This neoprohibitionistic knee-jerkism is idiotic. The test should be whether a
person is impaired for purposes of driving, and not whether he/she has any
particular %age of alcohol in the system, especially when the number is this
low. Criminal law should be a matter of responsibility based on conduct and
competence, and not of strict liability based on numbers. The 18th Amendment was
repealed - even for Utah! It's a MADD, MADD, MADD, MADD World and it needs
to be reversed.
It's amusing reading and listening to snowflakes complain about this
law.It's very simple....drink to your hearts content....Have beer and
all the spirits all you like.Just don't get behind the wheel of
a car!In England there is a pub on every neighborhood corner. People
drink and "Walk" home.I've always thought it was weird
that one thinks they can drink even a drop and think it's OK to drive.So the drinkers will have to be more serious about calling a cab, Uber or
using a designated driver.Airline pilots 8 hour rule from bottle to
throttle, is the standard, with .04 being the limit.All commercial truck
drivers cannot exceed .04 either.Bottom line.Don't drink
and drive.Great law.Utah was first with .08 and will set the
trend Nationally for .05.
Re: "Utah restaurant associations ask . . . ."Yeah,
they're asking for what they always ask for -- that we subserviently
embrace and enable their vicious, profit-based carnage.I'd ask,
"Sir, have you no shame?" but the answer to that question has been
demonstrated time and time again over many, many years.The
"hospitality" industry is intent on making a buck -- that's all.
Nothing else -- least of all the well-being of Utah and Utahns -- matters to
them in the least.
Although I spent most of my time in Texas as well as Arizona, I pass through
Utah and the gauntlet that is US 89 well known for very strange traffic
citations, often. I have lots of family in the state, so I think I have some
interest in this policy. As I see it you have three choices:1-Bring Lisa
Steed back, offer her big bucks to leave her Wal-Mart greeter position. With
Steed in command, Utah would revert back to the 0.00 blood alcohol standard that
Officer Steed so valiantly created and enforced.2--Adopt the 0.05 standard
and see it it reduces accidents or even better increases revenues.3-Stick
with the old reliable 0.08
@strom thurmondThe URA and SLARA are not arguing the merits of the
bill (that those with a BAC of .05 are less impaired than those with .08, hence
the need for the change). They would be much more persuasive if they did,
scientifically demonstrating that no extra safety from DUIs results from the
proposed BAC driving limit change. Rather, all their arguments are fiscal: that
the restaurant industry will economically suffer if people drink less while
dining in restaurants for fear of getting a DUI when driving themselves home.
The mobile phone company analogy is spot on: that less revenue will come to the
mobile phone industry if anti-texting-and-driving laws are passed and toughened.
We'd laugh at the mobile phone company for putting economical arguments
ahead of of safety arguments, just as I (and it looks like many more) am
laughing at the restaurant industry for putting their bottom line ahead of their
patrons and the publics safety. And this is no laughing matter, either!
Separate from the . 05 BAC law let's talk about strengthening No Texting
while driving. The law already states no texting while driving and does need to
be strengthened and enforced better. Maybe there is an example - no drinking
at all if one is going to drive. One difficulty with any source of impairment
is an officer has to notice the impairment and then stop someone. Hopefully
that happens before it is too late.
Why are some diverting the issue? This is not about if a person can drink or
not, not about Bears Ears, LDS Church, restaurants, texting or Europe. Its is about alcohol levels while driving on public roads. . O5
essentially says don't drink and drive. A law everyone can live with.
====================================the young man submits to the
breathalyzer, and blows a .06 because of the Listerine. Bam--DUI.====================================Poetry in motion ...
.05 follows the NTSB suggested level for BAC for safety. A person
can still drink themselves to .08, .1, .2 or whatever they want you just
can't DRIVE while over .05.
This is not a "non-issue," and I'm surprised some of our more
libertarian-leaning commenters haven't weighed in on this. It's an
entirely plausible scenario that a teetotaling Mormon, who when getting ready
for a date, applies too much cologne and/or gargles with Listerine, then on his
way to pick up his date, encounters a DUI checkpoint. "I'm good,"
he thinks, and rolls down his window with his ID and registration in hand. The
officer smells the Listerine or the cologne and asks how much the young
man's had to drink. "Nothing--I don't drink." "Well, then, you won't mind getting out of your vehicle and
performing some field sobriety tests then, right?" One such test is a
handheld breathalyzer. The young man, thinking about the Listerine,
declines--and is promptly detained, because refusing a breathalyzer test in Utah
means you forfeit your driver's license. Or the young man submits to the
breathalyzer, and blows a .06 because of the Listerine. Bam--DUI. He's not
impaired; he passed the other sobriety tests, but because of the breathalyzer,
he'll have to fight a DUI charge in court.
