I'll remember this the next time i"m in a Sunday School class and they
go on and on about how much the LDS church values liberty.
Utah, where more than two-thirds of the residents are Mormons who eschew
alcohol, ranked lowest for drunken-driving incidents, according to statistics
from the FBI, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the advocacy
group Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Kids Count Data Center and
DrivingLaws.org. 2016 April 28 http: // www.usatoday.com /story/
news/2016/04/28/survey- northern-states- worst-drunken-driving /83537526 / Sources Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, KIDS COUNT Data Center, and
DrivingLaws.org. . 51 of 51.•Cost per Drunk Driving Fatalities and
Taxpayer Subsidy per Drunk Driving Fatality by State)•Drunk Driving
(Percentage of Fatal Crashes that Involved Alcohol)•DUI Arrests
(Arrests of Minors and Adults that were (“DUI”) •DUI
Penalties (State Penalties for 1st-time DUI Offenders and Repeat DUI Laws/Statutes (Percentage of Drunk Driving Fatalities by State per
State’s amount of Drunk Driving )http://
www.carinsurancecomparison.com /most- dangerous-states-for-drunk-driving/
To those wondering what studies or reports the NTSB has published, Google is
your friend. I would post the link for you, but then this comment would be
rejected. But just search "NTSB .05 BAC" and their report along with
answers to many your questions are right there for you. The Internet truly is
Are the majority of driver impaired and unsafe to drive with a BAC at 0.050?
The NTSB, and the legislature--if they do have empirical data, aren't
seemingly sharing it with the news. One commenter quotes that: "....06 is
listed as the level at which 'significant impairments in all driving
skills' begins." Really? Based on what? I don't know, because
nobody's backup such statements with any peer-reviewed studies that support
this as anything more than conjecture. Citations, please!Also,
while we're at it, how is "impaired" being defined here--that BAC
at 0.05 alcohol has in someway affected the driver; or, that the individual is
clearly unable to safely drive a vehicle? Are the 0.050 "studies"
describing the former or the latter? I don't know. Does the 0.05 have any
rounding? Is 0.048 rounded up to 0.05? Is a police breath-test accurate to a
1/1,000 of a %...I don't know.Under the proposed BAC of 0.050,
I can clearly see a possibility for a LOT of DUI citations next cold-season,
because Ms soccer-mom took a dose of NiteQuil and then drove her kids to
school. I'm not in favor of that.
Another big story this week is there is not enough housing for people already
here. Now this story tells us the .05 will keep people from moving here. Sounds
good to me.
In reality this law makes no difference except for some cop that has an ax to
grind or some judge or municipality that has the cops out raising revenue. The
reason is the Law says driving while impaired. People testing .08 or below are
not impaired. To test somebody for something, you have to have probable cause.
These people will not show probable cause so they should not be tested.
Wouldn't be surprised if the Courts don't strike the law down if it is
signed. A lot of ignorance showing up in these comments.
Why stop at .05? Why not make Utah the first Dry State?!
DrMAN - Orem, UTUse your same judgment against Doctors with their
prescription drugs. Everyone knows Utah downs a ton of pills!
TO Mayfair - City, UtYes, the State of Utah wants more DUI's!
It doesn't mean safety for the citizens it means more money for the State.
hutteriteI have no problem banning tobacco.as for firearms,
ever hear of the 2nd amendment?
The woman obfuscates the issue by stating: "That message is Utah is not
tolerant of people who enjoy a glass of wine with dinner. Utah is not friendly
to skiers who want to have a cocktail after they hit the slopes. Utah is not
welcoming to conventions whose attendees want to have a beer after their
meetings," Allow me to clarify her remarks, because she will
lose her no-doubt high-paying job if she states the truth of the matter:
"That message is Utah is not tolerant of people who enjoy a glass of wine
with dinner AND THEN DRIVE. Utah is not friendly to skiers who want to have a
cocktail after they hit the slopes AND THEN DRIVE. Utah is not welcoming to
conventions whose attendees want to have a beer after their meetings AND THEN
DRIVE." You're welcome, Ma'am, for stating what we all
understand you should be saying but, being politically correct and hoping to
retain your current employment, you cannot.
