[coastsidemike]

But I think going to .05% is just going to punish people who have had a beer or two with dinner and then drove their kid to his soccer game and got into a routine fender bender.

Proud to say I have never gotten a DUI, fwiw.

Gotta call you on your logic there.  I'm learning to bike in a city at the moment; the close "fender benders" have be scary enough to really ponder if I'm flirting with my own survival.  Scares the **** out of me when it happens.

Also, a "beer or two" implies 4.5%-5.5% when most beer enthusiasts are drinking 6%-11% (imo, of course).

+1 on no DUI.

[brewmasternpb]

As I get older, I focus more on responsibility when I am out.  I went out for my best friend's bachelor party last weekend.  Due to circumstances, I had to drive home at the end of the night. Because of this, I was really excited to see Avery's 3point5 on tap at the Falling Rock in Denver.  A low alcohol session beer like that made it easier to have 3 beers over the course of the entire evening (5 hours).  Of course, I did also take the train most of the way home.  But  I would like to see more places have session beers on tap because of  this.

[MDixon]

Had to be done. 

http://mashbang.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/ntsb-recommends-to-lower-the-bac/

[majorvices]

But I think going to .05% is just going to punish people who have had a beer or two with dinner and then drove their kid to his soccer game and got into a routine fender bender.

Proud to say I have never gotten a DUI, fwiw.

Gotta call you on your logic there.  I'm learning to bike in a city at the moment; the close "fender benders" have be scary enough to really ponder if I'm flirting with my own survival.  Scares the **** out of me when it happens.

Also, a "beer or two" implies 4.5%-5.5% when most beer enthusiasts are drinking 6%-11% (imo, of course).

+1 on no DUI.

Trust me, as a motorcyclist I know what you are talking about, but that is unrelated to my comment. I'm not implying that a beer or two with dinner could cause a fender bender. I'm saying that at the proposed .05% limit that you can be in a mild altercation that isn;t even your fault and go to jail for it when your motorskills are absolutely fine. So your not calling me on anything.

[Thirsty_Monk]

Time to start making Non alcoholic beers.

[majorvices]

Well, I prefer to do my drinking sessions at my home on my deck or in my pub room so no NA beers fore quite yet.

[gogreen437]

I'm really tired of random numbers the government pulls out of its you-know-what.  I trust myself on the road with a 0.15% BAC a lot more than some of the drivers I just encountered today.

did you read the article? it's hardly a random number. it's been well tested and studied in real world situations it sounds like.

I know that I do not trust myself at .08 in fact I don't think I would trust myself at .05. for me, at... let's just go with 200 lb. it's close enough I can have a drink and then drive or two or three drinks over an evening with food and drive. that's where I feel safe and I think I likely am, although not as safe as I would be on no booze at all.

very nearly everyone that get's behind the wheel when they shouldn't thinks that THEY can be trusted more that those other guys. I am not saying that you are an unsafe driver but if I was hanging out without and you had enough booze to be at .15 I would not get in a car with you and I would STRONGLY suggest that you at least wait a while before driving.

If everyone would be responsible, rational, and honest with themselves and others about their current level of safe driving ability all the time then we wouldn't need BAC limits but they aren't and we do. and it does in fact reduce fatalities. Driving in public is a privilege not a right.

I don't disagree that someone at .15 should not be behind the wheel.  But, the article also pointed out that lowering the legal limit from 0.1 to 0.08 hasn't done much to reduce drunk driving related fatalities, and the move from 0.08 to 0.05 likely would not either.  I agree with the statement made in the article by the alcoholic-beverage and restaurant industries that focusing on repeat offenders and those who are clearly above the legal limit would be more effective than targeting someone who had a pint at dinner.

[guido]

I'm really tired of random numbers the government pulls out of its you-know-what.  I trust myself on the road with a 0.15% BAC a lot more than some of the drivers I just encountered today.

did you read the article? it's hardly a random number. it's been well tested and studied in real world situations it sounds like.

I know that I do not trust myself at .08 in fact I don't think I would trust myself at .05. for me, at... let's just go with 200 lb. it's close enough I can have a drink and then drive or two or three drinks over an evening with food and drive. that's where I feel safe and I think I likely am, although not as safe as I would be on no booze at all.

very nearly everyone that get's behind the wheel when they shouldn't thinks that THEY can be trusted more that those other guys. I am not saying that you are an unsafe driver but if I was hanging out without and you had enough booze to be at .15 I would not get in a car with you and I would STRONGLY suggest that you at least wait a while before driving.

If everyone would be responsible, rational, and honest with themselves and others about their current level of safe driving ability all the time then we wouldn't need BAC limits but they aren't and we do. and it does in fact reduce fatalities. Driving in public is a privilege not a right.

I don't disagree that someone at .15 should not be behind the wheel.  But, the article also pointed out that lowering the legal limit from 0.1 to 0.08 hasn't done much to reduce drunk driving related fatalities, and the move from 0.08 to 0.05 likely would not either.  I agree with the statement made in the article that focusing on repeat offenders and those who are clearly above the legal limit would be more affective than targeting someone who had a pint at dinner.

The government claims they want to lower the limit to save lives and protect us from ourselves, but their true agenda has always been zero tolerance and Big Brother controlling yet another aspect of our lives.

[tonyp]

All these numbers are pretty meaningless to me, I honestly have no idea what the difference of .05 and .08 feels like. I know when I'm buzzed and I know when I'm drunk and I certainly know when I'm wasted, but how that correlates to the numbers is beyond me.

I'd really like to get a breathalizer at some point and test it out over a few hours to get a better understanding of it. In fact, maybe that should become part of the driver training curriculum. I could see going to a training class at an airport or somewhere similar, drinking X Alchohol over X Time and then driving thru a road course, or even a simulator, to test reaction times at different drunkenness levels. I know I've seen this done on TV but maybe everyone should get to do it.

This leads me to another aspect of this whole conversation. I've always believed that driving tests in the US are way too easy. Knowing how to parallel park and make a K-Turn is a joke in the grand scheme of driving. I think everyone should be subjected to a few different courses, maybe even over a few days.

I was really lucky that my dad and grandfather both took the time to teach me the skills i really needed for driving on the road. They would take me to this bus depot parking lot when it was raining and make me spin the car on purpose to get a grasp of what it was like to lose control of the vehicle, how to avoid it and how to recover from it. They also did this with 2 different cars in both the rain and the snow and I have to tell you, the first time you do it its scary as hell but after 4 or 5 times it becomes natural to just turn into the skid and recover from it. And when that skid happens in the real world, and it will, you won't panic, you'll just react.

Just think about what you learned in your driving class and what its really like on the road. Its a huge difference and unfortunately it takes time to build up the experience needed to actually be a good competent driver.

Can you imagine if we let people fly planes with the same amount of training?

[tonyp]

The government claims they want to lower the limit to save lives and protect us from ourselves, but their true agenda has always been zero tolerance and Big Brother controlling yet another aspect of our lives.

Don't forget the amount of money the gov makes off of the people that are caught. The court costs, fines, insurance premiums, license fees, etc.

Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the same gov that builds billion-dollar weapons to kill people thousand of miles away really gives a s*** about saving a few people on the highway. Its about money, everything is.

Lower limits = higher likelihood of more offenders, its that simple.

[SecondRow_Sean]

How long until this thread gets locked?

[denny]

The government claims they want to lower the limit to save lives and protect us from ourselves, but their true agenda has always been zero tolerance and Big Brother controlling yet another aspect of our lives.

This is getting dangerously close to political and I may end up deleting this response, but you;d be hard pressed to prove the bolded part.

[denny]

How long until this thread gets locked?

It could be soon....

[guido]

The government claims they want to lower the limit to save lives and protect us from ourselves, but their true agenda has always been zero tolerance and Big Brother controlling yet another aspect of our lives.

This is getting dangerously close to political and I may end up deleting this response, but you;d be hard pressed to prove the bolded part.

I apologize for bringing politics into this, Denny.  I should have refrained from posting on this thread from the get-go.  I'll keep my politics to myself in the future.

[denny]

The government claims they want to lower the limit to save lives and protect us from ourselves, but their true agenda has always been zero tolerance and Big Brother controlling yet another aspect of our lives.

This is getting dangerously close to political and I may end up deleting this response, but you;d be hard pressed to prove the bolded part.

I apologize for bringing politics into this, Denny.  I should have refrained from posting on this thread from the get-go.  I'll keep my politics to myself in the future.

Thanks.  If you do that, it will be easier for me to do the same!