I had some colleagues back in the day who did transportation research, and there’s a lot of good evidence to suggest 0.05 is a more appropriate threshold. That said, I’m anticipating a lot of pushback here.

Edit: check that time stamp.

Are there really that many people in the .05-.079 range that are causing accidents?

Or do they just need to make more money on DUI's?

Or no one should be out on the road with alcohol in their system.

I agree too many drunk people out there. I came across one a few days ago.

What for most people that would probably limit them to 1-2 drinks? Depending upon body weight and height. I'm talking about a standard sized not over weight 5'-6' individual.

In high school I lost about 10 of my graduating class to drunk driving. They decided to get hammered after graduation and got so drunk they ... Let's just say none of them lived. I still miss some of these people today. Don't believe me I will scan my high school yr book and create a post. I ain't lying. Because I was a good friend with one of these individuals.

They really need to crack down on drivers doing 12+ over the speed limit.

They really need to crack down on the reckless drivers zipping between cars only to save 30 seconds in the long run...

These people are the ones really causing all the accidents.

Just make drinking alcohol illegal. It's killed more people than cigarettes.

It worked out so well the first time, let’s try again!

No need to go that far, but people could at least try not to be assholes about it

How many drinks is that? 1?

1 bud light would be about .02 BAC in an average adult

I've worked with DUI's in the past and a lot of people showed obviously impaired judgment until they're closer to 0.03% BAC.

[deleted]

Why did you dig up a year old article?

Them and the ones nodding out from blues causing all these hit and runs.

I guarantee those people that died of drunk driving had a blood alcohol content of more than .08%. Why don’t we enforce the law we already have instead of making new ones that also won’t change anything.

Prison population must be dropping since they legalized weed. Gotta keep those jails full.

Yea sure you did.

Why is it so hard to just not drink at all if you're going to be driving?

Meanwhile a Benton County Judge is on his second DUI

No shit really ? That's crazy and he's still a judge

Still a judge, the state supreme court “might” remove him from the bench or whatever ya do

Just legalize online sports betting if you need additional revenue that bad.

Sorry about that, I heard about this on the news and didn’t check the date of the article. Here’s a more recent one.

Rurality.

Because many, many social events, even religious events, involve imbibing small amounts of alcohol. If we're going this far, we should also make it illegal to eat in your car, listen to the radio or talk to passengers.

All the laws. Get the cops out there dealing with the difficult shit like assaults and homeless drug use, and not provide them with new ways of fucking with otherwise harmless citizens.

Keeping the transit systems open until *after* bar closing would really really really help with stopping drunk drivers.

[removed]

Just about anyone who's not a super heavy drinker who's used a breathalyzer and is honest would probably agree .08 is too high of a limit. I've been surprised when I've used a pocket breathalyzer out of curiosity and was still under the limit even though there was no way I would have even thought about driving the way I was feeling

This will increase arrests and prosecutions but do nothing to reduce drunk driving.

You don't have to drink alcohol just because it's there. You also probably shouldn't eat while driving, either.

No, but eliminating drunk drivers-even religious ones—is a great idea.

So one beer if it’s the kind people around here actually drink?

So without vastly expanding public transit in a way that simply won’t happen, this is either going to lead to a vastly higher number of DUIs, and/or cops starting to ignore people being over the limit, at their discretion.

Because it’s not like cops are having two bud lights on a night out.

.08 does that. If you redefine drunk, the question is circular. Set it at .0001, you'll find even more "drunks".

There would need to be some strong science on this to convince me, and so far all I see is hysterical moralism, and by God, we're full up on that at the moment.

Even in cities the transit shuts down before the bars. In anyplace rural, there is no transit.

Tossing someone in jail because they had 3 IPAs over the course of an evening at a friends house and then drove home on an empty road at 1 am is absurd.

That’s part of it, there is a huge difference between trying to manage city and highway traffic and a country road where you won’t see another car.

How about driving with arguing kids in the back? I definitely think we should ban that. And I'm not providing any support either, just emptily implying anyone who disagrees is bad.

