Jeez....more than one drink and yer done...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/us...oard.html?_r=0

 

Just about! This chick knows what that will do. Smart!

That's EXACTLY right!

Personally, I think something else is going on lol.

 

Doesn't bother me at all since I'm already at Zero Tolerance with my CDL but I think Jbrew is right and this may just be a redirect so people focus on this instead of something else they're trying to slide by.

 

This sounds like more people that don't know what they're doing are in charge and making decisions. I agree that it will only hinder law-abiding citizens and do nothing against those that get behind the wheel while legitimately drunk. Let's not forget that the BAC was .10 (and higher in some states) not long ago, it has already been lowered. And I definitely would not be surprised if this a distraction for something else they're pushing and don't want us to find out about or pay attention to

 

Get the tinfoil hats on...

Adrianspeeder

 

The powers that be put this in place here last year. I don't mind the .05 limit so much but the fact that they impound your vehicle on the spot and take your license away until your court date (which is currently about an 8 month wait) is not cool. We apparently don't have rights here and are guilty until proven innocent. You can get your license back faster if you plead guilty right away, which is clearly what they want. My golfing buddy got busted about two weeks after this law came into effect. He lost his license for 8 months and when he went to court the crown prosecutor wanted to push his court date as he was not ready to try his case. The judge threw his case out of court and he got his license back. How is that fair?

 

It's .04 here in Sask. I dug into the whole drunk driving thing back in January. Turns out here in Saskatchewan there were 367 people on the roads. 33% of them alcohol was deemed to be a factor. 33% is a fairy large number isn't it? So I dug a little deeper into the fatalities on Saskatchewan roads. Bet you can't guess how many people here died on the roads that worked in the oil patch. 80% of fatalities on Sask roads were people working in the oil patch. That is JUST the people driving to and from work and people on shift driving from site to site. The province covers up these numbers and hides them from the general public. They have been pushing this 33% on everyone and their dog.

Now lets say say that 33% of the oil patch workers were indeed "impaired" and crunch the numbers further. So you factor out the oil patch worker fatalities, and you are left with 73.4 people. round it up to 74 people. So 74 people died on our roads that didn't work in the oil patch. Now using the same 33% of the people being under the influence. We are left with 24.6 people or round it to 25 people. So 25 people were killed on our roads that were not working in the oil patch and were impaired. That is 6.8% of the fatalities where "alcohol was deemed to be a factor." This was just me breaking down some numbers. When I say "alcohol was deemed to be a factor" that comes directly from the source. Notice they don't say it was the cause of the collision or fatality but it was a "factor."

 

Arkansas has similar laws that you are guilty until you can prove you're innocent. They take your license away on the spot and you can not drive without the blow 'n go in your car. It is common practice for the DA to stall the case until right at the time the 6 month suspension is up.

The lower limit is not about safety, it's about money. I personally think the limit should be .10. At this level most people are not any worse drivers than they already are. But of course this would stop the money from rolling in and boy does it. I looked at the AR laws and 1/2 of the DWI fines go straight to the police retirement fund. How about that for being objective when applying the law?

 

I'm not condoning drinking and driving in any way, but IMO a state should be able to set their own standard without being strong armed by Washington DC.

FWIW, I was nearly killed in a head-on collision with a drunk driver over 30 years ago. I think the legal limit back then was 0.12%, maybe it had just been dropped to 0.10%. Anyways, this guy was way Way WAY over the limit and had multiple priors.

IMO, serial drunk drivers who routinely operate at 0.2% and above are the ones out there killing people. The guy who has a 2nd beer at an office party - not so much.

 

Exactly! But if the state can make $500 a pop from a guy that is now at .05 vs .08 they are going to take it. If the cop says you're guilty in the state's eyes you are unless you drop several thousand to fight the charges and then beating the charge is a crap shoot. In the mean time you have to rent the blow 'n go from a list of "approved" places. Guess what, the state is the one that sets the list and more times than not getting on the list is a matter of who in power you know.

I'm all for safer roads but this isn't about safety. It's about making money any way possible.

 

Ahh, but those in favor of the change will say if it saves JUST ONE life, it's worth it (making tens of millions of law abiding people into criminals).

 

Governments are running out of money. This is just one more way to get more revenue, along with reducing the amount of time it takes for a stoplight to go from yellow to red.

 

The entire drinking and driving issue has become nothing but a huge cash cow for governments and the legal system!

My best friend is a successful DWI / Criminal Defense attorney and he will tell you that once you are ticketed, 96% of what is going to happen to you has already been pre-determined. The legal system largely preys on folks caught in this predicament by creating the illusion that if they hire the right attorney, they can somehow escape the financial morass they are facing.

In reality, pretty much the only way they can escape their fate is if the authorities mess up the "processing" of the event, in which case some people can obtain relief via a technicality of the law.

When a situation gets to this point, it is by it's very definition, a RACKET.......

 

I enjoy an ice cold beer just as much as anyone else, but I think .05 is BS! It should be zero tolerance across the board.

Then there is no "I thought i was under .08", or "I only drank one an hour". If there was a zero tolerance law, then if you drink at all, then you know you would be illegal to drive.

All this new gun law bull over recent shootings, but yet thousands are killed every year by drunk drivers. Government's answer? Lower the legal percentage by 3 hundredths of ONE percent.

 

They are changing the blood alcohol standard by 3/8, or 37.5%.

Zero tolerance? You want to eliminate all bars and sit down restaurants? No beer at the ball game? No glass of wine at a fancy restaurant?

Face it, people enjoy an adult beverage when they are socializing with friends and family, before driving home. It's done responsibly billions of times per year in this country. Oh, and the 'sin taxes' on booze are very high. How is that going to be made up?

Just because some people can't handle freedom does not mean I want to give up mine.

If you are impaired, you should not drive, and if you do drive, you should be punished (severely if you hurt someone). OTOH. If you are an average size adult male and you have two drinks over the course of 2 to 3 hour event, you should not have to worry about the government ruining your life because you got (safely) behind the wheel.