# NTSB recommends dropping BAC from .08 to .05



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

The National Transportation Safety Board voted to recommend to states that they lower the blood-alcohol content that constitutes drunken driving.
Currently, all 50 states have set a BAC level of .08, reflecting the percentage of alcohol, by volume, in the blood. If a driver is found to have a BAC level of .08 or above, he or she is subject to arrest and prosecution. 

The National Transportation Safety Board is advising states to lower the Blood Alcohol Level that defines drunk driving from .08 to .05, which they say is the level at which many drivers' vision can be affected. 

I'm not sure how to do a poll, but I would like to here some civil discussion as to the pro's/con's.


----------



## rod bender bob (May 19, 2004)

I don't think it will make any difference except in the courts' coffers. More bucks for gov't no effect on drunk driving problems. People who blow .06 or .09 are not the problem, it's the .2 plus folks and they will not change no matter the law. More stupid bureaucratic crap.


----------



## BassBlaster (Jun 8, 2006)

They could drop it to .01 and I wouldnt care. I have no sympathy for a drunk driver. If I plan on drinking, I make sure I have a ride or that Im not going anywhere. Its that simple. Yeah, it sucks that I cant run down to the bar with the guys after work and have a couple beers but I deal with it and it dosnt really affect my life. That said, Im not the type to just have a couple beers anyhow. I rarely drink but when I do, I do it to get drunk and have a good time so I get well above .08. I do understand that people with a BAC of .05 or .06 arnt the ones running over and killing innocent people so I understand you wanting to have a discussion about it. I guess my point is it wont affect me or my freedoms so I dont really have much of an opinion.


----------



## Bono Joe (Mar 2, 2009)

They are slowly backing up to prohibition. I have to stop at two beers now as I am afraid to go over the .08. If it goes to .05 I am down to one beer.


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

Can remember "back in the `good ole days`" when if you got pulled over the nice deputy/ trooper/ cop would ask you if you were "sober" enough to drive yourself home and would follow you to "make sure". That stopped when the nice trooper in Tennessee was following the nice drunk guy home when her ran a Stop sign and killed everyone of the family of 5 and himself back in the late 70`s; the trooper swore the guy didn`t SEEM that drunk (his corpse tested at .19) and blamed himself. That trooper committed suicide the next day and of course the relatives of both the family AND the drunk driver sued the state; the Tennessee Supreme Court found the trooper at fault and awarded HUGE fines, ect. Then MADD jumped in, and personally am GLAD they did. FACE FACTS: if you plan to drink, then just DO NOT DRIVE! PERIOD! There are too many people like me who just won`t wait to call the Law with your license plate numbers, color and type of vehicle, which way you are going, ect. It`s nothing personal. but I see someone weaving all over the road, EXPECT me to be the 1st person to call. And I`m doing it to protect MYSELF. Again, it`s nothing personal, but there ain`t 1 person in America gonna HONESTLY say "I thought they meant everyone EXCEPT me..." or "It`s ILLEGAL to drive drunk?"


----------



## Dovans (Nov 15, 2011)

Leave it at .08. The middle class is being targeted once again. As been stated before, lowering the level will do nothing to stop DWI. DWI is a problem this not the way to stop it.


----------



## JimmyZ (May 18, 2004)

If you hold a commercial drivers license the limit is .04. Doesn't matter if your in a commercial vehicle or your personal car. I don't see the problem with lowering it. If I have a drink I absolutely DO NOT DRIVE! Period. That's how it should be.


----------



## glasseyes (Jan 28, 2012)

I like others have no mercy for someone picked up for DWI, I had a close family member killed by one. 
Any law that can be put in place that will actually help keep these people from choosing to drive may help save a life.


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

My issue with a .05 limit is that there are too many situations where a person could test .05 then be .03 our less when the second test is (sopposed) to be done at least 20 minutes later. But, the police would still charge the person.

Now if they dropped the limit for the second test to .05, that would eliminate my issues.

I'm not advocating for people to be allowed to drink and drive, far from it. But a OMVI has too many far reaching ramifications to drop the limit and not also take a look at the secondary testing procedure, and when a person can be charged or must be released. 

Does anyone know whet we can find the data saying that people with a BAC of less than .08 are causing so much trouble? Just a thought......
Mr. A


----------



## samiam (Jan 6, 2011)

If you want to make the roads safer make the punishment for texting and driving the same as for DUI. If this is really about prohibition than sure lower it to .05. The so many laws now I can't keep up.


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

Bono Joe said:


> They are slowly backing up to prohibition. I have to stop at two beers now as I am afraid to go over the .08. If it goes to .05 I am down to one beer.





Dovans said:


> Leave it at .08. The middle class is being targeted once again. As been stated before, lowering the level will do nothing to stop DWI. DWI is a problem this not the way to stop it.


Comments like these leave me scratching my head. While I agree this wouldn't really stop drunk driving, to compare it to prohibition or going after the middle class is ludicrous. Of course, they could drop it to .001 and it wouldnt bother me.


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

M.Magis said:


> Comments like these leave me scratching my head. While I agree this wouldn't really stop drunk driving, to compare it to prohibition or going after the middle class is ludicrous. Of course, they could drop it to .001 and it wouldn&#8217;t bother me.


+1 ^^^

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Jigging Jim (Apr 3, 2010)

New laws won't stop the problem. There are still people drinking while they are driving. I see beer bottles and cans tossed on the ground at the entrence to my neighborhood all of the time.


----------



## glasseyes (Jan 28, 2012)

ostbucks98 said:


> +1 ^^^
> 
> posted using outdoor hub campfire



+1000,,, 1000


----------



## James F (Jul 2, 2005)

_ don't drink and drive Period!! Can't afford the cost and all the Drama!Texting and driving should have a high dollar fine also.With the volume of traffic a lot of people are at risk any way, Let alone some one using a key pad instead of watching the road. I guess they're Entitled _


----------



## PARK92 (Apr 21, 2012)

alcohol, like any other drug, affects people differently. if they really wanted to stop drunk driving then it should be lowered to .01. no tolerance.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

rod bender bob said:


> I don't think it will make any difference except in the courts' coffers. More bucks for gov't no effect on drunk driving problems. People who blow .06 or .09 are not the problem, it's the .2 plus folks and they will not change no matter the law. More stupid bureaucratic crap.


Well said. Not only is this just another cash grab, think about the effects this has on businesses that serve alcohol. It will be massively damaging.

I've never figured out what the difference is between someone who caused an accident that had some drinks vs. someone who caused an accident who had no drinks. It's the same thing but somehow in the eyes of many it's not. Both the drinker and the non-drinker engaged in bad driving.

People should be responsible for their actions when it involves causing harm or injury to someone or someone's property. They shouldn't be stripped of cash to fill the coffers or spend time in the clink for "pre-crime".


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

To be honest...I'm lucky to be alive right now! When I was Young that's all we did...cruise and drink, car surf, zig-zag in and out of a line of 5 buddies cars for miles, play bumper tag at 100 mph, parties on the back roads and get hammered and drive home, etc, etc, etc, then I went to Ohio University and more of the same...finally "grew up" at age 30 when I was in South Carolina...a buddy I had just partied with, died on the way home, luckily I met a girl and she drove me home....never have even had 1 drink and drove since. I'll normally have a beer a month at the house before bed to relax...and that's it!
They need to strictly enforce the laws we have...when someone can have 30 DUI arrests and still be driving...something is wrong! 
A bar can be just as responsible...it makes it's money off getting people drunk...most don't care how or if those drunks got home, as long as they made money! I guess if you go out for a family meal...one of the "adults" will not be allowed to drink and can responsible drive home...!
Texting, talking on the phone, etc while driving...should also have stiffer penalties.


----------



## glasseyes (Jan 28, 2012)

*I've never figured out what the difference is between someone who caused an accident that had some drinks vs. someone who caused an accident who had no drinks.* It's the same thing but somehow in the eyes of many it's not. Both the drinker and the non-drinker engaged in bad driving.


You can't be serious
There are many number of reasons a person could cause an accident , one, they just weren't paying attention to what they were doing. 
A person who chooses to drive after they have been drinking is purposely putting other people in danger not just themselves.


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn&#8217;t matter if it&#8217;s caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage.

Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it belongs. It might repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers the government says it needs to catch and convict drunk drivers. If the offense were reckless driving rather than drunk driving, for example, repeated swerving over the median line would be enough to justify the charge. There would be no need for a cop to jam a needle in your arm alongside a busy highway.

Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat a driver with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn&#8217;t about making the roads safer. It&#8217;s about a lingering hostility toward demon rum.


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

boatnut said:


> Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush.


"Radical" is a much nicer word than I would use. So what you're saying, as long as a person can keep it between the lines while drunk, that's okay? Only punish people who actually cause accidents or drive recklessly? Good thinking.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Bucket Mouth said:


> Well said. Not only is this just another cash grab, think about the effects this has on businesses that serve alcohol. It will be massively damaging.
> 
> I've never figured out what the difference is between someone who caused an accident that had some drinks vs. someone who caused an accident who had no drinks. It's the same thing but somehow in the eyes of many it's not. Both the drinker and the non-drinker engaged in bad driving.
> 
> People should be responsible for their actions when it involves causing harm or injury to someone or someone's property. They shouldn't be stripped of cash to fill the coffers or spend time in the clink for "pre-crime".


How will it effect a business that sells alcohol? How many beers per hour can you drink and maintain a .8 as opposed to a .5? 

Last I checked, people are held responsible in a crash whether they are drunk or not. It's a fact that alcohol affects judgement and motor skills at a certain level and you should be glad everyone isn't allowed to get tanked and go out for a sunday cruise. It's not a "pre-crime", it's a crime to get behind the wheel with a BAC level above a certain %. Nothing "Pre" about it.

Talk about a head scratcher...


----------



## cheezemm2 (Apr 7, 2004)

FYI, I think this is silly politics and just want to promote some thought even if I seem somewhat sarcastic...

For everyone in support of this, I hope that you are willing to let many of 
your local bars, restaurants etc. suffer. I also hope you're willing to stress out the already burdened court system some more.

