0
10

[–] EvilBunny 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Bitch all you want but here in Australia it's been 0.05 for decades and there is talk about lowering it to 0.02

http://www.smh.com.au/national/call-to-revise-05-limit-20090811-egz6.html

In Australia of all places! We have a reputation to uphold and this isn't helping!

1
2

[–] Charlez6 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Yeah, we have a reputation as a nanny state and I'd say we're upholding that brilliantly.

0
0

[–] ScannerDarkly 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The cops can pull you over for any reason, they can arrest you, and impound your car at any BAC level. FACT.

My friend was arrested and charged for blowing 0 twice on a machine that failed. No proof for any specific level, still charged with DUI

0
10

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

MADD is behind this I would bet (with the NTSB pulling strings with the state). They used to be against drunk driving but now they are really a prohibition organization. Even the founder no longer agrees with pushing BAC to lower levels.

0
6

[–] 8406106? 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

This is a Mormon thing and a police revenue thing..

1
0

[–] GoatyMcGoatface 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Why would police want revenue?

0
1

[–] ForgotMyName 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

MADD isn't prohibitionist. MADD is like every other giant non-profit that's outlived its purpose - it exists to serve itself. That's it. If prohibition happened MADD would no longer need to exist.

0
1

[–] DumpsterDivingRacoon [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Actually MADD came out against it.

0
0

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Kind of. They said they don't support it, but did not oppose it. I guess their support of having everyone be searched to drive their car (DADSS) made them not as supportive of dropping BAC.

NTSB still does support .05

1
8

[–] Owlchemy 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

Yup, ridiculous as hell. But whatcha expect, the Mormons run this place.

5
10

[–] MaxVieuxlieu 5 points 10 points (+15|-5) ago 

Is it really that ridiculous though? Nobody has to drink and drive. Take an uber or a cab.

0
12

[–] DishingShitLikeA 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

.08% is barely even a tickle of a buzz. Sometimes you get stuck places, poor planning sure. But having your life fucked over for a victimless slight of judgement/planning is not justice. It's extortion disguised as citizen reform.

It's a gigantic topic in itself with many valid points on both sides. The side of liberty and the side of social responsibility have been hashing it out for decades. Personally I think .08% is pretty reasonable.

1
10

[–] DumpsterDivingRacoon [S] 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

Totally. Non drinkers that have no clue making bullshit rules to "keep us safe." I hope this really hurts them where it counts most, tourism dollars.

2
8

[–] B3bomber 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

There's a Mythbusters episode where they test .05 vs. .08 for impairment of motor+cognitive functions. A lot of people are just as fucked at .05 as they were at .08.

Drunk fucks do not know they're drunk. I've lost at least 1 relative to this and almost lost a 2nd to another drunk. How do you cause a 17+ car pileup on a freeway? Let a drunk drive so they can find some completely retarded reason to stop and PARK on the freeway lane.

0
6

[–] magnora 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

"Let's make all the rules more stringent, and we'll be safer by definition!" - Moralizing idiots

0
2

[–] DumpsterDivingRacoon [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

To answer a few questions out there the "ridiculous" move is my opinion, which is shared by many people and professional organizations. Also some of you are saying that any amount of alcohol is impairment and that you shouldn't drive, well all sorts of factors affect driving performance, from medications and lost sleep to missed meals and electronic distractions. Not every possible impairment warrants criminal punishment. With the impairment argument, phones should be locked away, no nicotine, caffeine, or anything that's considered distracting or impairing in any way. Then when caught "impaired" for any reason you get a DUI. Yeah that's extreme I get it, but if I'm responsible and want to go out to dinner and have a few drinks I shouldn't have to worry about it. In fact after just a couple of drinks (under .08) I would wager most people probably pay more attention to the road in fear of getting pulled over. I think phones are significantly more dangerous than a couple of drinks with dinner. Another factor to consider is we all process and metabolize alcohol differently. As we all have seen some people handle alcohol better. In my opinion this bill will cause more harm than good by targeting people who try to stay responsible. Lastly another opinion that isn't mine.

In a statement to FOX 13, American Beverage Institute Managing Director Sarah Longwell said her group opposed the bill.

"By passing H.B. 155 and lowering the legal BAC limit to .05 Utah legislators have damaged the state’s hospitality and tourism industries, while doing little to make the roads safer," she said. "Over 77 percent of alcohol-related traffic fatalities in Utah are caused by people with BACs of .15 and above, and the average BAC of someone in a fatal crash is .20—well over twice the legal limit.

I'm sure I'm missing something...blah blah blah. I'm just sick of the government always knowing what's best...

0
5

[–] 8404164? 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

That about a case of that Mormon beer, isn't it?

0
3

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Only if you drink it really fast.

2
4

[–] CrazyInAnInsaneWorld 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

Why is this a "ridiculous" move? If you have had any alcohol to drink, don't get behind the wheel until it's had enough time to get out of your system...this is just common sense! Case in point: The other night, I was at a room party at a convention, and had shots of straight whiskey. I had to wait until 8AM to drive home, even though I live in the same city the hotel that was hosting the convention is in, but y'know what I didn't get? A DUI, and this with Cops out in force that morning.

So I repeat my previous question...why is this considered "ridiculous"? If you've had ANY alcohol, you shouldn't be behind the wheel until it's been processed out of your system. You're piloting a two-ton steel-and-fiberglass deathtrap travelling at 55+MPH, not a Power Wheels scooter.