Sure, right after we roll out European level dense and frequent public transit, across the entire state.

This would in fact vastly increase drunk driving by redefining it.

Who said anything about banning? It sounds like you literally cannot avoid alcohol if you are around it. There's nothing wrong whatsoever with the suggestion that if you're driving, just don't drink. Nothing. You have self control or you don't. It sounds like you don't.

How about keep the limit the same. First DUI, mandatory year suspension of driver’s license. Second DUI, mandatory 90 day jail sentence and 18 month suspension of license. Third DUI, mandatory year in prison and lifetime revocation of license.

The actual question that needs to be asked is: Does data suggest that moving the needle down by .03 will cause less accidents?

Also, unless you own a breathalyzer, what is .08 or .05 anyway? Is that actually going to make people drive drunk less or is it going to cause more suffering on the other end because more people are getting DUIs?

Seems like there is bigger fish to fry, like IDK, people who do 20+ over the speed limit every time they drive anywhere.

Nice change of subject, and a pivot to shame. Do you think we should abolish anything that increases accident rates or not?

Agree. What’s the point lowering the limit when you’ve got people who have 3, 4, 5+ DUIs that still have licenses. Increase the penalty so people follow the current limit better. And take away driving privileges when they habitually break the law driving.

I never said that or even implied it. Stop trying to create an argument that isn't there.

I think you miss my point. This law won't modify behaviors. People aren't going to drink more or less, nor will they make different decisions about driving, and alcohol-related collisions will not go down. The only thing that will change is how a person is handled when pulled over. Yes, this will translate into higher numbers in stats, but not real-world behavior.

And also get rid of the fines. There is a financial incentive for law enforcement to never solve the problem completely. If the penalties were more severe and there stood nothing to gain for the state, the problem would be solved really quick.

Right, that was exactly what I was saying. Right now in theory someone who was pulled over for a .05 isn’t drunk driving. With this they would be.

I agree it won’t change behavior. It’ll make the state and a bunch of private rehab companies some revenue, at the cost of a number of ruined lives. And less wealth all around of course, but hey, the private treatment places got their cut.

Two things. You seem to overestimate the value of your opinions, and there’s plenty of room to lock up more drunks.

You should read through this guys post history and it will explain everything.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437506000478

Science, yo.

It's amazing how easily that could be done with all of the speed cameras around here.

Facts please.

Yeah you can also factor in time, eating, drinking water during your bar visit etc. The threshold for losing gross motor skills due to the effects of alcohol varies greatly among the individual. The best rule of thumb is too always get a ride or uber if you plan to drink. If you're going to drive, moderate your drinking, don't slam drinks, eat food, and sit for a period after your last drink and have water and chill. Alcohol dissipates at a rate of about .02/hr. But take it from someone who has gotten a DUI, its easier to get a ride than pay 5 grand and do jail time.

Ok, so if we aren't worried about accident rates, what is the actual issue here?

Its like they set you up to fail. Giving people DUIs on bikes is also bull shit

What's with you, man? Why are you so offended by being told to not drink? Are you an alcoholic in denial or something?Just don't drink and drive. That's it. Period. Nothing else to be said.

western civilization was built on booze, at one point you didnt drink water it would kill you so they drank beer.

tis right here

I'm offended by non-stop attempts to turn this into a police state where the police don't solve serious crimes. If you don't like ANY drinking, move to Saudi Arabia.

Until then, I want to see facts about how many accidents this would prevent, not more sanctimonious moralizing.

Agreed. Public transit should run till after bar hours every day of the week. It’s ridiculous that it doesn’t.

Gotta love mandatory free labor aka the US prison system

It’s not like it’s even a good way of extracting revenue! The state is going to get way more out of someone being employable in the long run. Plus not paying all the social costs.

But someone being a functional citizen and paying taxes makes no money for the prison and rehab industries.

I read somewhere that for every DUI ticket, the driver has typically driven approximately 80 times drunk before.

for profit prisons should be illegal. If we could close those then we could make laws and punishments that help society instead of providing capitalists with slave labor. The 14th amendment did not get rid of slavery, it made it legal if you are a prisoner. After the 14th amendment Pinkerton forces were formed to catch black people and immigrants breaking "town laws, codes, statues" in order to imprison them for free labor. This expanded into Police forces. Sheriffs are supposed to be here, cops not so much. Cops are the slave catchers for Americas continual use of slave labor so UNICOR can make half a billion in sales every year. Prisoners produce 11 billion worth of goods every year

I mean, it’s not like sheriffs function any differently.

[removed]

[removed]

Simply is more a support of business by the state as a DUI is big business which employees a great many people. Lower the limit get more money into a business. If they really wanted to have an impact start making the 2nd or 3rd one a felony.

“Accidents”

BUT MUH CAR FREEDOM

The difference is that at 0.0001, there is no evidence of impaired function. At 0.05, there is. You don’t have to feel drunk or even buzzed to have a slowed reaction time.

Great, now do you have any links showing this to be true? I stopped believing everything I read on social media years ago.

[removed]

It is a felony in Canada.

A lot of the times people zipping through traffic are doing it for the fun and adrenaline rather than time saving. Though, I love to do it in Assetto Corsa, not irl.

But if they do that how do they recoup all the lost revenue from DUIs?

They sound like activists for MADD as opposed to scientists....yo.

Here's a article that references a few studies on the matter. https://www.tlflawfirm.com/blog/is-there-really-that-big-of-a-difference-between-05-and-08-bac/

The pertinent metric was a 1.38 incident rate compared to completely sober drivers. It's 2.69 at .08. given the target zero goal, and that . 075 seems like it would still be pretty high risk of accidents, I think this makes sense. That said, a sliding scale of punishment seems to be appropriate imo.

Are local judge would get escorts home by the cops after getting wasted at the eagles club in Monroe

It should be 24hrs a day.

Running at what ever frequency is needed to meet the needs of riders.

This but I might add that people driving well under the speed limit are dangerous as well because they cause added impatience/road rage for others behind them.

Imagine how many times he’s been pulled over and been let off after the “do you know who I am” comment.

The link doesn't give you the original sources and I'm extremely skeptical of these things because so much of the 'information' in this space is driven by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which is really more of an abolitionist group than anything else.

[removed]

Or towing your car if you have too much to drink and need to get a ride home…

Let's break down fatal collisions into two categories: those caused by people with a prior DUI and without. If the percentage of those with a DUI is greater than the percentage of the general population with DUIs, we can conclude that it is the punishment and rehabilitation programs that are insufficient, not BAC threshold. Don't let them back on the road until they've controlled their problem (interlock devices are great). Second offenses should be at least a three-year license suspension. And driving with a suspended license should have significant penalties.

Can you imagine what a train full of drunk people would be like? Assaults, gang fights, shootings, piss shit and used condoms everywhere.

Eating and drinking water do nothing regarding BAC. Time is the only variable. Now taking the time to eat helps, but again, the food does nothing, it's the time that is the key.

You aren't supposed to eat while driving already. Same with phones.

DUI is different than being drunk.

https://lmgtfy.wtf/go.html?q=0.05%20vs%200.08%20Bac

Eating before you start drinking absolutely impacts BAC.

I'm not necessarily going to disagree, but I do wonder if that slight reduction in the legal limit really addresses the issue effectively.

Certainly it would be expected that a lower limit would incrementally reduce the rate of accidents, but by how much?

Actually converting the more strict law into results means more strict enforcement. Will it be more effective to focus that enforcement on mildly impaired drivers, or on better enforcement of seriously impaired drivers.

We aren't currently achieving adequate enforcement, treatment, etc of drivers operating over 0.08%...often well over. Will law enforcement even be able to identify drivers a meaningful fraction of drivers operating over 0.05%?

Of course, there's the people like me who will obey the law whatever the limit is, but I already stay well away from 0.08%.

I see someone else posted an article discussing Colorado's law, where they have an 0.08% limit for a DUI, but a lower limit of 0.05% for a less serious charge of Driving While Ability Impaired.

