Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 88

Thread: FedGov NTSB Want to Lower Legal Driving Limit to One Drink, 0.05 or even lower.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150

    FedGov NTSB Want to Lower Legal Driving Limit to One Drink, 0.05 or even lower.

    Want to Lower Legal Driving Limit to One Drink ‘States should lower BAC levels to 0.05— or even lower’
    http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-wa...-to-one-drink/

    https://news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl...bE307iFCJJed9M

    NTSB Unveils 2016 Most Wanted List, Stresses Technology
    Impairment is also an issue in all modes of transportation. The NTSB has recommended lowering the legal limit on blood alcohol content to .05 to reduce deaths and injuries on highways. However, drugs other than alcohol can also impair drivers and operators of other types of vehicles – whether these drugs are recreational, over-the-counter, or prescription.

    http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-relea...R20160113.aspx

    Only the law abiding abide the law. So if the state wants to git'em law abiders, lower the bar to where no one can escape and dis-arm them that way.

    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law, then we all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 01-15-2016 at 09:51 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Yet another unconstitutional law.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Ya drink and drive and injure a person or property then you should be liable for that injury. Drinking and driving w/o injuring anything should not be actionable.

    Ditto with being any sense of being impaired.

    Most states have 1st offense being civil in nature and as such requires and actual injured party...it cannot be the state as the state cannot be injured by a person simply driving on a highway and not injuring anything.

    Zero chance I would find anyone guilty of just being impaired while driving.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Whaaaaaaat?

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Ya drink and drive and injure a person or property then you should be liable for that injury. Drinking and driving w/o injuring anything should not be actionable.

    Ditto with being any sense of being impaired.

    Most states have 1st offense being civil in nature and as such requires and actual injured party...it cannot be the state as the state cannot be injured by a person simply driving on a highway and not injuring anything.

    Zero chance I would find anyone guilty of just being impaired while driving.
    How dare you encourage personal responsibility!
    Last edited by Whitney; 01-15-2016 at 02:23 PM.
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitney View Post
    How dare you encourage personal responsibility!
    Exactly .... Whitney's a Libertarian? Come to the light side.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Yet another unconstitutional law.
    1 - how do you figure it qualifies as a law?

    2 - how do you figure it is unconstitutional?

    I see a recommendation that might become tied to the regulatory process of how federal highway funds are distributed to the states running face-first into the issue of liquor sales tax collection and the administrative costs associated with needing to test every driver and the legal challenges to the methods of testing as well as 4th, 5th, 8th, and 10th Amendment challenges to the testing itself.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Did someone finally compute how much money they (municipalities and defense lawyers) were missing out on when someone blew 0.06 at an unconstitutional detainment/search/questioning roadblock?
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  8. #8
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    1 - how do you figure it qualifies as a law?

    2 - how do you figure it is unconstitutional?

    I see a recommendation that might become tied to the regulatory process of how federal highway funds are distributed to the states running face-first into the issue of liquor sales tax collection and the administrative costs associated with needing to test every driver and the legal challenges to the methods of testing as well as 4th, 5th, 8th, and 10th Amendment challenges to the testing itself.

    stay safe.
    Section 8
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
    First off the collection of the money is unconstitutional because it is not being done to pay the (any legal) debt.

    Second off because it says, "general welfare." Not, "the welfare of the parts of the union that will bend to our rules."

    Third because congress was never granted any authority to regulate the use of drugs.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    I note that the agency wanting to lower the legal BAC for driving, also wants to ban ALL cell phone use while driving, including hands-free cell phone use.

    I'm old enough to remember when using CB radios--in the wake of movies like Convoy and Smokey and the Bandit was going to be the death of all of us. Before that it was 8-track tapes that were far too distracting for mere mortals to handle safely while driving.

    As a lifelong T-Totaler from a State with a reputation for being a bit uptight about alcohol, I think this current proposal is silly on both fronts.

    First of all, the typical drunk driver who causes an accident has a BAC of 0.15% or higher. The currently legal limit of 0.08% (0.04% fo commercial drivders) provides a sufficient margin of safety assuming that the person is a competent driver to start with and is at least marginally accustomed to the effects of alcohol in his/her system.

    Secondly, every study I've seen touting the new adage that "even a hands free cell phone is as bad as being drunk" takes "being drunk" as 0.08% BAC, or lower. Hands free cell phone use, by a competent driver is not a major safety concern.

    The practice of reading or composing text messages or emails while driving is a serious safety risk. There is simply no way to keep one's eyes on the road while reading, nor while typing messages on a virtual keyboard. (I know a couple of folks who claimed to be able to compose purely by touch on the old 12 key physical keypads on flip phones.)

