Lowering legal limit to .05?

[Patton]

I was surprised to learn that a typical male of 180 pounds hits .08 at 4 drinks in an hour. I would have thought it was less drinks than that. If I were to have 4 drinks in one hour, I know I can't drive.

I have had a lot of alcohol detection training, a lot more than your average police officer. There is a way to calculate exactly what a persons BAC will be but I have always thought it was extremely inaccurate.
During some of our controlled wet labs I have seen a ~180ish pound male down a 6 pack of 12oz beers and then 20 min later blow a .14, 20 min later he blew a .16. The killer of it all was that he was way under .08 a hour after being .16. it blew our minds how fast he sobered up.
I have seen really small women drink 3 beverages and do horrible on SFST's and only reach .07.
I had a friend when I was in the Army give blood and drink beer an hour later. On my portable machine (just as accurate) 7 beers got him over a .2

[Stegall Law Firm]

O Shoot, yes it's one year license revocation for first offense or for violation of implied consent. Restricted license avail for work, school, interlock appointments and court ordered functions like alcohol class.

With CDLs it depends on the state. Tennessee doesn't have a lower threshold but in MS it's .04. Edited May 16, 2013 by Stegall Law Firm

[Guest nra37922]

Like keeping guns out of the hands of criminals we are not going to be able to keep drunks from driving.  My solution would be hard jail time with no parole, 1st offense 1 yr, 2nd offense 5 yrs, 3rd offense 15 years, 4th offense gone for good.  Drunk driving homicides become murder charges.  Celebrities, politicians etc receive no slack as the penalties are cut and dry...

[dlm37015]

show me a law that makes drunks stop driving i will be for it

but laws dont change people its all about money

[Stegall Law Firm]

Dave hits it on the head. The money. And not just from defendants. Federal money. Grants for highways and such. It's what they did to get everyone to go to .08.

[Photoguy67]

My personal choice, if alcohol touches my lips, I don't drive.

[Sam1]

Mr. Stegall, heard this on the radio earlier and couldn't make up my mind one way or another..  Since you work in the field, do you have access to any statistics that would show how many people in TN (or any state) are arrested for whatever reason (road blocks, accidents etc...) with an alcohol content over .08, and those who are between .05-.079?

 

I'm not sure that is the proper way to say it, am just looking for some metrics that would justify the changes.

 

It just sounds like another way to generate revenue more than producing additional safety buffers.  And no one should take me as one that likes drunks on the road cause I'll call the cops on anyone, including family members - my grandma was killed by a drunk driver.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Sam1

[Wyldk2]

My personal choice, if alcohol touches my lips, I don't drive.

This^ 

 

One reason why i keep a change of clothes in my car, In case drinking gets out of hand, I'll spend the night. No level of intoxicity is worth taking a chance at a DUI or worse, taking a life.

 

New laws won't solve the problem, just will increase the ammount of revenue for the state( federal and state).

 

Texting laws don't work, even though it is a dangerous action( any action which distracts the driver is dangerous itself). The only way to get to Driving While Texting (DWT) drivers is education on the matter. If all phone makers would make something in their phones which would stop texting(while driving over 10 mph) maybe the problem itself would be reduced. You can never eliminate a problem.

 

These laws are the lawmakers excuses to solving a problem, By generating revenue in which may get some, but not all. Reducing .08 to a ,05 may not sound like much. But it will catch someone who isn't aware they may be over some limit. It is stupid IMO to lower the limit.

[Guest RedLights&Sirens]

It's my understanding ANY measurable amount in a commercial vehicle is DUI.

Yes, it is.

But with a CDL if you blow over .4 in your PERSONAL car, you can be charged and lose your license.

Murgatroy nailed it. You are automaticaly and legaly held to a higher standard when pulled over even in your car. I was pulled over in Oakland a few weeks ago for doing 59 in a 45 in my Stratus. The officer was very freindly and didnt take my gun when I informed him. He gave me a huge lecture on the standards of CDL holders and finaly let me go on a warning. I knew better and I listened patiently to him and he could have justifiably been a lot worse.

[Patton]

Since you work in the field, do you have access to any statistics that would show how many people in TN (or any state) are arrested for whatever reason (road blocks, accidents etc...) with an alcohol content over .08, and those who are between .05-.079?
 
.

I have never seen those numbers broken down but the .05-.79 crowd is probably only about 5% of dui arrested folks.. We see these numbers come up more in instances of vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, minors and similar. These people in most all states are guilty by statute already at under .08 though.

[mikegideon]

Can't we just shoot the next 10 people that propose any new laws? :)

[AirCav]

Yes, it is.

 

But with a CDL if you blow over .4 in your PERSONAL car, you can be charged and lose your license.

 

Hmmm. I'm not so sure about that. As has been previously covered, you certainly can be charged without any bac measurement but I think that the ".04 private vehicle" thing is a widely believed urban legend. Anybody have a reference that says something different?

 

[url="http://criminaldefenseclarksville.com/legal-blog/dui-bac-limits/does-the-possession-of-a-commerical-drivers-license-mean-that-my-bac-percentatge-can-only-be-04-to-be-convicted-of-dui-while-operating-my-personal-vehicle/"]First link that came up[/URL]

 

55-50-405.  Violations -- Penalties -- Driving under the influence.

  (a)  (1) The commissioner shall suspend for at least one (1) year, a commercial motor vehicle operator who is found to have committed a first violation of:

      (A) Driving a commercial motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, or with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of four-hundredths of one percent (0.04 %) or greater;

[DaveTN]

I think that the ".04 private vehicle" thing is a widely believed urban legend. Anybody have a reference that says something different?

 

According to this Clarksville Attorneys website….

 

http://criminaldefenseclarksville.com/legal-blog/dui-bac-limits/does-the-possession-of-a-commerical-drivers-license-mean-that-my-bac-percentatge-can-only-be-04-to-be-convicted-of-dui-while-operating-my-personal-vehicle/

 

The legal limit for a person with a CDL operating their personal vehicle is .08, the same as a person with a regular driver’s license.  Recently I addressed this issue in the General Sessions Court for Montgomery County.  A service member of the US Army was arrested for DUI based on his possession of a CDL and having a BAC of .041 while operating his personal vehicle.  This case was dismissed on the merits.

 

But apparently the person was charged.

 

I use to hear that all the time when I was a cop in Illinois. It wasn’t true there then; I don’t know if it has changed.

 

The BAC is a non-issue for those that refuse. Most people that appear to be drinking are going to be asked to submit to a BAC test. If you refuse you are going to lose your license for a while over implied consent anyway.

 

If I could get a couple of facts across to young people about DUI it would be that it is not about “Drunk Driving”; it’s about BAC. You probably won’t consider yourself feeling “drunk” at .08. No one cares how you feel about that; you are impaired. The other thing is that DUI can end a young person’s career before it ever gets started.

 

Don’t drink and drive.

 

Sounds corny, but I’m sure there are plenty of stories here from people that were arrested for DUI; that will say they weren’t drunk. And we are only talking about the consequences of a DUI arrest; we aren’t even talking about the possibility of hurting or killing an innocent person.

[Murgatroy]

Hmmm. I'm not so sure about that. As has been previously covered, you certainly can be charged without any bac measurement but I think that the ".04 private vehicle" thing is a widely believed urban legend. Anybody have a reference that says something different?

 

First link that came up

 

55-50-405.  Violations -- Penalties -- Driving under the influence.

  (a)  (1) The commissioner shall suspend for at least one (1) year, a commercial motor vehicle operator who is found to have committed a first violation of:

      (A) Driving a commercial motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, or with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of four-hundredths of one percent (0.04 %) or greater;

Being in the industry, it is just easier to assume, and explain to my drivers that a single drink and getting behind the wheel can cost you your career.

 

When it comes to your livelihood, there is no need to gamble.

 

I don't drink period. I don't have issues with anyone else drinking. I just choose not to. 

[Motasyco]

In my opinion, more lives would be saved by outlawing the use of cell phones while driving than by changing the legal alcohol limit. 

[BigK]

I have nothing against alcohol consumption. In fact, I love a good drink as much as the next guy. However, I don't drink in public, because I carry everywhere I go. So, my only interest in this subject is about my right to be safe from drunk drivers, I will feel NO safer if the legal limit drops from .08 to .05. The people below .08 aren't the ones I'm the most concerned about.

It seems like in most of the DUI fatality stories I hear about the drunk driver is way over the legal limit. I'd like to see some stats, though, since I could be wrong on this. If a statistically significant percentage of accidents are caused by the .05 to .079 crowd or they make up a significant percentage of those who blow clean after failing a field sobriety test, I'm for changing the law. Edited May 16, 2013 by BigK

[bigbabysweets]

I was reminded of a story.....

I was driving home one night down 411 and there was a lady driving with her interior lights on. As we got a little closer we noticed she was working a cross word puzzle. A crossword puzzle while she was driving, at night, with interior lights on....

[Guest RedLights&Sirens]

I was reminded of a story.....

I was driving home one night down 411 and there was a lady driving with her interior lights on. As we got a little closer we noticed she was working a cross word puzzle. A crossword puzzle while she was driving, at night, with interior lights on....

Oh I would just love to get on my ambulance PA system and say something like, "21 Across is PAY THE #V@% ATTENTION TO THE ROAD!"

I catch flack from co-workers about using my horn and PA system at dangerous drivers. I simply tell them to go ahead and write me up for using warning devices at unsafe drivers. Ive blown my siren at a MFD ambulance who blew a yeild sign and almost side swiped me (non-emergency). MFD uses large commercial chasiss and is not something I want to get hit by while driving a tin can (ambulances shred apart in wrecks).

[Guest PapaB]

All these comments and not 1 on the most obvious point imho. Why is the NTSB wasting federal tax money on this issue? Driving laws, and their enforcement, belong to the individual states, not the feds. Here goes the federal gov't stepping on states rights yet again and not one person has complained. This is how they get away with it, they get us looking at the details of the thing so no one notices what's wrong with the big picture.

 

The NTSB should keep focused on national transportation issues within their purview such as commercial driving, rail and air transportation and stay out of the states individual responsibilities.

 

That being said, TN really needs to get tougher on dui's. I read about too many people getting a slap on the wrist when convicted of driving drunk for the 10th or 15th time and having permanantly lost their license 10 years ago. Those people need some serious jail time including having to watch actual video of the victims of drunk driving accidents at least once a week.

[Patton]

All these comments and not 1 on the most obvious point imho. Why is the NTSB wasting federal tax money on this issue? Driving laws, and their enforcement, belong to the individual states, not the feds. Here goes the federal gov't stepping on states rights yet again and not one person has complained. This is how they get away with it, they get us looking at the details of the thing so no one notices what's wrong with the big picture.

The NTSB should keep focused on national transportation issues within their purview such as commercial driving, rail and air transportation and stay out of the states individual responsibilities.

That being said, TN really needs to get tougher on dui's. I read about too many people getting a slap on the wrist when convicted of driving drunk for the 10th or 15th time and having permanantly lost their license 10 years ago. Those people need some serious jail time including having to watch actual video of the victims of drunk driving accidents at least once a week.

I agree on every aspect. Understand that states get teased with millions of dollars then states get bought off into following the NTSB's advice. Second, do we want to let serial killers, rapist, meth cooks and such people out of jail to make room for grandpa who has 4 DUI's in 4 years? I wish we did have room for the repeat DUI offenders but we don't. Edited May 18, 2013 by Patton

[DaveTN]

I agree on every aspect. Understand that states get teased with millions of dollars then states get bought off into following the NTSB's advice. Second, do we want to let serial killers, rapist, meth cooks and such people out of jail to make room for grandpa who has 4 DUI's in 4 years? I wish we did have room for the repeat DUI offenders but we don't.

Do you have people that don’t have the money to pay child support in jail?

[Patton]

Do you have people that don’t have the money to pay child support in jail?

You know the answer to that, but I can't think of a single one I know in jail for only that. I see a lot of them with revoked license for it though.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I never drink away from home except if staying in a hotel and have no forseeable need or intention to drive til the next day. If I decided to go out on the town for a drink, which doesn't even sound like fun nowadays, I'd take a cab. So the exact alcohol level doesn't personally concern me. Though I'm "anti too many laws" on general principle.

 

One BAC consideration, not advocating, merely mentioning-- Decades ago when I worked in substance abuse counseling, research had shown that pot and alcohol strongly potentiate each other. Maybe since then that research has been invalidated, dunno.

 

Some people (not all) have metabolisms such that their driving capacities are not strongly impaired by a marijuana buzz, but supposedly marijuana combined with even ONE beer can impair many people worse than MANY beers but no pot.

 

So if pot use can be expected to become increasingly common then maybe the lowered BAC levels would make some kind of weird logic. I'm such an out of touch old hermit, haven't the remotest guess how common pot is nowadays, but it would have to be crazy common to exceed levels of use in the 1960's and 1970's.

 

Having a policy of never drinking away from home, only forseeable issue I can see is a home emergency after taking a drink. Most emergencies involving humans, one could just go to the emergency room via cab or ambulance. But for instance if a pet was to get real sick at 2 in the morning, dunno. I'm not aware of pet ambulance services. Dunno if a cabbie would be real eager to transport a sick dog to the emergency animal clinic.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[Will Carry]

There are 50,000 new laws in this country every year. Sooner or later we will all be criminals and have no rights. The "Po-Po" will be able to pick us up any time for any thing.

Freedom and Liberty will be something we read about in old history books, if they don't burn them all.

 

Don't get me wrong. I am not condoning driving drunk. Driving drunk is irresponsible and can get people hurt or killed. Becuase I carry concealed I cannot have any alcohol in my system at all.  If I drink at all it will be one or two before diner.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Will Carry

[Oh Shoot]

....research had shown that pot and alcohol strongly potentiate each other. Maybe since then that research has been invalidated, dunno.

 

Can personally validate it, at least as far as the synergistic effect on the pleasure scale, and don't doubt the same interaction as to actual impairment either.

 

When I gave up alkeehaul I really had no intention of giving up cannabis too. But surprise, found that since over ~30 years I had seldom used it without booze, the pot high alone just wasn't what I'd come to know and love, so I wound up giving it up too.

 

- OS