Somebody's been on the altar wine...

[BoSoxGal]

That's a fair criticism. Unfortunately we in Montana still have slap on the wrist penalties for DUI - I'd like to see them much harsher, as they are out East. We have far too many multiple offender DUI defendants; just filed on a guy for his 12th!

As the statistics on cell phone involved accidents are gathered, I hope we will see stiffer penalties on that offense. The city ban that just passed here is a fine up to $500 and up to 180 days jail - about the same as a 1st DUI, but I don't believe any driver education is required as part of the penalty.

People are OUTRAGED over the ban. I don't get it. DRIVE when you are driving, especially in a municipality with traffic, pedestrians, etc. Don't eat, apply makeup, talk/text on the phone, do drugs. Is this really so much to ask?

It boggles my mind.

[rubato]

"...
And I also support .05 as the legal limit, though I am not so foolish as to believe it will happen in this foolish country.

I would suggest participation in a wet lab, seeing what .08 or .10 looks like in real people, then tell me if you really want those people driving a missile down the highway at you and your infant son while under the influence.

... "

The limit was dropped to 0.08 from 0.10 g/dl . I don't see why it can't be reduced to 0.05 g/dl which is a common limit across Europe.

Impairment is measureable all the way down to 0.01 so if we make safety a higher priority then 0.05 becomes more reasonable. I bet Utah would vote for it.

"...
As the statistics on cell phone involved accidents are gathered, I hope we will see stiffer penalties on that offense. The city ban that just passed here is a fine up to $500 and up to 180 days jail - about the same as a 1st DUI, but I don't believe any driver education is required as part of the penalty.

People are OUTRAGED over the ban. I don't get it. DRIVE when you are driving, especially in a municipality with traffic, pedestrians, etc. Don't eat, apply makeup, talk/text on the phone, do drugs. Is this really so much to ask? ..."

I'm with you on that. I think there is a disconnect in a lot of people's brains that they don't really understand the severity of the real-world consequences until it happens. I think we should require all new drivers to learn in simulators that can demonstrate the real-world physics of a 25-30mph collision by slamming them into the side of the compartment at that speed.



yrs,
rubato

[Crackpot]

I think if by the time you did an in depth report on all the things that cause impaired driving and did an active comparison of them all allot of the screaming of blood for low BAC offenders would cease. IMO anything under .08 (and I'm even sketchy on that but I tend to err on the side of the individual) as a cause of bad driving is a red herring for poor driving skills in general. When it conse down to it just about anything and everything (Including prolonged Driving) causes impaired Driving and depending on circumstances and individual many of these factors can mitigate or inflame others in combination.

At a certain point we have to stop nitpicking bogeyman and let bad driving be its own punishment (and boy do I wish half of the day to day asinine driving I see day to day (in full view of cops no less) get the tickets they deserve.

[BoSoxGal]

I agree that there is an abundance of simply poor driving skills, which is also why I cannot agree that adding in .08 BAC to the mix is no big deal.

My preference would be that driving after drinking would be entirely unlawful, which would remove the 'am I too fucked up to drive?' calculation from the equation that so many people can't accurately gauge. How would we do this? With easily implemented technology that would prevent one's vehicle from being operable if any alcohol was detectable in the skin of the hands on the steering wheel. It really is that easy, if we willed it so.

[Crackpot]

Cost prohibitive and way to easy to fake and/or get a false positive. (hand sanitizers anyone) As I said If It weren't for the draconic penalties I'm fine with .08 it puts the line pretty clearly at "if you are questioning it you shouldn't be". I just can't see the justice in ruining someone's life for being in the wrong place at the wrong time when other people get off scot free for driving at a level far below what a .08 impairs you.

[BoSoxGal]

You aren't familiar with the technology. We utilize the same with SCRAMx bracelets that we put on our DUI offenders - they can't be fooled with hand sanitizer. And the technology is not that expensive. It's a matter of will - and I know, the will is not there. So folks will continue to be maimed and/or killed, needlessly, in DUI crashes.

[Crackpot]

Believe me what you're asking for is no where near as easy or cheap as you claim the endless refrain of "we'll just put this in all cars is really tiring it's easy enough to say but you really have no idea of the packaging programing and reliability and safety and security (in this case) to "just put these things in there"

[Rick]

Gloves...

[Timster]

Why are you all beating around the bush? Just shoot the motherfuckers on sight. Oh, yeah, America, due process, Miranda, innocent until proven guilty IF one has enough money and all that happy horseshit; okay, give them the no-win BAC test and THEN shoot the motherfuckers. Probable cause... Hey, they could have KILLED somebody!

Problem solved.