    But as bad as that is, in my experience, the biggest problem on our roads is just a decline in driving ability. Left-lane loafers/lolly-gaggers/vigilantes are among the worst for causing needless congestion. These are probably the same idiots who can't seem to slow down through school zones or residential neighborhoods. I suspect many drivers today can go the entire life of a car never needing to replace a blinker bulb, as rarely as some remember to signal lane changes.

    In any event, I suspect the NTSB are the same kind of folks who figured the double-nickel made sense nationwide. Here in the West, we had people falling asleep at the wheel on long, straight, lonely stretches. (I'm sure that Purgatory looks a lot like driving I-70 through Kansas or even US-95 from Vegas to Reno.) During the 90s I recall an article in the Las Vegas Review Journal in which the author reported that the majority of car crashes the previous year in Nevada had been single car run offs. In Utah, we've recently raised most of our urban-area Interstate speed limits to 70 mph; 75 is the default on most rural stretches of Interstate in Utah now; and we've got some long stretches on I-15 posted at 80 mph. No evidence that these higher speeds have resulted in any increase in injuries or death. I now happily drive 80 mph at the exact same location where I got my first ever speeding ticket for doing 82 in a 55.

    For nanny-staters who live their lives in perpetual bumper-to-bumper traffic inside the Beltway, lots of things seem like good ideas that just aren't needed or are even counter-productive in the real world.

    If someone wants to try alcohol Prohibition again, he should be honest enough to just say so. At the city, country, or even State level, I might even be supportive. But, cranking down DUI limits (followed by pubic intoxication limits perhaps, or the limits at which one is allowed to be in possession of a gun) below that which are objectively needed to prevent excessive public risk is offensive to me.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    I agree with Charles.

    The problem is that people are too incompetent to be on the road.

    I believe we need to get get rid of seat belts, ABS braking, airbags, and other "safety " devices.

    I believe it would do alot to make the roads safer in the long run.


    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I agree with Charles.
    That explains the interesting weather report coming in from way down under.


    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    The problem is that people are too incompetent to be on the road.

    I believe we need to get get rid of seat belts, ABS braking, airbags, and other "safety " devices.

    I believe it would do alot to make the roads safer in the long run.
    I don't know that I'd go that far. But I would require that all driving tests be done with a standard (ie manual) transmission. Anyone with four working limbs who can't drive a standard, probably shouldn't be on the road at all.

    The real problem, of course, is an unwillingness require real demonstration of ability before handing out licenses, and to yank licenses and require real re-training (as opposed to merely money making waste of time like watching a movie about safe driving) when multiple offenses indicate a lack of ability. Even for DUI, suspensions tend to be short, followed by money making probation with ignition lock out devices. I'm convinced that Nixon's/Carter's double-nickel destroyed driving in this nation. Cops only write tickets for speeding because that is all they can see when parked running a radar/laser gun. So that is all most drivers worry about. And since the big money for tickets is where there is high volume, way more tickets on freeways and in commercial districts than in residential areas.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    49
    Uber and other rideshare/taxi apps have had a negative impact on the number of dwi incidents. Thus they need to do something to increase revenue.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by BigStack View Post
    Uber and other rideshare/taxi apps have had a negative impact on the number of dwi incidents. Thus they need to do something to increase revenue.
    Another nice theory, but without foundation. The vast majority of DUIs (and other traffic violations) are handled by local and State authorities. It is a federal agency proposing this change. It isn't like this change is all that new. I remember when the feds pushed all States to raise their drinking age to 21. Prior to that, some had the age at 18. Some Arizona border towns were favorites for high school seniors looking to legally acquire booze for parties. The feds pushed all States to drop their DUI limit to 0.08% BAC.

    This isn't about revenue. At least not in the way you propose.

    It may well be the natural result of every bureaucracy seeking to justify its own existence. The NTSB does a bang up job with aviation safety. But I suspect they also have some kind of highway safety division. And what happens if they say, "Well, we have all the laws and rules we need for safe highways. It just comes down to driver competency and local enforcement now."? How long can that portion of the agency get any funding after admitting they have nothing left to do? So there is always another crises to prevent, or problem to solve. On the aviation side, the very rare commercial plane crash demands a complete investigation with answers. That takes lots of time and resources. But on the highway safety side? I'd bet pretty much relegated to studies and making recommendations for making things safer.

    There may be some grand conspiracy. And any bad precedence will sure be built on by those who seek for power. But most likely just another agency that has outlived its usefulness, working to make itself seem needed for a few more years.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Another nice theory, but without foundation. The vast majority of DUIs (and other traffic violations) are handled by local and State authorities. It is a federal agency proposing this change. It isn't like this change is all that new. I remember when the feds pushed all States to raise their drinking age to 21. Prior to that, some had the age at 18. Some Arizona border towns were favorites for high school seniors looking to legally acquire booze for parties. The feds pushed all States to drop their DUI limit to 0.08% BAC.

