QuoteAnxiety among First Coast pub owners and managers is increasing as they worry their business could be wrecked by a federal recommendation that the legal blood-alcohol level be lowered.
“Unfortunately, there are people in this country who think that alcohol is bad and that responsible adults shouldn’t be able to enjoy it,†said Ben Davis, owner of Intuition Ale Works brew house in Jacksonville’s Riverside neighborhood. “If you’re basically saying that someone yesterday could drink one more beer and now that same beer’s going to get them thrown in jail, that’s not good for our business.â€
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-05-24/story/proposed-reduction-dui-threshold-has-some-jacksonville-bar-owners-angry#ixzz2UEbnSU8r
I am a little surprised (and offended?) Ben Davis of Intuition seems to equate a crackdown on endangering others via drinking and driving with a crackdown on drinking itself. The responsible bar owners I know are all for tougher enforcement. Here in SF in fact if there is an incident, the BAR OWNER is liable!! If anything, tougher laws will only help to support local watering holes and walkable nightlife districts as people will not as easily be able to drive all over tarnation just to drink.
Even less progressive states such as TX enforce that bar owners supply and pay for cabs for drunk patrons or those that request it. Jacksonville recently topped a list of drinking/driving cities and drinking/driving incidents (no surprise, Jax also tops lists of driving incidents in general, pedestrian accidents, bike accidents, etc). The mentality in Jax is that Hank Cox will get people out of "trouble". Most people from Jax I know at this point have had DUI incidents already, some multiple, and some involving injuries to innocent 3rd parties. Yet everyone gets off and parents still buy their kids new cars and people still insist on leaving King St or St. Johns Ave or 5 Points or the Beaches (where there is tougher enforcement) at 2 AM in their car, but "driving carefully". Just because there is no traffic on the road and tons of backroads to take does not make it more acceptable. As Jax grows, so will nighttime traffic and driving hazards, and despite easy driving the city still ranks as one of the worst for drinking/driving deaths/incidents, so something is ALREADY wrong in the city!
I grew up with this mentality and within my first year of having a car in Atlanta (soph year in college, which is great that freshman can't have cars frankly), it landed me in tons of trouble and I quickly learned that so much as having 2 beers before driving was not tolerated. Other cities really really enforce no drinking and driving already, and other options have resulted:
More "local" establishments that people can walk to...which is what I think we all actually want!
Cabs/taxis - people continue to assault my bringing cabs up as a form of transit, but they ARE in most large cities, during rush hour AND at night/weekends!
Quote from: simms3 on May 24, 2013, 03:46:54 PM
I am a little surprised (and offended?) Ben Davis of Intuition seems to equate a crackdown on endangering others via drinking and driving with a crackdown on drinking itself. The responsible bar owners I know are all for tougher enforcement. Here in SF in fact if there is an incident, the BAR OWNER is liable!! If anything, tougher laws will only help to support local watering holes and walkable nightlife districts as people will not as easily be able to drive all over tarnation just to drink.
Even less progressive states such as TX enforce that bar owners supply and pay for cabs for drunk patrons or those that request it. Jacksonville recently topped a list of drinking/driving cities and drinking/driving incidents (no surprise, Jax also tops lists of driving incidents in general, pedestrian accidents, bike accidents, etc). The mentality in Jax is that Hank Cox will get people out of "trouble". Most people from Jax I know at this point have had DUI incidents already, some multiple, and some involving injuries to innocent 3rd parties. Yet everyone gets off and parents still buy their kids new cars and people still insist on leaving King St or St. Johns Ave or 5 Points or the Beaches (where there is tougher enforcement) at 2 AM in their car, but "driving carefully". Just because there is no traffic on the road and tons of backroads to take does not make it more acceptable. As Jax grows, so will nighttime traffic and driving hazards, and despite easy driving the city still ranks as one of the worst for drinking/driving deaths/incidents, so something is ALREADY wrong in the city!
I grew up with this mentality and within my first year of having a car in Atlanta (soph year in college, which is great that freshman can't have cars frankly), it landed me in tons of trouble and I quickly learned that so much as having 2 beers before driving was not tolerated. Other cities really really enforce no drinking and driving already, and other options have resulted:
More "local" establishments that people can walk to...which is what I think we all actually want!
Cabs/taxis - people continue to assault my bringing cabs up as a form of transit, but they ARE in most large cities, during rush hour AND at night/weekends!
Yes, I'm sure these changes will just be the economic boost that Jacksonville needs to have walkable districts, pedestrian friendly roads, bicycle lanes and easily utilized public transportation.
I'd also like to see your survey on the Hank Cox effect, as none of my buddies think of ol' Hank prior to drinking and driving.
You really seem to love to paint with a broad brush.
^^^You're already proving my points about the Jax mentality. The numbers that have even been presented on MetroJacksonville involving drinking and driving provide the backup.
The fact that you're so miffed by my post in support of tougher laws is evidence that the "old ways" in anything in Jax are so prevalent.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8492/8345536181_54856be786_o.png)
I am as opposed to drinking and driving as any other person, and since I don't drink this really doesn't affect me. What I want to know is if there is actual evidence that an average person is impaired enough at this lower level that they shouldn't be driving. A stat that 1% of all drinkers is impaired enough at that level that they shouldn't be driving is not sufficient, and the argument that if one life is saved by lowering the level doesn't hold water because we could save all the people who would be killed by a drunk driver if we just banned alcohol completely(which I think is a ridiculous idea).
Now if there was a stat that 30% of those who drank and then drove were impaired enough at that level then I could understand lowering the limit, but I think that getting a stat like that would be difficult to do without making assumptions.
You've completely missed the point, simms. Just because you lived in Jacksonville at one time, doesn't mean your group of friends is representative of the city at large. Further, the potential passage of this more stringent law likely wouldn't provide Jax with all the items you bemoan we don't have.
My other comment was tongue in cheek, as I hope my friends are intelligent enough to know when they shouldn't drive.
Jacksonville's drinking and driving problems stem from being a 800+ square mile city with a tragic lack of nightlife clustered in a handful of areas, no reliable mass transportation, and cab fares that will easily set the average working class drinker back $50-80 for the night due to sprawl.
We all hate drinking and driving, but people are more dangerous before they've had their morning coffee than they are at a .05. The last thing we need as a country is to throw even more people behind bars, or ruin their lives because that second Miller High Life hit them harder than expected at the barbeque, or because the bartender was feeling a little generous when making the 100 pound girl a mixed drink.
At the very least, there needs to be some kind of a sliding scale of punishment based on BAC. If someone blows a .05, fine, make them sit through some silly class, or give them a $80 fine, but these aren't the habitual drinkers and drivers that are out there killing people. These are average people leaving weddings or restaurants. They don't need $10,000 in legal fees and criminal record for an .05.
I'm all for throwing the book at repeat offenders who pose a real risk to society. Shred their license for life if they repeat, throw them in jail if they hurt someone, throw away the key if they kill someone. But America is litigious enough as is. We don't need to create this "Gotcha!" dragnet society that makes accidental criminals out of average citizens.
I agree whole-heartedly Ken.
And it's quite possible that your suggestions end up being similar to the end results if it gains traction.
Repeat after me, "Revenue Generator".
Quote from: simms3 on May 24, 2013, 03:46:54 PM
I am a little surprised (and offended?) Ben Davis of Intuition seems to equate a crackdown on endangering others via drinking and driving with a crackdown on drinking itself. The responsible bar owners I know are all for tougher enforcement. Here in SF in fact if there is an incident, the BAR OWNER is liable!! If anything, tougher laws will only help to support local watering holes and walkable nightlife districts as people will not as easily be able to drive all over tarnation just to drink.
Even less progressive states such as TX enforce that bar owners supply and pay for cabs for drunk patrons or those that request it. Jacksonville recently topped a list of drinking/driving cities and drinking/driving incidents (no surprise, Jax also tops lists of driving incidents in general, pedestrian accidents, bike accidents, etc). The mentality in Jax is that Hank Cox will get people out of "trouble". Most people from Jax I know at this point have had DUI incidents already, some multiple, and some involving injuries to innocent 3rd parties. Yet everyone gets off and parents still buy their kids new cars and people still insist on leaving King St or St. Johns Ave or 5 Points or the Beaches (where there is tougher enforcement) at 2 AM in their car, but "driving carefully". Just because there is no traffic on the road and tons of backroads to take does not make it more acceptable. As Jax grows, so will nighttime traffic and driving hazards, and despite easy driving the city still ranks as one of the worst for drinking/driving deaths/incidents, so something is ALREADY wrong in the city!
I grew up with this mentality and within my first year of having a car in Atlanta (soph year in college, which is great that freshman can't have cars frankly), it landed me in tons of trouble and I quickly learned that so much as having 2 beers before driving was not tolerated. Other cities really really enforce no drinking and driving already, and other options have resulted:
More "local" establishments that people can walk to...which is what I think we all actually want!
Cabs/taxis - people continue to assault my bringing cabs up as a form of transit, but they ARE in most large cities, during rush hour AND at night/weekends!
Simms- Explain to me how lowering the legal limit to .05 prevents someone that drinks 8 Jagerbombs at "XYZ" bar from getting behind the wheel?
Please use some graphs and colorful pictures as I am just an "offensive" Jacksonville simpleton and I am not exposed to the enlightenment that a mecca like SF can provide...
To each their own, but if lowering the limit won't change people's drinking and/or driving habits, then why do you think it will negatively affect your business?
Driving is one of the largest responsibilities granted people and is not to be taken lightly. It gives people insane responsibility on PUBLIC rights of way. If you want to go get black out drunk and go mudding on your own farm, have at it - who's to stop you?
Just so you don't think I'm biased against drinking (leaving after this post to go WALK and drink at a local pub, and probably going to have enough beers for me to double the limit :))), I am against:
Drinking and driving - DWI
Prescription drug use that impairs you and driving - also DWI
Drinking cough syrup and driving - also DWI
Tired driving - no laws against this, but more and more awareness campaigns
Texting and driving - more states individually passing laws that heavily penalize people for this - GA has, has FL?
15 and 16 year olds being able to drive (my God, that's insane that I was behind the wheel when I had barely hit puberty) - some states will give you a license at 18 instead of 16, and I think more states considering this
I'm also for:
Better land use policy and transportation planning that affords people options and the ability to live near the places they travel to, work from, drink at, etc.
Where is the disconnect here?
Quote from: Intuition Ale Works on May 24, 2013, 06:24:13 PM
Quote from: simms3 on May 24, 2013, 03:46:54 PM
I am a little surprised (and offended?) Ben Davis of Intuition seems to equate a crackdown on endangering others via drinking and driving with a crackdown on drinking itself. The responsible bar owners I know are all for tougher enforcement. Here in SF in fact if there is an incident, the BAR OWNER is liable!! If anything, tougher laws will only help to support local watering holes and walkable nightlife districts as people will not as easily be able to drive all over tarnation just to drink.
Even less progressive states such as TX enforce that bar owners supply and pay for cabs for drunk patrons or those that request it. Jacksonville recently topped a list of drinking/driving cities and drinking/driving incidents (no surprise, Jax also tops lists of driving incidents in general, pedestrian accidents, bike accidents, etc). The mentality in Jax is that Hank Cox will get people out of "trouble". Most people from Jax I know at this point have had DUI incidents already, some multiple, and some involving injuries to innocent 3rd parties. Yet everyone gets off and parents still buy their kids new cars and people still insist on leaving King St or St. Johns Ave or 5 Points or the Beaches (where there is tougher enforcement) at 2 AM in their car, but "driving carefully". Just because there is no traffic on the road and tons of backroads to take does not make it more acceptable. As Jax grows, so will nighttime traffic and driving hazards, and despite easy driving the city still ranks as one of the worst for drinking/driving deaths/incidents, so something is ALREADY wrong in the city!
I grew up with this mentality and within my first year of having a car in Atlanta (soph year in college, which is great that freshman can't have cars frankly), it landed me in tons of trouble and I quickly learned that so much as having 2 beers before driving was not tolerated. Other cities really really enforce no drinking and driving already, and other options have resulted:
More "local" establishments that people can walk to...which is what I think we all actually want!
Cabs/taxis - people continue to assault my bringing cabs up as a form of transit, but they ARE in most large cities, during rush hour AND at night/weekends!
Simms- Explain to me how lowering the legal limit to .05 prevents someone that drinks 8 Jagerbombs at "XYZ" bar from getting behind the wheel?
Please use some graphs and colorful pictures as I am just an "offensive" Jacksonville simpleton and I am not exposed to the enlightenment that a mecca like SF can provide...
I hope he types monosyllabicly so we can understand.
Also, who needs a graph when you can cite to nearly everyone you know? Honestly, it's scientific fact at this point.
Quote from: Intuition Ale Works on May 24, 2013, 06:24:13 PM
Simms- Explain to me how lowering the legal limit to .05 prevents someone that drinks 8 Jagerbombs at "XYZ" bar from getting behind the wheel?
Please use some graphs and colorful pictures as I am just an "offensive" Jacksonville simpleton and I am not exposed to the enlightenment that a mecca like SF can provide...
This. Making the act of driving while having an arbitrary amount of alcohol in your system does nothing. Well, it does allow local LEOs to abuse it as a way to keep their coffers filled but that is another matter.
We already have laws on the books that deal with vehicular homicide, property damage, and any other possible negative outcome of drunk driving. I would be ok with adding additional penalties to those who commit those acts while driving drunk, but making the act itself illegal won't solve it.
And I find it odd that everyone who has responded (to me) is vehemently against the potential new measure. I know plenty of people who drink who are for the new measure. This I think plays into my original post, somewhat? It's a tougher law against drinking and driving - this is pissing people off, how?
Also, there are some people who can have one or two drinks and be pretty darn impaired. A BAC of 0.05 implies roughly 2-3 drinks in one's system at one time (for most average adult males), which is not something to sneeze at when you are behind the wheel of a missile that can be driven easily into people and other traffic and buildings, or a tree. It's a revenue measure, but then so are speed limits - do you suppose we get rid of those and simply fine people we "feel" were driving too fast IF they have already done damage?
WTF, the way you're thinking here is "pro-Big Insurance", forcing more people to take out larger policies, deductibles to go up, etc. "Prevention" is the new way for everything, healthcare included.
Quote from: simms3 on May 24, 2013, 07:01:28 PM
To each their own, but if lowering the limit won't change people's drinking and/or driving habits, then why do you think it will negatively affect your business?
Driving is one of the largest responsibilities granted people and is not to be taken lightly. It gives people insane responsibility on PUBLIC rights of way. If you want to go get black out drunk and go mudding on your own farm, have at it - who's to stop you?
Just so you don't think I'm biased against drinking (leaving after this post to go WALK and drink at a local pub, and probably going to have enough beers for me to double the limit :))), I am against:
Drinking and driving - DWI
Prescription drug use that impairs you and driving - also DWI
Drinking cough syrup and driving - also DWI
Tired driving - no laws against this, but more and more awareness campaigns
Texting and driving - more states individually passing laws that heavily penalize people for this - GA has, has FL?
15 and 16 year olds being able to drive (my God, that's insane that I was behind the wheel when I had barely hit puberty) - some states will give you a license at 18 instead of 16, and I think more states considering this
I'm also for:
Better land use policy and transportation planning that affords people options and the ability to live near the places they travel to, work from, drink at, etc.
Where is the disconnect here?
Simms-
Thanks for not answering my question.
Here is some info about drunk drivers.
"In 2010, 70% of drivers involved in drunk driving fatalities had a a BAC level of .15 or higher â€" a trend that has remained relatively unchanged for more than a decade. (Source: NHTSA/FARS, 2012)
Three percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2010 had a prior DWI conviction within the past three years. Among these drivers with a prior DWI conviction 42% were involved in a fatal crash and had a BAC level of 0.15 or higher at the time of the crash. (Source: NHTSA/FARS, 2012)
The median BAC level remains twice the legal limit at 0.16, and drivers with a BAC level of .15 or higher in fatal crashes were nine times more likely to have a prior conviction for driving while impaired than non-drinking drivers. (Source: NHTSA, FARS and Traffic Safety Facts "Alcohol-Impaired Driving," 2012)
Compared with drivers who have not consumed alcohol, drivers with BACs of .15 or above are 380 times more likely to be involved in a single-vehicle fatal crash than a non-drinking driver. (Source: Zador, P.L. Alcohol related relative risk of fatal driver injuries in relation to driver age and sex. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 52(4):302-310, 1991.) "How does lowering the legal limit discourage the Hardcore Drunk Drivers that are involved in most of the accidents?
Are we trying to prevent accidents or send moms that had 2 glasses of wine to jail?
As an operator of a bar I take drinking and driving seriously and do pay for cabs for folks that should not be driving. We are def liable here in Fla (Dram shop laws).
But .08 is really one drink an hour. Guessing .05 must be one every 90 to 120 minutes.
This proposal will have negative consequences for all food and beverage establishments.
Will def lead to more jobs lost. Not just in bars & restaurants but in suppliers, distributors and their suppliers etc.
This will result in many people getting DUI's who are not impaired. Certainly less impaired than someone talking or texting on a cell phone while driving.
This is really a gateway to prohibition it would seem to me.
We are becoming the nanny state.
My generation (baby boomers) are in charge now and we have screwed it up big time.
Walkable districts would be nice but that isn't a reality nor will it be in Jax anytime soon.
This proposal is well meaning but is an example of gov't overreach in my opinion.
You don't need new laws for this, the wake up call comes from the doctor when they try to revive a liver that has fallen slap out onto the floor! ;D
@ Ben Davis - we can respectfully disagree. As a publicly quoted bar owner/master brewer, you should be prepared for people to disagree with you and question your statement, as I have (to me you took a touchy subject for many who may be customers of yours and made it all about about business). As you point out, it probably won't get rid of the hardcore drinkers responsible for 70% of drunk driving fatalities, but it may cause the other 30% to hesitate more before getting behind the wheel, and to me that's progress (maybe not to you).
You talk about responsible adults, but in my mind the responsible thing to do is to take a cab when drinking. There was a point in time when I was wreckless and irresponsible (never caused any accidents, never been in so much as a fender bender), but now I have been both a culprit and a victim of drinking and driving, and my perspective has long since changed. My fraternity brothers in college took drinking and driving very seriously. Seran wrapped one culprit to a bench and hazed the hell out of him once for pulling up in a car after coming from a bar. It's a very different mentality to the one in Jax where nobody bats an eye.
Also, I don't think cops are out looking for DUI during daylight hours. If you are clearly inebriated and break traffic rule or are part of an incident, they can still make the determination that you are DWI anyway. Anyone who has been through traffic school knows that even if your BAC is 0.03 or 0.04, if you are in an accident, you could be held liable for the accident and charged with DWI. It's already up to the responding officers.
I realize that cabs in Jax are sparse and expensive due to distance...that's a separate issue from BAC limits, in my mind. That's an issue of personal choice to live in a more spread out manner, and as we have talked about on this site, people need to suck up to the fact that "drive until you qualify" is not as cheap as people think. The fact that there are so few cabs is also odd, generally speaking. People don't even take cabs in from the airport - strictly a rental car city. I see more and more laws that could be contrived as "taking away people's liberty" in fact bringing more people together and making it more convenient and more desirable to centralize. To me that's a good thing.
I don't want to get further into opinion about what constitutes impairment (I wouldn't want my commercial flight piloted by folks who had just a couple of glasses of wine, nor would I appreciate it if my cab driver stopped in for a couple of beers every few hours to take the edge off...but that's just me, 0.04% is the legal limit for commercial drivers already).
However, maybe it's pointing out how far behind FL (and the US) is once again on laws that are already in place regarding driving.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Map_of_European_countries_by_maximum_blood_alcohol_level.svg/680px-Map_of_European_countries_by_maximum_blood_alcohol_level.svg.png)
Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AMap_of_European_countries_by_maximum_blood_alcohol_level.svg
Japan's limit is 0.03%
Most of Latin America is below 0.05%, with a few notable countries such as Brazil having a zero tolerance level.
Australia is at 0.05%
China and Israel at 0.02%
The US is alone with Canada, England, Mexico, Malaysia and Puerto Rico and in the Cayman Islands one can drive legally drunk in some place, apparently.
When it comes to Distracted Driving laws, FL is among a few states with no laws against it. It's in the company of Missouri, Montana, and South Carolina. Most states have total bans on texting, 37 states + DC have a total ban on cell phone usage for those under 18, and 18 states + DC have a total cell phone usage ban. 11 + DC have a hand-held ban. I remember in GA the tickets for violating these laws were second worst to receiving a DUI less safe with no incident. No jail-time, but maximum points and insane ticket prices.
Maybe these are just revenue generators, time will tell the impact of stricter laws. Time has told the impact of reducing legal limit in America from 0.10% to 0.08%. Drunk driving incidents are already far far below what they were in the 60s-80s. I think that's telling.
QuoteNHTSA has published several comprehensive studies on the effectiveness of .08 BAC laws. These studies found consistent and persuasive evidence that .08 BAC laws are associated with reduced incidence of alcohol-related fatal crashes. A study of the effectiveness of a .08 BAC law implemented in Illinois in 1997, found that the .08 BAC law was associated with a 13.7 percent decline in the number of drinking drivers involved in fatal crashes. The reduction included drivers at both high and low BAC levels. This is significant because critics of .08 BAC laws have often claimed that these laws do not affect the behavior of high BAC drivers. The study also found that there were no major problems reported by local law enforcement or court systems due to the change in the law. An updated analysis of Illinois’s law estimated that 105 lives were saved in the first two calendar years since its implementation.
source: www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/new-fact-sheet03/fact.../Laws-08BAC.pdfCached
won't prevent anything will simply fill up more drunk tanks and the county coffers.
I'm pretty sure the same thing was said when the BAC was reduced from 0.10 to 0.08....but the reduction in deaths on highways says otherwise....that said even one death due to drunk driving is too many
I do not claim to know the science as to where the BAC should be. I do think we should add breath ignition lock to the cars of everyone who has been convicted of a DUI for at least 10 years. It always seems like when you hear about a drunk driving tragedy it is a repeat offender. Perhaps insurance companies should start offering discounts to people who have them.
Just say no drinking and driving period and call it day. Any alcohol in your system youre going to jail. Because even if your are under or at the legal limit, they can still arrest you, which is stupid as hell. Why have a "legal" limit, if you can still get in trouble?
I have less concerns about lowering the BAC legal level. If people want to drink, they will drink. The "implied consent" law has brought boundaries around the actions, but cannot stop those who don't care.
Having nearly been killed by an impaired driver who blew .25 and left the scene, caught later, you would think I would be ready to crack the whip on everyone. Not the case.
Former baseball player Mark Grace is in jail because he kept getting busted for DUI. His attorneys kept getting him off, finally with a breath/ignition interlock on his car. So what did he do before he went to a party? He borrowed a car because he knew he was going to be impaired before he even got there and didn't want to be bothered to ask for a cab or a ride. He got pulled over, arrested and thrown in jail for 2 years. Those are the people I am worried about. "Pride before a ride" is the issue.
Lowering a BAC level will not stop people like this ever.
However, the recent urge to legalize pot in several states is causing a wave of research into pot impairment when driving. It was already published that 3 grams of pot smoked can cause impairment of a motorcyclist which has much higher attention demands than driving. Pot impairment will be the next wave of oversight.
Quote from: spuwho on May 27, 2013, 10:12:53 AM
Pot impairment will be the next wave of oversight.
Yeah I blew once..... but I didn't exhale.
Quote from: duvaldude08 on May 27, 2013, 02:23:17 AM
Just say no drinking and driving period and call it day. Any alcohol in your system youre going to jail. Because even if your are under or at the legal limit, they can still arrest you, which is stupid as hell. Why have a "legal" limit, if you can still get in trouble?
This makes sense . +1 .. (see Duvaldude?, I don't always diss you :P )
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 27, 2013, 11:32:47 AM
Quote from: spuwho on May 27, 2013, 10:12:53 AM
Pot impairment will be the next wave of oversight.
Driving down Post Street 15mph in a 30 zone...fries all over the front seat..playing Edgar Winters "Frankenstein" at a loud volumne.
Hmm Suspicious behavior?..(Try not to laugh at the Cop )..;)
So when's the last time any of us read about a fatality that was caused by a .05 or .08 BAL? The accidents involving death or property damage aren't caused by the guy who had two beers, they're caused by the drivers who get totally shnockered and drive the wrong way on the interstate, or plow into a house just to pull two off recent news stories. This will do little or nothing to affect safety. Also, to everyone crediting the reduction from .10 to .08 with the decrease in national traffic fatalities, don't. Though I know MADD likes to claim credit, the reality is there has been one long decline in traffic fatalities since the late 1970s, reflecting the mandatory installation of seatbelts, and again when the installation of airbags became mandatory. Vehicles are far safer now, and that by itself is responsible for virtually all of the difference.
Quote from: fsquid on May 26, 2013, 02:29:06 PM
won't prevent anything will simply fill up more drunk tanks and the county coffers.
Shhhh, hush that crazy talk. The cops care about us all. Thats why they do these things, because they love us. So everyone, flag down your local neighborhood friendly traffic cop & give them a big hug. Then go hug the judges, lawyers & private prison system that demands to be filled.
Then go hug JTA for having such excellent service, the automobile manufacturers, the highway lobbyists, oil companies, developers of sprawl & anyone responsible for destroying all the public rail systems across our great country. They love you too.
Quote from: simms3 on May 24, 2013, 07:07:22 PMIt's a tougher law against drinking and driving - this is pissing people off, how?
Because it's an unnecessary, broad sweeping measure aimed to "fix" a problem that doesn't really exist (there is no epidemic of .05 BAC traffic fatalities). It would be a death sentence for many of the tens of thousands of restaurants which depend on alcohol sales for approximately 30% of their profit. It would be a massive blow to a $90 billion industry that is historically recession proof. It would make potential criminals out of moderate, responsible drinkers (one generously poured glass of wine could potentially cause a petite woman to be arrested for drunk driving). It wastes police resources and sets a dangerously low benchmark for testing that still proves to be inaccurate at times (and we certainly don't need police drawing blood for a suspected .05). A .05 legal limit is a needless, egregious buzzkill that serves no concrete purpose beyond that of a cash grab and a political feather in the cap. All that's missing is some stupid, emotionally manipulative tearjerker of a name like "Lacey's Law" to seal the deal. We have better shit to focus our limited resources now than low-level BAC witch hunts.
Whenever we criminalize something that wasn't previously, we need to seriously consider the consequences. We overuse imprisonment as it is, and this rule change would just throw more people in jail - on the taxpayers' dime. For those who do cause accidents, the policy can already handle the situation by issuing fines for speeding, careless or reckless driving, etc., which are paid directly by the offender; removing this discretion in favor of jail time (paid for by the taxpayer) is a step backwards. And no matter what, it clearly wouldn't have any affect on the drunk drivers who are causing the vast majority of the problems.
A number of countries have lower thresholds for drinking and driving, however they often have substantially different drinking cultures as well as driving cultures. In the US binge drinking as recreation is common, and people value the freedom of a car (and our urban designs often make it difficult to get around without a car, as is the case in almost all of Florida). These are deep cultural factors behind the drunk driving problem as it exists in America, and changing one law to match those in countries with different cultures wouldn't change American attitudes one iota.
Quote from: KenFSU on May 28, 2013, 12:54:00 PM
Because it's an unnecessary, broad sweeping measure aimed to "fix" a problem that doesn't really exist (there is no epidemic of .05 BAC traffic fatalities)
that is an oversimplification....sure maybe the guy speeding down the road in the wrong direction has a BAC of 0.15...but what about the person trying to avoid the crash....I'd rather have all my cogniticve functions than even be slightly impaired
Meanwhile the new law prohibiting texting while driving allows for violators to be cited only if they're being pulled over for a separate reason.
from what I heard, that's not true...it is set up as a primary offense, ehcih means they can stop you for that alone
apparently I stand corrected
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/rick-scott-to-sign-texting-while-driving-ban-but-does-it-have-teeth/2123402
Well if they have passed the texting and driving law then we are all safe now !!!!!! let the Nanny state reign