Quantcast
Opinion

My view: Lowering legal blood-alcohol limit for drivers will not make the biggest difference

Comments

Return To Article
  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 23, 2013 8:10 a.m.

    Great comment. And right in line with all the data that I have read.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Oct. 23, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    Thank you for an intelligent argument that provides a professionals experience, and data to back it.
    Refreshing approach, instead of using emotion and religious bias to pass an unnecessary adjustment to an already existing law.

  • oldschooler USA, TX
    Oct. 23, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    I won't, but they should just make illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol. It has been rpoven that at .04% divers are already impaired even if they pass a field sobriety test. I am a DWI isntructor for the state of Texas and most people go back top drinking and driving aas soon as they complete their course, they continue drinking even during probation unless the interlock is placed in thei vehocles or they have the manual device and they have to blow every hour. How many more people needs to be injured or killed before lawmakers do things right? it would happen until one of their own becomes a victim of drinking and driving. Sad.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Oct. 23, 2013 12:09 p.m.

    This would all be solved with Google Cars. Just saying. And also, this article is right on spot. If you can pass the test, then great. Fact is there are people who can drive better at .08 than some sober people. Tolerance to alcohol has EVERYTHING to do with it. A teenage girl on her first beer drives worse than an adult man on his 1st beer of the day. I have beer at lunch all the time. Sorry to burst your bubbles but I'm fine to drive at a few beers, this is verified by the fact that I can pass a field sobriety test.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Oct. 23, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    Hey Matt, did you bother to look at the research that goes to support the idea of a .05 blood alcohol level proponents are using. The National Transportation Safety Board did a study where they looked at nations with a .05 BAC limit. They found that once the lower limit was adopted that there were fewer drunk driving accidents.

    Don't you want to reduce the number drunk driving accidents?

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Oct. 23, 2013 1:01 p.m.

    @Midvaliean
    Amen to that. I can't wait for the day that I can get wasted, and safely have my magic car drive me home.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Oct. 23, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    DUI - should mean DUI.

    Driving Under the Influence.

    Be it alcohol,
    Cellphones or Texting, period.

    I see and nearly get killed 100 times more via DUI texting than I EVER see impaired from alcohol.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 23, 2013 1:37 p.m.

    That is one man's experience and not the basis for DWI limits or laws. Most European countries have a 0.5% limit with some having a 0 tolerance. That and strict enforcement have lowered their traffic deaths from DUI. I doubt that "religious bias" was behind those decisions. To imply religious bias exposes the bias of the commenter, although most religions have a bias against traffic accidents caused by impaired drivers. Let's make legislative decisions on reproducible data and not anecdotal comments or lobbying from liquor interests.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 23, 2013 2:33 p.m.

    As I have said. I would much rather encounter a driver on the road who had a couple of beers then I would someone who is texting.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Oct. 23, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    Almost all EU nations prohibit use of handheld electronic devices while driving.
    We should adopt the same as them right Zero tolerance with cellphones.

    Sorry Owl, there is very little done in Utah politics without religious bias (ruzika unelected leader or the Utah GOP comes to mind) including those who believe they are speaking for the church even when it goes against what the church has officially said, because they know better. To ignore religious bias exists in Utah, is just plain willful ignorance.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 23, 2013 6:14 p.m.

    Changing the subject to hand held devices from drunk driving is ignoring reality. They are not mutually exclusive. For or against religion, which one influences opinion most? Everyone has a basis for their opinions. Basing ones opinions on religious values is no less valid than any other value system. We have the Bill of Rights guaranteeing basic freedoms and to prevent tyranny of the majority.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 23, 2013 6:39 p.m.

    Happy Valley Heretic
    Orem, UT

    Willful ignorance is judging an opinion on its origin rather than on its merits.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 23, 2013 7:26 p.m.

    "Willful ignorance is judging an opinion on its origin rather than on its merits."

    Yup. And this statement describes perfectly how politics runs in this country on a daily basis.

    And partisan people also.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 23, 2013 9:35 p.m.

    oldschooler,
    Re: "It has been rpoven that at .04% divers are already impaired even if they pass a field sobriety test".

    It has been proven that some Utah drivers are impaired at 0.0%, even if they pass a field sobriety test.

    That said... IMO we should not be debating where the line is and how close we can get to it and still drive. IMO if you are drinking period... you should plan to not drive. You should get a friend to drive. If you don't have a single friend in your life who isn't drunk... maybe you need to get some new friends.

    I don't drink. If any of my friends called me and the only options were them driving drunk or me coming to get them... I'd go get them.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Oct. 24, 2013 8:03 a.m.

    Owl@Happy Valley Heretic
    Willful ignorance is judging an opinion on its origin rather than on its merits.

    We Agree.