They also have no comment on the propensity of illegal aliens to drive drunk and kill Americans.
“Drunks Against Madd Mothers” want it raised!
Of course, the NTSB can’t order the state or federal governments to do anything. They can only make recommendations about that one fewer beer.
Obviously written by a naive fool .... remember back to the 55 mph “suggestions”. You could ignore the mandate but the Feds would reduce or eliminate Federal matching funds for US Highway building and maintenance in the states refusing ... just ask Texas and several other Western states.
They could easily solve the problem by getting illegal mexicans off our roadways.
When the NTSB proposes to outlaw driving if over 80 years old, unless the driver can pass a simulator test, then I’ll know they’re serious.
But this reeks of an agency trying to look important enough to survive the 2% budget cut of sequester.
Puritans are people who are deathly afraid someone, somewhere might be haing fun.
Correlation doesn't equal causation.
Drunk driving is SUCH a major problem in my state. We have SUCH a culture of drinking it’s absolutely weird and foreign to anyone looking at us from the outside! It embarrasses me, but I am obviously quite alone on this issue for some reason.
Why NONE of my legislators (or my Rock Star Governor) will address this issue and put some TEETH into our laws is BEYOND me. How many MORE innocent people have to DIE due to drunk people being allowed to drive around?
I SO hate to sound like one of those MADD Moms - and I’ve not lost anyone that I know personally to a drunk driver, but it still bugs the cr@p outta me!
Seriously! The latest legislation introduced deals with these selfish, alcohol-soaked, MURDERERS when they’re already on their 6th, 7th, 8th DUI ARREST!
It’s absolute insanity!
Targeting? I thought profiling was wrong.
Lower the drinking age to ten years old. Not many deaths due to drunk bicycle accidents, just scrapes and bruises. Then, by the time they’re old enough to drive a car, drinking will be so “ten year old like” that they’ll have moved on.
FWIW, in Canada, drunk driving falls under the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC). If your blood alchohol concentration (BAC) is above 0.08% (or 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood), police will usually charge you with BOTH operating a vehicle while impaired (CCC §253.1) AND operating a vehicle with a BAC in excess of 0.08% (CCC §253.2). I believe that the §253.1 charge is also included, in case §253.2 fails. Both provide identical sentences, a $1000 fine and a 12-month driving prohibition across Canada. Ii is a criminal offence to you refuse the breathalizer, reasulting in sentencing exactly the same as a conviction. Sentences also increase for subsequent convictions and increase if someone is injured or killed.
In addition, each Province has its own administrative license suspensions, where BAC is less than 0.08%. The criteria vary by Province, (ie: reasonable grounds/suspicion of impairment, 0.04, 0.05% BAC) and suspension of license (1st time) for 12, 24, 72 hours; some Provinces increase the suspension for subsequent infractions.
In all cases of a short term suspension, license and keys are taken, and the car is towed to the impound lot. To ‘spring’ the car, keys and license is therefore, a rather expensive proposition!
I believe 0.05 is too low. I’m not convinced 0.08 isn’t too low. I’m more of a 0.10 guy, but hey, I could be wrong.
More than the beer, it’s where your head is at when you drink and drive. If you’re serious about driving decently, I know you can do it at 0.10.
That doesn’t mean you should. We have to drive responsibly.
I have driven far worse when sober than I have when I’ve had some drinks.
People driving at .08 aren’t the problem.
I’ve done drunk driving enforcement ride-alongs and can never remember picking up anyone under .10. .05 might scare some folks into avoiding that third beer, but it won’t do anything to stop the serious drunks who get blotto, then drive the wrong way on the freeway until they hit someone head on.
They want to make us all criminals while giving the real criminals the vote.
My question is what is the correlation of driving accidents to persons with a 0.05 blood alcohol content? A person may have some alcohol in their system but the impairment from that alcohol may have not been the cause of the accident. There are things that can happen driving a car whether one is sober or not.
For instance, my daughter was driving her car at 11:00 PM when she rode over a piece of sharp metal bracket. It ripped open her tire and cause her to cross over the center line an into oncoming traffic. Luckily there were no other cars on the road. If this resulted in a deadly crash and my daughter had alcohol in her system, she would have been charged with driving under the influence. If she was over the 0.05 blood alcohol content, she would have had a DWI with the new limit. It also would have been reported as an accident due to alcohol. I am thinking the statistics are lying to promote an agenda.
I am shocked to see so many nanny state posts on FR. The Republic is truly lost.