
Click to expand...

LOL...the pity line, the new Godwin?

You really just don't get it, and it's understandable, since you don't drink at all. I have to laugh when someone who says the average person drinks more in a week than he does in 10 years, then proceeds to lecture about the supposed danger of buzzed driving and its "potential" negative effects.

I will see your pity and raise you a :rolleyes.
 
kevin 714 said:
why not have your wife drive if you want a beer or 2? there sothing wrong with having a beer or two, but when you step into a car afterwrads I will say there is something wrong there.
Click to expand...

kevin 714 said:
driving buzzed is dangerous and irrespobible, if the drink is worth more to you than the potential negative effects, then I pity you.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are too high up to see how things work down here on the surface of the planet, but if I have a drink or two during the course of a 1-2 hour dinner, I am FAR from buzzed. I could probably have two in the first hour and still be below the limit (probably 3, since I'm a big fella). I do limit/monitor my drinking if I am going to drive, and I do take DUI VERY seriously. That said, taking pity on someone who decides to have a beer or two with dinner is just plain ridiculous. You must get a lot of nose bleeds from that altitude.
 
teg916 said:
Sorry Kevin714, but the utopian days of prohibition ended long ago. :twofinger
Click to expand...

I dont believe in prohibition, In fact I think all drugs as well should be legal, including hard drugs like heroin and cocaine.

prohibition ignored one of the very basic of human conditions
 
Since we're all curious what effect this change might actually have on DUI fatalities... http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1105.pdf

In 2009, 31.9% of all fatal accidents involved a driver with a BAC at .08% or over. 62.3% of all fatal accidents involved drivers who were at .00%.

5.6% involved drivers with a BAC of .01-.07%.

How much do you want to bet that most of that 5.6% were just due to plain old shitty, inattentive driving, with a minimal contribution from their BAC?

:rolleyes
 
DUIs seem to be about the OH- GOTCHAs, not actually getting people who are dangerous off the road. My 2 cents. Never lost anyone to a DUI.

.08 is next to nothing. an arbitrary line in the sand.
 
sckego said:
Since we're all curious what effect this change might actually have on DUI fatalities... http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1105.pdf

In 2009, 31.9% of all fatal accidents involved a driver with a BAC at .08% or over. 62.3% of all fatal accidents involved drivers who were at .00%.

5.6% involved drivers with a BAC of .01-.07%.

How much do you want to bet that most of that 5.6% were just due to plain old shitty, inattentive driving, with a minimal contribution from their BAC?

:rolleyes
Click to expand...

Wow, OK, didn't look at the data sheet, but taking your numbers...well wow.

So, the NTSB is focusing attention on maybe 2-3% of all fatality accidents (we don't know exactly how many are between .05% and .07%)? And that is just "involving" a driver with that level of alcohol, no mention of fault, whether alcohol played a role, etc.?

Poxy- Does this change your perspective at all, that the NTSB's decision is based on a sound scientific basis?
 
kevin 714 said:
youre missing the point, its not the alcholo, its that if youre in a situation where you would need to be required to drive a car/bike/tractor, you still have one anyway. its not having even a bunch of drinks, its having them knowing you need to afterwards go operate a vehicle

driving buzzed is dangerous and irrespobible, if the drink is worth more to you than the potential negative effects, then I pity you.


i dont go as far as my gandfather to say alcohol was the greatest evil ever unleashed upon mankind, but I really dont understand why so much of the human poplation drinks so much.
Click to expand...

I think I see where you're coming from Kevin, and I also think that your questions are valid, as long as we consider them to be rhetorical.

If we were to follow the Socratic method and keep asking ¿ why ?, for alcohol use, we could probably find some interesting aspects about ourselves and our culture.

But I'm just going to drink a beer and contemplate my navel instead :twofinger




sckego said:
Since we're all curious what effect this change might actually have on DUI fatalities... http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1105.pdf

In 2009, 31.9% of all fatal accidents involved a driver with a BAC at .08% or over. 62.3% of all fatal accidents involved drivers who were at .00%.

5.6% involved drivers with a BAC of .01-.07%.

How much do you want to bet that most of that 5.6% were just due to plain old shitty, inattentive driving, with a minimal contribution from their BAC?

:rolleyes
Click to expand...

Am I the only one who sees that driving with 0.00 bac seems to be a problem ?
 
planegray said:
I think I see where you're coming from Kevin, and I also think that your questions are valid, as long as we consider them to be rhetorical.
If we were to follow the Socratic method and keep asking ¿ why ?, for alcohol use, we could probably find some interesting aspects about ourselves and our culture.