The emphasis on endangering others is valid, but driving is entirely subjective and this law is based on someone using silly statistics. I want to see the breakout of lethal accidents caused by ranges of BAC. If someone merely measured the .05-.08 range and estimated 600-800 lives saved, that's because it's .000x% of x number of accidents. Was alcohol a contributing factor in those fatals or was it just found in a person's system? What's the difference between an accident caused by alcohol vs an accident that the drive had consumed alcohol? What's the statistic on texting? For a DUI/DWI you are in serious poo for the rest of your life...what's an accident for texting get ya? There are far more serious problems to deal with than this kind of stuff.

Would I rather jump into my car after 2 beers and drive then get into the car with my friend from Europe who is used to driving in the left lane and got his/her license 2 weeks ago? What about people who eat in cars? They are impaired. Did you just look down to switch your radio dial? What, there's a bee in the car!?!? Made a phone call (looked down to look through your contacts) you're impaired. Reading a map, impaired...shaving, doing your make-up...impaired

Drunk driving is irresponsible, going out and having 2 beers at dinner is not.

Hell, I might as well not even operate my boat after taking a bonine or dramimine!?!?

Maybe we should look at more than 1 caffeine drink causing accidents...what if it was found that not drinking coffee during driving could save 2,000 lives? Would you be as willing to strike down coffee? 

Maybe we should ban driving at dawn/dusk because of that fatalities associated with deer!?!?


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

boatnut said:


> If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldnt matter if its caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage.
> 
> Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it belongs. It might repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers the government says it needs to catch and convict drunk drivers. If the offense were reckless driving rather than drunk driving, for example, repeated swerving over the median line would be enough to justify the charge. There would be no need for a cop to jam a needle in your arm alongside a busy highway.
> 
> Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat a driver with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isnt about making the roads safer. Its about a lingering hostility toward demon rum.


I'd be more for giving the drunks their own lane. Far away from mine.


----------



## glasseyes (Jan 28, 2012)

boatnut said:


> If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldnt matter if its caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage.
> 
> Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it belongs. It might repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers the government says it needs to catch and convict drunk drivers. If the offense were reckless driving rather than drunk driving, for example, repeated swerving over the median line would be enough to justify the charge. There would be no need for a cop to jam a needle in your arm alongside a busy highway.
> 
> Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat a driver with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isnt about making the roads safer. Its about a lingering hostility toward demon rum.




After reading this if I didn't know better Id say you've had a few to many right now .


----------



## cheezemm2 (Apr 7, 2004)

Durk Deriving bda...mmmkay? Just tell me whatemi sposed to do!


----------



## glasseyes (Jan 28, 2012)

I t is just idiotic to try to argue the point that putting a substance in your body that WILL impair your brain and reaction times to trying to drive a car. PERIOD. Doesn't matter to me what the levels are ok, it's just plain stupid to defend something like that. end of story,,Jeesh how ignorant can some people be. You are putting something in your body that will stop you from reacting in a normal way, how can you defend what those levels should be, think about it and then try and explain that to the parents of the child that you ran over. You have no idea of what might go wrong when you are behind the wheel and with a drink or two in your system it may be just enough to keep you from reacting correctly, why in the world would anybody defend that, unless that is if they like to drink and drive. If that's the case then I hope you get caught and I hope they throw the book at you before you have a bad accident and kill someone.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> How will it effect a business that sells alcohol? How many beers per hour can you drink and maintain a .8 as opposed to a .5?


Since you seem so knowledgeable about restaurants, please tell me how a reduction in BAC to .5 will not affect profit margins. How many people will make the decision not to have a drink with their dinner. Even if it's a small percentage it will erode the profits of a business, and therefore erodes at sustainability for the business in general or places jobs in jeopardy.



MassillonBuckeye said:


> Last I checked, people are held responsible in a crash whether they are drunk or not. It's a fact that alcohol affects judgement and motor skills at a certain level and you should be glad everyone isn't allowed to get tanked and go out for a sunday cruise. It's not a "pre-crime", it's a crime to get behind the wheel with a BAC level above a certain %. Nothing "Pre" about it.
> 
> Talk about a head scratcher...


The point I'm making is that Johnny Law can throw someone in the clink and pilfer their bank account for something as little as swerving or riding the shoulder line. If you're a horrible driver whose eating a sloppy ass cheeseburger while changing radio stations and simultaneously looking at the back seat to yell at your kids, swerving doesn't matter. "Carry on," says Johnny Law. Swerving isn't a crime the last time I checked, unless somehow alcohol is involved.

If you're driving home from a restaurant and you were to swerve after having 2 drinks with your dinner...... Well, we can't have that. You need to go to the clink. The point here is you can go to jail for committing a crime even though you never committed a crime. This is what I would refer to as pre-crime. You _might_ hit someone after you've been drinking so we better shake you down. No one ever says that the crap-ass driver eating a burrito while smoking a cigarette with just his knee on the wheel should go to the joint for swerving. Just those horrible alcohol drinkers.

I hope you don't have to scratch your head anymore. They make ointment for those ailments.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

glasseyes said:


> I t is just idiotic to try to argue the point that putting a substance in your body that WILL impair your brain and reaction times to trying to drive a car. PERIOD. Doesn't matter to me what the levels are ok, it's just plain stupid to defend something like that. end of story,,Jeesh how ignorant can some people be. You are putting something in your body that will stop you from reacting in a normal way, how can you defend what those levels should be, think about it and then try and explain that to the parents of the child that you ran over. You have no idea of what might go wrong when you are behind the wheel and with a drink or two in your system it may be just enough to keep you from reacting correctly, why in the world would anybody defend that, unless that is if they like to drink and drive. If that's the case then I hope you get caught and I hope they throw the book at you before you have a bad accident and kill someone.


You have no idea what might go wrong when you get in a car PERIOD. Defending someone's right to choose is called freedom. Apparently you don't care much for being free and need someone to enforce your views on other people. There's alot of crap I don't like but I don't try to leverage the law to squash other people into conforming to my views.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

boatnut said:


> If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldnt matter if its caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage.
> 
> Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it belongs. It might repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers the government says it needs to catch and convict drunk drivers. If the offense were reckless driving rather than drunk driving, for example, repeated swerving over the median line would be enough to justify the charge. There would be no need for a cop to jam a needle in your arm alongside a busy highway.
> 
> Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat a driver with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isnt about making the roads safer. Its about a lingering hostility toward demon rum.


Good post boatnut. Good topic in general too. Here's an article that I'm sure will get people raring to go:

Legalize Drunk Driving
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

Heck, let&#8217;s legalize meth labs while we&#8217;re at it. No &#8220;real&#8221; crime has been committed until someone actually uses it, right? We shouldn&#8217;t infringe on a dope head rights. Oh, and we have a whole pile of people in prison for conspiracy to commit murder, we better let them all out. They never had a chance to commit a real crime, let&#8217;s give them a chance. Same with &#8220;intent to sell
&#8220; drug convictions, let them all out. Child porn pedophiles? Let them go about their lives until after they commit a real crime, we don't want to squash them to conform to our views. 


Defending drunk drivers, something I&#8217;d never thought I&#8217;d see here.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

M.Magis said:


> Heck, lets legalize meth labs while were at it. No real crime has been committed until someone actually uses it, right? We shouldnt infringe on a dope head rights. Oh, and we have a whole pile of people in prison for conspiracy to commit murder, we better let them all out. They never had a chance to commit a real crime, lets give them a chance. Same with intent to sell
>  drug convictions, let them all out. Child porn pedophiles? Let them go about their lives until after they commit a real crime, we don't want to squash them to conform to our views.
> 
> 
> Defending drunk drivers, something Id never thought Id see here.


If meth were legal, you wouldn't have meth labs. The idiots that smoke it would go to Rite Aid to buy it. What's the crime in ingesting something? Do you own your own body? If they can make drugs illegal what's to stop them from making Big Macs illegal? The government says we're too fat. Time to crack down on food and drink so that you can participate in that new crap program that ends in "care". Think it can't happen? Go to NYC and talk to Mayor Bloomberg about his ideas for the citizens of New York City.

I defend free will. Being free can be ugly. But it sure beats the alternatives.


----------



## cheezemm2 (Apr 7, 2004)

Let me be clear that I in no way defend truly drunk drivers on the road, but by reducing the BAC on such a severe punishment is not right. I am willing to bet a lot of people down the road will say, oh my gosh, he/she was at .06 BAC and killed someone. Before MADD etc. the standard was much higher than the .08 today, but it's just another standard that has been washed away over time.

.06 BAC
2013 - perfectly legal vehicular manslaughter
2014 - DWI/DUI and vehicular manslaughter

It's a terrible tragedy no matter how you slice it, but I don't define this as a "drunk" person killing someone. It's just my view, right, wrong, or indifferent.

On a lighter note, try taking some of the 24 hour allergy medications, just don't pick the one that gives you real side effects and then drive. Zyrtec is like instant road rage with a side of hibernation.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Bucket Mouth said:


> Since you seem so knowledgeable about restaurants, please tell me how a reduction in BAC to .5 will not affect profit margins. How many people will make the decision not to have a drink with their dinner. Even if it's a small percentage it will erode the profits of a business, and therefore erodes at sustainability for the business in general or places jobs in jeopardy.


So is it a small percentage or


> It will be massively damaging.


 ?

My point is your statement was a change like this would be "massively damaging" to businesses which serve alcohol? yet you have no evidence, anecdotal or not to back it up. Kinda like your "FDR was a hack" comment. Noticing a trend here... 


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Bucket Mouth said:


> If meth were legal, you wouldn't have meth labs. The idiots that smoke it would go to Rite Aid to buy it. What's the crime in ingesting something? Do you own your own body? If they can make drugs illegal what's to stop them from making Big Macs illegal? The government says we're too fat. Time to crack down on food and drink so that you can participate in that new crap program that ends in "care". Think it can't happen? Go to NYC and talk to Mayor Bloomberg about his ideas for the citizens of New York City.
> 
> I defend free will. Being free can be ugly. But it sure beats the alternatives.