"Before the rally, the sponsor of HB155, Rep. Norm Thurston, R-Provo, said
in an interview the purpose of the bill is to tell people that if they drink,
they should not drive."Uh no. Rep. Thurston, R-Provo, the purpose of
this bill is to keep your name circulating in front of the voters. And that is
the only purpose of this bill. Just like the majority of the unneeded bills
that "you people" pass every year.Every year, I pray for your
session to end, before you screw up anything else. That prayer is never
The improvement in public safety will be negligible to none. The law
endircement manpower needed to enforce this is not negligible.The
number of prosecuted DUIs will increase, and the State's revenues from
fines will increase. And this reinforces the perception that the LDS
Church is imposing their morality onto the laws of the State, along with
resolutions on pornography, requiring medically questionable or dangerous
procedures for abortions, and similar "message bills".People
who demonize alcohol and have no understanding of how responsible drinking has
been enriching people's lives for centuries, should not be forcing their
naive beliefs on others.
@Hutterite - There are laws for smoking at a certain age, same as drinking. This
law is not to prohibiting drinking. It prohibits a certain level of impaired
driving, and I am all for that. If they want to drink to their heart's
content, go for it. Don't put others' lives in danger though because
you want to drink. Adults should be big enough to understand that.
While they are at it they need to focus on prescription medications. Pain meds
and antidepressants are serious mood altering drug that greatly effect a
person's driving skills.
Channel 5 cracks me up trying to make it look like a great crowd at the capitol
to lobby against the bill. A good portion of the people there were for the bill
and channel 2 said there were dozens of people there to protest against but they
also showed many supporting and even talked to them.It's all
about safety. Let's lead in safety. People don't vacation in UT
because of booze they'll be here regardless.
No. No. No you don't veto. And this is all about safety period. Look at
what the National Transportation Safety Board has said: point zero five is where
the limit should be. Stay alive don't drink and drive!.05, don't drink and drive!
If drinking and driving are the problem why not just ban it? Go totally dry
while driving and that will make the problem go away just like prohibition did
in the 20s."Er, uh, . . . we don't want to seem like a
backward, archaic state. After all, we want the world to know they are welcomed
here. Plus, we could really use the entertainment dollars. .05% is fine for now,
but we may come back in the future and lower it to .03%, but thanks for the
input."You can't have it both ways Utah. If drinking and
driving are the problem then ban any drinking while driving and see if it has
the desired result. After all, it's already the law for those under 21
years of age. And while you're at it, make the punishments so harsh no one
will ever dare drink and drive.That will sure make Utah seem like an
inviting and welcoming place.
I am far more concerns with an 18 year old carrying a concealed weapon then
lowing to.05.... This legislature has absolutely no clue.
Yeah, veto it. The 05 to 08 difference is negligible, and if we really believed
all that rhetoric about safety, cigarettes would be illegal and we'd have
What is up with the over reacting, out there? It's supposed to keep people
safe. Would you rather have more people risk their lives through driving while
To Quote former President Obama; " If it saves just one life, then it's
worth it" It will save many lives, children, teenagers, immigrants, innocent
drivers, let's take his advice and put it into law.
Colorado has a good compromise: .05 = driving while impaired. .08 means driving
under the influence. And, as to each the numerical value only creates a
permissible inference of being impaired or under the influence which may be
overcome by considering all the evidence in the case. Seems to work well in
In promoting the lower limit, the NTSB keeps saying that European countries with
.05 "drink more per capita than the U.S., but yet they die less in
alcohol-related crashes." I have two questions: Don't U.S. drivers log
far more miles per capita than European drivers? On a per-mile basis, could it
be that fewer people die in the U.S. than in Europe?Also, whether
it's a good idea or a bad idea, I think it sends a bad, intolerant message
for Utah, where most residents have religious beliefs against drinking, to be
the first in the nation to lower the limit to .05.
This is the standard BAC in Europe and they just don't mess around with
drunk driving. I am in favor of this bill.
My suspicion is that passing new laws against DUI will make little difference to
These people want MORE drunk driving??
The same legislature that passed this bill also did away with mandatory safety
inspections. Bald tires, faulty brakes, headlights out, no taillights or brake
lights, not a problem. Mandatory safety inspections were an inconvenience and
imposed on our personal freedoms. The public in general is ignoring the real
issue when it comes to highway safety which is an understaffed and under paid
highway patrol. We have all have seen people texting and driving. I see it
every day. I have never seen a cop pull someone over while in the act. The
strictest traffic laws in the world are meaningless if there is not officers on
duty to apprehend violators. More funding for additional UHP troopers would
save more lives than lower blood alcohol limits.
