The Long Expected Next Phase In DUI Law Is HERE

Oh yeah, to hell with people's safety. If someone wants to impair their judgment and reaction time, by god, we should let. Those damned old women can just stay off the road!

Life is a risky proposition....the only way around this is to get dead.

Fun and fulfillment are important so long as we are not dead, dont minimize that. And we dont have a government that is trustworthy, which needs to be considered when they come around trying to sell their wares.

now that you mention it we would do better on the SAFETY metric if we made old people prove that they still had good driving skills. but going after those who like to drink has always been easier.

In fact, in every state in which i have ever been licensed to drive, people above a certain age (usually 60) are required to take the written and the road test every time they renew their licenses. In all of those states, they were also required to renew every two years. I guess you wouldn't know that, though, huh? You're so wrapped up in yourself and your petty, silly grievances.

Sure life entails risk, but there's no reason to allow unnecessary risks. No one has to drink and then drive. There is public transport, there are cabs, there are one's friends or family who can see that they get home safely. Of course, that also increases the safety of everyone else. This is just another typical Whackeye thread--you just found something else to piss and moan about.

under that theory we would not do 90% of the things we do each day and every day would suck.

I want my law guided by more humane and reasonable people than you!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/05/14/ntsb_bac_limit_national_transportation_safety_board_suggests_curbing_legal.html

if the feds try their usual approach of trying to blackmail the states into doing its bidding there will be hell to pay....we have seen way too much of that, and the reputation of Washington is sinking like a stone

Let me guess....you have a liquor license and serve liquor in your restaurant and this will cut into your profits.

yes but I was hostile towards DUI law before that....in the Berry/Thom thread I said that the .08 limit is already not justified based upon science and thus is barely tolerable, and that the next phase of depriving us of pleasure and freedom must be put down with vigor.

I have no problem with this at all. If you’re drinking you have no business driving period! You know what they did in St. Pete last year? Changed the drinking time from 2am until 3am, who needs to drink until 3 in the morning?

There is plenty of good hard science behind the determination of where impairment begins and the NSC had done several studies to reinforce the original data. 0.05 actually has clearly visible expressions of first order impairment.

when impairment starts is irrelevant, what matters is how much makes driving dangerous enough that the state has a valid claim to forbid the practice.

The impairment scale states that from 0.03 to 0.059 BA(by vol), there is a measurable decrease in JUDGEMENT SKILLS and SPEED OF COGNITION.
(Is that the lack of scientific data that you assert?)

irrelevant...there is no reason to work with this secondary plane when science has available to measure the primary plane, that being the accident and death data with the BAC of the one who was at fault.

having the law set to stop a bit over double the risk is barely tolerable in my opinion, any further removal of my right to go out and drive after is not until and unless we move to being a society were car ownership is not required due to the lack of public transit options

we spend a hell of a lot of money fighting diseases with similar percebtage occurences . Heres actual data tht you wish to call insignificant.

I can understand if youre a mouthpiece for the malt beverage nd liquor lobby

And you were wrong in that thread, and your understanding, and knowledge, of the impairing effects of alcohol on the human central nervous system--and directly on driving abilities--hasn't improved since then.

Bringing the U.S. legal BAC level down to .05 will put this country more in line with the legal limits for driving elsewhere in the world. Limits in other countries were lowered some time ago because there is more than adequate scientific data to confirm significant impairment in faculties and abilities, that directly affect driving, and accident avoidance ability, at a .08 BAC level.

The government isn't trying to stop you, or anyone else, from binge drinking, or from getting as drunk as a skunk every day of the week, if that's your idea of "pleasure and freedom". You just have no "right" to get behind the wheel when you are in an impaired state, due to your alcohol consumption, because that makes you a potential danger to everyone else on the road.

This isn't about an anti-drinking crusade, it's about responsible driving--and that's the point you miss entirely. You've bitched before, in another thread, about the fact that distracted driving is being made illegal because that's another alleged infringement on your "pleasure and freedom" when you're behind the wheel. You simply view your own selfish needs as more important than responsible driving when the two conflict.

You may not care about your own safety when behind the wheel, and you may be unconcerned about the safety of others as well, but don't disingenuously pretend there isn't substantial scientific data to confirm significant impairment in driving abilities, and accident avoidance ability, at a BAC of .08--impairments which would contribute to a higher rate of automobile accidents and deaths. I posted a good deal of that data in the Drunk Driving/Thom thread, and I'm not going to re-post it here because you couldn't process or understand it the first time around.

Why not try to lower the number of alcohol-related automobile accidents and deaths as much as possible? And try to lower the number of auto accidents due to drugs, and distracted driving as well. What's wrong with promoting responsible driving, and penalizing irresponsible drivers, who pose a danger to others, because they get behind the wheel drunk/impaired, or because they are so busy talking or texting on cell phones they aren't fully attending to the road? What's wrong with trying to reduce all automobile accidents and deaths as much as possible? That's why we have speed limits, and traffic signals and signs, and try to build and own safer cars--to promote safety on the road.

Perhaps we need the government to intervene, and to set the boundaries for responsible driving, because too many individuals, like you, can't be trusted to set responsible boundaries for themselves. If your own safety isn't a main concern for you, when operating a potentially lethal piece of machinery, like an automobile, and you can't understand, or care about, the issue of public safety involved, you really disqualify yourself from being a meaningful contributor to a rational, informed discussion of this issue.

That's not true in all states, and it's definitely not true in the state I live in. Here licenses are automatically renewed with no tests, beside eye tests, regardless of driver age, and, I think, the renewal period is for 8 years each time. Unless someone (a doctor, a family member, etc.) questions a driver's ability, and reports it to the motor vehicle bureau, or the person has a lot of driving infractions or accidents, no requirements, or tests, are imposed due to age.

I agree with you on that.

that is not a valid comparison because I get a lot of benefit out of drinking and then driving but none out of disease. life is properly navigated with reward/risk analysis not by counting up risk points.