ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   D.C. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   General Politics Feds want a 1 drink DUI (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=273073)

Bump 05-14-2013 07:02 PM

Feds want a 1 drink DUI
 
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/14...ing-threshold/

WASHINGTON A federal agency is proposing that states lower the threshold for drunken driving to the point where a woman could be charged for driving after one drink and a man after two in a move officials say would save thousands of lives.

The National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all states drop the blood-alcohol level at which motorists can be charged with driving drunk to .05, down from the current rate of .08 that all 50 states impose. The threshold is a matter of state law, but the federal government can pressure states to meet its standard by threatening to withhold highway funding.

"Our goal is to get to zero deaths because each alcohol-impaired death is preventable."

- Deborah Hersman, chair of NTSB

"Our goal is to get to zero deaths because each alcohol-impaired death is preventable," NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said. "Alcohol-impaired deaths are not accidents, they are crimes. They can and should be prevented. The tools exist. What is needed is the will."

More than 100 countries have adopted the .05 alcohol content standard or lower, according to an NTSB report. In Europe, drunken driving deaths were cut by more than half a decade after the stricter standard was implemented.

Studies show a woman weighing less than 120 pounds can reach .05 after just one drink, while a man weighing up to 160 pounds reaches .05 after two drinks.

New approaches are needed to combat drunken driving, which claims the lives of more than a third of the 30,000 people killed each year on U.S highways a level of carnage that that has remained stubbornly consistent for the past decade and a half, the board said.

"Our goal is to get to zero deaths because each alcohol-impaired death is preventable," NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said. "Alcohol-impaired deaths are not accidents, they are crimes. They can and should be prevented. The tools exist. What is needed is the will."

But the recommendation to lowering the alcohol content threshold to .05 is likely to meet strong resistance from states, said Jonathan Adkins, an official with the Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents state highway safety offices.

"It was very difficult to get .08 in most states so lowering it again won't be popular," Adkins said. "The focus in the states is on high (blood alcohol content) offenders as well as repeat offenders. We expect industry will also be very vocal about keeping the limit at .08."

The lower alcohol content threshold was one of nearly 20 recommendations aimed at reducing drunken driving made by the board, including that states adopt measures to ensure more widespread use of use of alcohol ignition interlock devices. Those require a driver to breathe into a tube, much like the breathalyzers police ask suspected drunken drivers to use.

The board has previously recommended states require all convicted drunken drivers install the interlock devices in their vehicles as a condition to resume driving. Currently, 17 states and two California counties require all convicted drivers use the devices.

However, only about a quarter of drivers ordered to use the devices actually end up doing so, NTSB said. Drivers use a variety of ways to evade using the devices, including claiming they won't drive at all or don't own a vehicle and therefore don't need the devices, staff said.

The board recommended the National Highway Safety Administration, which makes safety grants to states, develop a program to encourage states to ensure all convicted drivers actually use the devices. The board also recommended that all suspected drunken drivers whose licenses are confiscated by police be required to install interlocks as a condition of getting their licenses reinstated even though they haven't yet been convicted of a crime.

Courts usually require drivers to pay for the devices, which cost about $50 to $100 to buy plus a $50 a month fee to operate, staff said.

The board has previously called on the safety administration and the auto industry to step up their research into technology for use in all vehicles that can detect whether a driver has elevated blood alcohol without the driver breathing into a tube or taking any other action. Drivers with elevated levels would be unable to start their cars.

But the technology is still years away.

Studies show more than 4 million people a year in the U.S. drive while intoxicated, but about half of the intoxicated drivers stopped by police escape detection, the NTSB report said. The board made several recommendations aimed at increasing both the visibility and effectiveness of police enforcement, including expanded use of passive alcohol devices. The devices are often contained in real flash lights or shaped to look like a cellphone that officers wear on their shirt pockets or belts. If an officer points the flashlight at a driver or the cellphone-like device comes in close proximity to an intoxicated driver, the devices will alert police who may not have any other reason to suspected drunken driving.

The use of the devices currently is very limited, the report said.

Dramatic progress was made in the 1980s through the mid-1990s after the minimum drinking age was raised to 21 and the legally-allowable maximum level of drivers' blood alcohol content was lowered to .08, the report said. Today, drunken driving claims about 10,000 lives a year, down from over 18,000 in 1982. At that time, alcohol-related fatalities accounted for about 40 percent of highway deaths.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/14...#ixzz2TJpMJl2M

unnecessary drama 05-14-2013 07:04 PM

what's the difference between a slightly impaired driver killing someone or a ****ING TERRIBLE DIPSHIT driver killing someone?

I can see getting the SERIOUS DRUNK drivers off the road...

but if a guy gets pulled over making an improper lane change or some bullshit and blows a .12 he shouldn't have to pay THOUSANDS of dollars and have his life ruined because of it

unnecessary drama 05-14-2013 07:05 PM

I have driven with terrifying people, mostly girls, over the years that are WAY MORE DANGEROUS than a drunk driver.

unnecessary drama 05-14-2013 07:05 PM

girls who text and drive are more dangerous than drunk drivers

Superturtle 05-14-2013 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hootie (Post 9682804)
what's the difference between a slightly impaired driver killing someone or a ****ING TERRIBLE DIPSHIT driver killing someone?

I can see getting the SERIOUS DRUNK drivers off the road...

but if a guy gets pulled over making an improper lane change or some bullshit and blows a .12 he shouldn't have to pay THOUSANDS of dollars and have his life ruined because of it

What? That's a pretty damn high number to blow. Most people will be driving impaired at that point.

Bump 05-14-2013 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superturtle (Post 9682825)
What? That's a pretty damn high number to blow. Most people will be driving impaired at that point.

I don't think he's very good at math.

NewChief 05-14-2013 07:13 PM

Two drinks is my max before I won't drive, already.


I can guarantee that I'm a better driver after a six pack than my wife stone sober, though.

Superturtle 05-14-2013 07:15 PM

That big of a deal move to ****ing Ireland. You can Legally drive drunk some places.

ClevelandBronco 05-14-2013 07:15 PM

And in a related story, Colorado is moving toward setting the THC level that would define DUI for potheads. The allowable level might be quite low. (Of course the legal level the feds would recommend would be 0.0 nanograms.)

"A Colorado House committee advanced a bill to set marijuana blood limits for drivers Monday.

House Bill 1114, also known in previous years as the marijuana DUI bill, would say that drivers are legally impaired if their blood contains more than 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter. THC is the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2996604.html

Warning: Dated material. It's happening, but the above story might not reflect the latest developments.

Bump 05-14-2013 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco (Post 9682843)
And in a related story, Colorado is moving toward setting the THC level that would define DUI for potheads. The allowable level might be quite low. (Of course the legal level the feds would recommend would be 0.0 nanograms.)

"A Colorado House committee advanced a bill to set marijuana blood limits for drivers Monday.

House Bill 1114, also known in previous years as the marijuana DUI bill, would say that drivers are legally impaired if their blood contains more than 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter. THC is the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2996604.html

Warning: Dated material. It's happening, but the above story might not reflect the latest developments.

which is absolutely absurd.

What are they going to do though? Surely they wont be administrating blood tests if the cop suspects something?

and there is no ****ing way it should be treated the same as alcohol. Alcohol kills, weed helps. They are not the same thing.

BigChiefTablet 05-14-2013 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco (Post 9682843)
And in a related story, Colorado is moving toward setting the THC level that would define DUI for potheads. The allowable level might be quite low. (Of course the legal level the feds would recommend would be 0.0 nanograms.)

"A Colorado House committee advanced a bill to set marijuana blood limits for drivers Monday.

House Bill 1114, also known in previous years as the marijuana DUI bill, would say that drivers are legally impaired if their blood contains more than 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter. THC is the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2996604.html

Warning: Dated material. It's happening, but the above story might not reflect the latest developments.

The real trick is going to be determining what constitutes probable cause to check their THC level in the first place.

Bump 05-14-2013 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet (Post 9682851)
The real trick is going to be determining what constitutes probable cause to check their THC level in the first place.

they still need the arrest money, it's all about keeping people down and getting their money. Since weed arrests will be lower, they lose money. So they up the DUI arrests off some bullshit.

That level of thc in your blood means that if you smoke up once, you must wait anywhere from 24-48 hours to drive. Which is absolutely ****ing retarded.

It's simply about keeping people down. Nothing more. Our government is scum.

LoneWolf 05-14-2013 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bump (Post 9682850)
which is absolutely absurd.

What are they going to do though? Surely they wont be administrating blood tests if the cop suspects something?

and there is no ****ing way it should be treated the same as alcohol. Alcohol kills, weed helps. They are not the same thing.

You are one stupid mother ****er. Smoking weed impairs your ability to operate a vehicle the same as alcohol. The medicinal benefits of marijuana have nothing to do with the what level should be allowed in your system when driving.

Bump 05-14-2013 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneWolf (Post 9682873)
You are one stupid mother ****er. Smoking weed impairs your ability to operate a vehicle the same as alcohol. The medicinal benefits of marijuana have nothing to do with the what level should be allowed in your system when driving.

you are ****ing retarded dude.

no it does not.

Bewbies 05-14-2013 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bump (Post 9682850)
which is absolutely absurd.

What are they going to do though? Surely they wont be administrating blood tests if the cop suspects something?

and there is no ****ing way it should be treated the same as alcohol. Alcohol kills, weed helps. They are not the same thing.

Weed helps? LMAO

It makes you dumb as shit too I guess.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.