0
7

[–] ZYX321 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

I am shocked at how widespread drunk driving is. My parents do it. Their friends do it. Wealthy upstanding people do it. Poor white trash people do it. I have been a passenger when I am just barely buzzing and have been blown away at how horribly i would have driven. They are all just firing shots in the dark and it is amazing they havent killed anyone yet.

0
1

[–] CrazyInAnInsaneWorld 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Personally, I couldn't see myself driving behind the wheel after I've had any alcohol. I see it too often in my town, here, as well as how badly they drive. You can almost always tell who's had one too many, because they can't maintain a lane to save their lives, and they always hit the brakes a little too late at the lights. It's best policy to stay several car-lengths back from the ones that weave, in case they cause a pile-up.

It's for precisely this reason that anytime I'm drinking, I either hand my keys over in preparation to crash there for the night to sleep it off, or I keep a running count of how much I've had, and multiply by 4 hours, just to make sure I don't drive that that and get either myself, or some family man driving home to his wife and kids, killed. A little self-restraint isn't too much to ask of people to ensure fewer folks get killed on our highways, y'know?

0
0

[–] ChristoDeFetus 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Meanwhile... I had a rental car last week, so I figured I'd check out the sweet excessive bullshit they put on these things nowadays. Basically it didn't have a good spot for me to rest my phone and look at maps, so I set up the Bluetooth to put it on the built in screen. Maps isn't supported with the app, but Facebook and Twitter are.

Guess my point is that they want to get harsher on booze, but the car manufacturer increasing unnecessary distractions is a'okay. Plenty of assholes on the road these days can barely drive already.

1
-1

[–] 8405971? 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

You do realize that your body produces alcohol during digestion, so at some point a lower BAC incriminates everyone.

1
0

[–] CrazyInAnInsaneWorld 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

The only way this response logically follows, is if lowering the legal limit to .05 BAC actually does incriminate everyone, due to the alcohol production due to digestion. First off, you have provided nothing to show that the alcohol dehydrogenase that everyone produces as a byproduct of metabolism has ever, over the natural course, risen to .05 BAC, in a single person, much less "everyone".

Second, it takes a bit to get to .05 BAC, in the first place. The average weight for an American Male in 2010 was 195.5 lbs. This means, that in order to reach a BAC of .05, they must consume roughly 36 ozs of beer (3 12-oz cans) within 40 minutes. They could also consume 15 ozs. (Approximately 3 goblets) of table wine or 2 2-oz shots of straight Jack Daniels in the same timeframe. Nobody should be behind the wheel of a car, under that level of drinky, until after it's worn off.

Your excuse of "alcohol is a natural byproduct of digestion" is a red herring, because the natural process of digestion does not send BAC up above .05. Even if it did, the burden of proof is on you to show that, if you want to claim that as a counter...which needless to say, you have provided zero evidence or sources cited to demonstrate this.

Try again...Why is this measure considered "ridiculous"? .05 BAC is a perfectly reasonable level to be popping drunk drivers at, judging by what it takes to get there; especially since impairment of reasoning begins at .04 BAC.

0
4

[–] whisky_cat 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I'm more worried about generally unintelligent people on the road than the level of toxicity at 0.05% or even 0.08% BAC. It's fair to say they've enforced some [very low] level of education & vision expectations to have the privilege to drive, but yea it's pretty low.

Also worth mentioning the quantity of low quality, hardly safe vehicles available in the market. A $500 car may be critical to someone keeping their job, but I think when those vehicles are sold they should probably pass a publicly available, easy to access, safety check (brakes, throttle etc). It would be easy to provide that service off the tax money available (shave $1b off the military budget for each state, make driving safer again).

Also, are they rolling out any concerns for the incredible amount of pharmaceuticals available as prescriptions to the masses? Nope. Just improve the chance to take in more high profit DUIs if they can catch a whiff of the scent on you.

0
3

[–] sivsta 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I'd be more worried about texting while driving. It's only going to get worse too

0
1

[–] CrazyInAnInsaneWorld 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Many of the southern Red states have already passed laws against "Distracted Driving" (AKA Driving whilst texting). I'm perfectly okay with that, just as I'm okay with this law...and this coming from someone who had to wait for his JD Shots to clear his liver and kidneys before driving home the other night.

0
0

[–] whisky_cat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That's a good point as well.

0
1

[–] myvoicefromhell 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Also worth mentioning the quantity of low quality, hardly safe vehicles available in the market. A $500 car may be critical to someone keeping their job, but I think when those vehicles are sold they should probably pass a publicly available, easy to access, safety check (brakes, throttle etc). It would be easy to provide that service off the tax money available (shave $1b off the military budget for each state, make driving safer again)]

That is so unfeasible I don't even know where to start. There is no way that would ever work.

0
0

[–] Imadeaccount 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Isn't it the case already that cars are required to be registered, which means passing a safety inspection and emissions test?

0
0

[–] whisky_cat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'll concede it's pretty much wishful thinking. I just hate seeing beaters on the road with no entity asserting these cars are safe enough to drive.

2
2

[–] lissencarak 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

m-muh degeneracy

0
1

[–] Neinlife 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

this is a witch hunt like it has always been that targets emotions instead of rational thought or science

load more comments ▼ (6 remaining)