Just my personal opinion but...

[justsomeguy]

I think states should make .02 illegal. and/or, require licensed drivers to purchase a breathalyzer to attain their license. I think so many people believe that they are "fine" when they drive that are actually illegal. I wish people knew how easy it was to be above .08 people just don't get it. Seriously, you should never drive if you've had 1 drink.. it's the leaway that gets so many people in trouble. I bought a breathalyzer the day after my arrest.. since then I have taken it to parties, family get togethers and weddings.. people have NO IDEA they are over the limit after a couple of drinks. the "ratios" do NOT work.

I just wish people knew the reality of how easy it is to be DWI and the consequences....

[CdwJava]

If it were up to me, .02 WOULD be the per se limit for at least a lesser offense related to DUI. That would go a long way to effect DUI driving.


Good thing for the alcoholics and serious "social drinkers" that I am not in charge.

- Carl

[blik]

I believe if the limit was set to that low people might actually start questioning why there wouldn't be ignition interlock systems on every new car coming off the line.

I believe there should be ignition interlock on every car, it would stop all DUIs but of course would not give Uncle Sam the money they love taking from us. After all cars had the ignition interlock system make a DUI penalty VERY HARSH, like 1 year in jail. That way people who thought they were tricky having a sober person blow to start their car wouldn't be tempted to do so.

[fagettaboutit]

If it were up to me, I'd treat all unsafe driving actions to the same punishment as DUI offenders. If harsh DUI laws are suppose to deter and save lives, what better way to help save the vast majority of those killed on our roadways. Over 33,000 people are killed by sober drivers every year, Those driver who act dangerous behind the wheel should be treated no different than drinking drivers.

[BigMistakeFl]

I agree that the 0.08 threshhold is unfair to all. Make drinking and driving illegal completely, then no one will wonder about this "legal limit" and when it has been reached. It's a false sense of security that needs to go the way of the cavemen.

"And I don't have much of an appetite; thank you".

[fagettaboutit]

Originally Posted by BigMistakeFl

I agree that the 0.08 threshhold is unfair to all. Make drinking and driving illegal completely, then no one will wonder about this "legal limit" and when it has been reached. It's a false sense of security that needs to go the way of the cavemen.

"And I don't have much of an appetite; thank you".

But you don't have to be over .08 to be arrested for DUI. Almost every state allows for a cop to arrest someone they think is "impaired" - no matter the BAC. A .08 and over falls under the per se law (the number says so, therefore you are). Ask everyone you come in contact with if they know a person can be arrested for DUI without being over the "limit". I think you'll find their reaction surprising.

Plus this no drinking and driving (zero bac) only covers alcohol. What about all those legal prescriptions and OTC drugs that people take nightly? Think of all the millions of people that take an anti-depressant like (just to name a few) Xanax, Ativan or Ritalin each night. Those meds are still in your system way pass lunch time the next day. If tested, they would be positive - positive is grounds for a DUI arrest. Ask those same people if they knew that a legal drug taken the night before is still grounds for DUI the next day.

I highly doubt .00 (zero) BAC laws will ever pass. They tried to slip in a .02 BAC law in Washington, DC. Once people realized .02 meant one glass of wine, it was quickly changed back to .08.

[garrula lingua]

I think it's a great idea to have a lower limit for DUI.

But, I think it should be a tiered punishment - below .04; .04 to .08; .08 to .13; etc.
(.04 is a lot different than .20).

I also think there should be consequences for cell phone users, map readers, and other inattentive drivers - take them off the road.

(In my H's village, in England, there was a hullabaloo because a cop ticketed a woman, stopped at a light, for drinking from a water bottle. The ticket was upheld - she was deemed an inattentive driver as the water bottle & 'drinking while driving' was distracting.)

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by garrula lingua

(In my H's village, in England, there was a hullabaloo because a cop ticketed a woman, stopped at a light, for drinking from a water bottle. The ticket was upheld - she was deemed an inattentive driver as the water bottle & 'drinking while driving' was distracting.)

Europe has often taken driving more seriously. Distractions have long been discouraged, and the penalties for DUI would make even the casual driving public here cry 'foul'.

