State Senate Passes Tougher DUI Laws

[Red Arrow]

Just did a little while ago.  Check the 9:18 pm post.

Just checked them.  Neither makes a case for .08.  If anything, the first one makes more of a case for .04 than for .08. 

[Conan71]

Client in town today, let's start here and I'll compile more as I have time.

" At .08 BAC, all drivers, even experienced drinkers, show impairment in driving ability. For the great majority, there is serious deterioration in driving performance at .08 BAC."

"With each drink consumed, a person�s BAC increases. Although outward appearances vary, virtually all drivers and motorcycle operators are substantially impaired at .08 BAC. Laboratory and on-road research shows that the vast majority of drivers, even experienced drinkers, are significantly impaired at .08 with regard to critical driving tasks such as braking, steering, changing lanes, divided attention tasks, and judgement. The risk of being in a crash rises gradually with each BAC level, but then rises very rapidly after a driver reaches or exceeds .08 BAC, compared to drivers with no alcohol in their system."

"08 Laws Work The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) examined the effects of lowering the legal BAC limit from .10 to .08 and implementing an administrative per se law in California. The two new laws, and the associated publicity, reduced the number of expected alcohol-related fatalities by 12 percent in 1990.

Another study* on the effects of lowering BAC levels to .08 compared the first five states to lower their BAC limit to .08 (California, Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Vermont) with five nearby states that retained the .10 limit. Overall, the .08 states experienced a 16 percent reduction in the proportion of fatal crashes with a fatally injured driver whose BAC was .08 or higher, as well as an 18 percent reduction in such crashes with a fatally injured driver whose BAC was .15 or higher."

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/outreach/safesobr/13qp/facts/perselaws.html

To be arbitrary, they would have pulled a number out of the air and assigned it as the limit.  .08 came from years of research.  The NHTSA info above at least explains the reasoning behind .08 and the results which followed after it was enacted in states.

[nathanm]

The data obviously doesn't support the conclusion in the second study. If .15 drunks also died less (and in fact had a greater reduction in fatality rate), chances are there were less drunks overall.

In the first, I seem to remember that's exactly what they said about .10.

[Red Arrow]

The data I would like to see (and it may exist) is where the slope of a graph of  driving ability vs. BAC makes a significant change.  Without that change in slope, the number is just an agreement among the liquor industry, law enforcement, MADD, and probably a few more.   Along with the change to .08 was a publicity campaign and notice of strict enforcement.  Would a similar campaign at .10 have had similar results?  What percent of highway deaths were caused by drivers with BAC between .08 and .10?  Those would theoretically be the only change.

Keep in mind that I am not saying that .08 is a bad choice or that drivers with a BAC of .08 are safe.  I believe in Oklahoma you get in some trouble for anything over .04.  The penalties get really bad above .08.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It's an impulse function for most people I have drunk with or watched drinking.  Few I know sip a drink over a fairly long period of time (30 minutes or more per drink - arbitrary number I pulled out of my arse.)  And the tests I have seen on TV show one drink in a few minutes followed by another fairly quickly - say 10 minutes later.  Then 10 minutes later, they can't walk straight and are drooling.  That would have me impaired for an hour or more.

You can probably guess where I stand on .08.  I say make it the .04.  And put some real penalties behind it.  But that won't ever happen since all the drunks making the laws would be in deep trouble too.  So we continue the casual approach.


Real penalties; the highest level of drunken driving misbehavior, IMO, occurs when one is drunk, has an accident that kills someone.  That should be a capital felony.  (Death penalty.)

[Conan71]

Regardless of impairment charts, etc. which are there if you really care to Google them (sorry guys, you are on your own, I've got too much going on today) it's an indisputable fact the number of DUI-related injuries and crashes have declined along with harsher punishment, lower BAC standards, and most importantly the publicity surrounding it.  IOW, whether or not BAC .08 is the "magic" number it's created enough doubt in people's minds that it's most definitely reduced the number of fatalities and injuries which was the point in the first place if we are willing to move beyond the cynical mindset it's simply for fund-raising.

The point of .08 is for less people to drive drunk.

Stats say it's succeeded thus far.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Sounds REAL good to me!!!

[Breadburner]

.08 was to raise more revenue.....

[heironymouspasparagus]

Better than raising taxes, huh?  But not enough.
If we are gonna let money perform our enforcement, then make it serious enough to make an impression.  Say, $10,000 for the first event.  $25,000 for the second.  (If without an accident or killing/hurting someone.)

Make it just a tiny reflection of the cost to the rest of us and maybe it will be a deterrent.

[Red Arrow]

Better than raising taxes, huh?  But not enough.
If we are gonna let money perform our enforcement, then make it serious enough to make an impression.  Say, $10,000 for the first event.  $25,000 for the second.  (If without an accident or killing/hurting someone.)
Make it just a tiny reflection of the cost to the rest of us and maybe it will be a deterrent.

Why stop with DUI? There are plenty of other dangerous behaviors behind the wheel.  How about defective equipment?  That's another potential gold diamond mine in Oklahoma.  We can make driving potentially so expensive that either the treasury will be flowing over or everyone will be afraid to drive.  That would be a boon for public transit but potentially a disaster for our economy.

[Conan71]

Why stop with DUI? There are plenty of other dangerous behaviors behind the wheel.  How about defective equipment?  That's another potential gold diamond mine in Oklahoma.  We can make driving potentially so expensive that either the treasury will be flowing over or everyone will be afraid to drive.  That would be a boon for public transit but potentially a disaster for our economy.

With all due respect, Red, that's kind of taking it to the extreme.  You're a pilot.  Do you think FAA's systems of violations and fines is nothing more than a revenue raiser or do they set limits and restrictions based on the lowest common denominator to protect the rest of us?

If you make the consequences severe enough, it will act as a deterrent to most sensible people and will be punitive to those who go ahead and engage in the behavior anyhow and hopefully get them to think twice before doing it again.  There's a growing problem of people texting and playing with their smart phones while driving.  That may well be even worse than the DUI problem and one I'd like addressed.  I'm sick and tired of people treating driving as a secondary or passive activity. 

Personal choice and liberty are one thing.  When you engage in behavior which can take away the liberty and choices of others, through injury or death, there needs to be measures which appropriately apply a deterrent effect as well as a punitive effect to prevent it from happening again.

I'll be honest, if the penalties weren't so high and if .08 didn't create just enough doubt for me as to whether or not that third glass of wine or extra beer might have just put me over the limit, I probably would be more tempted to drive when I might be marginally intoxicated even though I "know" I could make it home just fine. 

For me and others like me, it's a good deterrent effect.  I really don't care to A) Be responsible for injuring or killing someone else by being over-confident in my abilities when I know my reaction times and coordination are impaired B) Go through the humiliation of trying to explain to my mother, my kids, and FMC W T F I was doing drinking and driving after our family's experience with it C) $2000-$4000 in associated fines, attorney fees, court costs, etc. plus the increase in insurance D) Having some monkey put an interlock on my vehicle.

[Red Arrow]

With all due respect, Red, that's kind of taking it to the extreme.  

Good, you caught my point.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It's a moot point.  And not relevant.  20,000 people a year don't die from defective equipment on the road.  They do from drunk drivers.  Come on, make it meaningful!!

[Red Arrow]

Drivers who don't learn from the present penalties probably won't learn from the fees you propose.  You will have lock them up with the pot smokers.

[heironymouspasparagus]

If you remember, that is exactly what I have proposed.  Except for the fact that since the pot smokers don't kill 20,000 per year, if the RWRE was REALLY all about personal liberty, or even personal responsibility, we would not see them so into the idea of incarceration for something that is a non-event on the "bad things to do in society" scale.

And those penalties would help keep the drunks off the streets - they wouldn't have any money to buy gas.  And if they did, then raise it to $50,000 for first event.  $100,000 per second.  Since we don't really want to punish drunk drivers, then at least make it a little more painful for them.