Quantcast

Comments about ‘NTSB says dropping legal limit for blood-alcohol level in drivers will save lives’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, May 14 2013 6:55 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
toosmartforyou
Farmington, UT

Another suggestion would be to quit coddling offenders, especially repeat offenders. I say the first time you are guilty of DUI you pay a stiff fine and attend counseling. The 2nd time you lose the privilege to drive for at least 10 years and if you have equity in the vehicle you were driving you lose it.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

The new limit you can get a DUI after using mouth wash. How about putting a Blow machine in cars that calls 911 if you drink at all. How about cars with no cell phone service inside them. How about a tracking in the car, Whoops they got that.

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

Such an ambiguous law there is no such thing as a specified legal amount of alcohol that can impair a drivers ability to be in control of his vehicle. There are so many physical variables that can determine a level of impairment that creating and setting any kind of random fixed number to apply to every ones physiology is impossible.

Its the same reason people aren't charged and convicted of the same DUI law covering drug use and driving. Legal departments can't determining and exact number as legally impaired so courts exempt potheads, addicts, drug impaired soccer moms from the DUI laws.

They should prove accusations and evidences on the comparison of drug use and alcohol. Science knows the variables that affect amount of impairment but choose to ignore the basis so the cities can become wealthy on over the top illegal fines not consistent with other laws. Many accidents have been caused by people texting, on drugs and driving killing drinking drivers and pedestrians. But if someone had a beer that victim is unfairly targeted for the thousands of dollars.

DUI laws are unfair and discriminatory and unfairly punished for other peoples criminal driving habits.

JSB
Sugar City, ID

Sarah Longwell has a selfish agenda. People with .05 alcohol in their blood are impaired. Responsible drinking and driving is an oxymoron. I am so tired of reports of people getting killed and injured by drunk drivers. toosmartforyou is right. People who are convicted the first time should pay a very stiff fine and not be allowed to drive until the fine is paid. A second conviction should be permanent suspension of all driving privileges. Anyone can cause an accident but to intentionally impair your driving is beyond irresponsible. It's selfish and mean to risk other's lives just so you can have a beer.

techpubs
Sioux City, IA

This is similar to what our Gov't is attempting in other areas to gradually reduce our liberties without anyone noticing until after they are all gone. You will notice that the change from 0.10% to 0.08% did not stop those who were getting caught with 0.13%BAC or higher from driving.
But it did lead to a larger pool of drivers for them to hide in. So let's punish those who are drinking responsibly and continue to ignore the driver with 3 or more DUI's. We need to address the cause for DUI instead of the result.

TRUTH
Salt Lake City, UT

This is a revenue grab the more laws the police have the more revenue than can take from the populous! Seat belt,speed traps on hills, DUI after consuming one beer, talking on your cell phone are just ways for the city to tax you and steal money from you.....so they can spend it on Solyndra,, fast and furious, supporting muslim groups overseas, Michelle vacations and Obama golf lessons from Tiger!

Want to impose a law that will really benefit the USA? Create a law that bans Obama and the Libs from investing tax dollars in there election campaigns. This entire IRS scandal is to make sure Libs are elected......no different than NIXON! Impeach Obama and the Libs who create these stupid laws and have no integrity,

JWB
Kaysville, UT

This is a federal law and not a state law so insurance companies will benefit nationally as the same standard would apply or the Federal DOT money would not be given. However, the ones without insurance and drinking would still be out there as both areas have laws that can and should be enforced. However, with so many laws on the books in so many areas of our lives to collect fees and taxes for violation of those laws, we would have to have people turn their neighbors in as there is not enough to pay an enforcer and supervisors, managers, agency and department heads so the Tax Commission can collect the money. Hopefully, this is a mandate for states to cite not have federal personnel citing our citizens and taking the money directly to Washington without collecting $200 at Go.

techpubs
Sioux City, IA

@JSB and TooSmart:
What should the punishment be then if the driver who is at .08% is in an accident because a distracted driver crossed 2 lanes of traffic and hit him? In the recording of accidents involving alcohol it doesn't matter who caused the accident because they are just stating that one driver had a BAC at or above 0.01%.

beehivestate
SAINT GEORGE, UT

Just another easy law so the feds can take your guns with an alcohol violation on the gun bill they are pushing.

Hemlock
Salt Lake City, UT

Impaired driving from alcohol or texting causes accidents. Driving is a privilege that is granted to those who follow a set of guidelines. Protecting the public from drunk drivers with strict laws and enforcement is in the publics interest. To the cynics, spend the evening in a busy emergency room or morgue and find out that drunk driving is not a theoretical issue. Yes, those who are intoxicated are also more reckless with guns.

JSB
Sugar City, ID

re. techpubs. The both get the book thrown at them!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments