Will Cutting the BAC Limit to .05 Really Make Our Roads Safer?
Utah’s experiment with stricter drunk driving laws has led to more fatalities, not fewer. The push for lower BAC limits is missing the real problem.

In the 1980s and '90s, a push to lower the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit for getting behind the wheel took the country by storm. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) was formed in 1980, and in 2000, President Bill Clinton signed into law the nationwide .08 BAC limit—conditioning the provision of federal highway funds on state compliance with the new limit.
Drunk driving rates are far lower today than several decades ago—falling by around half since the early 1980s, according to the National Institutes of Health. Even so, controversy over the legal limit has found renewed life, with a campaign to push for even further reductions in the permissible BAC level for driving.
The World Health Organization's (WHO) 2024 global status report on alcohol and substance use disorders garnered attention for noting that most countries have moved to a .05 or lower BAC legal limit. Media outlets like The New York Times and National Geographic were quick to run articles about America's seemingly outlier status when it came to drinking and driving.
Advocates for the lower limit cite laboratory and simulator research that purports to demonstrate alcohol impairment setting in at lower BAC levels than .08 and which conclude that lowering the legal limit would therefore reduce crashes and deaths. A study drawing on international BAC levels concluded that reducing the U.S. BAC level to .05 would result in an 11 percent reduction in alcohol-related crashes.
Utah became the first state to reduce its BAC level to .05 in 2018, which makes it a critical case study of what would happen if more states followed suit. The WHO has pointed to a 2022 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) study finding that Utah's law change had resulted in a dramatic and almost immediate 20 percent reduction in drunk driving deaths.
As expected, that isn't the whole story.
Despite being published in 2022, the NHTSA study only tracked one year of post-.05 data: Utah's 2019 drunk driving deaths (the .05 law was passed in 2018 and went into effect starting in 2019). From 2016-2018, there were an average of just over 33 drunk driving deaths per year in the Beehive State, including a particularly deadly 2018, which saw 48 deaths alone. In 2019, the first year of the .05 law, deaths plummeted to 27 and the law was heralded as a massive success.
Following that dramatic dip, however, drunk driving deaths in Utah bounced back to 48 in 2020. In 2021, there were 61 fatalities, and in 2022, there was a state record of 69 deaths.
And yet, two prominent New York Times articles from earlier this year on America's higher-than-average BAC level cited Utah's 20 percent reduction in drunk driving deaths in 2019, but said nothing whatsoever about Utah's drunk driving death data since then. The aforementioned National Geographic article, and even WHO's much-ballyhooed report, likewise did not acknowledge the existence of the post-2019 Utah data, despite 2024 publication dates.
Local Salt Lake Tribune columnist Robert Gehrke, on the other hand, is willing to state the truth:
In the four years since the law took effect, 187 people died in alcohol-related crashes, up about 20 percent from before the law passed, and the last three years have been the highest on record.
Obviously, I'm not suggesting the law is to blame. The drivers are. But the law hasn't worked because it isn't targeting the real problem—those who drink well beyond any legal limit and get behind the wheel.
Half of all drunk drivers who are involved in fatal car wrecks are extremely intoxicated—sitting at BAC levels of 0.15 or higher. In contrast, only 16 percent of those involved in fatal wrecks have BAC levels under 0.08 (and the number is even lower for those specifically in the .05 to .07 range who would presumably be impacted by a switch to a .05 legal limit).
The worst drunk driving perpetrators are also often repeat offenders who appear to be impervious to any legal limit. About 30 percent of DUI arrestees in Utah had a prior arrest for drunk driving and 10 percent had two or more arrests. This is the political reality that few want to address. The couple who has a couple of glasses of wine with dinner is not the problem—it's the person who is well over the legal limit and often a repeat offender who is causing the majority of carnage on American roads. In fact, even Candace Lightner, the founder of MADD is against the proposal, stating that "running around trying to arrest everyone at .05 is impractical."
Proponents of lowering the legal limit may still argue that even one life saved with a lower BAC level is worth whatever costs might be associated with more DUI arrests. Even if this line of logic is adopted, however, the penalties could at least be reduced for those in the .05–.07 range, or the infraction could be converted to a civil fine rather than criminal sanction.
No one wants to see more drunk driving deaths in America, but we won't decrease them by ignoring the data.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Lower the BAC to - (MINUS!) 1%.... And anyone above that level (means EVERYONE!) is NOT allowed to drive!!! Did ya know that even an AI driver has that much alcohol in it's electronic bloodstream?
Just THINK of ALL the lives that could be saved!!!
A well written article that exposes lies with correctly applied logic and science while attempting to identify the real problem, not just a politically expedient straw man.
I would have liked a little more scientific explanation of the nature of impairment. The objective quantifiable impact on the cognitive and motor skills required to safely drive. With an analysis of how those measurables relate to BAC. And particularly how drugs used in combination with alcohol impact impairment.
These issues aren’t going away.
I would also like these standards for impairment used to rule out driving licenses for people who are impaired without the use of drugs.
Too “sciency” for you? You might as well just lend your support to the above comment.
Some people are lousy drivers to begin with. Add alcohol and they’re dangerous. Others drive better drunk than the former does sober.
Yeah, I said that.
My point was that the science used to establish impairment standards SHOULD be used to develop quick either roadside or licensing tests to identify impaired drivers regardless of their use of various drugs or not.
More vehicle operation “sciency” than walking a straight line.
Partially to weed out people who shouldn’t be driving at all, as well as addressing the increasingly prevalent use of other recreational drugs.
What percentage of vehicle accidents are caused by people under the influence of drugs not registering on breathalyzers?
What percentage of vehicle accidents are caused by people under the influence of drugs not registering on breathalyzers?
I would venture to guess not a lot for a few reasons. Drivers stoned on marijuana are inclined to drive slower and be more cautious, while drunk drivers drive faster and throw caution to the wind. As far as other drugs go, unless the driver is nodding off at the wheel they’re likely to drive better than someone who’s been drinking because of what alcohol does to judgement. That and the percentage of the population who uses drugs other than alcohol and marijuana is low enough that even if they were more dangerous, which I doubt, by comparison the numbers would be small.
We should make decisions based on science, not anecdotal personal experience like the poor suggestions made by politicians who want to reduce the legal BAC to solve drunk driving.
Depends how drunk they are. A little bit tipsy, they notice it and drive slower. Drunker than that, they're in denial and may speed up. Even drunker and they really slow down. Unfortunately they may drive faster than they know they should, because they know the police look for slow drivers because that's a sign of impairment.