But I'm just going to drink a beer and contemplate my navel instead :twofinger






Am I the only one who sees that driving with 0.00 bac seems to be a problem ?
Click to expand...

they were all rhetorical. i wasnt singling out anyone in particular. just wondering aloud about alcohol. Im also not against booze and I am sure quite a few people on here can drive just fine with two beers in them. if I was with them (per cycle 61's post) tho, I would just say let me drive.

alcohol is just fine, but as you say, followoing the socratioc method and you get into strange places when it come to alcohol

and I also agree that driving ,000 is a bg problem lol seriously tho our licensing requirements are far to laxed in this country
 
jdhu said:
Wow, OK, didn't look at the data sheet, but taking your numbers...well wow.

So, the NTSB is focusing attention on maybe 2-3% of all fatality accidents (we don't know exactly how many are between .05% and .07%)? And that is just "involving" a driver with that level of alcohol, no mention of fault, whether alcohol played a role, etc.?

Poxy- Does this change your perspective at all, that the NTSB's decision is based on a sound scientific basis?
Click to expand...

Yup.

Meanwhile it is clear that riding a motorcycle is likely many multiples more dangerous than that. Perhaps more lives would be saved if we outlawed motorcycles vs. lowering the BAC.

"Motorcycles are the most dangerous type of motor vehicle to drive. These vehicles are involved in fatal crashes at a rate of 35.0 per 100 million miles of travel, compared with a rate of 1.7 per 100 million miles of travel for passenger cars."

http://trafficsafety.org/safety/sharing/motorcycle/motor-facts/motor-injuries-fatalities

I really really doubt that driving with a .06 BAC increases your chances of dying in a crash anywhere near that of riding a motorcycle stone cold sober.

The facts are clear for high BAC drivers however.

"The average BAC among fatally injured drinking drivers is .16

The relative risk of death for drivers in single-vehicle crashes with a high BAC is 385 times that of a zero-BAC driver and for male drivers the risk is 707 times that of a sober driver, according to estimates by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). "

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrinkingAndDriving.html
 
jdhu said:
Poxy- Does this change your perspective at all, that the NTSB's decision is based on a sound scientific basis?
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no.

I totally agree that enforcing >.05 BAC is a poor use of limited resources, but then again 250 lives per year isn't peanuts. (2.5% of 10k DUI deaths/year)

I realize that changing the official DUI level doesn't mean all those lives will be saved, but I don't like having to accept those figures as a fait accompli because, for the most part, people can't accept the inconvenience of having someone else drive them home if they want to drink.
 
Last edited:
Poxy said:
Well, yes and no.

I totally agree that enforcing >.05 BAC is a poor use of limited resources, but then again 250 lives per year isn't peanuts. (2.5% of 10k DUI deaths/year)

I realize that changing the official DUI level doesn't mean all those lives will be saved, but I don't like having to accept those figures as a fait accompli because, for the most part, people can't accept the inconvenience of having someone else drive them home if they want to drink.
Click to expand...

OK, reasonable. One quick point again though; unless I misinterpreted, that 2.5% estimate concerns all fatalities in which an under-the-influence driver was "involved." It doesn't say that the driver was at fault, or even that alcohol was a factor. So, it's not really accurate to say that those drivers in the 0.05% - 0.07% range CAUSED 250 deaths (I think it's logical to assume the actual number is significantly lower).

Anyway, I value life, but at some point, we draw a line between restricting the actions of the entire populace in order to save "x" number of lives. As you allude to, maybe we could do something about those 60%+ fatalities that did not involve alcohol.
 
well i'm late to this thread. whatever

i dont really drink, and i sure dont drink then drive....so i'm *mostly* all for a 0.05% limit. i know that after even just 1 drink I am 'impaired'. yet at 180lbs, i can easily have 2 drinks and go hop in my car and i'm 100% legal - and i'm a super lightweight, so 2 drinks is a bit more than buzzed. not cool to drive like that IMO

i was about to say that if i was king, i wouldnt allow ANY tolerance for drinking and driving - but in all reality, thats pretty dumb. 1 beer doesnt hardly effect you, and those people that drink often, 2 beers is no big deal. I will however say that if I was king, and you got caught for legit drinking and driving over 0.08%, that u should lose your license for 5 years and serve a few months in lockup, no ifs ands or buts. 2nd time should be for 10 years and come with jail time for 6 months, and 3rd time you just straight lose your license for life. i think these type of REAL punishments for a DUI would be FAR more effective than lowering the level to 0.05%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top