To "RanchHand" that is not true. Only in the large cities are pubs that
close to home. Outside the cities they are further apart.Plus, why
do you have to drive to and from a bar in your own car? Why can't you use
Uber or a taxi or have a designated driver?
@RedShirtUofU;You also left out the fact that you can WALK to most
pubs in Europe; you don't have to go 5 miles in order to find one.@Doom Turtle;I too was rear-ended while stationary at a semaphore.
The woman was turned around yelling at her precious bundles of joy. We should
therefore ban children in cars too; as it creates distracted parents behind the
wheel.@Colduphere;Getting people out of religious
organizations that drive them to suicide will help save lives too.
...but, lunatics are still free to buy assault rifles....Whatever -- the looney right-wing has lost all common sense to me...
Driving is a complex divided attention task. A person has to do a lot of
different things at the same time to drive safely. When a person is impaired
they are less able to function as needed as a driver, and put everyone at risk.
I attended and watched a “wet lab” at our Washington
State Patrol building in Seattle. For those of you who don’t know what a
wet lab is, it is where people drink and are observed while drinking, while
monitoring their levels of impairment, then their ability to perform the
standardized filed sobriety tests at different levels of impairment. In this
case there were four drinkers, different sexes, and sizes. They were drinking
different drinks, including wine, beer, and mixed drinks. After they started
drinking (from a sober state), they each said they were too impaired to drive.
Three said this between .04 and .05, one said it when he was at .07. They
continued to drink up to about a .15 level, where they stopped. The interesting
thing was as their level was decreasing, they each said they were sober enough
to drive around the .09 level. The sober brain registered the impairment before
.08, but a drunk brain was not dependable on impairment.
"Isn't it hypocritical that with this new dui law that our bought off
lawmakers approve and think that someone with the same blood alcohol level of
.05 would still be able to utilize their gun if necessary but not be sober
enough to drive a car?"Not hypocritical at all. The difference
is that one is in your home (private property) and the other is on public roads.
The objections to a 0.05 BA law start with "Yah, but...." Scientific
evidence and most developed countries agree that the new limit is based on
rational thinking. Opposition arguments to the new law highlight the need for
it, i.e. I can drink and still drive safely. Liquor industry lobbyists are
protecting their profits at the expense of public safety by opposing the new
law. Utah legislators must not cave in to this pressure.
@ Imp. 7 -- It's only the ones that drink and then insist they drive that
are the problem. Drink yourself into oblivion for all I care, but just
don't get behind the wheel afterwards. Ever.@Yar -- No, cell
phone usage may be as distracting but as soon as a driver realizes he hits the
rumble strips or someone honks at him as they swerve out of the way, the cell
phone user can immediately start driving safely again. That just isn't
true for being intoxicated, in fact you'd likely never realize you were on
the rumble strips and if you realized someone was honking at you, you
wouldn't know why. So NO they are not equal. I agree that either behavior
is dangerous and can kill or maim you and/or others, but they aren't the
nearly the same in terms of recovery from a near-miss. And most cell phone
problems result in a near miss and that can't be said for issues involving
drunk drivers, such as going the wrong way on the freeway. No cell phone user
has ever done that.
Everybody loves European standards until it's their ox being gored.
Any law that suggests you can consume alcohol and drive is irresponsible. It
should be zero-tolerance. And, using alcohol deaths as an excuse to do nothing
about uniquely American problem of mass shootings in schools is both
irresponsible and reprehensible.
The author contends that the 65% drop in alcohol related fatalities between 1982
and 2016: "corresponds nicely with the nationwide move to a .08
percent limit"It turns out the overall fatality rate dropped
about the same percent! In fact the RATE of fatalities has dropped over 90%
since 1924! It probably has more to do with automobile safety
features, than with drinking laws!
Really gotta love the pathetic arguments secularists are using on this comments
section to take down the DUI bill. Seriously guys. This is not a bill about
prohibiting drinking, like amendment 18 was in the 20th century. This is about
teaching people to be smart while drinking.
" People in Utah, that don't drink, are bigots and persecutors to those
that do. Right?"Absolutely and tragically wrong, drink all you
want. It's not about drinking. It's about drinking and driving, a not
very subtle difference.
The CDC reports that 88,000 alcohol-related deaths occur in the United States
per year. 29% of all traffic-related deaths involved alcohol. In 2015, 10,265
people died in alcohol related accidents. 1,132 children under the age of 15
were killed in auto accidents. 16% of them were killed by an alcohol-impaired
driver.The nation is in an uproar over gun deaths, but it turns a
blind eye to drunk drivers who killed 209 kids in 2015. Should we
ban alcohol? Should we finance field trips to the State Capitols so that kids
can express their feelings about their friends who were slaughtered by drunk
drivers? Should we impound any vehicle that travels faster than the typical
horse in 1776 to keep drunks from killing our kids? We know that
alcohol-related driving deaths would never occur if drinkers NEVER drove. How
many deaths are acceptable to those who demand that the law remain at 0.08%?
What price has the beverage industry put on a life? What excuse do drivers have
after their impairment kills someone?
To "Impartial7" so what you are saying is that you don't believe
the science that the NTSB and most European countries have done. They found
that even at .05 BAC there was impairment on a driver. In Europe they found
deaths due to impaired driving drop after lowering the legal limit.To "pragmatistferlife" the science shows that a .05 BAC impairs a
driver. Are you saying that science is wrong?
"But there are people who are dangerous driving a car at .05-.08 BAC so why
should it be legal to do it?"Again for millionth time,
we're talking about Utah. We're not talking about Germany, Australia,
or any other heavy drinking culture, and the point of the above quote is just
not supported in the facts of accidents and fatalities in Utah. You're
just making stuff up.In addition one of the tragedies here is that
this little escapade of smoke and mirrors is concealing the real problem, that
our legislators won't do anything that will deter the real dangers speeders
and wreck less drivers. In fact quite the opposite. Twice now this
paper has had articles about how police should not have quotas for issuing
traffic violations. Quotas are motivators, as every sales organization knows,
but hey let's not do that, let's pass a law that (A, won't effect
me, and (B basically wont' effect anyone, because this group isn't the
As a recent TV beer commercial starring Jackie Stewart notes - When you drink,
never drive. Most of the developed world has a 0.05% BA limit and Utah is simply
joining with them. Now it is time for the rest of the US to become enlightened.
I have absolutely no problem with people who want to drink.... that is
absolutely their prerogative. What I have a huge issue with is anyone who
drinks, then gets behind the wheel of a car. You want to drink... do it.
Just get a taxi, uber, left, or a friend to drive you to your next destination.
In Germany where I had an office for 4 years, there was a zero
tolerance for drunk driving. The penalties were far more sever then here in
the states - even Utah. And yet Germans are actually world class drinkers as
well. They just don't drink and drive. It's not that
@AlanSutton; "Taxis and Uber drivers are ubiquitous; there is no
excuse for driving after drinking alcohol - of any quantity."
Yeah, a customer has a $5.00 glass of wine with dinner, not drunk, even cops
admit they can't tell the difference, and needs to get a $15.00 Uber? Most
Utahn's making alcohol laws, never drink. Many also believe having 2 beers
with a pizza makes one an alcoholic. People, jacked up on religion have no
business making alcohol laws. If I try to interject my values and opinions into
a religion I'm not involved in, I'm labeled as a religious bigot or am
guilty of religious persecution. The same must apply here. People in Utah, that
don't drink, are bigots and persecutors to those that do. Right?
FatherOfFour nice job of making up statistics out of thin air. The FBI has
reported 38,000 firearm fatalities in 2016, 11,000 of them Homicides. So where
did you get your "58,852" number, it wasn't from the FBI or the
A reduced BAC limit could save lives. Not everyone who is under a .08 BAC will
exhibit signs of being impaired so are not likely to even get stopped or tested.
But there are people who are dangerous driving a car at .05-.08 BAC so why
should it be legal to do it?
water rocket. " In fact, all forms of impaired driving are being
discouraged, including texting, sleep deprived, making cellular phone calls,
putting on make-up, eating, and any activity that distracts or impairs a driver.
Maybe what you need is a driverless vehicle?"Really..show me the
legislation, show me the increased enforcement measures and I'll take you
seriously...you can't because they don't exist. It's
smoke and mirrors.
Steve C. Warren, you say "I suspect far more people have died in accidents
involving drivers who have consumed carbonated beverages." Please tell me
you aren't serious. It is fake comments like these that show how some
people will grasp at any thing to justify irresponsible behavior. Also, the
point of this bill is NOT to restrict your drinking, it is to help you
understand that driving after drinking is not a good idea. In fact, all forms
of impaired driving are being discouraged, including texting, sleep deprived,
making cellular phone calls, putting on make-up, eating, and any activity that
distracts or impairs a driver. Maybe what you need is a driverless vehicle?
ConservativeCommonTater - West Valley City, UT"For Thurston and
earlier, Waddoups, the whole campaign of reducing the DUI rate from .08 to .05
has been nothing more than an extension of their religious beliefs against
alcohol."That explains why Europe, a continent not really
renowned for religiosity and teetotalism, has adopted the .05 (or lower) DUI
limit. I don't deny there isn't a religious influence on Utah's
law, but that doesn't mean the law is bad. This law has the
potential to save lives and I hope the legislature adopts similar laws against
other serious public health threats. But let's not pass judgment on this
law because the government has failed to pass other laws. Let this law stand on
its own while encouraging our politicians to pass additional laws to protect our
Re: "The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration reports that
2,017 people died nationwide in accidents involving drivers with blood alcohol
contents of .01 percent to .07 percent in 2016."I suspect far
more people have died in accidents involving drivers who had recently consumed
carbonated beverages.Frankly, a driver at 2 a.m. who is below .07
may be safer than other drivers at that time because he may have been alert
enough to stop drinking after one or two drinks precisely because he did not
want to drive while truly impaired.
" About 67 percent of DUI fatalities nationwide involved at least one driver
with a .15 percent blood alcohol level or higher in 2016, according to the
National Highway Transportation Safety Administration."For
Thurston and earlier, Waddoups, the whole campaign of reducing the DUI rate from
.08 to .05 has been nothing more than an extension of their religious beliefs
against alcohol. As the comment above says; it is the chronic alcoholic that
drinks almost to a stupor and causes accident. No law will prevent those people
from drinking and driving.The real clincher is that the Legislature,
primarily Mormons, REFUSED to make DUI penalties for the biggest group of people
that are "distracted drivers," those with cell phones. They greatly
outnumber impaired drinkers exponentially and they will kill more people than
DUI rates of .05%A recent high school student ran into the back of a
bus and was killed. Reports say there was no attempt to stop and it was believed
that he never saw the school bus that he hit. Why not? Could it be that he was
a distracted driver using a cell phone. No one has said. Why not?
I have read many times, from commentors, that the new limit is going to result
in an unfair amount of DUIs being given. I haven't really understood this
logic. I've been pulled over multiple times for speeding and for having a
headlight out. I was not tested for alcohol in any of these instances. My guess
is that I haven't come off impaired and thus haven't ever been tested.
I don't believe this law is going to get cops to start testing everyone
they pull over. They'll test you if you have been exhibiting
the signs of driving impaired just as they have always done. The only difference
is that people that would have once gotten off because they were less than
between .05 and .08 will now be given a DUI. In the end though, isn't it
good for these people to realize that they were impaired even though under the
old limit? It will teach people they can't handle as much as they
thought.On the other hand, if you are at .07, but show no signs of
impairment you will either not be pulled over, or if you are, you will most
likely not even be tested. This will only effect people who can't be
unimpaired from .05 to .08.
I agree with others' comments, Utah doesn't have a big drinking
problem so this law isn't likely to have a big impact on public safety.
But, it still does have an impact for a relatively low cost (reducing the number
of alcohol related traffic deaths is always a good thing). Similar laws have
been shown to reduce alcohol related fatalities and I think adopting the law,
even with a small potential benefit, is worthwhile. It's also
worth discussing other laws regarding distracted driving, drowsy driving, gun
ownership, etc. Each of these issues also impact public safety and legislatures
should be addressing them. But those discussions should not determine whether or
not a .05 BAC goes into effect. The law was passed, let's quit debating it
and move on to other public safety issues. In 5-10 years, once we
have data, let's see what impact the law had, both on
DUI-fatalities/accidents, alcohol consumption, restaurant revenue, etc. With
that data we can make more informed opinions about whether the law was good or
bad and make changes if necessary. Hopefully by then we'll have fully
autonomous cars so people can do whatever they want in a vehicle.
The legislature again failed to restrict cell phone usage by drivers. I have had
the "personal freedom" to be rear-ended 3 times while stationary by cell
phone talking drivers, not texting. On two of these occasions the damage
was thousands of dollars to my car. I fear cell phones more than the .05 BAC
driver, as scientific data shows they are impaired at a .08 BAC level, even
while talking hands free. Many of the same European countries with a .05 BAC
limit also ban cell phone use. Do our legislators truly care about public safety
or making a statement about alcohol? I don't drive after drinking, FYI.
I'm a physician and don't see a need to talk while driving, I wait
till it’s safe to pull off the road.
Also, to those mentioning cellphones as a problem, how about telling the folks
behind the bill to include a more strict regulation of cellphone usage in a
vehicle in that DUI bill? There. Now all cellphone users will think twice
before risking their lives and other people’s lives from using their
cellphones. And yes. I’m willing to allow cellphone usage while driving
to be punished just as harshly as a DUI. That’s also just as bad as
driving while intoxicated.
But why would this have any effect? Criminals are just going to break the law
anyway. At least, that's what the gun supporters argue...Fortunately for me, I don't particularly oppose this law so unlike plenty
of others on both sides, I'm not in a double-standard position.
“Nothing in the state law that was passed last year, and which has an
effective date of Dec. 30 this year, would change the availability of alcohol or
a person’s ability to drink it.”So why all the useless
protesting? You still have the freedom to drink to your heart's content.
Just be responsible while you’re at it and don’t operate a vehicle
while intoxicated. This law is designed to teach that responsibility. Enough
guessing where you’re BAC level is at. Just don’t operate a vehicle
The point the author makes is that our alcohol-drinking and driving culture must
change and that "change needs to begin somewhere". His point is well
taken. Taxis and Uber drivers are ubiquitous; there is no excuse for driving
after drinking alcohol - of any quantity.
Ok liberals, whenever there is a shooting you start screaming that we need more
gun laws to prevent more deaths. Yet here, there is a lot of scientific data
showing that a .05 BAC is safer than a .08 BAC and you are fighting against it.
As others have pointed out, it seems like you don't care about people
dying, but are more concerned about an agenda.To
"FatherOfFour" they also left out the fact that a .05 alcohol level is
the legal limit throughout much of Europe. In Europe it hasn't slowed the
consumption of alcohol, why would it slow it here?
For an OpEd claiming to take take a sober look at the issue, it is drunk with
deliberate omissions of facts.The author is quick to use a stat that
shows 2,000 drivers have died with a BAC between .01 and .07, but how many of
those deaths were alcohol related, or where the fault of the person who had a
drink or 2. Why was that half of the stat omitted? Probably because I read
another study that said this new law would only save about 2 to 3 lives per year
in Utah.This law is Draconian, and the people who are supporting it
are drunk with feelings, personal beliefs, and theories.Studies have
shown that speeding at 10 miles over the speed limit is more deadly than driving
at .08 BAC or lower, but I wonder how many people who support this new DUI law
would also support a $3,000 fine, an arrest, and an impound of their car for
speeding?I do not support drunk diving, but that isn’t what
this law is about. The word drunk doesn’t apply to anyone under a BAC of
Talk about a misleading article. When Mr. Evensen mentions the
opposition arguments to the law (virtually no deaths in Utah with a BAC under
.08, and a 5 times greater likely hood of being killed by a speeder in Utah) his
retort is to quickly jump to national statistics and international cultures,
completely neglecting the point that we are talking about Utah and Utah culture.
Utah does not have a heavy drinking culture so who cares what
Sweden does. Utah's drinking culture is very moderate, as
evidenced by the results, and I can say personal experience. Fact
is you're probably not going to get a DUI ticket if your at .08 or .05
unless you're involved in traffic incident, and the statistics tell us that
is pretty unlikely. So in terms of real consequences there probably won't
be any except folks like Mr. Evensen can feel all good about themselves.The real issue is their spending their time on this nothing burger when
speeding and reckless driving are going un touched. Save and use
your righteous indignation Mr. Evensen for the real problem. When you do that
Re: "Nonetheless that has nothing to do with the article."Funny how liberals always want to compartmentalize discussions, so as to
suggest that, unless one uses their "facts," to make their points, his
input is irrelevant.My point is that the same liberals that
endlessly wring their hands over the number of long-gun deaths, blithely
encourage misery, death, and destruction when it comes to their favorite
vices.Leaves one to wonder what their real agenda is.
First of all. I don't drink alcohol. As to the information in this article,
it is biased and unusable. "The National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration reports that 2,017 people died nationwide in accidents involving
drivers with blood alcohol contents of .01 percent to .07 percent in
2016."This statement is hogwash unless it also includes the number of
people who died in accidents involving drivers with 0.0% blood alcohol levels,
which is probably just as high. Driving a car is dangerous and sometimes people
get killed. I am far more concerned about a driver with a cell phone than
someone with a 0.07% blood alcohol level.
What people are missing is that the exemption for self defense is on your own
private property whereas driving is on public roads.What no one in
the beverage industry is willing to admit is that they are OK with drinking and
driving---totally OK with it. And so far, so have the laws been OK with it and
we just argue about degrees of drunkenness (aka: impairment).Leave
the law in place; in fact, adopt it nation-wide. Dying at the hands of a drunk
driver (whatever the level of impairment) needs to become absolutely
unacceptable.And using arguments about deaths from distracted
driving, smoking, diabetes or other diseases or causes is just a smoke screen to
divert attention away from the real issue of drunken driving. But then,
that's their intention: talk about other things so as to muddy the water
to the point the Legislators are second guessing their previous action.
That's politics at it's finest, I suppose, though certainly not
supporting highway safety.
@procuradorfiscal, I don't know where you're getting your information
but the FBI reported 58,852 gun related deaths in 2016. I do not know what the
breakdown was of long guns versus handguns, but that is still way more than
2,017. Nonetheless that has nothing to do with the article.
procuradorfiscal, you forgot to mention the carnage of tobacco entirely. Because here in Utah, alcohol is the flashpoint. It, as opposed to the
painkillers, is the joy the church won't let you have, and you'd just
as soon I not have it either.
Isn't it hypocritical that with this new dui law that our bought off
lawmakers approve and think that someone with the same blood alcohol level of
.05 would still be able to utilize their gun if necessary but not be sober
enough to drive a car? This new dui law is based on emotion and the dictates of
the local culture, not common sense or reason. There are far more accidents and
fatalities caused by distracted people on their phones than from someone
that's had one drink which shouldn't ever be considered drunk driving.
That's something our the locals can't ever understand because
they've been sheltered their whole lives from alcohol behind the Zion
"In Sweden, where I have lived and where the DUI level is .02 percent, the
figure is about 3 percent." Are there any other laws you'd like to
borrow from Sweden? Their healthcare, gun laws, universal education funding,
anything else? Nope? Just this one?
Re: "The [NHTSA] reports that 2,017 people died nationwide in accidents
involving drivers with blood alcohol contents of .01 percent to .07 percent in
2016."It should be noted that this figure is roughly 5 times the
number of people killed by all long guns -- not just so-called assault rifles --
during the same period. It also pales in comparison to the total number of
alcohol-related deaths -- an estimated 88,000 people, according to the National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.Yet, the same leftist
billionaire liberals and trade union activists who jump to foster and finance
Florida youngsters' ersatz field trips to Tallahassee and Washington, DC to
protest "gun violence" are curiously silent about an issue that kills
WAY more Americans than guns.Makes on wonder what their
liberals' real agenda is, huh?
From the article, "The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
reports that 2,017 people died nationwide in accidents involving drivers with
blood alcohol contents of .01 percent to .07 percent in 2016." But
correlation does not mean causation. The fact that they were at .02 percent and
had an accident may have nothing to do with the fact that they may have been
sleepy, or using their cell phone, or distracted at the same time. I guarantee
that other studies out there are using these exact same accidents but pointing
to other issues to pass different laws. "Nor should the aim be
to reduce the consumption of alcohol. Nothing in the state law that was passed
last year, and which has an effective date of Dec. 30 this year, would change
the availability of alcohol or a person’s ability to drink it." Also
not true. Many who argued in favor of this legislation specifically stressed the
overall reduction in consumption as a goal of the legislation. And whereas you
previously could have had a glass of wine with your lunch and legally driven
back to the office, that is no longer an option. This is why restaurants
specifically argued against this legislation.