Bath Salts. Hey, Beer is legal, but you don't have any beer labs right? Wrong. You have them everywhere. Legally operating and illegally operating. Its not quick and easy to make otherwise they'd be even more widespread. Use marijuana as an example. Do you think if they'd legalize it there wouldn't be anyone growing it? Um, it's a weed. Everyone would grow it.
You are in for a long life of disappointments if you think you need to live some "free" life in which you can do and consume anything you feel like. There isn't a society in existence or ever existed for any substantial amount of time with no laws or regulations protecting their citizens from the worst and most reckless amongst them. I'm guessing even cavemen had some system of norms and unacceptable behaviors.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

cheezemm2 said:


> Let me be clear that I in no way defend truly drunk drivers on the road, but by reducing the BAC on such a severe punishment is not right. I am willing to bet a lot of people down the road will say, oh my gosh, he/she was at .06 BAC and killed someone. Before MADD etc. the standard was much higher than the .08 today, but it's just another standard that has been washed away over time.
> 
> .06 BAC
> 2013 - perfectly legal vehicular manslaughter
> ...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States

History of drunken driving laws
1937 WPA drunk driving poster

The first jurisdiction in the United States of America to adopt laws against drunken driving was New York in 1910, with California and others following. Early laws simply prohibited driving while intoxicated, requiring proof of a state of intoxication with no specific definition of what level of inebriation qualified.[16] The first generally-accepted legal BAC limit was 0.15%.[citation needed]

In 1938, the American Medical Association created a "Committee to Study Problems of Motor Vehicle Accidents". At the same time, the National Safety Council set up a "Committee on Tests for Intoxication".



> In the US, most of the laws and penalties were greatly enhanced starting in the late 1970s, and through the 1990s, largely due to pressure from groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) and leaders like Candy Lightner. Significantly, zero tolerance laws were enacted which criminalized driving a vehicle with 0.01% or 0.02% BAC for drivers under 21. This is true even in Puerto Rico, despite maintaining a legal drinking age of 18.[17]
> 
> On May 14, 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all 50 states lower the benchmark for determining when a driver is legally drunk from 0.08 blood-alcohol content to 0.05. The idea is part of an initiative to eliminate drunken driving, which accounts for about a third of all road deaths.[18]


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

reckless driving:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_driving



> In United States law, reckless driving is a major moving traffic violation. It is usually a more serious offense than careless driving, improper driving, or driving without due care and attention and is often punishable by fines, imprisonment, and/or driver's license suspension or revocation.
> 
> Reckless driving is often defined as a mental state in which the driver displays a wanton disregard for the rules of the road; the driver often misjudges common driving procedures, often causing accidents and other damages. Reckless driving has been studied by psychologists[1] who found that reckless drivers score high in risk-taking personality traits. However, no one cause can be assigned to this state. There are some states, such as Virginia, where mental state is not considered, but rather a set of specific violations can be deemed reckless. Excessive speed by itself is sufficient for a reckless driving conviction in some jurisdictions (e.g., Virginia).


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Bath Salts. Hey, Beer is legal, but you don't have any beer labs right? Wrong. You have them everywhere. Legally operating and illegally operating. Its not quick and easy to make otherwise they'd be even more widespread. Use marijuana as an example. Do you think if they'd legalize it there wouldn't be anyone growing it? Um, it's a weed. Everyone would grow it.
> You are in for a long life of disappointments if you think you need to live some "free" life in which you can do and consume anything you feel like. There isn't a society in existence or ever existed for any substantial amount of time with no laws or regulations protecting their citizens from the worst and most reckless amongst them. I'm guessing even cavemen had some system of norms and unacceptable behaviors.


Why is living a free life so disappointing? Are you saying that alcohol should be illegal? Whether or not it's homebrew or homegrown, why is it a crime to ingest either one in the privacy of your own home? If cavemen had the "rule of law" and "property rights", then that would be fine by me.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

boatnut said:


> Why is living a free life so disappointing? Are you saying that alcohol should be illegal? Whether or not it's homebrew or homegrown, why is it a crime to ingest either one in the privacy of your own home? If cavemen had the "rule of law" and "property rights", then that would be fine by me.


His idea of "free" doesn't jibe with the majority of folks in the US it seems. That was directed at bucketmouth. His stated goal(as dishonest or uneducated as I think it is) is completely unrealistic thus setting him up for a lifetime of disappointment.
I think I am pretty free when it comes to living my life. Especially compared to other countries around the world. 

I'm not saying alcohol should be illegal. Whatever you do in your own home is of no consequence to me until you walk out your front door and into the street. Then I take issue. Should you be allowed to get tanked and go lay out in the street? I shouldn't have to deal with your drunkeness carrying on with my daily life. You are making MY life less free by hassling me with your drunken antics. At that point, you are infringing on MY freedom to legally drive down the road in a safe fashion and carry out my business. Thats what our laws need to concentrate on. Keeping us free from each others dangerous activities. Be as reckless and endangering as you want to but leave me out of it!


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

M.Magis said:


> "Radical" is a much nicer word than I would use. So what you're saying, as long as a person can keep it between the lines while drunk, that's okay? Only punish people who actually cause accidents or drive recklessly? Good thinking.


I'm not buying comparing your "conspiracy to commit murder" to driving under the influence. You are not "conspiring to cause an accident.

As to your comment about "it's ok to drive drunk as long as you can keep it between the lines". I don't personally believe that a few beers necessarily makes you impaired. size, gender, experience and a host of other factors come into play. 

"distracted" driving causes way more accidents then alcohol. Your much more likely to get rear ended by some lady putting on her makeup than someone with a BAC of .08. 

I am by no means advocating "driving drunk", impaired or recklessly. I just simply don't think it's right or the government to assign an arbitrary number and saying if we are over that we are "drunk". It's b.s.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

boatnut said:


> I'm not buying comparing your "conspiracy to commit murder" to driving under the influence. You are not "conspiring to cause an accident.
> 
> As to your comment about "it's ok to drive drunk as long as you can keep it between the lines". I don't personally believe that a few beers necessarily makes you impaired. size, gender, experience and a host of other factors come into play.
> 
> ...



I dunno, I've never been in an accident with a lady putting on her makeup but I was almost killed by a drunk driver. So I don't agree with your odds. I know plently of people that get annoying and "impared" after one or two beers but you are right as far as BAC goes. Obviously everyones body will process alcohol differently so theres no "magic number" of beers you can drink before you are deemed impaired.
Keep in mind Sally at .05 can have completely different effects than Billy at .05 as well..

Also, it's not the government dude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

Reminder from the news article:


> The NTSB is an investigative agency that advocates on behalf of safety issues. It has no legal authority to order any change to state or federal law. It would be up to individual states whether to accept the NTSBs recommendation, and up to the Department of Transportation whether to endorse the recommendations.


Just trying to shove this discussion back into the middle somewhere...if that's possible


----------



## leupy (Feb 12, 2007)

Talk about a can of worms, Boatnut started a good one. I do drink mostly at home and my wife does not so she drives after being out. I am staying out of this no dog in the fight. I don't agree with almost any comment posted.


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

leupy said:


> Talk about a can of worms, Boatnut started a good one. I do drink mostly at home and my wife does not so she drives after being out. I am staying out of this no dog in the fight. I don't agree with almost any comment posted.


Leupy,
sorry to hear you won't be commenting. As an ex-LEO , I was hoping for a perspective from your point of view.

As a side note, I posted this as I feel it's important to get different people's input, which we have so far. I just hope we can keep the bashing/politics out of it.
Carry on!


----------



## leupy (Feb 12, 2007)

Okay I will make a comment, when I worked the street 35+ years ago the BAC was .15 I still usually just took the keys and locked them in the car and let them go. I do not believe .08 has any effect on someones ability to drive, .05 is just stupid. Now for all you wonderful people that never have a drink, I am okay with that, this is as far as I can go without getting nasty.


----------



## Bonemann (Jan 28, 2008)

I think there are several issues to look at. This .08 or .05 will have nothing to do with the people that drink and drive, that's what they do !!! But it will have an effect on anyone who has a couple of drinks with dinner or after work.

I drive 108 miles to and from work through the city of Pittsburgh daily. From what I see every day allot of people drive like sh#t. When those folks that can't drive good when they are sober; how do you think they will drive after they have a few ?

Drinking and driving is not good but neither is distracted driving (cell phones,texting,make-up,reading things etc.)

The whole issue sounds allot like gun control: Just one more law will stop criminals from doing bad things. Yes it will work this time I'm sure !!!


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

leupy said:


> Now for all you wonderful people that never have a drink, I am okay with that, this is as far as I can go without getting nasty.


I can't find one person that made that comment. Am I missing something?


----------



## glasseyes (Jan 28, 2012)

Bonemann said:


> I think there are several issues to look at. This .08 or .05 will have nothing to do with the people that drink and drive, that's what they do !!! But it will have an effect on anyone who has a couple of drinks with dinner or after work.
> 
> I drive 108 miles to and from work through the city of Pittsburgh daily. From what I see every day allot of people drive like sh#t. When those folks that can't drive good when they are sober; how do you think they will drive after they have a few ?
> 
> ...



I agree with just about everything you have said here but I still have a very hard time trying to understand how anyone can defend putting a substance in your body that will impair you, no matter how small the impairment it is there !. So defending the right to do this on a highway that puts other people at risk just makes no sense at all. It doesn't matter how much the risk is , it's still a risk and the only people that will defend this are the people that drink . Why should I have to put up with people that seem to think a drink or two is ok and continue to drive and think they are in complete control when scientific studies have shown otherwise, again to me this whole argument makes no sense at all and the facts are that alcohol is going to impair your reactions, PERIOD. just don't drink and drive. Going out to eat, have a glass of ice tea, a pepsi , want a few drinks after work, go home and drink. What is wrong with that ?


