Proposed reduction in DUI threshold has some Jacksonville bar owners angry

[thelakelander]

Anxiety 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.”

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

[simms3]

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!

[duvalbill]

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.

[simms3]

^^^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. 

[carpnter]

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.   

[duvalbill]

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.

[KenFSU]

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.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

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".

[Intuition Ale Works]

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...

[simms3]

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?

[duvalbill]

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.

[FSBA]

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.

[simms3]

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?

[simms3]

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.

[Intuition Ale Works]

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?