Group rallies for Herbert to veto 'extreme' bill lowering blood-alcohol limit

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • my3cents Nashville, TN
    March 22, 2017 9:16 a.m.

    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.

  • Edmunds Tucker St George, UT
    March 21, 2017 1:48 a.m.

    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 2016 April 28 http: // /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 . 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:// /most- dangerous-states-for-drunk-driving/ #TableWeighted2016

  • BGuy Falls Church, VA
    March 20, 2017 2:32 p.m.

    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 amazing.

  • D Van Duker Syracuse, UT
    March 20, 2017 10:56 a.m.

    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.

  • ERB Eagle Mountain, UT
    March 18, 2017 11:32 p.m.

    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.

  • TerryHaimes Sturgis, MS
    March 18, 2017 6:18 p.m.

    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.

  • ConradGurch Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 18, 2017 6:11 p.m.

    Why stop at .05? Why not make Utah the first Dry State?!

  • ConradGurch Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 18, 2017 6:03 p.m.

    DrMAN - Orem, UT

    Use your same judgment against Doctors with their prescription drugs. Everyone knows Utah downs a ton of pills!

  • ConradGurch Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 18, 2017 5:52 p.m.

    TO Mayfair - City, Ut

    Yes, the State of Utah wants more DUI's! It doesn't mean safety for the citizens it means more money for the State.

  • libs think what??? Salt Lake City, UT
    March 18, 2017 5:23 p.m.

    I have no problem banning tobacco.

    as for firearms, ever hear of the 2nd amendment?

  • ultragrampa Farmington, UT
    March 18, 2017 5:03 p.m.

    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.

  • Sad Sack Hurricane, UT
    March 18, 2017 4:49 p.m.

    "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 answered.

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    March 18, 2017 4:47 p.m.

    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.

  • Designer123 Centerville, UT
    March 18, 2017 4:46 p.m.

    @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.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    March 18, 2017 4:32 p.m.

    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.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    March 18, 2017 4:25 p.m.

    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.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    March 18, 2017 4:07 p.m.

    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!

  • rvalens2 Burley, ID
    March 18, 2017 3:55 p.m.

    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.

  • mightymite , 00
    March 18, 2017 3:03 p.m.

    I am far more concerns with an 18 year old carrying a concealed weapon then lowing to.05.... This legislature has absolutely no clue.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 18, 2017 2:57 p.m.

    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 gun control.

  • Yar Springville, UT
    March 18, 2017 1:45 p.m.

    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 impaired?

  • zencowgirl Ivins, UT
    March 18, 2017 1:20 p.m.

    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.

  • peabody Steamboat Springs, CO
    March 18, 2017 12:57 p.m.

    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 Colorado.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    March 18, 2017 12:49 p.m.

    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.

  • MacMama Sandy, UT
    March 18, 2017 12:47 p.m.

    This is the standard BAC in Europe and they just don't mess around with drunk driving.
    I am in favor of this bill.

  • Jim Cobabe Provo, UT
    March 18, 2017 12:23 p.m.

    My suspicion is that passing new laws against DUI will make little difference to anyone.

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    March 18, 2017 11:55 a.m.

    These people want MORE drunk driving??

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    March 18, 2017 9:18 a.m.

    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.

  • Million Bluffdale, UT
    March 18, 2017 8:21 a.m.

    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.

  • PhillR Springville, UT
    March 18, 2017 8:15 a.m.

    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.

  • Mick , 00
    March 18, 2017 5:11 a.m.

    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.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    March 18, 2017 12:07 a.m.

    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.

  • rebelyr Salt Lake City, UT
    March 17, 2017 11:22 p.m.

    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 !

  • davewhittle Springville, UT
    March 17, 2017 8:36 p.m.

    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 public safety.

  • hereandthere332 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 17, 2017 8:33 p.m.

    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?

  • DrMAN Orem, UT
    March 17, 2017 5:44 p.m.

    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).

  • barfolomew TOOELE, UT
    March 17, 2017 4:33 p.m.

    As George Carlin once said:

    "Drinking and driving don't mix. So, do all your drinking first, and then go driving!"

  • AlanSutton Salt Lake City, UT
    March 17, 2017 4:16 p.m.

    Restaurants won't lose money with this bill. Instead, taxi drivers will make more, and that's a good thing.

  • water rocket Magna, UT
    March 17, 2017 4:10 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    March 17, 2017 3:44 p.m.

    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.

  • water rocket Magna, UT
    March 17, 2017 3:44 p.m.

    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.

  • BGuy Falls Church, VA
    March 17, 2017 2:44 p.m.

    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.