I have no problem with the legal limit staying where it is or being lowered ...
DUI is a huge problem and needs to be dealt with.That said, the
penalty for driving while texting is in desperate need of stiffening and in
enforcement. It is virtually impossible to drive more than 2 or 3 miles without
seeing a texting driver. It is my considered opinion that these drivers are
actually worse than drunk drivers. The drunk at least is aware he is impaired
and makes an effort, however ineffectual, to drive well. The texting
driver, on the other hand, believes himself in full control and pays far less
attention to his driving than he needs to. For all practical purposes, he might
as well be in the back seat and, like Luke Skywalker, trust in "the
force" to pilot his vehicle. Laws against texting while driving
need to be greatly beefed up and enforcement and penalty need to be rigidly
It is a non issue. If your driving is erratic and you are pulled over, no
matter what the level or substance or reason (cell phones) you are still
driving erratic. Be prepared for consequences. If .05 causes this then you
should be sited. If you have no impaired driving at .05 you won't be
pulled over, correct? I think that other reasons for erratic driving should also
receive stiffer consequences. I am not immune but some where and some how we
are going to have to deal with cell phones, even talking. Just look the next
time you are on the road at how many people are on the phone and I mean phone to
ear that you can see. I cannot imagine how much this usage must go up with
handless devices in cars. Think about this as "automobile
terrorists"--that is what I think drunk driving is, domestic terrorism at
its best. Just look at the number of lives lost do too drunk driving.
Just guessing that Gary will be opting to stay out of this issue. By neither
signing or vetoing this bill, He knows fully well, that his decision was not
final but yet written into law and it would clear his pathway to re-election
without a stain. Any bets?
conservative scientist - "check out the very long list of countries
published in this paper over a week ago, including almost all of the European
Union countries including Germany, Ireland, France, Italy, Austria..."Not that long ago when a Supreme Court Justice was chastised for
referencing legal trends in Europe when deciding a US case. Now it is all the
rage. Interesting.To your point, conservative scientist, all of the
countries invest quite a bit more in public transportation. Perhaps this is a
good law, but it is missing a corresponding increase in spending on public
No one should EVER get behind the wheel when drinking alcohol, even after
1drink. One drink, one beer, one glass of wine and you are impaired. Now
I'd like to see the same enforcement applied to texting and driving and I
mean right down to the letter. It is equally, no, more dangerous because many of
the offenders are teens with very limited driving experience. Just like a DUI,
it shouldn't take an accident to get arrested, and I mean arrested, not
some silly ticket. These kids driving and texting are more dangerous than the
person DUI. Both need to be vigorously prosecuted, lose their license and repeat
offender go to jail. I don't care if they are 17 or 70.
Note to Melva Sine, executive director of the Utah Restaurant Association. Utah
does not want to be harder on those who consume alcohol, just those who consume
and then believe they should be allowed to drive impaired. Our legislators are
responsible for the peoples' safety, not the restaurant owners'
profits. Most of Western Europe, Australia and Japan have BA limits of 0.05.
Utah is simply catching up with the rest of the world.
DrMAN,"This is like the mobile phone companies taking up
texting-while-driving legislation, advocating that to criminalize texting while
driving will threaten the telecommunication industry "No it
isn't. There isn't a level of texting that could be considered
safe." A person who is impaired, regardless of the source of
impairment (e.g., alcohol, texting, prescription drugs, legal and illegal
substances), should not be behind the wheel."Driving while
impaired is already a crime.
oh, please"Many rapes and murders can be attributed to
DUIs..."Rapes? That's a new one.
@ Ranch This proposed law makes no changes to what restaurants can or cannot
serve their patrons. Restaurants have no standing. This law does change how much
can or cannot BE consumed IF one chooses to then drive. Patrons would have more
of a standing than restaurants. But...patrons are NEVER going to come forward to
argue their case because they essentially would be outing themselves as
advocating their own and others' drunk driving.@ DougSegesman
Are you suggesting people don't fear DUIs at a BAC of .08 but they will
fear it at .05? If so...all the more reason to adopt the legislation: current
DUI laws are ineffective at curtailing drunk driving.@libertarian
DUI is the crime! Compounding that crime are the crimes committed against people
(e.g., vehicular manslaughter) and property (e.g., car "accidents") when
people drink and drive.