[loCAtek]

I agree with Crackpot, on the premise that .05 is so low that you might as well be pressing charges for any alcohol detection at all. With that kind of standard, a person could produce a positive reading by just using mouthwash. (The leading mouthwash contains 21% to 27% alcohol)
What a .08 reading usually determines is that an individual is in the 'intoxicated' range, and not just that have had an alcoholic beverage. Many people, when they dine out will have a glass or two of wine with their meal, but this does not mean that they are inebriated. The majority of people can function well, and drive fine at that level. If a car wouldn't operate if it detected any percentage of alcohol, I would think the dining industry would be pretty adversely affected.


ETA: OK, so the glove industry would have a boom lol

[BoSoxGal]

I'm actually quite familiar with the technology available and the costs to implement it, CP. It is far exceeded by the aggregate cost of DUI deaths/maimings to our economy on an annual basis.

Using mouthwash sets off an Interlock device only immediately following use. Within minutes breath alcohol diminishes such that the reading would be far below .08. This is why law enforcement must impose a 20 minute deprivation period before utilizing either a PBT or Intoxilyzer to test BAC - so a false reading corrupted by mouthwash, gum, cigarette smoke, etc. is not obtained. After 20 minutes, the BAC is an accurate reading of ingested/metabolizing alcohol.

Plenty of people dine out without becoming drunk in the process. The severe punishments and strict social ostracism of DUI offenders in most European countries doesn't seem to have crippled the pub or restaurant industries there.

[Scooter]

I think if by the time you did an in depth report on all the things that cause impaired driving and did an active comparison of them all allot of the screaming of blood for low BAC offenders would cease.

There's a substantial dfference, though. Most of those other things (phone calls, reaching for something on the dash, conversation with someone in the car, etc.) are momentary or intermittent in nature. Alcoholic impairment is constantly present from the moment the driver gets behind the wheel to the moment he/she gets out. Which is why the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by alcohol completely dwarf those caused by those searching for their favourite radio station.

[Timster]

Indeed. Completely different, from having a text conversation...

[loCAtek]

Plenty of people dine out without becoming drunk in the process. The severe punishments and strict social ostracism of DUI offenders in most European countries doesn't seem to have crippled the pub or restaurant industries there.

ETA: That was my point ...but what Europe does is not banning operating an automobile by any amount of alcohol detection on the skin.

[loCAtek]

Alcoholic impairment is constantly present from the moment the driver gets behind the wheel to the moment he/she gets out. Which is why the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by alcohol completely dwarf those caused by those searching for their favourite radio station.

Actually, low alcohol levels mean low impairment. In fact, most people, if they are average social drinkers and have been taught to control themselves and their intake; have also conditioned themselves how to respond in low percentage states.
You can teach/train individuals to react in various mental states. The problem with automobile operation is that you're usually taught how to drive when you're in a sober state, not an influenced one. However, if is possible to learn to drive while in low BAC. Many people teach themselves, how to drive safely at those levels.

[Andrew D]

I think if by the time you did an in depth report on all the things that cause impaired driving and did an active comparison of them all allot of the screaming of blood for low BAC offenders would cease.

There's a substantial dfference, though. Most of those other things (phone calls, reaching for something on the dash, conversation with someone in the car, etc.) are momentary or intermittent in nature. Alcoholic impairment is constantly present from the moment the driver gets behind the wheel to the moment he/she gets out. Which is why the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by alcohol completely dwarf those caused by those searching for their favourite radio station.

Using the phone while driving is as dangerous as driving drunk (one of many studies to the same effect).

Yes, using the phone while driving can be intermittent. (It can also be constant.)

A kid's walking out into the road in front of the driver is also intermittent. Which is, of course, true even when the driver is not making a phone call, reaching for something on the dash, conversing with someone else in the car, etc.

But the kid is still dead.

Not intermittently dead.

Permanently dead.

[dales]

I agree with Crackpot, on the premise that .05 is so low that you might as well be pressing charges for any alcohol detection at all. With that kind of standard, a person could produce a positive reading by just using mouthwash.

For commercial drivers, BAC is .04.

[BoSoxGal]

Right, and .05 is NOT that low. I suspect anyone who thinks so has never participated in a wet lab to see just how affected some individuals are by just a couple of drinks. Coordination and response time are significantly affected beginning at .02 - the studies are incontrovertible. A few seconds can make all the difference in a potential accident situation.

Again, the difference in attitude between those who have felt DUI's devastating impact on a loved one versus those who haven't - yet - is generally striking.

[loCAtek]

Well, I have seen a wet lab, it's done for service members every so often. I recall they also did it double blind, by serving weak beer, strong beer and near-beer. Obviously, the most affected were the strong beer drinkers; and the least affected were the near-beer drinkers. While the weak beer drinkers were only slightly affected and some of them not at all.

Loving a loved one is traumatic in any event.

[loCAtek]

For commercial drivers, BAC is .04.

I will defer to that, but commercial drivers have many different standards to meet, than average drivers do.