- Carl

[BigMistakeFl]

But you don't have to be over .08 to be arrested for DUI. Almost every state allows for a cop to arrest someone they think is "impaired" - no matter the BAC. A .08 and over falls under the per se law (the number says so, therefore you are). Ask everyone you come in contact with if they know a person can be arrested for DUI without being over the "limit". I think you'll find their reaction surprising.

Yes, yes and yes. I'm with you completely. Again, why I insist that it is no longer fair to have a "legal limit". Just make it illegal, then everyone knows that if they drive home after a drink or two, they stand a good chance of being caught and successfully prosecuted. No more confusion.

[fagettaboutit]

Originally Posted by BigMistakeFl

Yes, yes and yes. I'm with you completely. Again, why I insist that it is no longer fair to have a "legal limit". Just make it illegal, then everyone knows that if they drive home after a drink or two, they stand a good chance of being caught and successfully prosecuted. No more confusion.

I completely hear what your saying, but that is already the case NOW. Notice how the language has changed from "drunk driving" to "impaired driving"? The confusion comes from lack of public knowledge. When I inform people they can be arrested for DUI for driving after drinking one glass of wine, they tell me that's ridiculous. For one, they think it's ridiculous to arrest someone because of ONE glass of wine. But they also don't realize it's the truth. People are still under the assumption DUI laws are to protect them from the fallen down drunk. That's why harsh DUI laws have support. The social drinker doesn't realize they're not immune to a DUI arrest. In fact, no one is immune to a DUI arrest. All it takes is one cop to *think* you're impaired. Here are two examples from this message forum:

[url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=198179[/url]

[url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=247682[/url]

As I mentioned before, DUI isn't about alcohol only. It covers perfectly legal prescribed and OTC meds. What has been done to educate people about those drugs with regards to DUI? People believe by taking their meds in the evening and waiting 12 hours to drive will eliminate the possibility of a DUI arrest. That's simply not so. Millions of people are at risk of being arrested for DUI because of their legal meds and they don't even know they're breaking a law!

Creating zero-tolerance laws isn't going to stop drunk driving. There is an element out there that no matter how tough the laws are, they are still going to drive drunk. Opening the net to arrest someone with a .01 or .02 BAC is only going to turn more people into criminals while the real criminals continue to break the law.

If we, as a society, are going to criminalize people over one glass of wine in the name of roadway safety, then why shouldn't we extend the same punishment to all drivers who drive more dangerously? If harsh punishment is supposed to deter people from drinking and driving, wouldn't the same work for those who simply drive dangerously? As it is now, you can drive dangerously with no fear of harsh punishment - until you kill someone. It takes a death to be punished! Yet if you drink one glass of wine, you're immediately punished. Even though the number of deaths that occur from the drivers who had one drink are drastically far less than those who must kill someone first before they're punished. It’s so wildly disproportional that it’s almost bizarre. When it comes to roadway fatalities, how did we arrive at a point where alcohol-related puts more value on a life lost? Aren't all roadway fatalities tragic - aren’t all lost lives important?

I'm sorry, but you don't create laws (zero BAC) for the sole purpose of educating people. Educate people on the current laws.

[fagettaboutit]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Europe has often taken driving more seriously. Distractions have long been discouraged, and the penalties for DUI would make even the casual driving public here cry 'foul'.

- Carl

Yes, Europe does take driving more seriously. They also don't hold DUI higher than any other roadway safety issues. The driving public here would freak if they were given the same standards to obtain a driver's license as they have in Europe.

Ironically, they're not as uptight with regards to alcohol as Americans are. Europeans don't have a problem with giving their teenager (or younger) a glass of wine with dinner. Something that would cause an uproar in this country. The drinking age isn't as high as 21. In most cases it's 18 or below. Europeans simply view alcohol completely different than Americans. So to compare their DUI laws to ours without regard to their overall attitude towards alcohol is futile.

[SillyPuddy]

I agree the current .08 "legal limit" creates misperceptions in people about at what point do they consider themselves potentially impaired. Alchohol affects different people differently. One person could be impaired at .04 while another would be impaired at .08. However, I do believe that most if not all people have some level of impairment at .08. The .08 legal limit was established for another purpose the public in general is not aware of. Basically, having a legal limit prevents law enforcement and judges from letting drivers off the hook because they are friends, public officials, celebreties, family members, pro athletes, and other local heros.

