I don’t see this making much difference unless those 37% of crashes were done by drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08.
My guess is that the alcohol related crashes were probably above anyway.
Sure it’ll catch a few more in that interval after the crash has already happened or in random stops, but if they actually want to avoid the crashes they need other measures. Lower speed limits would help more, but I guess it’s more important to focus on finding more people to blame than to avoid the crashes.
IMO, the limit should be 0.00. Motor vehicles kill plenty people with a sober driver. This is a step in the right direction and I hope other states follow the lead.
At 0.0, breathalysers can’t be used as evidence. They’re not accurate enough.
For what it’s worth, in US aviation, the standard is 0.00 BAC and 8 hours “from bottle to throttle.” But breathalyser evidence is treated with a 0.02 threshold for measurement tolerance.
Yes, sure it doesn’t hurt to lower it.
At 0.00 though, they will at some point encounter somebody who is sober but has auto-brewery symptome or other kinds of digestion related diseases.
Anyway, all I’m saying is that the legal limit doesn’t stop anyone from drunk driving regardless of what it is. They do it anyway - maybe because they’re drunk or something.
The better solution is to lower the speed limit in cities and make the necessary road designs to keep the speed at less than lethal even if someone is drunk.
My main concern is keeping other people safe from the stupid decisions made by drunk drivers.
They do it anyway - maybe because they’re drunk or something.
They do it because we live in a car dependent society. There is no other option. People who drink regularly (which people will do) can’t afford to pay for an Uber every day.
Putting people in jail does absolutely nothing for the fundamental problem of car dependency.
I don’t see this making much difference unless those 37% of crashes were done by drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. My guess is that the alcohol related crashes were probably above anyway.
Sure it’ll catch a few more in that interval after the crash has already happened or in random stops, but if they actually want to avoid the crashes they need other measures. Lower speed limits would help more, but I guess it’s more important to focus on finding more people to blame than to avoid the crashes.
IMO, the limit should be 0.00. Motor vehicles kill plenty people with a sober driver. This is a step in the right direction and I hope other states follow the lead.
At 0.0, breathalysers can’t be used as evidence. They’re not accurate enough.
For what it’s worth, in US aviation, the standard is 0.00 BAC and 8 hours “from bottle to throttle.” But breathalyser evidence is treated with a 0.02 threshold for measurement tolerance.
0.02 is used in Sweden as well, for this very reason - the legally acceptable amount of alcohol to consume when operating a motor vehicle is 0.
IMO car dependency should be abolished so impaired people aren’t forced to drive - whether drunk, disabled, old, etc…
Yes, sure it doesn’t hurt to lower it. At 0.00 though, they will at some point encounter somebody who is sober but has auto-brewery symptome or other kinds of digestion related diseases.
Anyway, all I’m saying is that the legal limit doesn’t stop anyone from drunk driving regardless of what it is. They do it anyway - maybe because they’re drunk or something.
The better solution is to lower the speed limit in cities and make the necessary road designs to keep the speed at less than lethal even if someone is drunk. My main concern is keeping other people safe from the stupid decisions made by drunk drivers.
They do it because we live in a car dependent society. There is no other option. People who drink regularly (which people will do) can’t afford to pay for an Uber every day.
Putting people in jail does absolutely nothing for the fundamental problem of car dependency.
Love it! Any reason why we can’t have both?