Utah wants to lower BAC for drunk driving to .05

A judge cannot put someone in jail for a .05 BAL, if the law says .08.

Judges cant make Criminal Law.
 
sear said:
"We have 35,000 americans killed on the highways every year. That's 100 a day. That is not acceptable esp since 99% are caused by bad driving." TK #4

My point precisely.
Reportedly Einstein defined continuing to do the same thing, but expecting a different result as insanity.

By changing nothing, YOU accept it.

I'm the one that finds it unacceptable; and advocate change to reduce the carnage (please pardon the pun).

"It's rare to be drunk at a 0.05 BAC. That Rep. Thurston doesn't know what the" d7 #7

"Impaired" is the issue. Are the driver's skills degraded, as Wm #8 observes.

Why have a one size fits nobody standard?

Why should a 13 year old garbage truck be allowed to careen down the highway at the same speed as a brand new Porsche? The latter might be able to stop in half the distance.

So why not regulate by stopping distance, instead of a one size fits no one standard, MPH?

0.08 might leave some as rational and coordinated as a judge, but leave others staggering instead of standing. Should individual drivers have individualized limits?
Click to expand...

There is no way to individualize levels. Some people are blitzed at 0.05 BAC, others pass field sobriety tests easily at 3 times that level. But the 0.05 driver isn't the problem. Do we really want to criminalize another large number of people for two drinks at dinner?
 
Guille said:
I get your point but for some people who don't weigh a lot .05 is basically just a big glass of wine or an ice beer and making that a felony is just wrong. How much of this is really about safety and how much of it is really just about revenue?
Click to expand...

You nailed it. It is EXACTLY about revenue.
 
Jarod said:
A judge cannot put someone in jail for a .05 BAL, if the law says .08.

Judges cant make Criminal Law.
Click to expand...

Jarod, actually they can, but it's more difficult. Most statutes read "under the influence OR a BAC of 0.08 or greater". If they can prove you were under the influence at lower levels you can be found guilty.
 
Last edited:
"There is no way to individualize levels." d7 #23

OF COURSE there is!!

If a driver wants permission to drive legally at 0.06% in a 0.05% world:
- administer the proficiency test under licensed medical supervision
- insure the applicant can function under the requested parameter; whether that be:
- 0.06%, or
- 10% over the posted speed limit, or
- 20% over the posted speed limit;
- WHATEVER
And if they prove they can do so safely; why not?

Require periodic recertification if you like, every 3 years for those under 51, every year for those over 50.

"Some people are blitzed at 0.05 BAC, others pass field sobriety tests easily at 3 times that level."

Thus the logic of diversifying the standard. Again: "Universal means it doesn't fit anything."

"Do we really want to criminalize another large number of people for two drinks at dinner?" d7 #23

Short answer: define "we".
Long answer: Yes, some do, apparently. Why is it that being punitive is a higher priority than being effective? Promoting public safety?
 
sear said:
"There is no way to individualize levels." d7 #23

OF COURSE there is!!

If a driver wants permission to drive legally at 0.06% in a 0.05% world:
- administer the proficiency test under licensed medical supervision
- insure the applicant can function under the requested parameter; whether that be:
- 0.06%, or
- 10% over the posted speed limit, or
- 20% over the posted speed limit;
- WHATEVER
And if they prove they can do so safely; why not?

Require periodic recertification if you like, every 3 years for those under 51, every year for those over 50.

"Some people are blitzed at 0.05 BAC, others pass field sobriety tests easily at 3 times that level."

Thus the logic of diversifying the standard. Again: "Universal means it doesn't fit anything."

"Do we really want to criminalize another large number of people for two drinks at dinner?" d7 #23

Short answer: define "we".
Long answer: Yes, some do, apparently. Why is it that being punitive is a higher priority than being effective? Promoting public safety?
Click to expand...

Your solution is problematic. The 0.06 BAC proficiency test under controlled conditions doesn't necessarily reflect the conditions on any other occasion. Illness, tiredness, other medications (including aspirin) and other variables can alter the effect of that 0.06. Not to mention adverse weather and road conditions. Sorry, that logic fails.

Still and all, the 0.05 Driver is not the problem and it IS about revenue.
 
Last edited:
"Your solution is problematic. The 0.06 BAC proficiency test under controlled conditions doesn't necessarily reflect the conditions on any other occasion. Illness, tiredness, other medications (including aspirin) and other variables can alter the affect of that 0.06. Not to mention adverse weather and road conditions. Sorry, that logic fails.
Still and all, the 0.05 Driver is not the problem and it IS about revenue." d7

For practical purposes it is impossible to test for every contingency:
- every closing rate
- every vehicle type
- every temperature
- every road condition

By your logic the mandatory road test for ostensibly sober applicants would be equally not valid.
Yet they've been administering them for generations none the less.
 
domer76 said:
Your solution is problematic. The 0.06 BAC proficiency test under controlled conditions doesn't necessarily reflect the conditions on any other occasion. Illness, tiredness, other medications (including aspirin) and other variables can alter the effect of that 0.06. Not to mention adverse weather and road conditions. Sorry, that logic fails.

Still and all, the 0.05 Driver is not the problem and it IS about revenue.
Click to expand...

Revenue? What's wrong with making deadly criminals pay? Why are you a criminal coddler?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top