Legislating interlocks be installed in all cars has a lot of merit. For one it would dramatically reduce DUI (but not completely eliminate it). Second, more or less it would create a whole new industry because many new companies would need to be formed to provide and monitor the interlocks for the millions of cars out there. This would create thousands of jobs.

Lowering the legal limit to .02 (1 drink) would never fly because industries that rely on the sales of alchohol (like restaurants) would be put out of business and thousands of jobs would be lost. The public would not like it either an elected officials are not going to risk their careers but pissing off the public at that level. However, you could legislate a drink limit in public establishments, but some other method would need to be devised to deal with drinking at a private residence and driving.

As far as extending similar punishments to other traffic offenses, other traffic offenses would need to become as political as DUI. No politican is going to get themselves fired by legislating that driving 1 mile per hour over the speed limit gets a 1 year license suspension.

[fagettaboutit]

Originally Posted by SillyPuddy

The .08 legal limit was established for another purpose the public in general is not aware of. Basically, having a legal limit prevents law enforcement and judges from letting drivers off the hook because they are friends, public officials, celebreties, family members, pro athletes, and other local heros.

That's interesting. So they created a limit that crimilizes people so judges wouldn't extend a favor to their buddies? Only alcohol would get such limit. No other crime has adjusted the law so judges and cops couldn't extend favors.

Legislating interlocks be installed in all cars has a lot of merit. For one it would dramatically reduce DUI (but not completely eliminate it). Second, more or less it would create a whole new industry because many new companies would need to be formed to provide and monitor the interlocks for the millions of cars out there. This would create thousands of jobs.

Driver distraction is the number one factor (not alcohol) in crashes. Interlocks are a distraction for drivers. So what you're essentially doing is making every driver perform a dangerous task while driving. You're trading one danger for another. How does that make our roadway safer? Sure there's no alcohol involved, but roadway safety goes beyond alcohol.

As far as extending similar punishments to other traffic offenses, other traffic offenses would need to become as political as DUI.

That's right, DUI is all political. The one with the most noise and money is always going to win. MADD spends enormous amounts money lobbying DUI issues. They also spend an enormous amount to time deflecting any other dangerous driving issues. They simply don't want any other issue to become a bigger issue than DUI. Even after the facts show the other issues are involved four times more than alcohol.

No politician is going to get themselves fired by legislating that driving 1 mile per hour over the speed limit gets a 1 year license suspension.

1 mph over the speed limit is a little extreme. But 20 mph over the speed limit isn't. Speeding kills, everybody knows that. Speeding kills more people than alcohol. So why would a politician get fired for legislating for laws to protect people from death or injury? They're not afraid to do it when alcohol is involved.

DUI laws didn't start at .08. It has worked down to that. But the fact is most people still believe DUI laws are for fallen down drunks. That's why you haven’t heard an uproar over DUI laws - yet. But as more people start to learn about these "modern" DUI laws, there's going to be a lot more people questioning their elected officials. Make no mistake, DUI laws have been popular only because the public doesn't understand them.

[Dougthegreat]

Originally Posted by blik

I believe there should be ignition interlock on every car

I don't, because I don't consume alcohol. Period. Not socially, not privately, not on special occasions - NEVER. Putting an interlock on my car would be a waste of my own money, and would be just another thing to malfunction in my already-complicated ignition/electrical system.

I do, however, believe that all cars in the same household as someone who has a DWI should be interlocked. As I understand it, if a car is registered to a wife or other family member, they do NOT have to get the interlock installed, and that seems too easy to defeat the system.

Since the police can issue citations for driving impaired, even if the BAL is under the legal limit, I figured the issue of lowering the BAL would be moot. However, if they did lower it, it would be fine with me - the most hammered I've ever been is the time I took Nyquil half an hour before the bottle recommended I take my next dosage.

[Dougthegreat]

Originally Posted by fagettaboutit

<blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah>

I can't seriously believe that you're actually trying to make excuses for drunk drivers. You must be a troll.