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.