close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

NTSB recommends lowering drunk driving to 0.05%

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Altaris, May 14, 2013.

  1. Glock30Eric

    Glock30Eric .45 ACP

    3,353
    0
    Feb 3, 2011
    Southern Maryland
    Just ban everything to make it easier for all of us. Ban drinking water. Ban breathing the air. Ban looking at a piece on the earth. E V E R Y T H I N G!
     
  2. CAcop

    CAcop

    20,648
    3,260
    Jul 21, 2002
    California
    I like how people here are talking about MADD being behind this when it is the NTSB.

    My dad was a defense attorney when they set the 0.1 limit back in the day. They brought him to a test track. No driving simulators in those days. They gave him straight up grain alcohol rather than "Here drink this beer." Then they had him drive.
     

  3. BIGBEAR92314

    BIGBEAR92314 KK6HKT

    214
    0
    Jan 20, 2013
    Big Bear City,Ca
     
  4. soutthpaw

    soutthpaw

    271
    0
    Apr 4, 2013
    Just come to CO and drive stoned instead. So far they have come up with no accurate or agreed upon assessment on when u r too high to drive. I guess that makes u flying low instead:D
     
  5. Carrys

    Carrys Inquisitive

    13,123
    5
    Dec 28, 2006
    Green Country
    I find it interesting those people who just have to drink and drive.

    Their excuses for doing so are down right juvenile at best. Oh.....let me do as I want to do. Let me do what makes me happy. Screw everyone else, especially those I may hurt in doing so.




    Besides, I'm such a grand driver I would never be responsible for hurting anyone. Shucks, I haven't been responsible for anything since the 70's......ya know?
     
  6. I mentioned MADD because they were the most vocal supporters of lowering the BAC level back in the day.
    They have also supported ridiculous zoning laws that have closed down liquor stores.
    If they come out against this,then I will recant.
    However,I'm not holding my breath on that.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2013
  7. czsmithGT

    czsmithGT

    11,537
    1,905
    Jan 8, 2004
    These numbers show the alcohol related fatalities in 2011 were 38% of those in 1982. But the non-alcohol related fatalities in 2011 were 126% of those in 1982.

    So from just these two data points we could assume something about alcohol and driving has resulted in reduced fatalities. But no where can these statistics be used to say a further reduction in the "legal limit" would have any effect. Better enforcement, more awareness, a decline in people who risk driving with BAC > 0.08, other things all could explain the decline.
     
  8. NeverMore1701

    NeverMore1701 Fear no Evil Platinum Member

    39,486
    5,169
    Jun 25, 2004
    Amarillo, Tx
  9. NeverMore1701

    NeverMore1701 Fear no Evil Platinum Member

    39,486
    5,169
    Jun 25, 2004
    Amarillo, Tx
    Yeah, because folks who have a couple of drinks at Chili's and drive home unimpaired are just the worst, right?
     
  10. CAcop

    CAcop

    20,648
    3,260
    Jul 21, 2002
    California
    Are they unimpaired?

    What is your data?
     
  11. Dennis in MA

    Dennis in MA Get off my lawn

    42,700
    2,811
    Aug 16, 2001
    Taunton, MA
    I don't htink so. I think the # "38" is the error. It should be 31. It's 31% of all deaths were DD deaths. And 60% were in 1982.

    No question we can't say lowering the BAC limit does it. But they HAVE gone down as a % of the whole, which is what Dana was arguing against.

    I'll guess again - it's not the safer cars or lower limits. It's people FEARING getting caught. 10K deaths, 1.4Million arrests for DD in 2011. One in 200 people or so got bagged for DUI. People fear that.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2013
  12. JohnBT

    JohnBT NRA Benefactor

    5,438
    214
    Feb 24, 2000
    Richmond, Virginia
    I'm much more afraid of drivers using phones for voice or texting.

    "I find it interesting those people who just have to drink and drive."

    I don't have to, but a drink before a meal doesn't appear to any effect when I get behind the wheel an hour or even 90 minutes later. I did this at lunch Sunday before I started my 137-mile interstate drive from the nursing home back to Richmond. Heck, I did it every Friday for 4.5 years until my father died in 2011. One drink, lunch, some coffee, read the Washington Post and talk to the staff until I'm ready to roll.

    The VA State Police card/chart I have shows that at 190 I can drink 4 drinks in 2 hours and still be barely under .08. I think I'm unsafe to drive after 4 in 2 hours and never do it. It's hard to dodge the cell phone users at 70 mph if you're not at the top of your game.
     
  13. Altaris

    Altaris

    11,044
    4,518
    Feb 16, 2004
    Round Rock, TX
    If I go have a glass or two of wine/beer with my steak dinner, I am not a threat to anyone on my way home. I am far less of a threat than any of the Texting idiots, sleepy drivers, and other distracted drivers.

    I am stuck in bed right now with a hurt back and neck thanks to a texter.
     
  14. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh


    This data shows in 1999 that BAC over .08 was responsible for 20.3% of them. In 2009 the drivers involved in fatalities was 22.2%.

    That means that even with the enforcement/laws that the percent of wrecks went up 2%. (I would say +/- is probably statisically insignificant if variability year to year was known).
     
  15. czsmithGT

    czsmithGT

    11,537
    1,905
    Jan 8, 2004
    yes that is right 31%
     
  16. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    Compare the two sets of data.

    They have significantly different numbers for 1999 and 2009.

    Link 1 is 20.3% and 22.3% respectively.

    Link 2 is 40% and 38% respectively.

    I would tend to believe census data over "alcoholalert" data. Data sources can be important
     
  17. mixflip

    mixflip

    6,825
    3
    Mar 4, 2009
    I guess if your life has not been affected by a drunk driver you will be upset at such a proposal.

    In my town, an entire family burned to death when their van was hit by an 18 year old drunk driver.

    A few months later another 18 year old drunk driver drove his car straight into the patio of a breakfast restaurant and sent a family of four to the ICU. They were pinned under the car and the kid tried to walk away but got tackled by witnesses. The victims had broken backs, broken hips and collapsed lungs.

    I was there when my co-worker got the news that his wife and son and niece were all killed by a drunk driver. It was a gut wrenching experience to witness. The mans spirit was broken beyond words.

    I am not a drinker so I could care less if it was banned 100%. I drank like a fish when I was young and dumb. I was a drunk driver many times and never got caught. I guess I just out grew that phase of life. Im am probably one of those odd balls that can have a good time without the need to drink.

    I say drink all you want but just dont drink and drive. If you play, be prepared to pay.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2013
  18. My cousin was killed by a drunk driver in Jacksonville who's BAC was 0.192.
    I still recognize the difference between driving drunk and having drink with your meal.
     
  19. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    I guess if your family has not been affected by a shooter you will be upset at additional gun control laws.

    See how well that works?
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2013
  20. ShallNotBeInfringed

    ShallNotBeInfringed NRA Business Al

    1,565
    3
    Feb 2, 2013
    Concealed Carry holders have a zero tolerance. (all states?)

    As many of us Concealed Carry, anything except soda pop is off limits anyway. Moot point for many of us.