----------



## celtic11 (Jun 30, 2011)

glasseyes said:


> I agree with just about everything you have said here but I still have a very hard time trying to understand how anyone can defend putting a substance in your body that will impair you, no matter how small the impairment it is there !. So defending the right to do this on a highway that puts other people at risk just makes no sense at all. It doesn't matter how much the risk is , it's still a risk and the only people that will defend this are the people that drink . Why should I have to put up with people that seem to think a drink or two is ok and continue to drive and think they are in complete control when scientific studies have shown otherwise, again to me this whole argument makes no sense at all and the facts are that alcohol is going to impair your reactions, PERIOD. just don't drink and drive. Going out to eat, have a glass of ice tea, a pepsi , want a few drinks after work, go home and drink. What is wrong with that ?


I am assuming you have removed the radio from your car or never turn it on while driving right? Jamming out to your favorite tune could easily impair your ability to focus on the road just as much as a .05 BAC would.

Lots of holier than thou types in this one.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## celtic11 (Jun 30, 2011)

There are much more distracting things that one can purposefully and legally do in an automobile that are much more of a danger than someone with a .05 BAC. For example, who worries you more.. a 16 year old kid who just got his license and now has 5 of his friends piled into his car, or a middle aged man who goes out with his family and has one beer with his burger? 



posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## celtic11 (Jun 30, 2011)

One thing that I think would help this discussion is if people would quit telling stories involving people who were clearly well over the .08 limit. That is currently illegal and no one on here is arguing it should be. We are talking about the .05-.07 people and their effect on driving. People who get hammered and drive drunk are going to continue to do that no matter what the limit is set at.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## glasseyes (Jan 28, 2012)

celtic11 said:


> I am assuming you have removed the radio from your car or never turn it on while driving right? Jamming out to your favorite tune could easily impair your ability to focus on the road just as much as a .05 BAC would.
> 
> Lots of holier than thou types in this one.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Look I'll put in my last two cents and then I'm done. There are many number of things people do every day that might cause them to have an accident. How many of those things people do that there have been laws made to try and stop them from causing those accidents ???? how many ? . Ok the ones that come to mind to me are cell phones , texting and either drugs or alcohol. Now in my mind you might as well start a thread defending on texting and how people should be allowed to do it while they drive as some people can do it and drive at the same time without being a risk to others, that is until that one time they don't see that child run out in front of them while looking down at their phone. There are many number of things that cause people to be distracted while driving for an instant and that could mean changing the radio station but how you expect me to compare that to drinking a few beers then going for a drive when you knowingly have just put something in your body that will impair you , is beyond me. This can only mean that anyone who defends this is a drinker and will drive after doing so. I'm done , still shaking my head in dis belief on this one.


----------



## steelhead1 (May 14, 2004)

BAC Limits by country:

http://www.rupissed.com/blood_alcohol_limits.html


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

My opinion is that they need to do away with the .05 or whatever they want to set it at and change the law to say that drinking and driving is illegal. Do away with the silly roadside tests, the breathalyzer, etc. There's far too many variables that can allow one person to be arrested and go through the entire process of court, fines, loss of license, high risk insurance, etc. while allowing another to go free. IF our lawmakers are serious about ending the problem then they need to take the guesswork out of it and make it illegal. Money is what drives this process. I think it's insane that we live in a society that allows the huge promotion of a product that causes so many problems from health to criminal and most everything in between.
Personally, and I'm saying this from witnessing the terrible end results of alcohol abuse for over 23 years now, I'd like to see alcohol outlawed for 10 years and marijuana legalized for that same time period. Then take a look at the crime rates involving traffic deaths, domestic violence, murder, etc., and see how much the rates drop.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Bath Salts. Hey, Beer is legal, but you don't have any beer labs right? Wrong. You have them everywhere. Legally operating and illegally operating. Its not quick and easy to make otherwise they'd be even more widespread. Use marijuana as an example. Do you think if they'd legalize it there wouldn't be anyone growing it? Um, it's a weed. Everyone would grow it.
> You are in for a long life of disappointments if you think you need to live some "free" life in which you can do and consume anything you feel like. There isn't a society in existence or ever existed for any substantial amount of time with no laws or regulations protecting their citizens from the worst and most reckless amongst them. I'm guessing even cavemen had some system of norms and unacceptable behaviors.


You have a point. People brew at home, even though they can buy it at a store. Some people would probably still make their own chemical-based drugs even if they were made legal. 

There is a big difference between a seed grown in the ground with water and sunlight vs. a chemical laboratory though as far as effort and risk go, and to assume that everyone would start their own chemical lab is presumptuous.

I don't want to live in a society where you can do whatever you want. That would mean advocacy of violence towards your neighbors or advocating it's ok to destroy others property. My entire point is that no one can legislate morality, as is evidenced by every BS attempt that's been made to do so. It is not the place of the gov't to write laws to protect you from yourself. What laws have been broken by ingesting something? If you are dumb enough to damage yourself by taking substances known to cause damage, that's on you. Unless you go out and actually harm me or my property I should have no recourse legally against you. Therefore, I shouldn't be able to leverage the government to write laws specifically targeting the actions that I find unsavory, especially those that are non-violent. 

You've made the point in other posts about the ridiculous number of non-violent drug offenders that are locked up in jail. What makes non-violent drinkers who've commited no crime any different? Advocating that driving is a crime is wrong-headed. Your PRESUMING that those who've had a drink WILL cause an accident. That's just not the case.

If you hit me on the road because you're drunk, or you hit me on the road because you're just a bad sober driver, there's no difference to me. The act of hitting me occurred and the penalty should be the same for the offense. There should be no reason for someone to go to jail or be fined if they haven't hit someone or something. People should be responsible for their actions, not be responsible for actions that others perceive _could_ happen but have not actually occurred.

I'm all for the rule of law, but I entirely oppose the rule of man. A great book to read about this is The Law by Frederic Bastiat. This book makes an easy-to-read arguement against the law of man. You couldn't tell it was written in 1850 except for some of the examples he uses. Here's a link to a web page where you can read it for free. You can get a copy of this from mises.org for $5.

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

http://mises.org/document/2731/The-Law


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> His idea of "free" doesn't jibe with the majority of folks in the US it seems. That was directed at bucketmouth. His stated goal(as dishonest or uneducated as I think it is) is completely unrealistic thus setting him up for a lifetime of disappointment.
> I think I am pretty free when it comes to living my life. Especially compared to other countries around the world.
> 
> I'm not saying alcohol should be illegal. Whatever you do in your own home is of no consequence to me until you walk out your front door and into the street. Then I take issue. Should you be allowed to get tanked and go lay out in the street? I shouldn't have to deal with your drunkeness carrying on with my daily life. You are making MY life less free by hassling me with your drunken antics. At that point, you are infringing on MY freedom to legally drive down the road in a safe fashion and carry out my business. Thats what our laws need to concentrate on. Keeping us free from each others dangerous activities. Be as reckless and endangering as you want to but leave me out of it!


I realize I'm in the minority, but that doesn't make my view wrong. If two wolves and a sheep are deciding on what's for lunch, should the wolves win just because they're the majority?

I find it interesting that you can call me uneducated and dishonest from 2 topics. I love ad hominem attacks. Go for the person's character. Classy.
My uneducated and dishonest self will link a few more articles as Mark Crovelli says it better than I can. Don't read them though, they'll make you uneducated and dishonest like me.

A Primer on Logic for Drunk Driving Prohibitionists
http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli17.html

The Pathetic Argument for Prohibiting Drunk Driving
http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli33.1.html

How to Convince Men to Drive Drunk
http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli28.html


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

glasseyes said:


> Look I'll put in my last two cents and then I'm done. There are many number of things people do every day that might cause them to have an accident. How many of those things people do that there have been laws made to try and stop them from causing those accidents ???? how many ? . Ok the ones that come to mind to me are cell phones , texting and either drugs or alcohol. Now in my mind you might as well start a thread defending on texting and how people should be allowed to do it while they drive as some people can do it and drive at the same time without being a risk to others, that is until that one time they don't see that child run out in front of them while looking down at their phone. There are many number of things that cause people to be distracted while driving for an instant and that could mean changing the radio station but how you expect me to compare that to drinking a few beers then going for a drive when you knowingly have just put something in your body that will impair you , is beyond me. This can only mean that anyone who defends this is a drinker and will drive after doing so. I'm done , still shaking my head in dis belief on this one.


You've just admitted that there are many things that cause people to be distracted while driving, which by extension means these actions could foster an environment for them to cause an accident. Apparently, when people makes laws against certain types of distractions, those actions become (<-edit) vile and putrid, although the effect is the same as all other distractions, which are not of consequence since they aren't made illegal.

I would think you should be for outlawing driving altogether. It's a dangerous place out there on the roads. The only way to curb all car related accidents is to make everyone walk or ride bikes.

Just because something is made law does not make it legal or constitutional.


----------



## bobk (Apr 30, 2004)

jeffmo said:


> My opinion is that they need to do away with the .05 or whatever they want to set it at and change the law to say that drinking and driving is illegal. Do away with the silly roadside tests, the breathalyzer, etc. There's far too many variables that can allow one person to be arrested and go through the entire process of court, fines, loss of license, high risk insurance, etc. while allowing another to go free. IF our lawmakers are serious about ending the problem then they need to take the guesswork out of it and make it illegal. Money is what drives this process. I think it's insane that we live in a society that allows the huge promotion of a product that causes so many problems from health to criminal and most everything in between.
> Personally, and I'm saying this from witnessing the terrible end results of alcohol abuse for over 23 years now, I'd like to see alcohol outlawed for 10 years and marijuana legalized for that same time period. Then take a look at the crime rates involving traffic deaths, domestic violence, murder, etc., and see how much the rates drop.


Very good post.


----------



## cheezemm2 (Apr 7, 2004)

I do stats for a living...Is everyone comfortable with an estimate of 500-800 lives saved by decreasing the BAC?

That's the real issue I have with the recommendation. I need factual statistical evidence shown to me to even believe this. I just don't want a peanut butter spread of x causes y withouth considering a-w!?!?

It just really concerns me that blanket statements from extremely influential organizations can have such far reaching effects without providing more information to us.

Done with this topic, very interesting viewpoints by all...everyone be safe out there.

Off-Topic, and slightly soapboxish:

Can we please remove all those who drive with no brake lights and gray cars with no lights on in the rain!!?!?


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

cheezemm2 said:


> I do stats for a living...Is everyone comfortable with an estimate of 500-800 lives saved by decreasing the BAC?
> 
> That's the real issue I have with the recommendation. I need factual statistical evidence shown to me to even believe this. I just don't want a peanut butter spread of x causes y withouth considering a-w!?!?
> 
> ...


Cheeze, since you are a statistician, I've got a question for you. Do you know what percentage of accidents involve alcohol, and do you know what percentage of traffic fatalities involve alcohol?

Great point, too, about gray colored cars and their affects on rainy overcast days. I hope the NTSB releases a statement recommending that it should be illegal for car companies to sell gray cars.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

I text and surf on my phone the whole time I'm driving pretty much. Lol! I'll go out and have a beer at dinner, MAYBE 2. Past that, I shouldn't be driving. If you feel the need to have more than 2 beers or any alcoholic drink really, I bet you have a problem. To me, .05 still seems in line with what I think is reasonable based on today's norms. Don't think I'd support any lower though. I dont see the need. Like I and others said, do it at home. The problem is to some guys, three beers don't seem like much. Don't mean they aren't impared. All my aunts and uncles on my moms side were alcoholics. Just lost another uncle to it recently. So I know how it goes with booze. Some people can handle it, most can't. In this case it's the majority ruining it for the few, not the few ruining it or the majority. And that's about all I have to say about the subject.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

A question about the stats - if there is an accident and a driver is intoxicated, but not at fault, does it go into the books as involving alcohol? 

That is, Driver A is drunk, driver B is sober, driver B causes a crash with A, who is booked for OVI or whatever, do the stats say alcohol was involved?


----------



## injun laker45 (Jun 28, 2011)

FOSR said:


> A question about the stats - if there is an accident and a driver is intoxicated, but not at fault, does it go into the books as involving alcohol?
> 
> That is, Driver A is drunk, driver B is sober, driver B causes a crash with A, who is booked for OVI or whatever, do the stats say alcohol was involved?


Yes driver A gets and OUI and driver B gets cited for the crash. And yes, I believe they will will report alcohol was involved.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

cheezemm2 said:


> Can we please remove all gray cars with no lights on in the rain!!?!?


That is already illegal for cars of all colors, even the gray ones.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

> And yes, I believe they will will report alcohol was involved.


See, I have my suspicions about alcohol being automatically blamed when there might be other contributing factors involved. Having seen plenty of (presumably) sober drivers making awful mistakes, I know that sobriety is no guarantee of competence. Then if a crappy driver is also intoxicated, it's just assumed that the mistake was made due to intoxication, when the same driver would make the same mistake when sober. So capable drivers who are legally intoxicated get the hammer regardless of their condition or capability - _per se_ or "just because" - due in part to the presumption that alcohol causes every mistake made by an intoxicated driver.


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in an unbiased evaluator of all the causes of traffic crashes, injuries and deaths. The insurance companies that sponsor its work are interested in reducing traffic accidents. Neither the insurance industry nor the Institute has an ideological agenda to promote.

The following information is from the Institutes web site Question and Answer page about alcohol:

What proportion of all motor vehicle crashes is caused by alcohol? It is impossible to say with certainty. Although alcohol is known to increase crash likelihood, its presence is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause a crash. Every crash in which a driver has a high BAC is not caused by alcohol. To learn the number of crashes caused by driving at various BACs, it would be necessary to find out how many trips that do not involve crashes are driven by people with positive BACs -- something that is only measured periodically in roadside surveys or special studies of motorists not involved in crashes.

What proportion of motor vehicle crashes involves alcohol? The most reliable information about alcohol involvement comes from fatal crashes. In 2002, 32 percent of fatally injured drivers had BACs of at least 0.08 percent. Although alcohol may not have been a causal factor in all of the crashes, this statistic is frequently used to measure the change over time in alcohol involvement in fatal crashes.

In 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated that 35 percent of all traffic deaths occurred in crashes in which at least one driver or nonoccupant had a BAC of 0.08 percent or more and that any alcohol was present in 41 percent of all fatal crashes in 2002.Such statistics are sometimes cited as proof that a third to half of all fatal crashes are caused by "drunk driving" and that none of the crashes that involve alcohol would occur if the alcohol were not present. But this is incorrect and misleading because alcohol is only one of several factors that contribute to crashes involving drinking drivers. Furthermore, some fatally injured people in alcohol-related crashes are pedestrians with positive BACs, and these fatalities still would occur even if every driver were sober.

Alcohol involvement is much lower in crashes involving nonfatal injuries, and it is lower still in crashes that do not involve injuries at all. 1

Ten percent (10%) of all people who receive injuries in traffic accidents do so in alcohol-related crashes, according to NHTSA estimates. It is estimated that 3.22% of these injury-producing crashes involve intoxicated drivers.

Seven percent (7%) of all traffic accidents involve alcohol use, according to NHTSA estimates. It is estimated that 2.25% of all vehicular crashes involve intoxicated drivers.

These statistics are all estimates based on incomplete information. Often they are estimates based on other estimates. However, 12.8% of all drivers involved in fatal accidents in the U.S. during 2001 are known to have been intoxicated according to the BAC laws (.10 or .08) of their state. This number is based on a systematic examination of the official records of each and every accident involving a fatality during that year in the US. It is based on factual evidence rather than on estimates or guesses.

The higher numbers commonly reported in the press refers to accidents in which NHTSA believes that some alcohol has been consumed by someone associated with the accident. For example, if a person who was believed to have consumed any alcohol is stopped at a red light and is rear-ended by an inattentive completely sober driver, that accident is considered to be alcohol-related.

Alcohol consumption, cell phone use, drowsy driving, aggressive driving, and drugged driving are all important but preventable causes of traffic accidents, injuries and deaths. There has been a dramatic and continuing drop in alcohol-related traffic crashes, but much more needs to be done to prevent drunk driving,

However, virtually ignored have been the other major causes of vehicular crashes. For example, using a cell phone is even more dangerous than driving while intoxicated. We can and must do even more to reduce traffic crashes from all causes.

*A person who dies in a traffic crash is just as dead whether the accident was caused by a drunk driver, a cell phone user, an aggressive driver, or a drugged driver. They must all be stopped*.

source:http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1101913925.html

To Massilon Buckeye- you admit to texting and surfing while driving which is inherently more dangerous then driving at .08 yet you you argue in favor of lowering the BAC??? Why is ok for you to drive "impaired" but not someone else??


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

FOSR said:


> See, I have my suspicions about alcohol being automatically blamed when there might be other contributing factors involved. Having seen plenty of (presumably) sober drivers making awful mistakes, I know that sobriety is no guarantee of competence. Then if a crappy driver is also intoxicated, it's just assumed that the mistake was made due to intoxication, when the same driver would make the same mistake when sober. So capable drivers who are legally intoxicated get the hammer regardless of their condition or capability - _per se_ or "just because" - due in part to the presumption that alcohol causes every mistake made by an intoxicated driver.




Just because the report states that alcohol was involved, that doesn&#8217;t mean the person drinking is automatically blamed. You only quoted one of the two sentences in that reply, the other one stating that the other driver will be cited for causing the accident. They still do accident reports, nothing changes just because one person has been drinking. Though it sure doesn&#8217;t bode well for the driver that was drinking if there&#8217;s any question.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

cheezemm2 said:


> Off-Topic, and slightly soapboxish:
> 
> Can we please remove all those who drive with no brake lights and gray cars with no lights on in the rain!!?!?


The law in Ohio reads that if your windshield wipers are on, so are your lights. No brake lights? Really? Maybe I'm missing the sarcasm? You saying there should be stiffer penalties due to the level of hazard involved?

How about 55 in construction zones? Fines double? Cash grab?

School Zones? Speed limits in general?

Noone likes the seatbelt laws right? Drivers license? What should be the legal driving age? I was driving a car on public roads at 12 so you know..


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

boatnut said:


> To Massilon Buckeye- you admit to texting and surfing while driving which is inherently more dangerous then driving at .08 yet you you argue in favor of lowering the BAC??? Why is ok for you to drive "impaired" but not someone else??


I don't think it's more dangerous. I don't think I'm impaired. I've yet to see any studies or research regarding distractions really to base any conversation on. I don't think it's a good idea for some people and it's being banned in multiple communities. I don't think it's very enforceable though.


----------



## squid_1 (Jun 2, 2005)

With all the above stats it leads me to believe that the big problem is the other 70% or so causing wrecks that are not intoxicated. Oh by the way 70mph speed limit just passed. Crack down on one while encouraging others. Just stay at home and drink.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

> Just because the report states that alcohol was involved, that doesn&#8217;t mean the person drinking is automatically blamed.


That gets at what I was wondering about. The crash report and its allocation of blame are one record, but the incident goes into the statistical bin of "involving alcohol" and that's grist for the mill of people seeking bigger numbers to support their cause. From that perspective, the intoxicated drivers (as a defined group) take all of the blame when in fact it is not all due to them. They become scapegoats in the media.


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

FOSR said:


> That gets at what I was wondering about. The crash report and its allocation of blame are one record, but the incident goes into the statistical bin of "involving alcohol" and that's grist for the mill of people seeking bigger numbers to support their cause. From that perspective, the intoxicated drivers (as a defined group) take all of the blame when in fact it is not all due to them. They become scapegoats in the media.


I think youre probably right about that. People find interesting ways to use statistics when they have an agenda.


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> I don't think it's more dangerous. I don't think I'm impaired. I've yet to see any studies or research regarding distractions really to base any conversation on. I don't think it's a good idea for some people and it's being banned in multiple communities. I don't think it's very enforceable though.


So based on that, if I don't think driving at .08 is more dangerous and I don't consider myself to be impaired then it's ok for me to do it even though I think some other people might be impaired at the same limit?? FYI, texting while driving is against the law in Ohio and can be ticketed under a secondary offense.
http://www.nbc4i.com/story/21433651/drivers-can-now-be-ticketed-under-ohio-texting-ban

By the way, I can give you plenty of links that show texting /surfing is inherently more dangerous then driving at .08 or under.