I think I like that idea - there is some level of escalation in seriousness of the violation correlated to increase in risk. We do similar with speeding versus reckless driving.

Thanks for the article.

In retrospect it seems really obvious, but I like Colorado's idea of having a less serious charge for a less level of impairment. Making 0.05% an infraction with a fine would still have a deterrent effect. It actually would probably be easier to prosecute, since infractions do not have to proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

Judge Terry Tanner was minding his own business, judging the bouquet and minute details of several different brands of whiskey. And then, all of a sudden, he high centered his car on a concrete block before blowing a .220 and .232

https://tricitiesobserver.com/2023/01/03/benton-county-district-judge-arrested-again-for-dui/

At least on weekends, they could keep it going until 3 am.

You act like they don't do* this anywhere in the world.

I never said they had an impact on BAC. Eating and staying hydrated absolutely have an effect on your motor skills and how intoxicated you feel. If you don't believe me, drink until you're intoxicated after a meal and then again on an empty stomach.

America's public transit that is shitty on purpose + Uber/Lyft prices being unreasonably high during times when people want to go out + not wanting to leave your car at the bar because it might get towed.

[removed]

[deleted]

Everyone has "colleagues back in the day" who did "research" to confirm their own bias lol

Idiots are always quick to "I gotta share this to get social credit!" lol

I’m from Monroe and didn’t know this…

Why not 0.04? That is the limit for pilots. Also the limit for pharmacists in AZ

Not just while driving. Having greasy surfaces kills millions every year! Haven't you heard??

Why do you hate the children?

Not doing it for you, sorry.

Don't this what?

don't do* this

This will save approximately zero lives.

I've worked in research for almost a decade, but nice try!

Yep. DUI is when you get caught.

Too bad it doesn’t matter at all since you can still be charged with a DUI even if you blow a .01 it’s the cops discretion.

I am in full support of this and honestly I can’t see a reason to be against it unless you are an alcoholic. It’s pretty easy to not drink and drive and if that seems like it would be a problem for you then maybe you should take an honest look at your habit

[removed]

But then how would they bring in as much revenue from DUI fines?

I grew up in the Tri-Cities; it’s not so rural you can’t call a cab. I currently live in Pullman, a much smaller town, it’s also not so rural you can’t call a cab.

We (hubs and I) do not drink and drive. At all. Ever. If one of us has a glass of wine with dinner the other is having water or tea so they can do the driving. If we want to drink together we take a cab or walk to wherever we’re going so we don’t even have the option to drink and drive. It’s really not that difficult, and rurality is not an excuse. If your town is so small there aren’t cabs or ride share then you can probably walk to where you’re going. If you’re so far out that you aren’t in a town, throw a party, and drink at home, have your guests bring tents and RVs so no-one drinks and drives.

I get that people like to drink, and public transport in rural areas sucks, but it’s not worth killing someone over.

Ban cell phones, they cause traffic accidents too. And strictly speaking you don’t need a cell phone

I've owned breathalyzers for fun and profit for many years.

0.08% is very drunk.

[removed]

Disagree.

By your logic, why make drunk driving illegal at all? Or why not raise the limit?

Anticipated consequences have a deterrent effect on decision making.

The person affected by alcohol consumption is not the same as distracted drivers, the fact you would relate a drug and a communication device shows your age and that you must cope and exist with alcoholic beverages. Ok Boomer.

For real. Driving drunk in a car you can kill someone easily, riding a bike drunk you can really only cause an accident, but youre unlikely to kill anyone but yourself in the process, it should be reckless endangerment of self and others rather than treated like youre driving a car

this is a good solution

Oh my goodness yes

You've chosen to take it to an extreme and act like the small change being proposed is somehow equal to your extreme suggestions. That is a logical fallacy. My point is that this small change will have no effect. Your suggested extreme changes would have an effect. They are not the same.

Is your concern dangerous driving or drug use in and of itself? Are you some kind of religious nut or something?

Please tell me more about my life, I’m curious.

Decreasing the limit by almost half is not that small of a change.

“It’s like they set you up to fail” drinking and driving is 100% a choice that shouldn’t be blamed on anyone but the driver. There is never a situation where you would HAVE to drink and then drive. I get your reasoning on why it would be nice but you are only setting yourself up to fail if you can’t figure out how to go out without drinking and driving. Nobody else is to blame at all

I wonder what the mortality rate of these accidents are tho compared to drunk drivers. That’s probably a more important factor than just number of accidents. I would rather have a dozen fender benders from someone rushing rather than a drunk T boning me in an intersection one time

Not completely true… I’ve blown a .078 after one beer and felt completely fine. While other times blown far less, closer to .04 or .05 but felt completely inebriated from being more dehydrated and not eaten. We’ve also tried like hell to hit exactly .08. Took 3 IPA pints to hit .082 but had previously eaten. It really depends on the person. Source: lots of friends and family as police officers who like to have fun with breathalyzers.

Lack of public transportation is a very poor excuse to drink and drive

I would much prefer that drunk drivers end up in jail over people with weed

It’s what you need if you actually want it to not happen.

We can moralize all we want about it, but that’s the reality. If it’s the only possible transport method, people are going to do it.

We should also acknowledge the reality that the risk of driving tipsy alone on a country road and on I-5 are not remotely the same. Neither are good, but the risk is not the same.

It could be argued that people are less likely to “risk it” when the limit is lower. I have seen people convince themselves that they are fine even if they get pulled over cuz they only had a couple drinks. If the limit is lower then people might rethink their ability to stay under the limit and try to drive anyway

Yeah but driving yourself while drunk is almost never the only option(very very rare and circumstantial). If it is the only option then your own choices brought you there and not the lack of public transportation. Just because the odds of an accident are lower from less cars on the road doesn’t mean it’s a reasonable thing to do.

Right, but it’s a choice that people are going to make.

Wishing that people were better isn’t a policy plan and sure isn’t going to reduce the problem.

Yes you guys need more money

I’m not wishing they were better. I’m saying I agree with lowering the limit and increasing the punishment. I think it’s stupid all the time and needs consequences. Pretending it’s anyone else fault is a waste of time in my opinion.

People tend to do the right thing when not doing so has real life consequences. Kinda reminds me of the video I saw where a guy was standing on the curb near a puddle and people drove through and splashed him. But when he was holding a brick in his hand then people drove around the puddle to avoid splashing him

And you missed the part where I responded to the fact that they shut down buses late at night... you can move along these are not the droids you are looking for.

Lack of public transportation is not an excuse to drink and drive

Lets raise it to .18... this is ridiculous!

youre right its a failure on a city to provide a simple ass service that is safe and cheap but once again it would cut into DWI profits...

2 and a sip of a third for avg size adult male

Still not an excuse to drink and drive. The way I see it is the money they make from DUIs is just an extra tax on the idiots. It doesn’t bother me because I don’t drink and drive.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I think maybe put differently: how many individuals pulled over or tested after an incident are blowing between a .05 and .08? I don't know many folks who are brethalyzing before leaving the brewery and going ".09, darn, gotta wait another 30 mins."?

MADD is a 1920s organization. People can't be taking it seriously. I've never heard of it outside a historical sense

It was founded in 1980.

Close the bars earlier. No one needs to be out at 2 am. Anyway no one's going want to belly up the additional tax money for those transit drivers.

No its not. You can still cause an accident.

You don't have to hit anything at all and its still dui. What's possibility of killing someone have to do with it.

What I want is the same penalties for sober, negligent and wreckers drivers as drunk drivers. There are far far more of them and they don't have to have SR22, interlock, or any of those other penalties.

[removed]

[removed]

Oh huh, what I was thinking of is a different acronym. Could have sworn that was the same one

Thats... the reason its illegal... because you can kill people...

You need to wait 20 minutes after drinking to get your real BAC. After one beer a 180lb person wouldn't be over .02.

ditto!

[deleted]