Prohibition was repealed in 1933. Prohibition was considered a great failure
after being touted as the greatest thing for the country and all of the
hospitals and poor houses would be emptied due to the cessation of alcohol.Trooper Lisa Steed ruined lives with her lies and misconduct towards those
people who were targeted with heavy handed alcohol enforcement and it has been
suggested she victimized 1,500 to 2,000 motorists dating back to 2006.
Let's get those people over .08 off the streets, not those at .05. People
are moaning and groaning at losing the Outdoor Realtors convention. Let's
not make it worse by making our alcohol laws more Puritan.
We need some public education. It is NOT a law against drinking in Utah, as so
many are saying, but rather a law against DRIVING under the influence. Folks
can drink when and where they please, but then they must not drive and thus
endanger others. They can take a taxi cab, uber, Trax, Front Runner, and etc.
They can get a hotel/motel room nearby. Just don't drive anywhere.
Here and there-Agreed. Those who text and drive should be punished.
Why don't you come up with the data and studies and present that bill.
Meanwhile the data and studies support this bill and the roads are a bit safer
for all of us.
This bill is about safety. Sign it Governor Herbert. hereandthere332 yup!
agree same penalties as a DUI for texting and driving? It's all about
safety.The NTSB calls for greater safety, don't let the
hospitality industry shame you into a veto Governor.
I don't know kinda fishy to me again seems like no one is addressing the
sober issues of deaths on our roads (that out number the ,08 deaths) I'm
sure the alcohol related ones were 1.0 plus and until they address the major
reasons it just again looks like a huge money thing to me with a sinner scape
goat. I do agree with everyone Keep us alive . But C'mon let's be real
A few facts to inform this debate:For a 100-lb person, the old law
allows 2 drinks; new law allows 1. For 150-lbs, old 3, new 2 (if
you're feeling lucky, 1 otherwise). For 200-lbs, old 4, new 2. For 240-lbs, old 5, new 3..06 is listed as the level at which
"significant impairments in all driving skills" begins. .05 is therefore
the last safe level, not .08. Let's not engage in petty quibbling over .055
- that's splitting hairs.Also consider: it's the first
drink that leads to the second drink and so on to whatever level of impairment
would lead someone to lose count and the rational judgment that would lead them
to self-prevent getting behind the wheel. So the stricter the law, the more
likely it will lead someone to make the decision not to drive while they're
still cold sober and rational.So given the data, and laying aside
all of the fallacy surrounding this issue, especially the unsupported ad hominem
arguments and assertions that amount to little more than fear, uncertainty, and
doubt, it seems like common sense that this bill will result in an increase in
Texting and driving can lead to car accidents and death. As such, why not
implement the same penalties as a DUI for texting and driving?
Governor, keep impaired drivers off our roads. This goes for all forms of
impaired driving, starting with alcohol and then move to the others (e.g.,
texting, mobile phones).
As George Carlin once said:"Drinking and driving don't mix.
So, do all your drinking first, and then go driving!"
Restaurants won't lose money with this bill. Instead, taxi drivers will
make more, and that's a good thing.
@ Kings Court, certainly this can work here in Utah. I agree with your comment
about other forms of distracted driving, and agree that more can be done there
as well, but drinking and driving don't mix. There are ways to help the
person who wants to drink. For example, have a full meal, instead of making the
drink your meal, use mixers to dilute the drink, have a designated driver
pre-arranged, or just take your drinks home and drink all you want. As for this
bill, the purpose and intent is to make our roads safer, and believe me, with
increased traffic on the roads, we need all the safety precautions we can get.
Let's be honest here. If the legislature was really, truly concerned about
good driving and reduced crashes on highways, they would do something more
serious about distracted driving such as cell phone use. I've seen more
crashes on our highways due to drivers not paying attention than drunk driving.
Far more. The question to ask: Are you too impaired to drive after having one
alcoholic drink? While a .05 may work in Europe, the land of mass, public
transit, it doesn't work as well here in Utah. It may actually have a
damaging effect to the economy of the state.
This bill actually liberalizes the serving of alcoholic drinks in clubs and
restaurants. It also says that IF you drink more than a "social" drink,
don't drive. I completely agree. Governor, please sign this into law.
The American Beverage Institute does not care about Utah's reputation.
They have been lobbying against this nationally since 2013 when the National
Transportation Safety Board first advocated the change. All they are worried
about is their bottom line. They couldn't care less about safety if it
means they might sell a few less beverages. All the scientific, statistical
evidence collected by the NTSB shows this will save lives. People can still
drink all they want. This just makes it clear that if they do so, they should
not plan on driving.