----------



## Toolman (Jun 8, 2004)

M.Magis said:


> I can't find one person that made that comment. Am I missing something?


No, but there seems to be a few self righteous people that allude that any % bac while driving is bad. 

I agree that driving under the influence is a bad choice and puts others at risk. IMO a bigger problem is multiple offenders. I know several people that have more than 6. Slow learners that will eventially kill themselves, or much worse, someone else. I also agree with others comments that there are many worse things as mentioned (texting and cell phones are at the top of the list statistically) that one can do when behind the wheel. .05% IMO is too low. Theres an inherent risk anytime you get behind the wheel. I dont think .08 increases that risk to justify lowering it. Might as well make it .000%. Theres my $.02

Tim


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

> Theres my $.02


They're going to change that, too, next you'll only be able to put in your $.015


----------



## Spyderbell (Jun 10, 2010)

After going what I just went through I'm gonna just not drink and drive anymore. MAYBE one but it's no longer a beer an hour it's what your body is processing at the time. After doing six days ( i know total bad ass) I'm done with it. I'd rather call a taxi it costs a whole lot less the $4k. I'm not debating what you can do while you drive but when you get pulled over for driving around a manhole ( left of center) that you've been doing for 12 years and get a OVI you might understand


----------



## Top of the Food Chain (Oct 6, 2010)

Impairment is determined on a pass/fail basis of .08...Perhaps we should put a pass/fail number on age or physical mobility


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

boatnut said:


> So based on that, if I don't think driving at .08 is more dangerous and I don't consider myself to be impaired then it's ok for me to do it even though I think some other people might be impaired at the same limit?? FYI, texting while driving is against the law in Ohio and can be ticketed under a secondary offense.
> http://www.nbc4i.com/story/21433651/drivers-can-now-be-ticketed-under-ohio-texting-ban
> 
> By the way, I can give you plenty of links that show texting /surfing is inherently more dangerous then driving at .08 or under.


So you think texting is dangerous while driving and banning the practice an attaching fines and jail time for repeat offenders is acceptable? How about voice recognition texting? You don't have to type? Is it the reading of the texts or using the keyboard? Ban street signs? Billboards are legal how?? Uhh. What's the difference? So much for the scenic route


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

Texting while driving is actually more dangerous than drinking and driving. Not saying one is better than the other because they both are dangerous.
If you're texting you are looking at the road. You have several seconds when your eyes are on you phone and not the road and a lot can go wrong in that little time span. People who have been drinking are still looking at the road and muscle memory makes your driving better than when texting.
When my Father first taught me how to drive he said that it was just as dangerous as having a loaded gun in your hand and you are the one that has to be responsible.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31545004


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

Agree. IF you REALLY need to text PULL OVER! If you REALLY want to drink, call a cab, or a friend, or just stay home! There are SO many variables (what/ when / how much you drink; have you eaten recently/ what/ how much/ when? When is the last time you slept?/ how long /how good?/ How tired are you? how stressed are you? ect/ ect/ ect. The various factors are SO complex it`s seriously like saying "I always catch 2 bass, 3 cats and 6 legal crappies on a (fill in the blank). Pardon, but I just DO NOT think you are able to accurately say "I can ALWAYS drink `X` amount and I am always "fine" to drive..." THAT is a load of it! And you`re NOT just betting your OWN life on it...


----------



## bobk (Apr 30, 2004)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> So you think texting is dangerous while driving and banning the practice an attaching fines and jail time for repeat offenders is acceptable? How about voice recognition texting? You don't have to type? Is it the reading of the texts or using the keyboard? Ban street signs? Billboards are legal how?? Uhh. What's the difference? So much for the scenic route


Your actions are selfish and dangerous. Sad how people think they can skirt the laws since they don't like them.


----------



## rustyfish (Apr 27, 2004)

There are a thousand things that can impair you more than .08 and even more than .05. I know my limits and how to act responsible. I feel that this law change would target responsible drinkers. And yes there is such a thing. I drink often but in small amounts and do not drive unless I believe I am under the legal limit. I see nothing wrong with drinking a beer or two while cutting the grass and then going into town to get more gas. It is legal and I am not impaired so I have no hesitation. 

Increase punishment all you want for people who are drunk but why go out of your way to target people who limit themselves to a safe amount.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

Another law question: What happens to "twice the legal limit" or "three times the legal limit"?

For example, suppose you blow a .15. With .08, that's just less than twice the limit. With .05, you're now at three times the limit. Suddenly you're facing far greater penalties, for that same .15.


----------



## nate gsi (Oct 18, 2011)

I like to look at this forum because I enjoy fishing. Its a kind of an escape from all the bs we are exposed to everyday. Depressing guys. By the way who cares.


----------



## cheezemm2 (Apr 7, 2004)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> The law in Ohio reads that if your windshield wipers are on, so are your lights. No brake lights? Really? Maybe I'm missing the sarcasm? You saying there should be stiffer penalties due to the level of hazard involved?
> 
> How about 55 in construction zones? Fines double? Cash grab?
> 
> ...


No sarcasm at all...all readily available sources of legitimate revenue for cracking down on crackpot drivers. Just like boating, it is your responsibility to operate in a safe manner. That includes knowing the law and proper maintenance of your vehicle.

Brake lights out = not nearly enforced enough...extremely dangerous and putting a lot of other people at risk! An easily enforceable black/white law. I don't know many of us who would drive our boat trailers without proper signals. 

Wiper Law and Headlights = not enforced, also extremely dangerous...cars in interstate spray or heavy downpours are not visible and easily "blend in" I wouldn't drive my boat at night or in fog without navigation/stern lights.

Construction Zones/School Zones...I believe that is already appropriate.


----------



## cheezemm2 (Apr 7, 2004)

Exactly what I'm saying about stats...the .08 is a nominal variable being used as yes/no variable determining the outcome of the scenario. Did we take into account the other 400 factors involved in the accident and get the appropriate p-values for each one to test statistical signifigance? Highly doubtful...

Cat litter cures cancer! 

It's the same fallacy as using averages to run a business. You're wrong half the time.



FOSR said:


> That gets at what I was wondering about. The crash report and its allocation of blame are one record, but the incident goes into the statistical bin of "involving alcohol" and that's grist for the mill of people seeking bigger numbers to support their cause. From that perspective, the intoxicated drivers (as a defined group) take all of the blame when in fact it is not all due to them. They become scapegoats in the media.


----------



## cheezemm2 (Apr 7, 2004)

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

A more objective view with numbers and footnotes that need to be read. This can offer support to either argument. Feel free to draw your own conclusions...excellent thread but from this point on, anything else from me is...










Everyone be safe out there and remember not to take endless bickering too seriously. It's what makes b.s., b.s.!


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> So you think texting is dangerous while driving and banning the practice an attaching fines and jail time for repeat offenders is acceptable? How about voice recognition texting? You don't have to type? Is it the reading of the texts or using the keyboard? Ban street signs? Billboards are legal how?? Uhh. What's the difference? So much for the scenic route


Boatnut's point is that you use your opinion to dictate what's right or wrong. You've nullified the law by texting while driving. In your opinion, texting/driving is ok, but drinking/driving isn't. What if my opinion is the exact opposite (as an example)? 

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best." - Thomas Sowell

This is the problem with making laws via the rule of man. It's just a bunch of jerks power tripping and coming up with crap laws meant to pilfer money from your bank account based on their uninformed, uneducated, gut feeling opinions about non-violent offenses.

I don't care if you text/drive. Just be responsible for your actions if you hit someone or damage someone's property.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

nate gsi said:


> By the way who cares.


Obviously you do or you wouldn't have taken time to post.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

bobk said:


> Your actions are selfish and dangerous. Sad how people think they can skirt the laws since they don't like them.


Every drive over the speed limit Bobk?


----------



## Streamhawk (Apr 25, 2008)

Drinking and driving is a personal choice whether you agreee or not, just like buying/smoking cigarettes and the laws involved with that. There are consequences for both if you choose to. On the other hand, looking at this from a numbers standpoint. Going from .08 to .05 is nothing more than a money grab by states. Drinking one 12 ounce beer, or 1.50 ounces of liquor, or 5 ounces of wine all carry the same effect on blood alcohol levels. Your body breaks this down at a rate of one drink per hour as mentioned above. As soon as you consume a drink you are already at .08, this then decreases over the hour as long as you do not have another drink within the hour. The guide lines for the .08 were based on these studies, it was not just pulled out of the air. In reference to alcohol related acccidents, the numbers are skewed. They consider any accident in which someone has had alcohol to be considered an alcohol related accident, which means you could be driving down the road, your passanger in the passanger seat was drinking and you were not, you are hit by someone else who was not drinking either, that is classified as an alcohol related accident regardless of who is driving and who is at fault. This greatly increases the number of alcohol related accidents. This is nothing more than a money grab by the states. Just like speeding tickets in which some states are now giving tickets for being 5 over the speed limit. In NJ, along with other states, this summer they are enforcing this, and have projected that this will bring in 9 million more dollars over current speeding tickets in NJ. So is it safety??? or just cash????? Disclaimer: I am certified in Alcohol Servsafe, which is the standard that is used in the hospitality industry to monitor guest drinking, and to keep patrons safe. On another note, more people are killed in this country with hands, feet, and blunt objects like hammers than by any other means, even more than with guns (FBI Crime stats). But there is no money to be made on felony murder charges. You may agree, or disagree, and you have that right, but sometimes you have to read between the lines to see the true meaning.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Bucket Mouth said:


> Boatnut's point is that you use your opinion to dictate what's right or wrong. You've nullified the law by texting while driving. In your opinion, texting/driving is ok, but drinking/driving isn't. What if my opinion is the exact opposite (as an example)?
> 
> "The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best." - Thomas Sowell
> 
> ...


Texting and driving = distracted driving. 

Reading road signs and looking at scenery = distracted driving.

Whats the difference? One I'm looking down for a time, another I'm looking to the right or left for a time.

Signs signs, everywhere are signs.. Blocking up my scenery, breakin my mind... Do this don't don't do that can't you read the signs.