My dad used to work second shift, and was a slow driver in general. This caused him to sometimes get pulled over on his way home, because the police assumed that anyone going slow at that time of night must be drunk.
And while I agree that some people should not drive at all, it's politically impossible to get them off the road. Look at how difficult it is to pull the license from some ancient who can't see over the steering wheel. Think the political will exists to do that to younger people who can't drive for shit even when sober? Not gonna happen.
Corrupt politicians intentionally make it difficult for people to voice opposition to their ill conceived ideas.
Protesting their actions isn’t the most or only effective way to influence policy.
All policy, budgets and plans at every level of public service should be clearly and concisely accessible to every citizen they affect.
If there are plans, like changing the legal BAC we should be able to clearly see it online LONG before anything is done.
The same database could have a comments section, upvotes representing a rudimentary form of technological democracy.
Changes to driver testing criteria and repercussions for failure would also be recorded in the database.
This would make it easier for citizens to affect changes to public policy instead of just complaining about it.
Hey Misek, how is your pager working?
I very much endorse Mr. Misek's approach. We tend to treat driving on the public roads as a civil right — well, I guess literally it is — and so wait to catch and punish people who either deliberately or negligently impair themselves...because I guess it would be "unfair" to de-license those who are just bad drivers thru no fault of their own. For one thing, it's hard to legally de-license the old and demented or blinded.
I don't think we'll ever get out of this predicament soon enough for it to become obsolete via self-driving cars.
But what about the Jooze?
They’re busy committing a holocaust in Gaza
Credibility = 0.
Says an anonymous coward, too ashamed of themself to be accountable for their statements.
Have you ever refuted anything that I’ve said?
Hahaha
It's crap. That's not the author's fault. It is the way that the statistics are being manipulated. A DUI death or injury used to be classified as such if a driver of a vehicle that was involved was over the limit for being legally drunk. Now they go with "alcohol related". That means that if anybody, not just a driver, has any MEASURABLE alcohol in their system.
Then you have the municipalities where the "Alcohol Related" box is checked as the default on the Accident Report. A few years ago I got rear ended in bad weather. Nobody was hurt and we were able to get both cars off the road. We called Police as required by our insurance to get an accident report. We got that over the phone. No Police showed up. When I contacted my insurance I was aske some questions because the accident report said "alcohol related".
These days they make it harder and harder to get a trial, because they don't want one. So they make it easy to plead out and pay the fine. In that aspect it is a "revenue generator". I'm not going to go into the scam that is called the Breathalyzer.
Hahaha
If any of that’s true I learned something.
Do you have any links to cite? I could fact check it myself but if you’ve already got the proof. Prove your claims.
It may open some eyes.
I've posted so many times about this that it isn't funny. I can dig up some backup for my statements, but, it will take a little bit. I'll look into it when I get home. The stadium wi-fi sucks.
Thanks
At your convenience
I've been a lawyer for over 50 years. On cross-examination in court, police "reports" rapidly concocted at the end of a 8-10 hour shift tend to fail to be accurate only about 10% of the time. This is especially true when the department is emphasizing "alcohol related" arrests.
Forget the BAC. Impairment should be the ONLY criteria. This would take in elderly people that are no longer with it as well as the guy that just took a couple of cold tablets and was half put to sleep.
Are you going to feel any better, as you're flying off into the ether, saying, "I'm sure glad that guy that killed me wasn't drunk."
Driving and drinking do not mix, and especially so in Norway. Alcohol laws are very strict, and penalties from driving under the influence are severe. The legal limit is 0,02% blood alcohol and applies to the driver of any motorized vehicle. Medications to avoid if you intend to drive are marked with a red triangle.
But, so what:
It is estimated that drink-driving accounts for around 25% of all road deaths in Norway. In 2020, 24 people were killed by impaired driving while 2021 data were not available.
Which is somewhat interesting since Utah is only about two million fewer people than the entire country of Norway.
Norway is the model for the deterrent effect of harsh penalties for drunk driving. If you get caught at a roadblock (or are in any accident), and have one drink in your system – a first time offender will lose their license for 2 years, will go to jail for a month or so, and will be fined 1-2 months of income. Higher penalties if it involves someone injured or second offense but really the system doesn’t need escalating. It is intended to deter drink/driving in a country with a long dark winter and a history of binge drinking and alcoholism.
Half of Norway’s prison population is drivers who are there for drunk driving – but it is not because they have a lot of people in prison. The reverse – Norway has 4000 total prisoners, 2000 are drunk drivers serving their time. The deterrence works and it has big impact on traffic accidents. Just using Utah v Norway:
Utah – 26,700 injuries and 280 fatalities per year
Norway – 4,400 injuries and 110 fatalities per year
IDK whether the BA level is meaningful. Norway uses that low level but its the penalty that matters. Here – BA level is just a game lawyers will use to avoid penalties that never get applied anyway. And since there are no serious penalties here, the BA limit may just be a revenue producer for local gummint. And since fines here are not based on income - it means the harshness is on the lower income.
Norwegians are also very obedient conformists, like their fellow Scandinavians, the Swedes and the Danes. To a lesser extent, so are the British, Canadians and Australians.
My mind is boggled with speculations about the consequences if the kind of traffic stops that cops in Australia are allowed to perform to enforce the 0.05 limit mandated in every state there in were tried in the USA.
Well AFAIK - Norway doesn't patrol or do roaming traffic stops like here. They do roadblocks where everyone gets stopped (like holidays and big events and stuff) - and get info at the scene of accidents. Maybe if drivers have filed a complaint about a driver, they'll stop them. But otherwise it is isn't roaming around looking for BAC violations. That's actually quite a bit less authoritarian unless you're at one of those holiday events and had something to drink but hey I'm just fine ossifer.
'Norwegians are also very obedient conformists, like their fellow Scandinavians, the Swedes and the Danes.'
I have spent a lot of time in Norway, and this is an obvious truth. It's hard to imagine their ancestors were rapey, pillagey vikings.
And yet somehow libertarians have no problem understanding that that conformity had a lot to do with the way Sweden structured their covid approach.
Please explain.
Conformity is one of the results of trust in institutions/process. The Swedish public health agency went on TV every day with recommendations, info about the virus, etc. They didn’t ignore the issue or believe it was 'just the flu' or have their own agenda or see it as a power grab. So Swedes listened and generally went along with the recommendations. As long as the pandemic proceeded within expectations, the govt could use persuasion because the trust was there.
They went more coercive in that first full winter but by that point no one here was paying attention to Sweden’s ‘persuasion’ stage (which is anti-lockdown).
BAC levels only count if offenders are caught. Other countries allow a lot more leeway for cops to stop and test drivers than is allowed in the USA.
Two comments:
1. no serious penalties here, the BA limit may just be a revenue producer
Where do you live? Around here (TX) the first offense penalty is up to 6 months imprisonment, up to $5K or so in fines and penalties, and loss of driver’s license for one year. And no way does the state make money off keeping someone in jail for 6 months, even with the fines. It is true that here most defendants negotiate a lower sentence in return for a guilty plea, maybe that path isn’t available in Norway.
2. There are many other differences to take into account. (a) You’re comparing overall car fatalities, but the majority of accidents don’t involve alcohol. So Utah would “beat” Norway in traffic deaths by a huge even if every drunk driver disappeared. (b) Norwegians own about 60% as many cars per capita, and while I couldn’t find miles/car for Norway, in Sweden each car travels about 60% as far as a US car. Overall we can guess there’s about 35-40% as much driving going on. (c) Most importantly, what Isaac Bartram said: Norwegians in general commit fewer crimes than Americans.
What sentence do first time offenders (assume no injuries) actually SERVE in Texas? Many prison penalties in the US are simply opportunities to 'call a lawyer'. That - in combination with fixed dollar fines - is why the US prison population is just full of poor people whose sentence is way beyond simple deterrent. And why the entire system is geared towards not accepting responsibility for one's actions.
You’re comparing overall car fatalities, but the majority of accidents don’t involve alcohol
Attributing 'alcohol' assumes the impaired is at the scene when everything is recorded. That they didn't swerve, speed or otherwise cause problems for others and then, like MrMagoo, drive on without even realizing what problems they caused for other (sober) drivers. Any part of town that is ugly for driving on a Fri/Sat night is so because a large portion of drivers are not all there while driving.
There are many times when the statistics that can be recorded are all you have but the issues of what affects those numbers are more complicated. We saw this early in covid with the 'died from covid' and 'died with covid'. When later on the truly relevant stat is excess deaths.
And yes I realize that other factors are also significant. But have no doubt - in Norway, the traffic is overall paying a lot of attention to driving because they are sober. And that reduces accidents.
The only solution is for everyone to live in a 15 minute city and only walk or take public transportation when not riding a bicycle.
Certainly that is exactly where DUI drivers would prefer to live if their license gets suspended. And where anyone else would prefer they live rather than them just driving around drunk.
Oh man! Poor and minorities hardest hit AGAIN?
I did not see that coming.
Especially from you, j. Haha.
Wisest thing you ever said. Stick with that.
Maybe Rob's pager just went off.
OT post... Science mags and scientists, STOP endorsing ANY politicians, please!!!
https://mindmatters.ai/2024/09/science-writer-tells-top-science-mag-quit-endorsing-politicians/
(PS, except endorsing LIBERTARIANS is ALWAYS welcome IMHO, but of course this theoretical event will never happen!)
It is clearly Trump's fault.
The only way to reduce drunk driving is to elect democrats.
After just a few years, only the elites, driven by sober a chauffer will be allowed on the roads.
Tell me about Princess Di's chauffer. 🙂
Dunno why folks still call her Princess Di. She’s now past tense and should be referred to as Princess Dead.
Tsk. It’s pronounced Dayid.
TL;DR but the real problem has long been known to be caused by a fairly small number of persons who chronically have this problem of driving badly while drunk. The problem has been thinking of a driving license as a civil right that's difficult to take away from an individual legally, and therefore trying to police driving with alcohol in one's system as a technical rule of the road. This impinges on many people who don't really have a problem nor cause one for the rest of us. There are even people, unfortunate though they be (because of other health consequences), who can drive just fine with amounts of liquor in them that would floor the rest of us; catching them is a paternalist action that doesn't make the rest of us safer, and just gives them a legal problem on top of a drinking habit. But because we're such a lawyered-up, legalist, adversarial, and rights-oriented society, it seems we're not allowed to apply explicit judgment to such matters, like getting people off the road for driving dangerously for whatever reason, and instead must seize on some objectively measurable factor like breath alcohol concentration.
It amounts to pre-crime generally. I don't disagree that drinking and getting behind the wheel is dangerous and shouldn't be done, but it's observable that not everyone is actually equally dangerous while driving around or above the legal limit.
It's essentially a way to arrest people before they do something that is predicted to happen, but may not happen.
Not entirely sure how I feel about it overall, but it seems like a case of making such a bad decision with relatively predictable results that maybe it should be illegal given the recklessness of operating a multi-ton vehicle while impaired.
Of course, there are other impairments that don't have the same stigma as alcohol in particular and lots of those don't show up without a straight blood test if at all. Driving while epileptic as an example, where you're just limited for 3 months to a year after a seizure (if you report it, of course, and why would you?)
That is the problem. That taking away a drivers license is viewed as something that requires a ‘crime’ to have occurred first. We don’t do that and that is one of the big reasons we also don’t have any transportation infrastructure for people without cars (which would obviously include suspended license, kids, elderly, poor, disabled, etc). So taking away license effectively means eliminating their work opportunity. Which therefore also means we can’t do something like ‘day-fines’ – meaning fines based on income rather than flat fee. So the fines we would have are basically irrelevant for high income and overly punitive for low income – so we then lower the fines as well. And make it up on volume of traffic stops which encourages the authoritarian impulse
As always, follow the money. Nothing is done about the real problem drinkers because there is a huge and lucrative industry based on the revolving door for repeat offenders. The money flows from offenders every time they’re arrested. Fines and court costs to local governments; billable hours for attorneys; paychecks to teachers of mandatory “education” classes; paychecks to teachers of mandatory driving instruction; money for court-ordered rehab centers; fees for license reinstatement; premiums for high-risk insurance; sales of breath-check devices for cars; and surely I’m forgetting a couple. A DUI arrest can suck in tens of thousands of dollars from the offender, and repeat offenders are lucrative customers. If repeat offenders were simply given prison sentences, they would cost the system money instead of being cash cows. That’s why there’s a strong lobby for NOT actually getting dangerous, habitual drunk drivers off the road.
It's a transparent racket.
I've known a guy who got a roadside DUI at 18 with no accident. Working class kid couldn't come up with the 10k to payoff the racketeers. Ten years later still restricted to driving to and from work only.
That's the way it is.
Think about the impact of .08 on drunk driving accidents and fatalities. How did it improve those numbers? Well, it didn't. You are no statistically safer at .08 than at .10.
Yet it criminalized hundreds of thousands of people who would otherwise not have been at the DUI level, who have to go through all of the expensive programs and mitigations.
Let's not add the issues with sentencing folks like that to attend AA meetings, which is wrong on many ways up to, and including, extremely disrespectful to the folks who are REALLY trying to quit drinking using the program.
It is all a racket. Take a good thing "Hey, don't drive drunk", and watch what happens when the prohibitionists get involved and push their own ends.
So what is the libertarian approach? Why support licensing for access to driving on public roads? Why arrest people for what might happen, even if we have statistical certainty of high probability? (Wouldn't this apply to many other "future crime" scenarios?). Can we simply punish people who commit crimes, and do that harshly enough to make most people more cautious about their own behavior?
You answered your own question in your last sentence. Punish people who have actually harmed others, and severely enough to prevent them from committing more crimes for a while, and to deter potential violators.
Fine. Also begin to treat the handheld device users the same as drunk drivers then. Every day I see someone glued to a screen in their hand behind the wheel. That kid chasing a ball into the street is going to get hit the same by either driver.
But a huge touchscreen on the dash is ok?
No, but some control panel within a vehicle is obviously necessary. We used them for years just fine.
Touching is far more dangerous than turning knobs or something.
Agreed.
Regarding late models in proximity to Brandon, they are in danger from touching and knobs being turned.
Heads up display are nice, and there are a number of inexpensive aftermarket solutions available.
Knobs and switches can become muscle memory and not require shifting attention. Can't say that about touchscreens.
Problem is, like footswitches for high beams, knobs and switches are more expensive, so touchscreens are here to stay.
Voice commands do everything the screen does.
BAC may have been a reasonable proxy for impaired driving back in the day. But today we have dashcams, and as far as I know, every single cop car has them. There are also traffic cameras all over the highways. So put them on every overpass, record all traffic.
Show the video of impaired driving to a jury. Count how many times the car swerves over lane markings. Count how many times other cars swerve out of the way.
It would be far more objective than BAC.
While I don't favor any more government surveillance I agree with your conclusions.
Only 2% of cases go before a jury.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Show the video to the driver himself, count his swerves, count other drivers' swerves. It's no different from anything else in our sorry criminal system.
Stick to the point. Don't wander all over. You're swerving like a drunk driver. What is your BAC this morning?
You said to show the video to a jury. My point is what jury? You could say show it to a judge. Again, what judge? 98% of cases are settled with a plea bargain. What you propose would not have any effect on that at all. Personal attacks won't change that.
Not worth the invasiveness of the solution. You know that won’t be limited to just observing drunk driving and will be used to track every movement of every American.
Not that it’s actually possible to put such camera’s on every road in the United States, of course. It’ll just turn cities into bigger dystopian shitholes than they already are.
What is possible is the government mandates every vehicle to monitor everything that happens with that vehicle, with mandatory always-on communication that you must pay for yourself. Or, why not just mandate every vehicle has an interlock where you must constantly blow into it in order to keep the vehicle running.
What if I wear a Covid mask? Would that crash the system?
If it's a full-face mask, like a rubber Nixon mask, yes. Not sure you'd want to drive with one of those on though, especially every day.
If partial face is visible, facial recognition claims it can identify you correctly.
With time, all it will need to identify you is an exposed eyeball.
Or, why not just mandate every vehicle has an interlock where you must constantly blow into it in order to keep the vehicle running.
The passive version is coming in 2026.
It would be, but would people put up with that much jury duty?
Does it matter why a driver does a bad (criminal) thing? How about punishments severe enough to make most people think hard?
Maybe not allow drunk drivers into the hospital?
Even if they're vaccinated?
...
See, that's the thing: They've practically solved the problem that once existed, so they're looking around to create a new problem — more nails they can pound with their existing hammer.
This is also the problem with crime in general. Much of serious crime is due to chronic criminals. A major impetus for victimless crime laws is a desire to have some easier means to find the generally disobedient among us, and convenient excuses to incarcerate them.
This.
So will we no longer be rolling down the street smoking endo sipping on gin and juice?
You paint a grim picture.
No pocket fulla rubbers either?
You’re comparing apples and oranges here, in two consecutive paragraphs.
First you quote fatal wrecks, then you quote arrests.
STOP DOING THIS SHIT!
The way I know the clamate alarmists are wrong is because they lie so much. It colors everything they say, from no more Arctic ice to no more snow and polar bears and penguins.
When you switch measurements like that, in two consecutive paragraphs, you make your work less credible. What are you trying to hide? Why do you feel the need to hide something, to mislead?
I stop reading when I run across such subterfuge.
STOP DOING THAT if you want to be taken seriously.
How is adding more information subterfuge?
The point is that most arrests and fatalities are repeat offenders with a high BAC, so arresting first offenders with a low BAC isn’t going to help much because they aren’t the problem.
Not a single fatal accident was caused by an individual with a BAC between 5.00000 and 5.00001 - therefore all drivers should be required to maintain a BAC between those levels. It's Science bro.
I know one poster here who would approve.
Yeah every time this subject comes up terms get conflated until the whole thing stinks of lies, damn lies and statistics. For instance. If in the event of a fatal crash any party tests positive for any level of BAC it is classified as "alcohol related". So if some guy has a couple of beers on his way home from work gets broadsided by a guy who blows the red light because he dropped his cheeseburger it becomes "alcohol related" which immediately gets counted in "drunk driving" numbers. The state claims that it can define who is drunk based on an arbitrary number divined by experts who have a prohibitionist agenda. This has led to a very profitable racket that benefits the legal system by bankrupting individuals who have never harmed a soul or any property. The reality is that a lot of people, probably most people, can drive above whatever the state limit is with no significant impairment. I've been driving for over 50 years and I drink beer everyday. I've never been involved in an at fault accident. Lowering a bullshit number will only lead to more police interactions with all of the attendant risks and create more enemies of the state.
So if some guy has a couple of beers on his way home from work gets broadsided by a guy who blows the red light because he dropped his cheeseburger it becomes “alcohol related” which immediately gets counted in “drunk driving” numbers.
Not only that but that guy who had a couple beers will be charged with DUI while the guy who ran the red light will not get a ticket, there will be no mention of the running of the red light in the police report, and witnesses who would contradict the report will be chased off with threats of arrest for loitering.
