http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324715704578483082692342210.html
I’m really tired of random numbers the government pulls out of its you-know-what. I trust myself on the road with a 0.15% BAC a lot more than some of the drivers I just encountered today.
did you read the article? it’s hardly a random number. it’s been well tested and studied in real world situations it sounds like.
I know that I do not trust myself at .08 in fact I don’t think I would trust myself at .05. for me, at… let’s just go with 200 lb. it’s close enough :
I can have a drink and then drive or two or three drinks over an evening with food and drive. that’s where I feel safe and I think I likely am, although not as safe as I would be on no booze at all.
very nearly everyone that get’s behind the wheel when they shouldn’t thinks that THEY can be trusted more that those other guys. I am not saying that you are an unsafe driver but if I was hanging out without and you had enough booze to be at .15 I would not get in a car with you and I would STRONGLY suggest that you at least wait a while before driving.
If everyone would be responsible, rational, and honest with themselves and others about their current level of safe driving ability all the time then we wouldn’t need BAC limits but they aren’t and we do. and it does in fact reduce fatalities. Driving in public is a privilege not a right.
Come on Google Cars!!
I stand by my convictions. And I expect to be in the minority. But mark my words: in a few years there will be a “study” that recommends a 0.03% BAC before it’s lowered to the real objective of zero tolerance.
I have no problem with a 0.05% BAC, but admittedly I will have to change my habits a bit to ensure that I comply. This will hurt my local breweries (especially the bar staff) and be offset by additional purchases at my LHBS.
I wonder what my BAC was after judging the latest homebrew comp? I know I wasn’t up above 0.1…but might have been at 0.05%.
I wonder where the BA and AHA are with this? It seems like bad publicity to come out publicly against, but also could be potentially bad for business and add to member’s liability.
I refuse to drink any amount and drive, so I have no problem with a zero tolerance policy. It’s just not a risk I’m willing to take. Now, drinking and bicycling, or drinking and walking, I’m fine with.
I wish I could claim that sort of high ground (refusal to imbibe when needing to drive), but most people don’t realize that operating a bicycle is just as illegal as driving with a BAC that exceeds 0.08%…
Just as illegal, yes, but much less likely to kill someone else. Maybe yourself, but there’s not much damage you can do to someone else. A few people die each year due to cyclist caused accidents, vs. tens of thousands of people per year due to motorists.
I could support this if it came with other changes to the laws.
1. Open containers are legal. Is drinking a beer more distracting than a soda? Is having a bunch of drunk guys drinking in the car less distracting than having a bunch of drunk guys drinking in the car while you make your way to the next place? I’d even support a tiered limit, lower if there is an open container.
2. Rezone to allow more bars near houses. The closest brewery to my house is about nine miles away. The nearest pub is over four miles. The nearest place to buy packaged beer is the grocery store over a mile away. If there was a bar in my neighborhood we would hang out there, now we just rotate houses between about five families. I miss living in the city 
We also need to invest money in things like google’s self-driving car, with no requirement that the person in the car be in control. I would totally let that thing drive me everywhere even if I wasn’t drinking. I could nap, read, talk on the phone, whatever. I would pay for that. If the self-driving car isn’t safe enough, set it up like a drone where someone somewhere else could take control if needed or the whole time if required. It would be cheaper than a cab because it is your car, and you could charge $0.50 per minute to have someone remotely do the driving. GPS mapping so you don’t need to tell the person where you are going, you type in a destination and wait for someone to log on and drive you there. When they are done they park and switch to the next car so they can keep getting paid. Damn, I really want that. I don’t mind driving in general, but sometimes it feels like a complete waste of time.
i hate going anywhere more than a few miles from home now.
This may not be popular, but…
Nothing that every begins with “A recent study” or “A recent survey” ends well and has much validity. This will not end drunk driving, it will just lower the threshold at which someone can be ticked/cited. The people who are going to drink a fifth of liquor and drive are still going to drink a fifth and drive. Those who slam a 12 pack and cut doughnuts are still going to do it. What it might do is make those of us who do have a beer and go home think should I have that next beer or not. Will I have enough time to absorb the alcohol or should I race home immediately to be sure the alcohol has not been absorbed yet. Many of us already use a similar litmus test and for those of us who do it really won’t be that much of a change.
I gotta say I despise stuff like this. I do realize driving drunk can hurt others, but driving at a 0.06 vs a 0.05 probably would not. Certainly it has been proven talking on a cell phone or sleep deprived is more dangerous than 0.08, but there I go pointing out a survey. I have always worn a seat belt since my very first car came without them and I asked my father to help me install them so I could stop sliding across the vinyl. I don’t need a law to tell me to wear my seatbelt. If I choose not to wear it, that should be my choice to be stupid. Same thing with motorcyle helments. If you want to be an idiot, more power to you. Now I don’t condone someone blowing 0.20 when the legal limit is 0.08, but choosing a number because “more than 100 countries” have done it is about as smart as you jumping off the cliff because your friends think it is a good idea.
I see a blog post in the making. 
Can’t come soon enough, IMHO. I don’t understand why I have to be on the road with people who have three or four DUIs.
Edit: I fail at reading comprehension. By “zero tolerance” I was referring to consequences, not the actual number.
As a firefighter who has responded to many people who have gotten in a vehicle accident and injured others because they thought they knew better; as a military person who has been preached too about the dangers of BAC’s (beyond my desire to hear it any more) and as someone who is living in England and home of the walk to the pub culture; if you think you are ever capable of driving after drinking then you need to stop drinking or move closer to the pub so that you can walk there and back. Our system in the states sucks that everything is designed towards the need of a car to get around but it doesn’t mean we need to drive after drinking. If you feel the need to drink and drive then you need to either brew more beer at home, move closer to friends who you drink with or live next to a pub like I do.
The idea of drinking and driving is one that may have worked years ago but it does not now. If you have not had to cut someone out of a car because they were too stupid to not drink and drive or those that were injured because of your actions, then you are obviously part of the problem.
In the PA coal region, neighborhood bars that literally double as people’s homes are a common thing. However, a friend of mine was busted for trying to walk home, which was three doors away from a bar. An undercover liquor control guy followed him outside.
What was the charge? Walking while intoxicated? Public staggering/shuffling? Excessive eye watering?
Paul
Public drunkenness. If they want ya, they’re gonna get you. The PA Liquor Control Board (they control distribution and enforcement, that’s another discussion) is famous (infamous?) for overstepping its boundaries.
Another thing to be happy I live in Iowa for. Here you can’t be arrested because they watched you have some drinks. You actually have to do something that gives them probable cause. Walking three houses down to go home, assuming you don’t start screaming, throwing things or wondering out into the street may get you watched by an officer who happens to be around but they’ll leave you alone if you make it home. Most officers will help you get to your door if you’re weaving. It seems hard to believe that there wasn’t more to the story but I don’t live there so I’ll take your word for it.
Paul
Can’s say I’m totally surprised. PA is kind of known for it’s bizarre and backwards liquor laws as well the overzealous folks on the liquor control board who ‘enforce’ the law.
[quote]PA is kind of known for it’s bizarre and backwards liquor laws as well the overzealous folks on the liquor control board who ‘enforce’ the law.
[/quote]
Words to remember when we are all in Philly next month.
I do know of more than one college towns setting up DUI checkpoints on bike paths…the 0.05% BAC limit can more easily be abused…