NTSB Recommends .05 BAC Limit

At the most recent (Oldham County chapter) of Drunks Against Mad Mothers meeting, this article was brought to the memberships attention:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol/

The National Transportation Safety Board recommended on Tuesday that all 50 states adopt a blood-alcohol content (BAC) cutoff of 0.05 compared to the 0.08 standard on the books today and used by law enforcement and the courts to prosecute drunk driving.

"Most Americans think that we've solved the problem of impaired driving, but in fact, it's still a national epidemic," NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said.

Personally, the way I'm seeing it, until they make texting while driving the equivalent crime...with equivalent penalties, the NTSB can kiss my a**...

[Robin Garr]

the NTSB can kiss my a**...

I'd like to see the answer to a simple question before I decide if this is a way to save lives or a mere excess of the Nanny State: How many accidents in recent years, nationwide, have involved drivers with BAC between .05 and .08. There's your target. If there are tons of them, then the NTSB has a case worth listening to. But if, as I strongly suspect, the carnage begins at a higher level and ramps up to the ceiling at "Seriously Drunk," then they're not doing anything but hassling social drinkers. If that's what they want, let them admit it, and let them show us the numbers.

I've seen a couple of stories about this topic but the big thing is that they stated there is no information showing that 0.05 will produce fewer accidents than 0.08 does. As a matter of fact the information to show that 0.08 is better than 0.10 is even questionable. I think if this starts to get any traction is going to be an awful lot of controversy and push back!

I'd like to see the answer to a simple question before I decide if this is a way to save lives or a mere excess of the Nanny State: How many accidents in recent years, nationwide, have involved drivers with BAC between .05 and .08. There's your target. If there are tons of them, then the NTSB has a case worth listening to. But if, as I strongly suspect, the carnage begins at a higher level and ramps up to the ceiling at "Seriously Drunk," then they're not doing anything but hassling social drinkers. If that's what they want, let them admit it, and let them show us the numbers.

Robin-
As I understand it, the NTSB claims something on the order of 800 lives would be saved by lowering the BAC to 0.05. Maybe their science is bad or maybe it isn't, but probably worth my time to see how this sorts out. As Mark states, there will be plenty of push back, primarily from the hospitality industry along with the beer and liquor industries, so it will be interesting to see if this push back takes shape as credible opposing data or be more of an appeal at the emotional rather than the intellectual level.

It is worth noting that the US , even at 0.08, has one of the highest drunk driving thresholds in the world.

Well, it might not hit the hospitality industry as hard as the auto industry. If they push us too far, I'll give up driving and probably won't be alone...

And yet another reason for better public transport.

How many accidents in recent years, nationwide, have involved drivers with BAC between .05 and .08.

The NY Times has this graphic that helps answer your question:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/27/science/drunk-driving-2011.html

[Robin Garr]

The NY Times has this graphic that helps answer your question:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/27/science/drunk-driving-2011.html

Very interesting, John, and thanks. Praise Da Google!

At a glance, it appears that the current .08 limit does represent a fairly sharp cutoff. It seems that there may be a little to be gained from a .05 limit for younger drivers, but virtually no gain (save a few apparent statistical outliers) for those over 30. It almost seems as if an age-specific system would be more justifiable as policy: .05 for 20-somethings, .08 for those 30 and up.

There are some grumblings in the law enforcement community about this when it was brought up last year.

I can't find the quote but i remember them suggesting it be a reckless driving type offense if BAC was below .08.

Technically they can charge for DUI with any level of alcohol reading if they can prove the driver is impaired.

How many accidents in recent years, nationwide, have involved drivers with BAC between .05 and .08.

The NY Times has this graphic that helps answer your question:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/27/science/drunk-driving-2011.html

I'm not even sure that this graph could be used to justify a change in the level. This information would need to be compared to the information regarding total fatal accidents by age group. It's a proven fact that younger drivers have more accidents as well as more fatal accidents and that can certainly be seen here with these significant drop off as age increases. Statistics are strange thing in that depending on how you calculate them you can make them prove or disprove any given point using the same information depending on how you present it!

From that graph, it would seem to make more sense to ban young driving, rather than drunk driving!

I smell a case of arbitrary numbers being used to create revenue. This is what you would call legal creep. No bueno.

A Food Forum: The best place on the internet to do interpretation of statistical data. But that's what make this a great place.

From that graph, it would seem to make more sense to ban young driving, rather than drunk driving!

I just figured the older people had more practice driving drunk.

[Robin Garr]

A Food Forum: The best place on the internet to do interpretation of statistical data. But that's what make this a great place.

9 grad credits in stats and research methodology here. You?