Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

rubix_redux t1_j41otfo wrote

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.

67

wolf1moon t1_j42bg9a wrote

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.

10

duuuh t1_j42ecyr wrote

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.

14

wolf1moon t1_j44zw4n wrote

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

0

duuuh t1_j450hmy wrote

It was founded in 1980.

2

wolf1moon t1_j455lxu wrote

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

0

iamlucky13 t1_j42p2vx wrote

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.

6

BabyWrinkles t1_j44yuxs wrote

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."?

1

ImRightImRight t1_j43p8xp wrote

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

0.08% is very drunk.

−5

ricobravo82 t1_j442tyq wrote

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.

1

ImRightImRight t1_j45gcz0 wrote

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

3

ricobravo82 t1_j464mq4 wrote

Because everyone is exactly the same and all beers are created equal? I don’t think you have any clue 🤣

0