    This isn't about revenue. At least not in the way you propose.

    It may well be the natural result of every bureaucracy seeking to justify its own existence. The NTSB does a bang up job with aviation safety. But I suspect they also have some kind of highway safety division. And what happens if they say, "Well, we have all the laws and rules we need for safe highways. It just comes down to driver competency and local enforcement now."? How long can that portion of the agency get any funding after admitting they have nothing left to do? So there is always another crises to prevent, or problem to solve. On the aviation side, the very rare commercial plane crash demands a complete investigation with answers. That takes lots of time and resources. But on the highway safety side? I'd bet pretty much relegated to studies and making recommendations for making things safer.

    There may be some grand conspiracy. And any bad precedence will sure be built on by those who seek for power. But most likely just another agency that has outlived its usefulness, working to make itself seem needed for a few more years.

    Charles
    My general thought was that it may have been instigated by locals or not opposed at the very least.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by BigStack View Post
    My general thought was that it may have been instigated by locals or not opposed at the very least.
    It would be one of the only federal agencies to listen to locals if the proposals were instigated by locals. And if locals wanted lower DUI limits, we'd already have them.

    This is about an agency who has worked itself out of a job, but is trying to remain relevant. Three decades of mandates and market pressures on auto makers for safer cars, mandatory seat belt laws, completion of the InterState Freeway system (taking cars off of much more dangerous un-divided rural highways), DUI laws, and public education on drowsy and distracted driving, along with sensible speed limits in the West, have combined to reduce auto fatalities even as passenger miles driven are way up. Close the doors on this portion of the NTSB or they will crank out these kinds of proposals every year.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    1 - how do you figure it qualifies as a law?

    2 - how do you figure it is unconstitutional?

    I see a recommendation that might become tied to the regulatory process of how federal highway funds are distributed to the states running face-first into the issue of liquor sales tax collection and the administrative costs associated with needing to test every driver and the legal challenges to the methods of testing as well as 4th, 5th, 8th, and 10th Amendment challenges to the testing itself.

    stay safe.
    The better question would be how is it constitutional?

    Madison vetoed a road bill as unconstitutional.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The better question would be how is it constitutional?
    COTUS Article I, Section VII, Clause I; The Taxing and Spending Clause. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    COTUS Article I, Section VII, Clause I; The Taxing and Spending Clause. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    I already disproved that argument.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    I am contemptuous of far more than merely courts and cops.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    FedGov NTSB Want to Lower Legal Driving Limit to One Drink, 0.05 or even lower.

    Draconian drink driving laws have been mildly effective in curbing alcohol related traffic deaths, despite alcohol consumption and liver disease being on the rise.
    That said, 31% of fatal wrecks involve a driver with BAC of 0.08 or higher. Only about 6% have 0.01-0.05% BAC. This is a recommendation looking for a problem, if you don't consider the 1800 people killed in 2013 by those drivers.
    63% of drivers tested negative for alcohol.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by nonameisgood; 01-16-2016 at 09:04 PM. Reason: New data

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    ...That said, 31% of fatal wrecks involve a driver with BAC of 0.08 or higher...
    How many were 0.08-0.15% versus over 0.15%
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    FedGov NTSB Want to Lower Legal Driving Limit to One Drink, 0.05 or even lower.

    Something like 21% were .15+


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by nonameisgood; 01-17-2016 at 05:43 AM.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    Draconian drink driving laws have been mildly effective in curbing alcohol related traffic deaths, despite alcohol consumption and liver disease being on the rise.
    That said, 31% of fatal wrecks involve a driver with BAC of 0.08 or higher. Only about 6% have 0.01-0.05% BAC. This is a recommendation looking for a problem, if you don't consider the 1800 people killed in 2013 by those drivers.
    63% of drivers tested negative for alcohol.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    You mean 63% of drivers in fatal accidents were not drinking? Well then, it certainly appears that people should drink before they drive as more non-drinking folks were involved in more accidents.

    Or one can see it as being close to 50/50 ... like the choice of heads or tails on a coin flip (although only an idiot would pick heads).

    Statistics .. aren't they great.

  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    You mean 63% of drivers in fatal accidents were not drinking? Well then, it certainly appears that people should drink before they drive as more non-drinking folks were involved in more accidents.
    --snipped--
    Might be more telling to indictae the impairment of those that caused the fatal accidents.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Might be more telling to indictae the impairment of those that caused the fatal accidents.
    I think that everyone believes that it is not wise to drive while blotto. Just having fun with numbers....killing time until kickoff.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 01-17-2016 at 12:35 PM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •