Utah set to drop blood-alcohol limit to .05, strictest in country

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Utah will impose the country’s strictest limit for alcohol consumption later this month — just in time for New Year’s Eve.

The law, which was passed in March 2017 by Gov. Gary Herbert, will define driving under the influence as having a “blood or breath alcohol concentration of .05 grams or greater,” which is lower than the nationwide standard of .08.

It also states that a person with a blood-alcohol concentration level of .05 or higher who “operates a motor vehicle in a negligent manner causing the death of another” will have committed an automobile homicide, a felony.

The law will take effect Dec. 30.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-set-drop-blood-alcohol-limit-05-strictest-country-n948536

[Sneederbunk]

1. In addition, any detectable coffee.

[Aristus]

7. I was going to say:

Blood-caffeine levels next?

[maxsolomon]

2. why not lower it to .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001?

if you're trying to prove you're "tough on crime"...

[BannonsLiver]

4. It's more about filling private prisons and revenue

It’s the GOP so we know public safety isn’t the true motivation.

[maxsolomon]

18. Its Utah so IDK

the LDS gets what it wants.

[LiberalFighter]

20. Not low enough.

[maxsolomon]

22. So, make it illegal for production and consumption?

that works well.

[LiberalFighter]

42. Just for Utah. Since they want to violate the Constitution.

[Cirque du So-What]

3. .05?

You could get that from looking at a picture of Dean Martin.

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Good.

The lower the better.

[lame54]

8. No...

Targeting the wrong people

[maxsolomon]

17. Question:

1. Why not .01? It's lower than .05.

[TheCowsCameHome]

19. Sounds good to me.

[LanternWaste]

26. And precisely what good end do you prophecize coming from this?

[Downtown Hound]

31. He gets to feel good about himself

While ignoring that dangerous drunk drivers likely have an alcohol problem and are going to drive no matter what the legal limit is. But as long as he can nab that housewife who had a glass of wine too many and make her life a living hell, he feels good about himself. And that's what counts.

[maxsolomon]

36. that's precisely who is the biggest risk

known alcoholics with multiple DUIs who can still drive because they have to get to their jobs.

in WA, they get a "ignition interlock" order, meaning they have to blow into a device to be able to start the vehicle. the state requires the installation, but has no funds for enforcement. that's right: they don't confirm that the devices are installed and functioning.

[TheCowsCameHome]

38. Wow, you really have a vivid imagination.

And me? Unlike yourself, I don't want impaired drivers on the road.

[Downtown Hound]

39. I remember lots of people saying, "I don't want drugs in my neighborhood,"

a while back when supporting draconian drug laws. Several million inmates later, plus an overburdened criminal justice system, many people came to realize that maybe that wasn't the best reaction to have.

Also, recognizing situational nuance in criminal law does not mean, "Hey, let's put as many drunk drivers on the road as possible!" The minute people resort to short sighted extremist black and white thinking like it's either this or that but there can be no middle is usually the minute I know that this is a bad idea.

[USALiberal]

41. Tired drivers? Distracted drivers? Depressed drivers? nt

[USALiberal]

40. In other words, no logic in your decision. Got it. nt

[dalton99a]

24. And capital punishment.

[Rorey]

6. One drink is now impairment for me

I hardly ever indulge these days, so I can definitely feel it when I have a glass of wine or a beer.

Taxi, Uber, Lyft, public transportation, or WALK. If none of those are available or feasible, one should just stay put.

[maxsolomon]

15. Anecdotal. It is possible to drink alcohol and drive afterwards.

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2018, 05:48 PM - Edit history (1)

I weigh 210 lbs. Last night I had a Manhattan, with a Lasagna dinner, over the course of an hour. I drank water as well. I drove home. I was not impaired. I did not need to take a Lyft.

Would I have blown a .05? Probably at some point as a cocktail is "2 standard drinks", but I drove cautiously and obeyed the traffic laws, as usual, so we'll never know.

Facts on BAC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content

[Rorey]

35. Absolutely right.

My thing is just *my* thing.

Years ago my story was different.

[TexasBushwhacker]

49. A regular cocktail is 1 standard drink, not 2

1 drink is 12 oz beer, 5 oz of non-fortified wine, or a cocktail made with 1.5 oz of 80 proof liquor. A man your size with a healthy liver probably would not get up to .05 until your third drink in 2 hours. The fact you had your drink with a meal slows down alcohol absorption too. Now a 100 pound woman could hit Utah's .05 threshold with just one drink.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

9. Okay, here's my (mostly) joke opinion: Buzzed drivers are the safest drivers out there.

No, I'm not talking about drivers who are completely sloshed out of their mind.

I'm talking about people who have had one or two beers, or a glass of wine.

Think about it: People who are completely sober tend to get complacent and lazy. They ignore the rules of the road because they're not thinking they've done anything wrong.

On the other hand, drivers who are slightly tipsy or have had just a little bit of alcohol in them--they become hyper aware because they don't want to get caught. And they're still enough in their senses to pull it off.

So they drive the speed limit and not a mph over it. They make sure to stay in their lanes. They are always cautious to stop at red lights and stop signs. All to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Therefore, to make the roads safer, I propose everyone have a glass of wine or a single beer before hitting the road.

This all is sarcasm folks.

I'm just joking.

Sorta.

Kinda.

I mean...it makes sense, though, doesn't it?

I kid, I kid.


I think.

[zipplewrath]

12. Only partially

There's precious little data to suggest than anyone 0.05 is going to be particularly more dangerous, and there is a little data suggesting exactly what you are. People modify their behavior towards safety.

[Rorey]

37. "People modify their behavior towards safety."

True.

A whole lot of years ago I was very poor. I drove without insurance, and I'm pretty sure I was the best, most careful person on the road at the time. I modified my behavior to keep from getting caught. (I guess I wanted to be safe from getting caught? )

[zipplewrath]

10. Out of control

Back when MADD first got started, most of the research was done on levels between 0.12 and 0.14. Much of that research is still the basis today. It got lowered to 0.10 mostly in the form of caution. These are actually very low levels and testing was fraught with difficulties. The lowering to 0.08 was sold politically as a way of avoiding the accuracy issues with testing. Don't arrest them until they blow 0.10 but if the lawyers argue accuracy, one can always make the case that regardless, they were "over the limit". Of course that lasted about a week and pretty soon people were getting hauled in for blowing 0.08.

I don't advocate for drinking and driving, but the science at this point is weak. Correlation between 0.08, or even 0.10, and accident rates is poor. The strongest predictor for serious accidents (basically accidents with injury) is bad drivers. It's in the 80+% range. A couple of speeding tickets and maybe a reckless driving or red light running with an accident and you've got the most accurate predictor of a serious injury accident coming. Get these same folks intoxicated and it goes up to the 95% range. But you've got a serious number of people who are "legally" intoxicated every weekend, and after every college and pro football games, but the vast majority get home "just fine". It's because they modify their behavior. In fact, the behavior modifications are what cops look for. And it isn't speeding or red light running. Quite the opposite, it's stuff like driving well UNDER the speed limit. Stopping well short of a stop sign or red light. Not noticing it turned green is another one.

MADD got taken over by the WCTU. Even the founder left the organization because it was moving towards tee-totaling. It's no surprise this happened in Utah first, but don't be surprised to see this pushed in other states as well.

[maxsolomon]

23. Thanks, Zipplewrath

We need to stipulate to a set of facts around here.

[Downtown Hound]

29. Thank you

I'm no fan of drunk driving but there are limits and the penalties have gotten so strict that I feel lots of people are being unfairly given harsh punishments. Losing your license for a year can literally mean the difference between people having a job or no job, and all over a few tenths of a point difference in BAC.

But to even suggest that maybe we're going overboard is to invite the holy hell fire of the MADD fan club, who in my opinion have become no different than the overzealous drug warriors of the 80's and 90's.

[maxsolomon]

32. In America, if the risk is not 0%

then it's 100%.

[zipplewrath]

51. Yup

As a former skydiver, it was hard to explain the risk assessment associated with the sport. Yes, it was "dangerous" because you could in fact die, even if you did everything right. But that's true of an awful lot of life. It is all an issue of likelihood. For skydiving is was something like 1 in 5000 back in the day. That's pretty low. It was still higher than driving though. But I always had to laugh at the guy that was telling me how "crazy" I was, taking such risks. Far too often he was telling me this with a cigarette in his hand.

[zipplewrath]

33. Cringe worthy

In some ways "we" brought this on ourselves. It was a "joke" for so long. Watch the original Arthur to see how it was treated. Today I'd like to see a more graduated penalty system that treats sub 0.14 different than higher or multiple incidents.

[Major Nikon]

45. .05% is the limit for most of Europe already

In some parts it's much lower. Drunk driving fatality rates in the US is generally higher than Europe, and this may be for lots of other reasons besides rules on BAC.

.04% is the standard in aviation. I think commercial drivers in the US have a similar standard.

I don't think there's any question drivers are impaired prior to .08%, and the bad drivers you mentioned aren't going to improve with ethanol in their system.

[zipplewrath]

47. There's alot of question

There's precious little research to suggest that there is any significant effect at such low levels. Individuals can always vary, but exhaustion and cell phones are "impairing" drivers much worse, not to mention advanced age.

[Major Nikon]

48. What you're describing is actually a pretty good argument for changing the standard

If drivers are increasingly impaired by factors other than alcohol, the addition of alcohol increases that risk even more. So it's not a matter of either/or, it's rather in addition to. And for some of these things, like exhaustion, the addition of ethanol is going to make that situation far worse than either of those things alone.

Ethanol affects vision, judgement, response rates, and attention even at much lower levels than .08% BAC. We know this because there is significant research. At .05% BAC the risk of crash becomes 2 times greater up to 4-5 times at .08%.

[zipplewrath]

50. But those other factors would have to be present

Right now the law is ignorant of those other factors. So even if they are not present, you are guilty. Conversely, even if those other factors are present, but you don't have a BAC of 0.08, you're deemed good to go. Despite the evidence that some of these factors are seriously more dangerous than a BAC of 0.08. Commercial drivers (who basically can't have a BAC level) are monitored for fatigue. So are commercial airline pilots. But if Tiger Woods hadn't been on drugs, he'd have done nothing wrong when they found him asleep on the side of the road.

Yes, the "risk" of a crash (not a fatal one, nor even an injury accident) doubles. But the risk of a crash is very low to begin with. 2 times zero is still zero. You'll note, that on weekends when the number of drivers that are legally intoxicated increases by whole integer multiples, we don't double or triple our injury accident rates. The reason is that the "risk" of a crash goes DOWN at those times because their are fewer cars on the road, and the demographics of the driving public changes. There are other factors that influence crashes far more than small BAC levels. Factors like speeding tend to contribute greater risk than low BAC levels, in part because speeding is what most people with low BAC levels DON'T do. The police don't look for "dangerous" driving when looking for intoxication, quite the opposite, they look for people driving VERY conservatively. I've "walked the line" five times over the years (hey, ya own a two seat sports car on a Saturday night, yer gonna get pulled over). I was stone cold sober every time. Every time I got pulled over it was for something obtuse, like driving well below the speed limit (I was looking for an address) or for stopping at a Stop sign too long (I was reading a map), things like that.

As I say, it's not that anyone is particularly advocating for driving while intoxicated. It's merely that the emphasis on very low BAC levels is out of line with the risk. Even more so, there is little differentiation being made between low levels and much higher levels. Folks are getting pulled over for 0.08, with no other real risky behavior, and they lose their license for 6 months, and are put into alcohol treatment programs, all because they had that second glass of wine at dinner.

[Major Nikon]

54. Occupying a motor vehicle is the most dangerous activity the vast majority of us do

So the risk isn't zero under the best of conditions. Not even close. And that's just the risk of dying. Add to the risk of death the risk of both temporary and permanent seriously debilitating injuries and you start to get a sense of what the actual risk is that you're dismissing, not to mention the property damages and the impact to society that causes.

You keep claiming there's little to no evidence and that just isn't true. There's studies going back to at least the 80's which show how even low BAC levels impair the skills we know are needed for driving. There's studies which calculate the risk of low BAC levels based on data derived from actual accidents and factoring out all the other things you mentioned. 2 times the risk at .05% is just where it starts and that's actually the most conservative estimate which goes up to around 5 times the risk at .07%. Some studies place it as high as 21 times at that point.

Meanwhile the US is behind many if not most other developed countries. And we know these laws are effective because other countries have done it and realized the fully predictable results. That's why objective groups like AAA, the NHTSA, and the National Academy of Science are behind this. So it ain't just those pesky mothers of dead children who are pushing this based on 'think of the children' fallacies.

I love to drink. I love to drink socially. I love to drive. However, at some point you have to face the reality of the situation and the impact it has on others.

[zipplewrath]

60. Not even close

Smoking is probably the most dangerous thing people do. Serious drugs are probably #2. Sun exposure is probably #3. It would actually be interesting to try to sort this out. It wouldn't be easy because it combines exposure frequency with outcome probability. i.e. we probably all do relatively risky things, but not that often. Driving "seems" risky because we do so much of it. White Water Rafting on the other hand may be more risky, but since most of us only do it a few times, it seems less risky.

That's kinda the issue here. The vast majority of people rarely drive particularly intoxicated. Maybe a handful of times a year. So they increase their "risk" very little, because the frequency of exposure is so low. Furthermore, even when they do, they tend to have behavior modifications that reduce the risk level, regardless of frequency of exposure. And that's the point here, the consequences of being caught are far more serious than the likelihood of outcome, especially for these extremely low BAC levels. Exhaustion and distraction are far more common, and far more dangerous. Yet other than commercial drivers, we don't regulate that at all.

[Major Nikon]

62. 14% of the population smokes

Less for hard drugs. Hardly a vast majority. More than three times more people die from auto accidents vs skin cancer even if you attribute all of them to sun exposure.

Distracted and exhausted driving is regulated in every state for all drivers and is covered by several different laws with more new ones particularly concerning cell phone use.

Impaired driving increases everyone’s risk not just those who engage in it.

All of these tertiary things you keep bringing up are irrelevant. It’s like the gun nuts who claim we shouldn’t regulate guns until all other problems are solved. Such things are commonly referred to as red herring fallacies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Lowering the BAC standard will save thousands of lives, reduce serious injuries, and save millions in property damage. That’s actually the issue.

[zipplewrath]

63. At any one time

The percentage that smoke at some time in their life has pushed 40% at one time or another. Similar numbers for narcotics.

Lowering the BAC to extremely low levels won't save "thousands" of lives. Furthermore, it will damage or destroy close to that many. I've seen the impacts on various professionals. The whole point is to focus on the real "risks" and not just cherry pick the easy ones. Exposure and probability must both be considered.

[Major Nikon]

64. It already has

The results from other countries speak for themselves.

[zipplewrath]

67. Between 0.05 and 0.08?

I'm dubious anyone has data that shows lives saved because of that difference. Truth is, the primary effect of the initial crackdown on DUI came after MADD got the police, and actual drivers, to take it vastly more seriously. It was no longer a "joke" or something funny. As I say, the movie Arthur will actually make one cringe these days.

[LakeSuperiorView]

55. My nephew got cited for having a lethal level of alcohol on his breath.

He argued that the breathalyzer gave an inaccurate reading, which the judge conceded. But since the charge was underage drinking - it was a house party so no vehicles were involved, he was found guilty and had to pay a fine.

Breathalyzers stored in the trunk of a police vehicle in cold weather can be very inaccurate until warmed to room temperature. My nehew was the first person tested and like I mentioned the result was a level that would be lethal, if I remember correctly it was approaching 2% - not 0.2% but an actual stone cold dead 2%. Now that result showed have immediately suspect and thrown out at the scene, but since the level was not relevant, the presence was all that mattered.

If we want to get "Nanny State", auto video cameras have become ridiculously cheap. And an integrated accelerometer and all we are missing is software to analyze the video to look for dangerous driving.

As you note, the goal is to remove bad driving.

[nini]

59. I was disabled by a drunk driver

But I guess I fell in that 20% or less group that weren't just crappy drivers.

I feel so much better now.

[zipplewrath]

61. How drunk?

What was the BAC?

[Ohiogal]

11. Someone had better warn Brett Kavanaugh

it is unsafe for him to drive in this state.

[dembotoz]

13. being from drunken wisconsin that would not go over well here

during nam my university only had one violent protest...and that was because of a move to raise the beer age

[Kittycow]

14. CDL class limit is .04%.

That's more than reasonable to me, but as far as I can tell, it also applies to your personal vehicle. I think that's unfair.

[WeekiWater]

16. Don't drink and drive. NT

[Luciferous]

21. That pretty much sums it up! There are so many options now there is no excuse for

drinking and driving.

[zipplewrath]

27. At 0.050 I don't care.

I'm far more concerned that one is tired, old, or texting.

[melm00se]

25. This is in line

with many European countries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_law_by_country#Europe

Is the outrage because this is a Mormon state?

[zipplewrath]

28. Kinda

We have a different view of personal responsibility than most cultures. Plus, we have vastly different public transportation system.

[Downtown Hound]

43. Europe also has amazing and affordable public transportation

The U.S.? Not so much. You have tons of alternatives in Europe. In the U.S. you're limited to either not drinking, a designated driver, or what could be a very expensive taxi or uber ride, which is out of the question for many serious alcoholics.

[still_one]

30. I have no problem with that. Just have a designated driver who won't drink.

[maxsolomon]

34. I found this chart illuminating:

I read the "Relative" risks as:
0 BAC = 1% risk
.05 BAC = 2% risk
.08 BAC = 3.5% risk
.12 BAC = 7% risk

From the Wiki BAC page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content

[cloudbase]

44. I can exercise the privileges granted by

my airman's certificate if my BAC is .0399 or less, as long as I haven't consumed alcohol within the previous eight hours. I can work under my USCG Merchant Marine license if by BAC is .0399 or less, regardless of my last intake of alcohol.

.05 isn't much more than a sniff out of the bottle.

[Major Nikon]

46. I always thought the rule was...

No smoking 8 hours prior to take off and no alcohol within 50' of the aircraft.

[zipplewrath]

52. 8 hours from bottle to throttle

Although that extends with each additional "bottle".

[Bengus81]

53. Texting or jacking with your cell phone while driving is WORSE...........

Hell...it's like the driver being drunk except he/she isn't even looking at the road.

[hunter]

56. The problem in Utah will be selective enforcement.

"Nice" white Mormon people won't be tested.

Black, Mexican, and California "hippies" had better watch out.

[karynnj]

57. From this list, most of the world is at the Utah level or below

- a good thing to know if you are going overseas and renting a car! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_law_by_country

The lower the level, the easier it is to have a guideline that the driver does not drink - meaning that no one thinks they are ok when they aren't. It would be interesting to know if any country had higher limits earlier and has accident rates before and after the implementation. (Comparing the accident rates vs the legal limit would ignore that there might be many other factors - quality of roads, weather etc - so if there were several countries where two or more levels were law at some point, it would be fascinating.

I know that in some countries - even though the law is not zero - the advise is not to drink anything. (Having said this, both my husband and I have had wine at dinners and we have driven home.)

[tritsofme]

58. I've been to Salt Lake a few times this year, Uber/Lyft is everywhere

I would get a ride instantly, it was even impressive being from Chicago and using the services frequently.

It seems like the people who want to be out and have a drink have gotten the message, I surely didn’t want to test fate.

[BSdetect]

65. Australia has had .05 in every state since the 1970s. Saved thousands of lives as statistics showed.

But hey, American exceptionalism.

[zipplewrath]

66. Not sure about that

The lives saved probably weren't because of the difference between 0.08 and 0.05.