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Texting and driving = distracted driving.
> 
> Reading road signs and looking at scenery = distracted driving.
> 
> ...


You never answered Bucketmouth's question or mine. Their is a HUGE difference between reading road signs vs "looking down". Driving a vehicle while texting is six times more dangerous than driving while intoxicated according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/fi...-More-Dangerous-than-Driving-while-Drunk.html

So if we are going to have a BAC of .08 or even lower it too .05 , shouldn't we make the penalties for texting while driving the same or even harsher?

Again, why is it ok for YOU to text/surf while driving and it's not ok for someone to drive with a BAC of .08 ?? Both are illegal.


----------



## Spyderbell (Jun 10, 2010)

FOSR said:


> Another law question: What happens to "twice the legal limit" or "three times the legal limit"?
> 
> For example, suppose you blow a .15. With .08, that's just less than twice the limit. With .05, you're now at three times the limit. Suddenly you're facing far greater penalties, for that same .15.


right now it's about the same fines but you get to do 6 days instead of 3. I was 3.5 times the legal limit and it doesn't matter for a .17 and over until .32.... then it goes up


----------



## fredg53 (Sep 17, 2010)

BassBlaster said:


> They could drop it to .01 and I wouldnt care. I have no sympathy for a drunk driver. If I plan on drinking, I make sure I have a ride or that Im not going anywhere. Its that simple. Yeah, it sucks that I cant run down to the bar with the guys after work and have a couple beers but I deal with it and it dosnt really affect my life. That said, Im not the type to just have a couple beers anyhow. I rarely drink but when I do, I do it to get drunk and have a good time so I get well above .08. I do understand that people with a BAC of .05 or .06 arnt the ones running over and killing innocent people so I understand you wanting to have a discussion about it. I guess my point is it wont affect me or my freedoms so I dont really have much of an opinion.


+ a million 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## acklac7 (May 31, 2004)

So you're telling me that if this standard is enacted I will be legally considered "drunk" (or past drunk) after 2 beers in an hour? Im 6'6, 220lbs, and while I don't drink heavily, I still drink a fair amount. Two beers in an hour does nothing to me. Ridiculous.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Texting and driving = distracted driving.
> Reading road signs and looking at scenery = distracted driving.
> Whats the difference?



Road sign= curve ahead

Road sign=stop

Texting =
DING-
wife-honey, what's for supper?

me (typing) I don't know. Deer Steak?

DING-
wife-no. we had that already this week. I want something different.

road sign=reduce speed ahead

DING-
wife-who did you take fishing, again? Did you mow the grass? Is my Mom's water leak fixed yet? She said her car is acting funny. Dad wants you to look at it. Did you catch anything? How much did you spend filling the boat up, again? Who'd you take? Is it using more gas this year, or are you going farther? Don't forget to check my tires, oh, and I need my oil change. will you stop and get me some bananas? Myra called. She's preggers again. She don't know when it happened. wouldn't that suck? How was the water?

me-(typing) fine. I'll get to it

Road sign= sharp curves ahead

DING-
Tom-You guys get any?

me-(typing) a cuple. call u l8tr

DING-
Wife- Did you get all of my text, cause you didn't answer? So anyway, I think we should go to the keys this weekend. I'm looking at tickets. Do you want to get a seaplane or take the boat?, but, they've got some seats. Maybe Lake Tahoe instead? Lennie said the waters warming up. Your mom called and said their roof leaked. Do you know any good contractors? My brother thinks we should just move to Chesapeake.

Road sign= stop

Ding
Tom- cool dude. we killed em. were you up by the cut? thot I saw you. call me after 9.

Ding
wife-wot time will u be home? u still didn't say wots for supper?

You see where that went? I'd a been better off just reading road signs being half drunk.

Now, imagine all the above with all of the slang, like, OMG, or WTF thrown in. It's beyond comprehension.

Road signs are a distraction? You'd better think about that.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Texting and driving = distracted driving.
> 
> Reading road signs and looking at scenery = distracted driving.
> 
> ...


Your focus when looking at a cell phone is inside the car and narrows your field of vision substantially. Your focus when looking at road signs is outside the car and your field of vision is still wide enough to notice hard braking by cars in front of you, obstructions in the road, curves, etc.

Your post doesn't touch on what the thread is about, though. It's about laws that target perceived alcohol/driving "fixes". They're all ridiculous. If the laws worked, you wouldn't have 40,000 highway deaths (or whatever the # is) and many multiples higher of non-fatal accidents. You wouldn't have "distracted drivers" or "drunk drivers" if the laws worked. You wouldn't have speeders.

Perhaps the focus should be on the dangers of government-monopoly roads instead of on the laws they pass to make driving safe. None of their laws work. They aren't intended to. They are intended to create revenue via fines. Since they know that there is no tolerance among citizens to directly raise their taxes, they've found "creative" ways to extract more of your money. Notice how in debt we are? Follow the money. Most of the adult population drives, and every driver breaks these dumb laws on a regular basis. Lawmakers have a big pool of people to collect from. This reduction to .05 BAC has nothing to do with safety.

Using a tree as a analogy, lawmakers are intentionally hacking at the limbs rather than the roots of the problem as they don't want to fix the issue. They just want to fill the coffers. The original intent of the role of government is to keep you free. It is not to keep you safe. They obviously cannot guarantee safety in any aspect of daily life. The best way for people to maximize their safety is stay at their home where they control what goes on.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Big Ben Franklin


----------



## glasseyes (Jan 28, 2012)

This thread has become a joke. The moderators should have shut it down two pages ago.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Not sure how many of any of your examples I've ever seen driving around Columbus. Sure after I've seen em once they aren't as much of a distraction. How about store front signage and billboards? Those all certainly say more than stop, or falling rocks.......  I don't know about you but I read 2 sentences in a about a second?
Either way, it seems any sort of law regarding handheld electronics is pretty unenforceable. Texting? I was just looking at the time or see who called? So anytime you are looking down they can pull you over? No way they could actually prove you were texting. Thy aren't goin to subpoena records and they aren't going to seize your property so.. Talk about silly laws...


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

glasseyes said:


> This thread has become a joke. The moderators should have shut it down two pages ago.


Seems pretty civil to me. You're not forced to read it. I appreciate it being open.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Bull. Don't assume someone isn't going to look 45-90 deg which takes your eyes completely off the road. According to your logic. A heads up display wouldn't impair you as much as a down looking display when research says the only part that matters is the distraction itself, not where it's placed or how you ibteract(shoots the hands free argument.) they say anytime you aren't thinking about the road in front of you is just as bad as the next. As I like to say a sin is a sin is a sin.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Either way, it seems any sort of law regarding handheld electronics is pretty unenforceable...Talk about silly laws...


How enforceable would a BAC test be without a breathalyzer? How enforceable would speeding laws be without a radar gun? Don't worry, they'll concoct some gadget that will sit in police cruiser to identify if your cell phone is in use while your driving.

I agree, though, they're all silly. If it takes a gadget to determine someone's "guiltiness" of a pre-crime, then it ought to be abolished.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Bull. Don't assume someone isn't going to look 45-90 deg which takes your eyes completely off the road. According to your logic. A heads up display wouldn't impair you as much as a down looking display when research says the only part that matters is the distraction itself, not where it's placed or how you ibteract(shoots the hands free argument.) they say anytime you aren't thinking about the road in front of you is just as bad as the next. As I like to say a sin is a sin is a sin.


I don't care if you're holding it directly between you and the windshield. You are still focusing on a very small area very close to your face.

I'm not splitting hairs here. I agree that it's ridiculous. I choose not to do it, personally, but if people are dumb enough to do it, it's on them IF something unfortunate were to happen.


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

glasseyes said:


> This thread has become a joke. The moderators should have shut it down two pages ago.


I haven't read every word but I see no TOS violations plus no one is advocating breaking the law.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

boatnut said:


> You never answered Bucketmouth's question or mine. Their is a HUGE difference between reading road signs vs "looking down". Driving a vehicle while texting is six times more dangerous than driving while intoxicated according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
> 
> http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/fi...-More-Dangerous-than-Driving-while-Drunk.html
> 
> ...


I disagree, I don't think here's much difference nor did studies I've read about distracted driving. If your mind is removed from the equation, it doesn't matter as much which direction your eyes are looking. Your brain is excluding the parts you aren't focused on. Stop focusing on road signs alone and factor anything on the side of the road you'd fancy a look at. Construction, hot chicks, taco trucks, KFC telling you extra crispy is extra tasty!! It's all the same to me.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Bucket Mouth said:


> How enforceable would a BAC test be without a breathalyzer? How enforceable would speeding laws be without a radar gun? Don't worry, they'll concoct some gadget that will sit in police cruiser to identify if your cell phone is in use while your driving.
> 
> I agree, though, they're all silly. If it takes a gadget to determine someone's "guiltiness" of a pre-crime, then it ought to be abolished.


You can be obviously inebriated. Smell of alcohol plus field sobriety test? I dot get why you are calling it a "pre crime"? It's illegal. It's as much a pre crime as someone illegally concealing a weapon. Or not advising a police officer of a weapon on your person or in your car in the event of a traffic stop. Those "precrimes" as well? Any sort of conspiracy charge precrime and unacceptable? Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol has been prohibited for a long time, and there the nothing about it "pre". It's post crime once you sit down, turn the ignition and roll the wheels in my opinion.


----------



## steelhead1 (May 14, 2004)

Bucket Mouth said:


> I don't care if you're holding it directly between you and the windshield. You are still focusing on a very small area very close to your face.
> .


Like my GPS.

*Not agruing, just throwing this one out there


----------



## glasseyes (Jan 28, 2012)

Net said:


> I haven't read every word but I see no TOS violations plus no one is advocating breaking the law.


Sorry, I just guess to me this thing is s ridiculous and some of the comments made that I will have to force myself to stay away from it. It does upset me to read what some people think is just ok .


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> You can be obviously inebriated. Smell of alcohol plus field sobriety test? I dot get why you are calling it a "pre crime"? It's illegal. It's as much a pre crime as someone illegally concealing a weapon. Or not advising a police officer of a weapon on your person or in your car in the event of a traffic stop. Those "precrimes" as well? Any sort of conspiracy charge precrime and unacceptable? Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol has been prohibited for a long time, and there the nothing about it "pre". It's post crime once you sit down, turn the ignition and roll the wheels in my opinion.


So you smell of booze. How much does it take to smell of it? How do they know if you're over the limit without the breathalyzer to give you the BAC?

I call it a pre-crime because you've not done anything to harm anyone or their property. You're busted for driving. In some cases, you could be sleeping it off in your car and you can get a DUI because you _might_ drive home. That's it. Speeding is included in that. If you hit someone or some thing, that should be the actionable/punishable offense, not "you could have hit someone so we need to pre-empt your possible behavior and punish you" perspective.

You've got posts about non-violent drug offenders being in jail and you don't feel they should be. What's the difference with other non-violent offenders that you are dead set on punishment for them?

Let's not get into the guns thing here. You obviously know where I stand from other threads.

It's safe to generically say from my perspective, you haven't done any punishable offenses unless you've harmed someone or some one's property. It's pretty simple.

Just because a law is on the books does not make it moral or right. Just because the majority thinks a law is right does not in fact make it right. Just because the majority of teenage girls think Justin Bieber is an awesome musician does not make his music suck less.


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> I disagree, I don't think here's much difference nor did studies I've read about distracted driving. If your mind is removed from the equation, it doesn't matter as much which direction your eyes are looking. Your brain is excluding the parts you aren't focused on. Stop focusing on road signs alone and factor anything on the side of the road you'd fancy a look at. Construction, hot chicks, taco trucks, KFC telling you extra crispy is extra tasty!! It's all the same to me.


why do you continue to dance around my question?

"Again, why is it ok for YOU to text/surf while driving and it's not ok for someone to drive with a BAC of .08 ?? Both are illegal."


----------



## JUSTCRAZY (Apr 6, 2004)

There is one simple solution to the whole thing and it all goes back to accountability. It does not matter what the law says, they are not enforced and that is the reason we have so many repeat offenders. This includes way too many cops themselves. Just look a the Columbus area, how many news reports of officers with 3,4, even 5 or 6 DUI's on there record and still on the force.

I have always stood behind my solution and it is based on consequences. Your first offence is simple, you will never be granted driving rights again and you work on a road crew to serve time. The second time is simple, you get shot right in the face and the problem is solved!

Justice could be easy we just choose to make it complicated

Rob


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

JUSTCRAZY said:


> There is one simple solution to the whole thing and it all goes back to accountability. It does not matter what the law says, they are not enforced and that is the reason we have so many repeat offenders. This includes way too many cops themselves. Just look a the Columbus area, how many news reports of officers with 3,4, even 5 or 6 DUI's on there record and still on the force.
> 
> I have always stood behind my solution and it is based on consequences. Your first offence is simple, you will never be granted driving rights again and you work on a road crew to serve time. The second time is simple, you get shot right in the face and the problem is solved!
> 
> ...


So your comfortable with capital punishment of non-violent people? Out of everything posted in this thread, this is easily the craziest thing in here.

Your screen name is rather fitting.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

steelhead1 said:


> Like my GPS.
> 
> *Not agruing, just throwing this one out there


Are you holding it in your hand and staring at it for more than several seconds at a time?

Again, I'm not opposed, so I'm not arguing against using any of this stuff.


----------



## steelhead1 (May 14, 2004)

Bucket Mouth said:


> Are you holding it in your hand and staring at it for more than several seconds at a time?
> 
> Again, I'm not opposed, so I'm not arguing against using any of this stuff.


Just when I am fumbling around with it trying to get the address to come up


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

Funny thing you said that, JUST CRAZY. In Bulgaria, during the Cold War, the number of alcohol related fatalities skyrocketed to such high levels that their government passed DRACONIAN laws; upon arriving upon the scene of a wreck, if the police smelled alcohol upon your breath, and 2 witnesses agreed you had been drinking, the officers were REQUIRED to PUBLICLY EXECUTE the drunk driver ON THE SPOT REGARDLESS of WHO they were, or their status. This law was upheld because so many poorer persons without cars were annually slaughtered by upper class drunk drivers that the locals simply started killing the offenders ON THE SPOT, rather than allowing their friends to get them off with another slap on the wrist so they were free to repeat the same offense with similar results. To avoid public riots and further increase public unrest, the Communist Government agreed and made it the law. In 1952, the Soviet Deputy Military Representative was driving drunk and hit a school bus and it caught fire, burning to death 11 children. He was SHOT DEAD in his shoes, screaming he had killed thousands of children during the war and what was 11 more? Stalin was FURIOUS and almost went to war over the execution...


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Bucket Mouth said:


> Just because a law is on the books does not make it moral or right. Just because the majority thinks a law is right does not in fact make it right. Just because the majority of teenage girls think Justin Bieber is an awesome musician does not make his music suck less.


Here's where we disagree. The "majority" does absolutely determine whats wrong or right not some book, or code, or... ? Check the "morality" at the door. If teenage girls ruled the world, Justin Bieber would be president of the universe and there'd be little we could do about it as "wrong" as you think it is.

As twerpy as the guy is, he's putting out music that millions of people want to hear as bad as you might think that music is. I don't think the music sucks, it's a matter of taste. It's produced and performed well and chicks dig it.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

Different times


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Here's where we disagree. The "majority" does absolutely determine whats wrong or right not some book, or code, or... ? Check the "morality" at the door. If teenage girls ruled the world, Justin Bieber would be president of the universe and there'd be little we could do about it as "wrong" as you think it is.
> 
> As twerpy as the guy is, he's putting out music that millions of people want to hear as bad as you might think that music is. I don't think the music sucks, it's a matter of taste. It's produced and performed well and chicks dig it.


Well, this is where you've lost the way. You are advocating pure democracy, a.k.a. mob rule. However, if you don't like what the mob says, you ignore it (ala text/drive). Interesting dynamic. Do as I say, not as I do....


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

Lowell H Turner said:


> Funny thing you said that, JUST CRAZY. In Bulgaria, during the Cold War, the number of alcohol related fatalities skyrocketed to such high levels that their government passed DRACONIAN laws; upon arriving upon the scene of a wreck, if the police smelled alcohol upon your breath, and 2 witnesses agreed you had been drinking, the officers were REQUIRED to PUBLICLY EXECUTE the drunk driver ON THE SPOT REGARDLESS of WHO they were, or their status. This law was upheld because so many poorer persons without cars were annually slaughtered by upper class drunk drivers that the locals simply started killing the offenders ON THE SPOT, rather than allowing their friends to get them off with another slap on the wrist so they were free to repeat the same offense with similar results. To avoid public riots and further increase public unrest, the Communist Government agreed and made it the law. In 1952, the Soviet Deputy Military Representative was driving drunk and hit a school bus and it caught fire, burning to death 11 children. He was SHOT DEAD in his shoes, screaming he had killed thousands of children during the war and what was 11 more? Stalin was FURIOUS and almost went to war over the execution...


So what you're saying is.....

JUSTCRAZY advocates for policies of yesteryear's destroyed communist countries. Pretty telling.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

FOSR said:


> Different times
> 
> Frank Sinatra - One For My Baby (and One More For The Road) - YouTube


Oh man. Frank Sinatra should've been stripped of driving "privileges", locked up forever, or perhaps executed. Not only did he drink/drive, he wrote catchy songs about it.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

boatnut said:


> why do you continue to dance around my question?
> 
> "Again, why is it ok for YOU to text/surf while driving and it's not ok for someone to drive with a BAC of .08 ?? Both are illegal."


I've explained it multiple times now. In detail. I and others believe through scientific study that it's the act of diverting your attention regardless of which way your eyes are looking is what makes "texting and surfing" dangerous. So for me to feel "texting" or "surfing" is inherently more dangerous than looking over at the state fairgrounds parking lot to see what's going on wouldn't be consistent.

Now go back and answer some of the questions I've posted in the thread that you and bucketmouth have ignored.



How about 55 in construction zones? Fines double? Cash grab?

School Zones? Speed limits in general?

Noone likes the seatbelt laws right? Drivers license? What should be the legal driving age and why?


----------



## bobk (Apr 30, 2004)

I like the seatbelt law. It's an added tool to help save my life from a lawbreaking person who is texting while they drive and putting my life at risk.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

bobk said:


> I like the seatbelt law. It's an added tool to help save my life from a lawbreaking person who is texting while they drive and putting my life at risk.


So you think you need a law on the books to force you to wear your seatbelt? Hmmmm.
You didn't answer my question about the speed limit? Ever go over the speed limit? I sure hope not because apparently by default, that would mean you were putting my life at risk  Is Bobk a lawbreaking person?

Construction zones?

School zones?

You must not agree since you only picked the seatbelt law to support.


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> I've explained it multiple times now. In detail. I and others believe through scientific study that it's the act of diverting your attention regardless of which way your eyes are looking is what makes "texting and surfing" dangerous. So for me to feel "texting" or "surfing" is inherently more dangerous than looking over at the state fairgrounds parking lot to see what's going on wouldn't be consistent.
> 
> Now go back and answer some of the questions I've posted in the thread that you and bucketmouth have ignored.
> 
> ...


you haven't answered jack schitt!!! ONE MORE TIME, ok? I just need a simple answer.

"Again, why is it ok for YOU to text/surf while driving and it's not ok for someone to drive with a BAC of .08 ?? Both are illegal."

also your statement makes little sense to me-
"I've explained it multiple times now. In detail. I and others believe through scientific study that it's the act of diverting your attention regardless of which way your eyes are looking is what makes "texting and surfing" dangerous. So for me to feel "texting" or "surfing" is inherently more dangerous than looking over at the state fairgrounds parking lot to see what's going on wouldn't be consistent."

so you say that "thru scientific study", texting and surfing is dangerous but that's not consistent with looking at fairgrounds parking lot? LOL. I think I'm done here fella's. Feel free to lock 'er up.


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

boatnut said:


> I think I'm done here fella's. Feel free to lock 'er up.


As you wish.


----------

