Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Reduce DUI limit

Comments

Return To Article
  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 6:30 a.m.

    Another attempt to force the "one true religion's" prohibitions on society at large.

    Pathetic, DN, absolutely pathetic.

  • Church member North Salt Lake, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 7:55 a.m.

    I agree Ranch.

    Why are they so determined to force other people to follow their belief system?

    Shouldn't people have "free agency" to choose how they want to live their life?

    Totally pathetic.

  • NO_SIX St George, Utah
    Oct. 16, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    Come on DN. Go for it -- totally outlaw any drinking in Utah anytime or any place. You know that's what you want

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 16, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    a 100 lb woman could reach .05 BAL with one Drink
    a 180 lb man can get there with 2 drinks.

    I would much rather encounter a person on the road that has had 2 or 3 drinks than a completely sober texter.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    The % isn't the problem. It doesn't matter what the limit is (to people who abuse alcohol).

    Most Utahns don't drink (obviously they would not drink regardless of this number). Most of those who do drink would not drink at all if they they need to drive (8% or 5%). There's a small fraction of Utahns who think it's wise to drink knowing they need to drive, betting THEY can skirt the legal limit or even exceed it and be OK to drive (because they think these silly rules don't apply to them because they can drive just fine after drinking). To this small percentage of the population the legal level doesn't really matter. They're going to do it whether it's 5% or 8%. The 3 points won't change their behavior.

    Same with guns, seatbelts, etc. MOST people don't even have guns. Most people who do wouldn't abuse them. And people who want to abuse guns don't care if it's legal or not.

    Seatbelts... Those who understand why we use them will use them regardless of the law. If you won't change to save your life...

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    Of course it's been your position for 20 years. You're schilling your opinion for someone else; Ranch hinted at whom.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Oct. 16, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    Those of you who want to defend drunk driving, explain why to the families of the 39 people that died last year in drug and alcohol related accidents. And trying to blame the effort to reduce the limit on the LDS church is a cop out. Sweden's limit is .02. Is this also some Mormon plot? Accidents can't be totally avoided but when people intentionally place others at risk because of they can't control their drinking, they should have their driving privileges permanently revoked.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    Thanks for the weight ratio's Joe, this is totally about imposing sin laws not about safety.
    Cell phone users are a far bigger problem, but of course theirs no commandment against that, soooo not a problem.
    Here's another Idea, make alternatives to driving available.
    Taxi's are a joke in the state, public transportation stops way to early. MADD should do more to keep drunks from driving instead of just trying to catch them after it's to late, since they're already driving at that point.

    Trains run special hours for conference.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Oct. 16, 2013 10:11 a.m.

    Who cares if you drink alcohol? Just don't drive drunk! Has nothing to do with "religion" and everything to do with safety. By the way, why would anyone with a brain drink alcohol? Why not just hit yourself in the head with a hammer everyday? The effect are about the same and think of the money and lives you could save! If you have no brain, drink all you want and destroy what little you have left, but just don't drive because the rest of us don't want to be your next victim.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    @Happy Valley
    Amen about the taxi's and trains. I don't know if you can't hail a cab in SLC or if they just won't stop but hailing a cab doesn't work, and calling them at 2 on a weekend means your waiting 45 minutes to an hour and a half for a cab to show up. I really don't want to leave the bar at 9 to catch a bus or 10 for a train either. The bar is open until 2. UTA should really run at least one train at the end of the night on Friday or Saturday to take drunks home. You pretty much have to have a DD and make someone sit the night out because actually getting home using cabs or UTA is a joke.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    Happy Valley Heretic,

    Re: "this is totally about imposing sin laws not about safety"...

    If this were just about evil Mormons imposing sin laws on you... they would outlaw drinking period (not just a limit on the legal level to drive).

    If it wasn't about safety... the limit would be all the time (not just when you are driving).

    No... DUI laws are NOT an evil Mormon plot. We have DUI laws in every State in the United States (not sin laws, safety laws).

    IMO the % is irrelevant. And no... they are not just trying to keep you from sinning. And DUI laws ARE about safety (not just about preventing you from doing what you want).

    Why would you WANT to drink and drive???

    And why would you assume DUI laws (which we have in every State) are just Mormon sin laws?

    If this were just a sin law... it would outlaw drinking all together (not just when driving). Since it only impacts the level allowed when driving... I think it IS about safety.

    Why run the trains at 2:00 AM just for drunks? They mostly run empty already at 10:00. We have Taxis you know...

  • dave Park City, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    This is way beyond absurd. You will fill jails and use police resources arresting people that are no danger to themselves or others'.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Oct. 16, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    @ Dave. Drink all you want, just stay off the highways! Problem solved for you and other drivers and their passengers.

  • dave Park City, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    Mountanman

    That was a leap in logic. I never espoused drinking and driving. I support reasonable restrictions. The .05 is in no way reasonable.

  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    Happy Valley Heretic,

    Re: "Trains run special hours for conference"...

    Those trains are also PACKED (and UTA MAKES money running those full trains). Do you think the 2:00 AM train is going to be as packed with drunks as the trains they run on Conference weekends to help limit traffic congestion??

    The decision to run special trains on conference weekends makes economic sense. I don't know if it makes as much sense to run trains until 2:00 every night in case drunks need a ride and they can't wait for a Taxi.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 11:58 a.m.

    2 bit said: "Those trains are also PACKED (and UTA MAKES money running those full trains). Do you think the 2:00 AM train is going to be as packed with drunks as the trains they run on Conference weekends to help limit traffic congestion??"

    Is it about safety or profit? I see profit is the motivator for conservatives...again.
    We pay extra overtime on new years and other holidays to bust folks why not allocate some of that fishing trip money to preventative actions?

    .05 is no where near intoxicated, ask a cop not a religious leader.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 12:08 p.m.

    @2 bits;

    You bet your booty that it's about "sin". If it weren't you'd see the legislature outlaw texting and phoning while driving, but that's something they like to do, so it won't make it to the floor.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    To "Ranch" wow, you and your chronies really have an axe to grind here.

    First of all, this does NOTHING to change the drinking laws in Utah. You can still go to your favorite watering hole and get plastered with whatever they serve.

    All this does it lower the legal blood alcohol levels to a point where other nations have found that the number of accidents was significantly decreased. This has nothing to do with any church or religion, but is using safety data gathered in Europe as some nations adopted the lower blood alcohol levels.

    Utah is not the leader in this. Read "States Urged to Cut Limit on Alcohol for Drivers" in the NY Times. The .05 level is a recommendation by the National Transportation Safety Board.

    Why are the liberals here blaming the LDS church for something recommended by the Federal Government?

  • BostonLDS Salt lake City, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    I think personal responsibility alone is what will reduce the amount of drunk drivers on the road! Even if the law does change to .05% there are still going to be those who decide to drink and drive regardless. I am frequently DD for my friends who drink, as I live downtown and am happy to drive them home if need be, but I can only do this if they call. Thank goodness they do. Laws can change but people won't. Those who drive drunk will continue to do so, and I will be surprised if the amount of accidents reduce if they do pass this law.

  • donahoe NSL, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    If the issue is public safety, then discuss other more risky driving behaviors such as using cell phones or driving through red lights (both epidemic in Utah). But this is not really about safety is it.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    @JSB
    "Those of you who want to defend drunk driving, explain why to the families of the 39 people that died last year in drug and alcohol related accidents"

    *shrugs* I don't defend drunk driving, though I'm intrigued by the concept of gunowners having to defend our lax gun laws to the 1000s of families across the nation who lose loved ones due to gun violence each year. After all, we have an amendment that protects alcohol purchase just like we do with guns. I guess regulation is allowed after all.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    Where is your advocacy of banning cell phone use while driving? A friend participated in driving an obstacle course at the University of Utah. He was part of the .08% blood-alcohol group. There was also a .05% group, a .16% group, and hand-held and hands-free phone groups. Of course the .16% (twice the legal limit) group were the worst drivers. Both hands-free and hand-held phone users were worse than the .08% group. The best drivers were the .05% group.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 1:51 p.m.

    To "donahoe" and anybody else who complains about cell phones and driving. We already have laws that prohibit using cell phones and texting while driving.

    See the Utah Code, Title 41, Chapter 6a, Section 1715, which defines distracted driving as a person that "commits a moving traffic violation under this chapter other than a moving traffic violation under Part 6, Speed Restrictions, while being distracted by one or more activities taking place within the vehicle that are not related to the operation of a motor vehicle, including:

    (i) using a wireless telephone or other electronic device unless the person is using hands-free talking and listening features while operating the motor vehicle;"

    We don't need more laws, we need to enforce the laws that we already have.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 1:57 p.m.

    donahoe,

    Re: "If the issue is public safety, then discuss other more risky driving behaviors such as using cell phones or driving through red lights"...

    - Utah already has strict laws about Texting and driving. It's already illegal in Utah. - Utah's "Careless Driving" law already covers Distracted Driving (which includes being distracted by trying to use a hand-held cell phone when driving).
    - Running red lights is already against the law in Utah.

    So all 3 are already against the law in Utah (as is DUI). What more do you expect?

    So... how are DUI laws not about safety? And how are the other 3 red-herrings you bring up proof of that?

    Even if there's a law... some people will decide they don't have to obey it. You've noticed we still have numerous DUI accidents and fatalities even though it's against the law... right? It's the same for the other 3. Some people will still do it... even though it's against the law.

  • JLW1134 Springville, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 2:14 p.m.

    As a drinker, I'm not necessarily opposed to a reduction in the BAC limit required for a DUI. I've measured myself with a fuel cell style breathlyzer (similar to ones used by UHP) between the .07% and .08% range and felt that my faculties were sufficiently diminished that I would be at increased risk of a crash. Based on this experience I think .05% would create a better buffer between impaired vs non-impaired.

    That said, if we're going to go down this path, the state should in turn eliminate some of the more absurd alcohol laws on the books. Firstly, the quota system for liquor licences need to be eliminated. The free market should be the sole arbiter regarding the number of licenses issued. Second, state oddities such as the Zion curtain, and limitations on the types of drinks can be served, e.g. "heavy" beer on draft, doubles, etc, need to be removed.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 9:43 p.m.

    DUI is a serious public health problem resulting in death and disability. Blaming the LDS culture for wanting to reduce DUI and its consequences is a well directed compliment. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and driving impaired is a crime. Leave religion out of it. Enforcing strict DWI laws has resulted in decreased motor vehicle accidents in Europe. The US is far behind in stemming this useless carnage.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    Ranch and Church Member and NO SIX

    Did you even comprehend the point of the article? It is not about prohibition, it is about what alcohol level to allow for driving. You guys make it sound as if it would be OK for a person to have the right to drive no matter how drunk they were. Think about it.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Oct. 18, 2013 4:35 p.m.

    I still want to know why the DN monitor bounced my comment?:

    "I will support this AFTER only if they consider it a matter of public safety and not simply Word of Wisdom laws.

    For example -- making it about ALL impaired and distracted driving --
    i.e, some prescription medications and texting while driving."