It is even more nefarious. The groups supported by MADD and the Feds even include crashes involving unopened 6 packs in a trunk as alcohol related.
yeah, there could be a beer can in the ditch near where a fender bender occurred, with no connection to either car in the accident, and if it's noted in the scene report that makes it "Alcohol related."
I wish we were kidding, but those "alcohol related" statistics are trash.
Like COVID?
Why throw out the playbook when it suits your rhetorical ends?
baloney
One possibility is that those two paragraphs are intended to convey two different pieces of information. Each one stands on its own a two separate pieces of data which each lends strength to the argument against lowering legal BAC limits to 0.05.
The other possibility, the more paranoid one, is that those two paragraphs are designed to trick you into conflating arrests with fatal car wrecks, and you the astute reader 'connected the dots' between the two paragraphs to call out the author's subterfuge. Well done!
Maybe, just maybe, you are trying to connect dots that don't exist.
Another possibility is that you don’t give a rat’s ass about how the article comes across, whether it appears to be written with an agenda in mind or not. If you can find any plausible other interpretation, then everything is fine.
“Look, my feet don’t feet these clodhoppers, I need a smaller size.”
“They’d fit if you had bandages from toe surgery.”
Buzz off.
‘Buzz off’
You misspelled ’waddle’.
You misspelled ’slither’.
One possibility is that those two paragraphs are intended to convey two different pieces of information.
You're kidding, right? I mean, when was the last time someone started a new paragraph to convey different information? Like, never, right?
This is not about drunk driving, it is about alcohol prohibition. It always was, and always will be. MADD is simple a bunch of useful fools for the prohibitionists.
Correct.
That's why the founder repudiated the organization.
The founder actually started DAMM
(Drunks Against Mad Mothers)
In the past four years, what are the chances Joe Biden could have passed a roadside sobriety test?
Pretty sure Kamala has chauffer driven limo stocked with wine boxes.
That dovetails well with her middle class upbringing.
Few people are aware of this but there was an unauthorized documentary about Kamala's childhood released some years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NeS4ueaU6w
Rare footage of her life in Canada.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7why8Xo_RQ&list=PL9E44FAA01FD0E42A&index=1
Nothin' blacker than a half Brahmin, 3/4 white Jamaican.
Rep. Andrew Clyde
@Rep_Clyde
Kamala Harris: “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible.”
Terrifying, disqualifying, and blatantly unconstitutional.
Video
https://x.com/Rep_Clyde/status/1836427929850454374
But now she owns a gun who nobody can tell us what kind.
Most underrated opening line of any film. "It was never easy for me..."
I can't pass a roadside sobriety test cold sober. I'm just old and clumsy. Walk a straight line heel to toe? Not on my best day.
Same here. Sobriety testing is elder abuse.
It's even worse than that. If you pass the "heel to toe" test, the "touch your nose" test, and the "counting/alphabet backwards" test, the cops will just keep upping the difficulty level of the test until you have to hop on one foot while patting your head and rubbing your tummy (in a circular, counterclockwise motion, of course). If they believe you are impaired, they will make you do test after test until they find the limit of your physical capabilities.
Need more data
Did the number of drunk driving deaths increase because the number of 'drunk driving' increased?
IOW, prior to 2019 a person with a BAC of .06 was not 'drunk' for purposes of the statistic, but after 2019 they would be 'drunk'
It makes sense that the change would increase 'drunk driving' deaths if all other things remain the same.
I agree with the gist of the article that lowering the BAC is not particularly effective.
Also Utah is a bad example as it is an almost dry state.
Yeah, it's not that dry anymore.
Like drug laws, drunk driving should be an additive crime given a victim. Just pulling people over who had 2 drinks but did not cause an accident and there is no victim is just revenue generation.
It used to be .155 then .10, then 0.08 when study after study showed distracted driving is equal to accident generation as 0.1.
I agree with you here.
Now he's going to have to change his mind because you agreed with him.
Hey buddy. This is projection again. That's you. Lol.
sarcasmic 8 months ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
I don’t consider links from you guys to be information. I’ve clicked a couple and never found them useful. It has to be from, or confirmed by, someone other than a raving right-wing lunatic for me to give it consideration.
*shrug*
You're the one who cares about the who bot the what retard. Lol.
If I was a loser like you I'd have bookmarked comments where you said you'd never acknowledge when someone you hate is right because they're never right, meaning you'd have to reevaluate your stance if they agreed with you.
But I'm not a loser like you.
Poor sarc, hates getting caught.
No you're not a loser like Jesse, because Jesse isn't a bitter, perpetually drunk troll whose daughter and wife hate him. Jesse has a better job than waffle house fry cook, and he was never homeless.
This is a good link:
https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/tyler-florence/the-ultimate-cuban-sandwich-recipe-1945003
Oh my god. Nobody in Maine has ever head of this food before. Who told you?!?
An illegal alien that started a manufacturing business and hired 75 locals paying them all six figure salaries was the one that educated my ignorant, antiquated, bitter clinger, and selfish lesser being about these.
Food trucks, FTW.
I noticed Sarc is all over this thread, which I totally expected because I doubt he's had a BAC under 1% since ever,
Oh look, ML's here.
So yesterday, you called Rick Perry a Nazi fascist because he was calling for "quarantine stations" to (allegedly*) stop the spread of Ebola in Texas, back in 2014. This was when there was literally a guy dying of Ebola in a Dallas hospital. According to ML and Jesse, a "quarantine station" is no different than a "concentration camp" which is no different than Auschwitz. Ergo, Rick Perry = Nazi.
So, ML, let's suppose it's 2014 and you're the governor of Texas - hell, let's just assume you're the Emperor of Texas and you can do whatever you want - and there is a guy dying of Ebola in a Dallas hospital. What do you do, if anything, and why? Oh, and there are a lot of scared
citizenssubjects who are afraid of dying from Ebola and are looking to you for guidance because you are their leader.I don't want to hear "Here is what I WOULDN'T do..." - I want to know what you WOULD do.
I don't want to hear "Here is what the Democrats WOULD do..." - I want to know what you WOULD do.
So, let's hear it.
* of course, we all know that the facade behind the Nazi concentration camps was to "cleanse" the nation of the "undesirables". So I suppose, when Rick Perry was demanding "quarantine stations" in 2014, and since "quarantine station" = "concentration camp" = "Auschwitz" then what he really wanted to do was to imprison and murder the undesirables of Texas. I guess, right? Is that the tortured logic here?
The tortured logic to equate Australian quarantines with concentration camps is similar to how gun grabbers define so-called assault weapons. It’s a combination superficial characteristics and mischaracterizations. Concentration camps had fences, gates and guards. That means quarantines are concentration camps. People who weren’t visibly sick were quarantined, and people who tested negative, but were suspected of being exposed, were put into quarantine. That makes them political prisoners, which makes quarantines concentration camps.
Meanwhile the people making that argument fully support gathering eleven million political scapegoats. Where are these politically undesirable people going to be housed? The country has one and a quarter million in prison. We’re talking eight or nine times as many people. Where will they be put while they await “trial” and “deportation”? The answer is obvious.
So the fact is that the people making that argument are full of shit. They fully support concentration camps if they hate the people in them.
This is fucking hilarious. Sarc got so abused about this yesterday. He kept fighting it’s use even given the definition. The extra hilarious part is that he used concentration-camp in reference to illegal immigrants. Those who committed a crime and faced a trial. While saying it was wrong to use it for covid camps without trial even when a citizen tests negative.
Sarc is not only retarded, he is an authoritarian. He even continues to add his own lies about his enemies despite it being very clear the people he hates were referring to illegals charged and convicted of crimes. Stated in the same very thread.
Retarded. Authoritarian. Statist. Liar.
Ad hominem for the win!
First, learn what the fuck that word means.
Next. Go to the original post Kreemjeff Compulsive Liar is talking about and note the the raging fat fuck was conflating locking up people who had tested positive with Ebola, with locking up people who had already tested negative for Covid.
Marvel at how he equates them as if nobody would notice what the fuck he is doing,
Interesting story from back a few years:
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/infectious-disease-specialist-dr-anthony-fauci-rejects-mandatory/story?id=26465651
Warn people about it and advise they use caution at their discretion when around other people?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Warn people about it and advise they use caution at their discretion when around other people?
"You mean, like wear masks? Fuck that, man. Masks are just a form of social control foisted upon us all by totalitarian progressives who are trying to use a scare about Ebola to force us all into a 1984-style dystopia. Why, Ebola is just a bad cold. I know this because all of my friends on Facebook say so. I don't trust your gubmint scientists or your gubmint advice at all. Fuck you and fuck that. I am going to go to an Ebola party so that I can get herd immunity and that is the best way to keep my family safe."
So when this is the predictable response from your subjects, then what? What's next, Emperor?
First you lying fat fuck. You want to explain to everyone here why your dishonest ass conflated quarantining people who tested positive for Ebola, with locking up people who had tested negative for Covid but had refused to lock down at home?
Because that is what the Aussies were doing. They weren’t just quarantining people with Covid but locking up those who had tested negative but wouldn’t stay in their houses. These internees didn’t have Covid and the authorities knew that, but they locked them up for going out.
And I know both you and Sarckles goosestepping Nazi asses remember this, but you’re still pretending it was like an actual quarantine.
This folks, is why I call Jeff a Nazi, and Sarckles a quisling. Because they will go to the wall to defend actual internment of uninfected who didn’t “respect authority”.
Fuck that fat Nazi and his drunken quisling toady.
Watch out ML. He is going to try to scare you now threatening to dox you.
Lol.
He's a dishonest piece of shit. He's pretending quarantining the infected is the same a interning the uninfected who disobeyed lockdown orders.
Fat fucking Nazi.
.05% is essentially one beer for guys. We are talking about arresting people for drinking after 1 friggen beer.
Below the surface here, is that it’s Utah, run by Mormons, and their faith doesn’t condone alcohol usage. Only two types of people drink in Utah: Gentiles, and sinning Mormons.
Real story. Attorney in another state gets pulled over at a late night DUI checkpoint. Asked to get out of his car, for a roadside sobriety test. Asked cops if he had to, or if he could go. Answer was that he would be arrested for DUI if he didn’t get out. Asked and answered several times, including with a supervisor. Finally arrested, taken and booked into jail. Blew .08%. Three cops and the defendant show up in court, ready for trial, to find that the judge had dismissed the case sua sponte. Turns out the state Supreme Court had determined a year or two earlier that a roadside sobriety test was for the purpose of finding probable cause, so arresting someone for refusing to take one was an admission of lack of such.
Fast forward, the attorney, several years later, takes a job in SLC, UT. And fails the character evaluation for the UT bar, on the grounds that he was determined by the bar authorities to be an alcoholic. All based on a single DUI arrest, with a BAC of .08%, dismissed sua sponte by the judge, presumably for lack of probable cause. It took hiring a “bar” attorney and an appeal to be allowed to sit for the UT bar.
Odd that attorneys would have so little respect for the rule of law. Hahahaha.
The argument made in the appeal, which may have been the reason for winning the appeal, was that the UT bar character panel could not utilize someone invoking their Constitutional rights against them to prevent them from sitting for the bar exam and be admitted to practice law in that state.
.1 used to be 3 drinks in an hour[or so they told me]
so .05 would be 1.5 drinks in an hour
So yeah that is not that high a level.
AGain I don't agree with .05, but all these idiots on this thread pretending drink driving is some made up problem are just that, idiots
I hope that you don’t that rule of thumb. It kinda works for larger males, but less for females (mostly because of weight but also because of different metabolisms and physiologies). And what is deceptive is that you apparently only burn off .015% per hour. So even one beer an hour for males for long enough can cross into Impaired territory. See:
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/dui/blood-alcohol-level-chart/
At a House hearing yesterday it was revealed that State was funding NGOs teaching immigrants how to lie regarding US asylum laws. State had been lying to Congress for over 2 years regarding this funding.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/issa-rips-state-department-for-spreading-knowingly-false-info-on-funding-migrant-counseling-enter-us
Apparently Hochul has been, for 6 months, disconnecting entire apartment buildings from gas lines. Something illegal for landlords to do. Forcing residents to turn to hot plates. Many of the buildings don't have electrical to switch ovens to non gas.
David Asman
@DavidAsmanfox
This is what we’ve been cooking with for the past 6 months. That’s when NY Gov Hochul turned off the NatGas in our building of 150 apts, as she’s doing all over Manhattan to regulate our most efficient, cheap, plentiful form of energy out of existence.
We’re going backwards.
https://x.com/DavidAsmanfox/status/1836906855399928266
How are the buildings heated? Central coal powered boiler? City steam generation?
Dead homeless people.
And unicorn farts.
So, whenever I read a story portraying someone from Jesse's opposing tribe doing something totally outrageous and cartoonishly villainous - the governor unilaterally turning off natural gas supplies to apartment buildings in New York! how cruel! - sourced only by an anecdote from some guy on Twitter, no links to any news articles or stories or anything, then my bullshit detector goes off.
So in 2023, NY State banned natural gas for NEW construction (with some exceptions). This is a bad idea, but it also does not appear to affect already existing construction.
In 2024, she tried to go further and proposed the NY HEAT act:
https://nysfocus.com/2024/04/19/new-york-heat-act-state-budget
But this bill was rejected by the NY State Assembly. So the state government doesn't have any power to turn off the natural gas from any random person's apartment building. Maybe this Twitter guy didn't pay his gas bill? Or maybe he is just lying, and pushing a 'fake but accurate' narrative. You know, like the one about Haitians in Springfield eating pets? Sure it's fake, but it's to call attention to the governor's terrible fossil fuel/climate change policies. Right?
Am reminded of the Russians that would 24/7 stream running their gas range tops on Twitch. Until Twitch banned them. At least these blue city, blue state subjects won’t be exposed to Russian trolling.
Would definitely help to keep Kamala in the basement. That lady lives at a minimum of .05
Be fair. Harris might have a brain with "inebriated" as a natural default state.
Power-madness runs wild.
Next thing you know there will be a 'sin' tax just for sinners.
Oh wait.
Maybe the best anyone can hope for is Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
As JesseAz states above,
"Like drug laws, drunk driving should be an additive crime given a victim. Just pulling people over who had 2 drinks but did not cause an accident and there is no victim is just revenue generation."
Maybe if we just taxed alcohol people would stop drinking and all of these problems would disappear. I'm shocked that no one has implemented this obvious solution.
Or just let the highly taxed free market work
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/other/booze-till-you-re-broke-over-75-of-new-yorkers-admit-to-financial-hangovers-after-drinking/ar-AA1qXsB9
Whatever.
Genuinely, do the writers of Reason (or it's contributors) care about places that they will never visit?
The worst drunk driving perpetrators are also often repeat offenders who appear to be impervious to any legal limit.
And hence why the death penalty needs to exist.
Some people will never be good to society.
Holy Shit! The planet is colder than it's ever been! But you still need to panic about Global Warming.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/scientists-have-captured-earth-s-climate-over-the-last-485-million-years-here-s-the-surprising-place-we-stand-now/ar-AA1qRbUP
Dude. "Global Warming" is so 90s.
It's "The Weather Changes" panic now.
Where Global Warming cherry-picked off the 1930s because it ran in complete contrast to the narrative. Today; Last-year gets cherry-picked off because yesterday Texas was so cold it froze the power. Course any ?real? scientist knows "Global Warming" actually caused these cold cold winters.. /s
The only real science to be found is the science of complete BS. 🙂
No widespread fraud.
https://twitter.com/Real_RobN/status/1836818113498862075?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1836818113498862075%7Ctwgr%5Ec5c0ed7c76f1130a782ff0b72253cb1387ee40b5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Frevolver.news%2Fnewsfeed%2F
the State of Nevada,
CONSPIRACY DAY NOVEMBER 3, 2020
Sen. Lankford:
• 42,000 people voted more than once,
• 1,500 resurrection of the dead,
• 19,000 didn't live in Nevada,
• 8,000 voted from a non-existent address,
• 15,000 registered to a commercial address,
• 4,000 illegal aliens.
• zero prosecutions.
42,000 people voted more than once: Fake number. This number was introduced in a court case, but when it got to court the plaintiffs were unable to show that any actual, named person voted twice, much less produce a roster of 42,000 confirmed offenders. The number was generated by doing things like ignoring Jr. & Sr. after names and counting undelivered or unaccounted for mail-in ballots as "voting" without evidence the vote was submitted and counted. It seems clear the people making the clam (Jesse Kamzol and Jesse Binnall) were unwilling to directly accuse individuals under oath.
It turns out some people did vote twice in Nevada, e.g. five (5) were found in Clark County. Not by Trump's amateur detectives, but by the election officials.
Zero prosecutions:
"Donald “Kirk” Hartle, 56, a registered Republican, was facing two charges relating to the 2020 election. In court last November, Hartle pleaded guilty to one charge of voting more than once in the same election. Hartle had reached a deal with prosecutors to avoid prison time and to change his plea after a year."
42,000 people voted more than once: Fake but accurate number.
there, fify
How cute. You think there is no fraud if the DA refuses to prosecute.
Please. Defend the latest regarding Fulton County that just got revealed this year regarding 3 different totals and 15k ballots without images. Or the thousands of double votes GA admitted to but refused to prosecute.
I'm sure you can actually provide evidence of your rebuttal by the way. And explain the registered voters at hotels, casinos, gas stations, etc.
We know. Gov knows best with you. They would never lie to you. Trust government.
There is no fraud when it never happens
moron
15k ballots without images
Here's the story on "15k ballots without images".
https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/claims-that-17690-ballot-images-from-the-2020-presidential-election-are-missing-idUSL1N2S31Z0/
First, it's 17k ballots, not 15k. (OMG more frauds!)
Second, the ballot images were kept for the duration of time required by law. Evidently, when that time period ended, the ballot images were erased.
Should they have kept the ballot images longer? I don't know. They weren't required to, so why should they have? Incidentally the law has been changed now, so they are now required to keep the ballot images longer.
And Jesse, it isn't about whether you "trust government" or not. It is about discovering the truth about the objective reality of the world we live in, regardless of who is the messenger of that truth. It would be false to state that a claim must be true if the government says so; but it would ALSO be false to state that a claim must be FALSE if the government says so.
He doesn't give a shit about "discovering the truth." That would mean changing his mind when the information changes. No, he makes up his mind, searches for information that confirms what he feels, and attacks anyone with information that contradicts it.
Sarc only talks about ideas, not people, therefore, this post does not exist.
So in summary.
The DA didn't prosecute so ... No Fraud.
The erased images (nobody knows why) was legal ... No Fraud.
Attention loss and Ignorance covers everything else mentioned in post ... No Fraud.
etc, etc, etc, all evidence of fraud ..... No Fraud.
"NOTHING; Absolutely NOTHING will ever be election fraud when Trump loses ... course when some Russian people buy Facebook Ads against Hillary; those 'Ads' of course are the only 'election fraud' that matters. Those 'Ads' will require years of congressional investigation.", Sarc & Chemjeff.
zero prosecutions because it is all imaginary
friggin morons
but but people are sayin
…and video is showing.
…and tabulations are showing.
I was skeptical of the validity of Mr. Pillows China IP-Log connections with voting machines; until he lost his case solely on the grounds that he couldn’t prove those China connections actually caused voter fraud. Cementing in the fact the logs were legitimate.
As the whole ‘election fraud’ story has gone. The opposition hasn’t defeated ANY of the claims. They’ve literally witch-hunted the claimers instead and nothing screams that louder than Trumps endless election-claims charges.
How many zombies ate those attempting to vote? If the zombies ate the wannabe voters before they voted does the zombie get their vote?
Repeat drunk posters should require passing a Bluetooth connected breathalyzer before any subsequent posts.
That would clear the place out.
Took us years to get an edit function. No way will Reason finance your utopian comment board fantasies. Koch money doesn't grow on trees. It requires millions of undocumented slave laborers. But you obviously don't give a shit about them. You heartless bastard.
What about children? I hear they work cheap.
The worst drunk driving perpetrators are also often repeat offenders who appear to be impervious to any legal limit.
Now let's talk about gun control.
People are dying!
Think of the children.
The last refuge of a tyrant. The chilren.
Not really. Tests have shown no real degradation in driving ability until .10% or so BAC.
Cite?
In case you missed this next door at Volokh, a Democrat articulates his policy differences with 6 unnamed SC justices,
January 4, 2024: "I'd like to see [Former President 1 and Supreme Court Justice 1] hanging together from an Oak tree. I'd gladly provide the rope and pull the handle."
May 10, 2024: "Subject: N***** [Supreme Court Justice 1]", "I'd like to see you have a real lynching and I'll donate the tree and pull the lever… you worthless piece of n***** shit."1
May 16, 2024: "I would have had NO reservations about walking up to [Supreme Court Justice 2] and not asking him to take it down but to put a BULLET in this mother fuckers head."
May 17, 2024: "I'm going to call and urge my fellow Vietnam veterans… to drive by the [Supreme Court Justice 2]'s house with their AR15's and when fucking [Supreme Court Justice 2] and his fucking PIECE OF SHIT CUNT WIFE are HOME spray the home of these disrespectful mother fuckers with hundreds of rounds… hopefully killing these SCUMBAG COCKSUCKERS. Hopefully N***** [Supreme Court Justice 1] and his white trailer trash n***** loving insurrectionist wife are visiting."
June 18, 2024: "I don't want to see these two corrupt mother fuckers assassinated… I'd like to see them TORTURED worse than Kim Jung Un would torture his own family. You know, like putting electrodes up their ass and on their balls, needles under their finger nails, pulling their teeth with pliers, etc etc. Make these SCUMBAGS beg for their lives."
July 1, 2024: "ASSASSINATING THESE COCKSUCKERS IS THE ONLY PANACEA… that includes the CONVICTED CRIMINAL, [Former President 1]. Again as an AMERICAN and to defend the constitution and democracy I want the assassinations by any ENTITY of the government or even a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN to commence. And PLEASE start with the assassination of the N***** and HERMAPHRODITE. As a Vietnam veteran and if I had the means and way I'd assassinate them myself. These fuckers are NOT ABOVE THE LAW."
July 3, 2024: "WE NEED MASS ASSASSINATIONS. If you're corrupt you're corrupt… don't give us this official and unofficial bullshit. You mother fuckers are UNELECTED and Americans have no trust in you. The internet is abuzz with Americans clamoring for your ASSASSINATIONS. We need to assassinate you fuckers and put your heads on a pike and use them as soccer balls. I want to be the first to kick [Supreme Court Justice 6] head down Pennsylvania Ave. You don't want to ask me what I'd like to do to the N***** and [Supreme Court Justice 2]."
July 5, 2024: "We should make [Supreme Court Justices 1-6] be AFRAID very AFRAID to leave their home and fear for their lives everyday."
I recall the wood chipper incident where several commenters got in legal trouble by posting hyperbole regarding the southern NY US attorney.
Sounds like the mirror image of Nardz.
Sounds like those two Act Blue donors that attempted to assassinate Trump.
I heard they were conservatives, like all Act Blue donors.
Oak trees have handles? Someone needs to go back to hanging school.
My Fav.. The head bimbo for MADD, got busted for a DUI. Lol. Pass the bottle.
0.05 we is ginna bust your ass.
The real issue about .05 isn't making the roads safer. This is a Neo-puritanism. "The lips that touch wine shall never touch mine." Next it will go down to .04. It won't matter if it results in less drunk driving fatalities or not. It is a form of virtue signaling.
^THIS
...with 33%+ sucking off the gov-tit for a living what else are they suppose to do to feel significant?
The 'virtue signaling' tyrant is but a monster of the welfare state.
.05? Makes about as much sense as prosecuting someone for being under the influence for having smoked cannabis a week prior. Might be able to raise revenue but you’ll be fucking over a lot of lives.
…but you’ll be fucking over a lot of lives.
Feature, not a bug.
If NHTSA publishes a report calling for more traffic regulation, your first assumption should be that NHTSA is lying.
I wonder how many accidents are caused (and therefore injuries) by roadside campaign signs during election season.
Only the Trump signs. The Harris signs only bring joy.
Well, at least one was reported here; the guy that ran off the road to hit the old guy putting up a Trump sign.
That wasn't an accident. It was assault with a deadly weapon.
Never mind the fines and driving courses.
Take what ever car was being driven by the drunk off the road for 90 days.
The problem is that we learn to drive sober. If we had drivers ed while drunk, we wouldn't be impaired.
It us acceptable to drink and drive as long ad one is consuming Bud Light while behind the wheel of a Ford Raptor.
Wrong. Only Ford Lightning drivers are allowed to drive drunk.
"Will Cutting the BAC Limit to .05 Really Make Our Roads Safer?
Utah’s experiment with stricter drunk driving laws has led to more fatalities, not fewer. The push for lower BAC limits is missing the real problem."
C. Jarrett Dieterle is correct.
Eliminate all drunk driving laws.
That way there will be no drunk drivers.
It's all very logical if you look at it from the left's point of view.
Cops spend time busting thesoccer mom for blowing .06 while the good old boys blast on down the road pumping .18 through their veins.
Impaired drivers either don't think they are impaired, or don't care.
Either way, they have no idea what their BAC is. Regardless of the legal limit, it has little if any effect on impaired drivers being on the road.
Go watch Jim Babka's take on this. It may surprise you.
https://rumble.com/v5hzkp0-ep108-how-can-you-say-dui-is-not-a-crime-gracearchy-with-jim-babka.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp