Most in Europe can drive, but a way higher percentage of Europeans than
Americans don't need a car ride to make it to and from a bar or a
restaurant they're having a few drinks at between better public transit and
more compact towns and cities that put everything closer than our more sprawled
out communities in the U.S.
@pragmatistferlife - Salt Lake City, UTYou do realize that if you
rinse your mouth with Listerine and take the standard breath test that you would
Mainly me had a point. His point was that even though Europe is .05, most people
don't own cars. Counter to that, those roads must be empty. Are they? Nope.
Well I guess we can treat the killing of another person as murder. No more
shading a death with the intent of the actor. If you’re high
or drunk and kill someone it is a capitol crime. That is a
reasonable punishment for putting your brain in timeout then driving and
killing someone. Feeling different is a sign of impairment. People
use a quantity of alcohol and or drugs sufficient to feel different. Is this
news to anyone? Does anyone want their pilot to have a couple
before taking off? Your brain surgeon from throwing back a couple of cold ones
before opening up your skull? Then why is it acceptable to say,” go ahead
turn your driving skills down a couple of notches and then head our to the
highway.” Drinking and driving is one of the golden calves of a bygone
Does the arresting person have the authority to draw blood for the BAC test? If
they are relying on a Breathalyzer, they are getting a reading of the alcohol
content of the mouth, which can show a reading far different from what the blood
reading would be. After a couple of sips of beer or wine, the instrument
probably shows 'Dangerous".,, at least that's what the
Breathalyzer showed me when I tried it for a test. I would sure hate to see
someone get arrested for a false positive after having a few sips of champagne
at a toast at his daughter's wedding!
@T-money$$$ - "Yes, the .05 limit is what they go by in many
areas of Europe, BUT most Europeans don't drive. Only a slim, slim minority
even have a license, and only a fraction of those people own a vehicle."It's obvious you've never lived in Europe. I lived in Germany
for three years - a country that loves its beer. Ever hear of Octoberfest? It
is a celebration of beer and alcohol, yet everyone has a driver's license
and drives cars they own. Try driving through NÜrnberg or Stuttgart during
rush hour. Some government agencies, like the polizi receive a large amount of
funding through fines from traffic violations. The penalties for
impaired driving are draconian. It is not uncommon to spend €15,000 in
total fees to get your license back. These include having to go through a
psychological assessment to determine if you are fit to drive and the vast
majority of people initially fail that assessment. Then you have to go through
a couple years of counseling in the hopes of passing the assessment the second
time around, which is not guaranteed. With a second DUI, you can be assured of
jail time and most likely will never get your license back for many years, if
If we take the which two people should we sacrifice argument seriously we would
have have to outlaw all human activity. There is no human activity that
doesn't involve death. Driving is one of the more dangerous human
activities. Raising the speed limit 5 mph has a bigger impact than 2 lives on
busy roads. If we only want to be emotional maybe we should just ban all
driving. Then maybe the zero fatalities goal could actually be a real goal. Of
course banning all driving causes many other problems. Maybe we should be a
little less emotional and use a little rationality when debating public policy.
I don't drink so this law won't impact me at all. But this same
emotional reasoning infects so much of the public debate. When it comes to
public safety we don't ever want to admit that we are talking about
acceptable risk, but we are. People who don't like alcohol don't see
any acceptable risk, and people who enjoy drinking see the enjoyment offsets
some of the risk. The clash is were the two parties meet. We are growing more
and more intolerant with each other at these kinds of touch points. And we do it
and feel good about it by being so emotional about one side and ignoring the
Good law. Hope the rest of the nation gets it soon.But please, go
hard and deep on the texters and other inattentive driving - I see at least one
in a left lane not paying attention and slowing down almost every day on I-15
and Pioneer Crossing in S.S. / Lehi on the way to the freeway to head to Provo.
@Black & White"Which two people are acceptable to sacrifice for
the indulgence of the drinking populous?"Maybe the people who
like alcohol can borrow the system the people who like guns use for this.
Several things to note here: 1) Yes, the .05 limit is what they go
by in many areas of Europe, BUT most Europeans don't drive. Only a slim,
slim minority even have a license, and only a fraction of those people own a
vehicle. In the US, we grow up with a "car culture", and - specifically
in western states like Utah - you can't get most places without a car. If
we want to discourage drunk driving we should also make sure we have adequate
methods of transport (ie. cheaper and more accessible UTA routes) 2)
.05 is very tricky to detect. There will be many people who fail the .05
threshold but who completely pass a sobriety test. Of course cops will need
probable cause, but could that be simply watching a patron leave a restaurant or
bar and hop in their car afterwards? Private taxis are expensive and even Lyft
and Ubers are not cheap -especially on the weekends. 3) While public
safety should always be a concern, it seems the effects of this law will end up
hurting lower-income individuals the most - a DUI fee is a slap on the wrist for
someone making $50k + a year, but for someone in the $10k-20k range it could be
enough to send a family into a lifetime of poverty.
If you need to drink to excess, that is your right, your prerogative. But doing
so does not give you the "right" - which, by the way, driving is a
privilege - to get behind the wheel impaired. So please, do not say that
texting, et al causes issues, for this article is solely about drinking and
driving. You earned the money and spend it as you see fit. But do so without
endangering innocent lives, that may be in the way of your 2-ton missile. I
heard this for 35 years:, but officer, all I had was 2 beers. Until you have to
be the one to knock on a door and tell a young mother that her husband or child
will never come home again due to a drunk driver killing them, you will just
excuse your selfish behavior, and hope you do not get caught. Save your excuses
for the next of kin please. Stay safe, and exercise sound judgement at all
times behind the wheel.
"Which two people are acceptable to sacrifice for the indulgence of the
drinking populous"Couldn't wait for this one. You tell me which two (closer to 40 or 50) are worth sacrificing because you
won't install photo cop taking pictures of all violators at intersections
or highways because it infringes on your privacy, and I'll tell you which
two I'll sacrifice for this law.
The American Beverage Institute ran ads discouraging tourists from traveling to
Utah.From my standpoint, this is laughable. With a stricter DUI law in
Utah, I will feel safer driving in that state and will want to go there more
often. I live in Montana, which is number 4 in alcohol consumption and 2nd
highest in alcohol related deaths. Do I feel safe on the roads here, in
Montana? No! Hurray for Utah!
Which two people are acceptable to sacrifice for the indulgence of the drinking
populous?A spouse, mother, father, brother, sister, grandparent,
aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, cousin and/or close friend?Or is it
anyone except those who choose to drink & drive, or supports those that make
that decision?When it comes to a choice of drinking and driving, the
answer should be Zero.(And that goes for other driving violations as well:
speeding, distracted driving, any form of DUI, etc.)
oooh! Utah so tough....
I am very grateful for this new adjustment of the law and hope it reduces the
number of impaired drivers on the road which will save lives. Even if it only
saves two more lives a year, it will be worth it.
The ABI and other critics miss the point entirely making their criticism of this
law confusing and proof they aren’t concerned with safety. If you are
pulled over and field tested it will be because you showed signs of impaired
driving. Shouldn’t matter what your BAC is - if you can’t drive
safely and without drawing the attention of police and other drivers you
shouldn’t be driving at .05 or .08. Don’t drink and drive. Period.
"Aggielove - Caldwell, IDDec. 26, 2018 8:50 p.m.".05 should
be a $5,000 mandatory fine. Suspended drivers license for mandatory 12. They can
ride the bus."".08 should be the same as above.""Second DUI should mandatory $25,000 fine. Suspended drivers license
for mandatory 3 year minimum. ""Third offense should be loss
of drivers license for lifetime. ""No attorney can be used
if they have factual blood test at scene of the crime. Yes
itÂ€™s a crime."You are an example of why
religious extremists don't get to make laws...outside of Utah. We are a
secular country, not one of laws based on your religious beliefs.I'll bet you claim to be a defender of Constitutional rights, except for
the parts you don't like.
" BAC of 0.05 at least twice as likely to crash than is a completely sober
driver, but this limit also makes clear that a person needs to make
transportation arrangements before getting so drunk that he can no longer
determine how impaired he is."This is about as uninformed a
statement as is possible. Crashes are exponentially more likely from a sober
person speeding, driving carelessly, or just plain not paying attention than
they are from any level of alcohol consumption. Look at the statistics, they
just came out again.To link a BAC of .05 with being so drunk you
don't know how impaired you are is plain bizarre. Fox news and others
tested the new law and found that .05 is so low it's extremely difficult to
determine (nearly impossible). The Tribune just published an
article that studied the stats since 2001. There are barely two deaths a year
when the driver had a BAC of .05 to .08 as compared to nearly 300 auto
fatalities per year. In addition nearly 60% of the two had other exacerbating
circumstances, speed, drugs. This law is simply an ideological big
bad wolf story.
Thank you Legislature from all of us who want to get home safely tonight. If the
new law doesn't matter in practice, it will still send the message that DWI
is not acceptable anywhere in Utah. However, Big Alcohol will continue to fight
it for their special interests.
Really? Is it "suffering" to restrain yourself from driving a motor
vehicle when you choose to drink 3 or more alcoholic beverages in an hour?I can think of numerous forms of TRUE suffering: disease, injury, mental
anguish, inability to form a rational thought, death of a loved one, just to
name a few. And yes, all of these forms of suffering are results of
drinking--and the "inconvenience" of not driving pales in comparison.I have no problem if someone decides to drink, that their choice, but
their choice (no matter how popular or exciting as it may be portrayed in the
media, or acceptable as it might be in other parts of the USA) does not give
them the right to endanger me or my loved ones.So, drink away, just
don't drive when you do it.I'm grateful for a state
who's legislators are willing to take a popularity hit in order to protect
it's citizens, including those who choose to drink.
This is so asinine it's beyond belief.
To Aggielove:What a great idea - get rid of the 6th amendment right
to an attorney and trust that the police/government will do everything fair and
without mistake. Lets give people with nearly absolute power and a gun even
more power. In fact, why not just let them punish the person right on the scene
- say a beating with a rubber hose?Not.This is they way
things work in America: The Legislature passes a bill, the
Executive signs it into law. The Executive branch (Police and District
Attorney) administer the law by bringing cases and evidence to the Judicial
Branch. There the Constitution provides for Due Process making sure the other
branches are acting correctly. The accused is presumed innocent and
guaranteed an attorney to make sure he/she is treated fairly. If needed 12
citizens sit in judgment of the facts as a jury and the final true branch of
power. They alone can ultimately decide a case - not the police. Remember - actual innocence has never been a bar to being prosecuted. Lots of
innocent people slip into the system. The goal is to make sure that we
don't convict people who have not commit an offense not to satisfy the
whims of the mob.
I drink no beer. I drive John Deere. Nothing runs like a Deere!
The American Beverage Institute has a strong financial interest in making sure
people continue drink alcohol freely (notice I didn't use the word
"responsibly" in this sentence). Alcohol kills more people on and off
the road than any other drug combined. It's time sober up and pay attention
to science and stop listening to obviously biased lobbyist organizations.This is great legislation based on sound recommendations from the NHTSA
and I hope the rest of the nation will follow.
Drink all you want. Just don't get behind the wheel after drinking.
Period.If you drink, don't drive. Simple.And yes,
put down the cell phone when driving.This 0.05 is the same limit (or
higher) as in place in much of secular Europe where they love their alcohol. But
they simply don't tolerate impaired driving. And neither should we.Under the 21st amd, recreational alcohol use in the USA is a privilege,
not a right. And we continue to have far too many killed or seriously injured,
and far too much property damage from people who choose to drive after drinking.
Not only is a person with a BAC of 0.05 at least twice as likely to crash than
is a completely sober driver, but this limit also makes clear that a person
needs to make transportation arrangements before getting so drunk that he can no
longer determine how impaired he is.If you're going to drink,
just make other arrangements for transportation: a taxi, uber, lyft, the bus or
train, a friend, or walking.No, you don't drive better after a
drink or two. That cell phone use is also dangerous doesn't excuse driving
drunk, buzzed, or otherwise impaired. Just don't do it. And don't let
friends drive drunk.
Well, there you go. You do see how this works, right? First they had to
pass an amendment to prohibit the consumption of alcohol. Then they passed an
amendment to make consumption legal again, why? Because the government has no
authority to tell you what you can inhale or ingest. Now, what will
you do when they lower the limit further? Folks, this is how your rights are
turned into privileges. Here's a thought, why not wait until
an actual law has been committed? You know, when there is an injured party or
property is damaged? That, my friends is what the Founding Principles required.
Oh well, we don't even know our own constitutional
This should be interesting experiment. Time will tell if it makes a difference.
.05 should be a $5,000 mandatory fine. Suspended drivers license for mandatory
12. They can ride the bus..08 should be the same as above.Second DUI should mandatory $25,000 fine. Suspended drivers license for
mandatory 3 year minimum. Third offense should be loss of drivers
license for lifetime. No attorney can be used if they have factual
blood test at scene of the crime. Yes it’s a crime.
Because Utah legislators like to think of themselves as morally superior to
everyone else...Another "message bill", but this time,
others have to suffer the inconvenience of their arrogance.