February 18, 1996's Question
From: Bob Morrow <bobm@msn.fullfeed.com> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 00:18:58 GMT BAC levels should be like speed limits: at the point where accident involvement starts to shoot upward, then it's time for action. In this example, most people getting tagged for DWI today blow about a .17 on the BAC scale, well over the .10 (.08) limit. This suggests to me that the lower BACs are merely getting more people in trouble when they're not doing anything that seriously endangers themselves or others. Sweden has a BAC of .02, but the average driver still blows a .17 when caught. It suggests that .17 is a physiological limit, beyond which motor skills are seriously degraded (and therefore, you _deserve_ to be stopped) You can be stopped for DWI even if you have a .03 BAC, regardless of "per se" laws. But-few if anyone shows impairment at that level, so this new federally-mandated .02 BAC for drivers under 21 is a waste of paper. It sounds good yet will do little, like most of the laws the anti-everything people want enacted. From: James Matthew Mullins, Jr. >mullins@wvnvm.wvnet.edu< Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 23:41:22 GMT I totally agree with current efforts to reduce the legal BAC limit. A BAC of 0.08 percent is what occurrs when a 170-pound man consumes, on an empty stomach, at least four beers in less than one hour while not eating. That's borderline on binge drinking. Get real! The second thing is the BAC limit for those under 21. The limit for those under 21 should be 0.00 percent. This should be the limit for those under 21 since it is illegal for those under 21 to drink alcohol. No alcohol will show up on your breath or blood unless it was consumed. No alcohjol will show up even if you had intimate contact with someone who was obviously drunk. So it sounds to me like the idea of raising BAC limits was concocted by someone who has been caught for DUI at least a few times. Get with it! From: Richard Rogers <RR2895@student.law.duke.edu> Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 11:53:51 -0500 (EST) I don't know. I was thinking that raising it might be right, but then it snowed this past Thursday night and I rethought that POV because Thursday is a big party night at Duke. Maybe the BAC should be like the speed limit--hard to determine any one right level, so let it differ from place to place. I think a lower BAC in college towns (lots more people drinking) or cities (more traffic) than you would apply in small towns or rural areas would be appropriate. I just don't know what I think the number should be. Concerning the under-21 thing, well, although it no longer affects me I think that the drinking age is too high, so I don't support a zero BAC. I also recognize there is a problem in the respect that people who go to an evening church service may get in trouble with the cops (theoretically not since you don't take much out of the cup, but I don't know much about BAC and how it works so I acknowledge a potential problem). So why not some sort of 85th-percentile thing on the BAC as well? From: Cameron Dewe <dewcam@topnz.ac.nz> Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 19:21:41 -0500 (EST) For an international perspective, some comments from New Zealand. Yes there should be Blood Alcohol Limits but the social acceptability and probability of being caught should be considered also. The habitual drinking driver should be stopped dead in his tracks, before he ends up stopping others dead in theirs. To achive this in New Zealand we have legislation that allows the Police force to stop and test drivers at random for such things as drinking and driving. (It is also done for vehicle safety and registration/licencing) The test procedure is multilayered and apparently effective. The law abiding driver is stopped asked to state their name and address into a Breath Alcohol sniffer which gives a pass or fail result. If the test is a pass the driver is allowed to continue unimpeded. A failed test results in a more rigorous and scientific breath screening process. A Blood Sample is only taken if the Driver fails the breath screening test. And it is all done at the roadside in a specially designed "Booze Bus" At these Checkpoints almost all drivers are happy to be tested and at latest reports they pass. The radio news will often have the results of the last day or night's checkpoints. Apparently only 0.1% to 0.5% of New Zealand drivers now drive with a Blood Alcohol Limit in excess of 0.08 (The legal limit) (Reduced to 0.03 for inexperienced/learning drivers = had licence to drive less than 2 years). The Police force have also changed their attitude at these checkpoints Generally, they are friendly and helpful. They are there to do the job with a minimum of inconveience and delay. They don't nitpick. And they appear to want to stop everyone but not hold them up! (Pull in here, no queue, no waiting, test, pass, free to go.) Police attitude really helps to enforce the law reasonably. This together with an agressive and graphic TV advertising campaign appear to have resulted in the lowest annual road toll in 30 years!. Just a final note on the messages in TV advertising. "Don't drink and drive" => "If you drink and drive your a bloody idiot" and => "One way or another you will be stopped" also => "Country People Die on Country Roads" (Rural DWI Problem) and also => "Any where, Any place, Any time." (Police Random Stopping Policy) "Speed Kills" => "SLOW DOWN" The TV commercials are literally hard hitting and show the cause and effect of drinking and driving or driving too fast. There is a lot of blood and dead people in several commercials. One commercial is even made in 2 versions to avoid too much gratuitous violence on prime time children's television. The (slightly) more graphic commercials tend to appear after 8:30 pm. But they all tend to give an uncomfortable feeling. A responsible attitude to Alcohol and Driving should be held by every driver. Unfortunately, a tiny minority make it extremely dangerous for the vast majority. That is why Blood Alcohol Limits exist. The Public Demand something to be done and Politicians keep on doing it until the public demand for moderation becomes a outcry. Until the accident statistics have "lack of alcohol in the blood" as a significant contributing factor to a motor vehicle crash, or the enforcement regeime becomes oppressive, or too expensive, the politicians will always try to lower the blood alcohol limit. After all those who DO drink and then drive ARE BLOODY IDIOTS, and BLOOD and IDIOTS are two things that should not be on the road anywhere in the world. From: andrew@clark.net Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 02:07:56 -0500 (EST) i think bac levels should stay low. too many people drive while under the influence and they see nothing wrong with it. it is a dangerous thing to do not only for yourself but for everyother driver, and pedestrian on the roads. drunk driving should not be tolerated!! From: mjmadde@AOL.com Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 11:03:30 -0500 (EST) BAC limits should be .08 for adults! .00 for under 21! We must move away from the notion "I'm OK to drive, I've only had a few!" etc. etc. We neither permit or even seriously contend that bus drivers, train engineers/drivers, motormen, pilots etc. have alcohol in their systems when they are working! Logically, there is no reason it should be permitted when one is behind the wheel of a very powerful instrument!