One of the principals of liberty is that you don't punish people for
something they don't do. DUI laws punish thousands who have comitted no
crime based solely on the assumption that they might, just to make people
"feel safe ". Regardless of the "good intentions ", these laws
are tyranny and turn regular folks into criminals at the stroke of a pen.
Please, Governor, please help stop drunk driving in this state by signing this
law. To coin a phrase in the article, I submit that drinking is a
"social experiment" that doesn't work out well when mixed with
operating a motor vehicle, airplane, or anything else that moves. Many DEATHS
can be attributed to alcohol consumption. Many rapes and murders can be
attributed to DUIs and drug-related activities.
"regular social behavior is going to be criminalized"Is it
"regular social behavior" to drink and drive? If it is, then it's
already criminalized! The arguments I've heard against this bill are
incredibly weak and narrow minded:-"It's a Mormon
thing". Actually, 85% of the world's population lives in countries
where the legal limit is .05 - and they aren't all Mormon. The US is
basically the only place where it isn't .05.-"It punishes social
drinkers". No, it punishes those who drink and drive. You can drink all you
want, but if you want to drive, think again.-"It will hurt tourism in
Utah". Does it hurt tourism in all those other countries? And even if it
does, are a few tourism dollars worth even one child dying due to a drunk
driver?-"We have bigger problems to solve". So we can't solve
this problem until we solve bigger problems? Please.
@ Doug"The argument against this legislation is that patrons
won't be able to go to a restaurant, drink alcohol and then drive without
fear of a DUI.Let that sink in for a minute........"OK,
I've let it sink in and let me say I'm not necessarily opposed to this
legislation. But, I do think it's more an attack on ones social choices
than about safety. Law enforcement will say they would rather have a
responsible driver who has a BAC of .05 to .07 behind the wheel than a
distracted driver. Why is it the legislature has chosen to lower the BAC
before criminalizing many forms of distracting driving? Statstics show our
roads would be much safer if we reduced those things more so than by lowering
the BAC. Additionally, I find it humorous that the Governor says he
wanted to explore the unintended consequences of the legislation before signing.
If he had done that before signing the worthless resolution opposing the
creation of Bears Ears National Monument we'd have about 60MM more of
convention business in SLC this year.
The argument against this legislation is that patrons won't be able to go
to a restaurant, drink alcohol and then drive without fear of a DUI.Let that sink in for a minute........
This bill is legislating LDS beliefs into law. The restaurant association
should sue the legislature for a violation of their first amendment rights; if
Hobby Lobby can claim that providing birth control is against their religious
beliefs, restaurants can claim that a law lowering the legal limit violates
their religious rights to serve alcohol to their customers. Jesus even served
alcohol himself, turning water into wine.
The URA, SLARA, and associated organizations can't possibly be advocating
for drunk drivers?! This law has absolutely nothing to do with drinkers and even
less to do with restaurants. It's amazing restaurants feel they even have
standing to comment on this issue. This is like the mobile phone companies
taking up texting-while-driving legislation, advocating that to criminalize
texting while driving will threaten the telecommunication industry and
businesses, the economy, etc. will be harmed. What would be the blood alcohol
content (BAC) equivalent of texting: that to send 1 text message per mile is an
acceptable impairment but sending 2 texts per mile is unacceptable? Mobile phone
companies would be laughed at.This bill is aimed at curtailing drunk
driving. A person who is impaired, regardless of the source of impairment (e.g.,
alcohol, texting, prescription drugs, legal and illegal substances), should not
be behind the wheel. URA, SLARA, and associated organizations: listen up!
We're all laughing at you!
This is a good law Governor. Please sign it.Everyone opposed should
check out the very long list of countries published in this paper over a week
ago, including almost all of the European Union countries including Germany,
Ireland, France, Italy, Austria, and dozens of others who have this same legal
limit for driving. Those countries love their alcohol and the law works for
them. It is also highly unlikely those countries are controlled by the
overbearing Mormons. Your drinking is your business. When you get
behind the wheel after drinking, it is everyone's business.