What we need to fight BAD guys driving drunk, is even more GOOD guys driving
I think it's worth asking what the point of having a blood alcohol limit
is. Criminals don't obey the blood alcohol limit anyway, so lowering it
won't stop them!...Yeah, you know what I'm
The fact is that motorists driving with .05 to .08 (or probably a little higher)
aren't the drunk drivers killing and injuring other people. I've been
hit by a drunk driver as a pedestrian and he was way over the legal limit as are
most who cause accidents. I suggest we allow higher blood alcohol levels and
impose stiffer penalties for those who are extremely intoxicated even on their
first offense. It seems it's always the law abiding citizens who get
punished for the actions of a few. It also seems to me that the police
state in America has expanded quite enough already. You can barely leave the
house anymore without committing some sort of offense.
Nearly 1000 people are killed every year due to drowsy driving. Perhaps that
should be looked at as well. But wait, As the NRA tells
us, laws don't stop all crimes or keep people from being killed.I think this is simply another Communist/Socialist plot.
@Chris B"No is suggesting that making it against the law to drink and
drive will prevent all DUI's."Nobody suggests that gun laws
prevent all gun violence, just reduce it. This editorial notes a claim that this
policy could save up to around 1,000 lives a year. It's a valid comparison.
"It is difficult, however, to argue against the NTSB estimate that as many
as 1,000 lives could be saved nationwide each year if the limit was uniformly
lowered. This 10 percent reduction would be well worth the effort."So wait... you mean laws actually deter behavior? That's not what gun
rights advocates have been arguing.
Many may disagree here. I just want to point out that some people can drive
better with a .15 then others at a .05. There are many factors involved, and I
don't have the answer to how we should handle this. People usually know
their limits by how they feel, not by what their blood alcohol level is. I
don't want my family on the roads with drunk drivers, but I also don't
want to be pulled over and get a dui for having a beer and then driving home. So
this is a hard issue to tackle. The texting and driving epidemic is becoming
more dangerous then alcohol, and it is happening very fast. Just my opinion.
Recently in Omaha a man was sentenced to a few years in jail for his 8th DWI.
This will be his 4th time in jail with all sentences being 3-5yrs or more.His BAC was .317 and he had only been out of jail for 5 days.The reason
for drinking was depression due to the fact that his wife and daughter left him
and didn't want him back in their lives.
"I've yet to hear the focus be on the definition of what is an assault
weapon."I disagree.The most current gun debate issue
was background checks. Redefining background checks to include gun shows and
private sales, is very similar.
Thank you NTSB and DN! Our casual attitude to the carnage caused by DWI is
strange. Driving impaired (with alcohol) is not a Constitutionally guaranteed
freedom. The 0.05% blood alcohol limit is long over due and a move in the right
direction, although drivers are still impaired at that level. Any implication
that one is not impaired at 0.049% and is impaired at 0.05% is a fallacy. Those
who object are the ones who will be negatively affected: bar owners, liquor
industry and impaired drivers. The rest of us will live in a safer society.
JoeBlow,The only thing being proposed here is changing the
definition of what is a DUI.If you're trying to compare it to
the gun debate, a similar measure would be if we were debating what constitutes
an assault weapon.But in the gun debate that is not the focus or the
debate. I've yet to hear the focus be on the definition of what is an
assault weapon. You yourself said the issue is background checks. That is why the analogy doesn't hold up.
"No is suggesting that making it against the law to drink and drive will
prevent all DUI's."By the same token ChrisB, No one is
suggesting that expanding background checks will stop all mass shootings.However, that has been the counter argument of many gun advocates and
the NRA.Wasn't that Mavericks point and the reason for his
Oatmeal has it right. While I wouldn't necessarily oppose a 0.05 limit
(and I drink) the issue in Utah isn't safe drivers it's moral tyranny.
Cell phones and distracted driving are far more dangerous in Utah simply
because of their prevalence. Lots of statistics showing how texting and driving
can be upwards of 10 times more dangerous than 0.08% driving. It
would interesting to know how many people are killed in Utah by drunk drivers
compared to distracted drivers (any kind of distraction).
I'll go for that if someone comes up with a formula that equates the
'impairment' I experience at .05 and equates it with the similar
impairment one acquires with age, and makes it illegal for anyone older than
that determined age to drive, either. Besides, the DN answers to a master
that's never going to accept alcohol in any form. This in spite of
its' regular rants against big government, nanny stateism, government
intervention, and personal and religious freedom.
Real Maverick,Poor analogy. No is suggesting that making it against
the law to drink and drive will prevent all DUI's.The law under
consideration is changing the definition of a DUI.Yes, people will
still drink and drive.
I thought regulation was worthless because bad people will still find ways to
buy guns? So won't bad people still find ways to get drunk and drive?
I'd suppport .05 IF Utah also banned talking on a cell phone while driving.
I've narrowly missed two ladies in minivans in the last week because they
were driving while distracted.
We just need to outlaw alcohol. And R-rated movies.
I agree with most of the posters on this blog. Does lowering the limit make us
safer? Do we have the resources in law enforcement and courts needed to enforce
this? No doubt the moral majority that runs this State will quickly want to
adopt the new, lower guidelines.
Sure -- Right AFTER we start passing laws prohibiting TEXTING while
driving.Texting while driving is even MORE dangerous and more
prevalent.But, Some people [usually good Latter-Day Saints]
will see this more narrowly as a Word of Wisdom law, and not necessarily as
assuring good driving habits and one of safety.
This sounds like a great idea to me. I just watched a show where those who were
at a .06 BAC were severely impaired while driving.
So more restrictions on guns in the name of safety = big, bad government but
more restrictions on alcohol in the name of "Safety" = good?
One idea I like that I seen in Ohio was that people convicted of DUI had to have
a special license plate on there car that identified them as a DUI offender.
They could only drive to places approved by a judge like to work. If people are
serious about saving lives and not a political mess like gun control then they
would do something about the number one case of deaths in this country. More
people are killed by drunk drivers than people with guns.
While lower rates would be commendable, how many accidents per year are caused
by drinking drivers whose limit is between 0.05% and 0.08%? How much of a
problem is that range in Utah? If we're going to lower the limit to 0.05%,
why not lower it all the way to 0.02% so than ANY drinking and driving would be
an automatic DUI? At 0.079%, the law says that you're sober
enough to drive. At 0.08%, the law says you'll be arrested for DUI. Do
those numbers accurately represent impairment? Who told us that someone driving
at 0.079% was safe? How did they arrive at that figure?Now
they're saying that 0.05% is no longer safe. I believe that
any drinking and driving is unsafe, but I also believe that we do not live in a
police state whose job it is to force its will on the people. That line between
freedom and force is already very thin. Some would tell us that all
of society's problems would disappear if we were just forced to always do
the right thing. That plan has already been rejected.
The other editorial today says we should value liberty over security. I guess it
just depends on which liberty.
As I recall you opposed the repeal of prohibition also. If that's what you
want you should have the guts to say so. If we go to .05, we may as well go