Not at my house.
They've done a few studies to show that it would reduce accidents actually. I'm guessing it's going to reduce the number of accidents caused by those who are pulled over and blow a .5 to .799999, for one thing.
If you can't text and drive, or drive without a seatbelt, then the dui level should be lower tbh. By the way don't try and take apart that logic
The worst drinkers are the ones that act like they're auditioning for a comedy role. Takes just 1-2 sips and they become tipsy college kids all over again.
Hopefully the DUI problem is about to vanish altogether. Self driving cars FTW.
Actually, I don't smoke, don't drink, and don't do drugs either. The only reason why I think there should be tough laws on drinking and driving is because my uncle was killed in a drunk driving wreck. Thank you. It's probably the main reason why I don't drink at all.
People grandstanding because it inconvenience aside, the merit of such action is easily quantified. Drunk driving obviously creates an irresponsible risk to other's person and property. It's not about the number of drinks, its about BAC. Does .5 incur an unreasonable amount of impairment?
a chart with progessive effects of increasing BAC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content
Come on Fuzzy...You can hug Lindsy Lohan & blow a .05
Pretty simple. If you plan to drink, do not drive there. If you drive there, do not drink.
whoa there! patriots, tea baggers, Rugged Individualists, sovereign (ex)citizens demand 100% FREEDOM! and no responsibility to anything or anybody. "I'a a Real Man. I can hold my liquor and do anything with 0.15 BAC"
TBFull of
To me, when you avoid the analytical side then it just sounds like you don't want to be inconvenienced. There is no question that drunk driving legislation is required. That is becuase people get drunk and break peoples , hurt them, or kill them drinking and driving. If this saves lives from the negligence of others then this law is worth passing. There are ways to quantify the impact this law has.
So far the counter argument is snark.
The drunks that are crashing don't give a about the current .08 limit. They are blowing .2's. Lowering it to .05 is just dumb.
Jail for a month, $5000 fine, and no license for a year for first offense could sober up a few of the more intelligent ones.
TB
doing that for a .051 is just bum ing stupid.
Try 3’ & 4’s in Los Angeles…
Stacey Toran, safety for the Los Angeles Raiders, had a blood-alcohol level more than three times the legal limit when he was killed in an automobile accident Saturday night, the Los Angeles County coroner's office said today.
The results of a toxological examination gave Toran's blood alcohol level at .32 percent, said Robert Dambacher, spokesman for the coroner. Under California law, the level at which a person is considered to be driving under the influence of alcohol is .10 percent.
.10? You telling me I could have been having an extra beer this whole time? What happened to .08?
I believe the article is from 1989 (it was .10 then)…I am looking for the article about the guy who was over .40 and smashed his car…Coroner said he should have been unconscious at that level….10? You telling me I could have been having an extra beer this whole time? What happened to .08?
When I was in high school drinking and driving was a compe ive sport.
Muscle cars with 400+hp, brakes and suspension, lap belts and no air bags. Dirt weed was $60 a pound, gas was 21 cents a gallon and Buckhorn was 99 cents a six pack. Life was good.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 05-23-2013 at 05:37 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
