- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: States, running out of money, to lower BAC to .05 for DWI to raise new revenue
Posted on 1/18/18 at 10:36 am to AFtigerFan
Posted on 1/18/18 at 10:36 am to AFtigerFan
quote:List them.
Ask the countries that it's worked for so far.
2
Posted on 1/18/18 at 10:36 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:I agree and already said I'm against this.
So, prohibition. I think most people agree this is not the way to save lives. Look at the wonders the war on drugs has done to save lives and keep the cartels in check.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 10:37 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
That said, I seriously doubt people driving with a BAC of .05-.079 contribute significantly to the 10,000 people killed annually by drunk drivers, which among other things, point me to believe this is not about saving lives.
It is terrible about his family member but I'd be willing to bet that the driver was smashed.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 10:37 am to Scruffy
quote:Read the article. Then email the authors if it doesn't explicitly list them (hint, it doesn't. It just says countries in Europe).
Ask the countries that it's worked for so far. List them.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 10:42 am to Scruffy
quote:
Ask the countries that it's worked for so far
The places in Europe with a 0.05 limit all have tightly packed cities with very comprehensive public transportation systems.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 10:45 am to BRIllini07
Yeah, they don't frick around. My dad was in the Czech Republic with some clients and they were drinking non-alcoholic beer with dinner because they had to drive. Said if you get busted, you lose your privileges for life.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 10:54 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
If youre not trolling, I could see someone having this viewpoint- thats a truly terrible to thing to experience, much less watch someone else go through.
That said, I seriously doubt people driving with a BAC of .05-.079 contribute significantly to the 10,000 people killed annually by drunk drivers, which among other things, point me to believe this is not about saving lives.
I have no problem with going after the truly drunk people on the road. Having two beers is not too drunk to drive home.
I would agree with most of this, but really it's just an extension of the current thinking in (mostly liberal) government. Punitive taxation works well for government, until the people stop doing whatever they are trying to curtail, and then they have to find a way to fund pet projects another way.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 10:54 am to upgrayedd
quote:That's an idea I could get behind also. Then the NTSB could focus on things that cause the vast majority of traffic fatalities because DUIs aren't one of them.
Said if you get busted, you lose your privileges for life.
This post was edited on 1/18/18 at 10:57 am
Posted on 1/18/18 at 11:01 am to troyt37
quote:
Punitive taxation works well for government, until the people stop doing whatever they are trying to curtail, and then they have to find a way to fund pet projects another way.
I mentioned the $.07 bag tax that Chicago has for grocery stores. The city actually ended up with a budget shortfall because the revenue they got was about $2 million less than expected, because people said "eff that" and adjusted their behavior (and of course they spend based on what was projected to come in). So they are currently thinking of other ways to bilk us out of our money.
quote:
CHICAGO — Chicago’s bag tax was created to cut back on waste in landfills, while generating revenue. But it turns out it may cost the city money. The city’s budget was based on more than $9 million in anticipated revenue from the 7 cent per bag tax. But so many people are bringing their own bags, the expected revenue at this point in the year is down by more than $1.5 million, according to DNA Info.
The tax has brought in $2.5 million since going into effect in February. That means more than $7 million will need to be collected from the tax before the end of 2017 to hit what the city expected to collect, which is unlikely to happen with less than half the year left.
This post was edited on 1/18/18 at 11:04 am
Posted on 1/18/18 at 11:02 am to BRIllini07
quote:
The places in Europe with a 0.05 limit all have tightly packed cities with very comprehensive public transportation systems.
.05 worked in Australia though.
I have little doubt there are revenue incentives behind these kind of changes, but everything I've read suggests they DO decrease alcohol-related accidents and/or fatalities, and that's believable.
If the BAC limit is lowered to .05, it won't help those who are going to drive at .20 anyway. However, it would make people even more conscious of the limit, and less likely to have another drink that puts them over it. I'm not advocating for the change, but I have a difficult time arguing against the idea that it would help.
Are there even better ways to help? Probably so.
This post was edited on 1/18/18 at 11:16 am
Posted on 1/18/18 at 11:02 am to upgrayedd
quote:
Sorry to hear that.
With all due respect, your emotions aren't more important than objective fact. Thousands of studies on impaired driving have produced the .08 number. Lowering it to .05 to placate emotions and get more money doesn't equate to saving lives.
The objective fact is that something like 10K people are killed every year by drunk drivers. It's easy to chalk my position up to emotion, but there are 10,000 graves out there that says too many people in this country are cavalier about drinking and getting behind the wheel.
If the result of any new requirement is the public coming to the conclusion that you just can't do this, I support it.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 11:08 am to AFtigerFan
quote:
That's an idea I could get behind also. Then the NTSB could focus on things that cause the vast majority of traffic fatalities because DUIs aren't one of them.
They'd never implement that law. Just think of how much revenue generation would be thrown away by taking away driving privileges.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 11:08 am to jdeval1
quote:
It is terrible about his family member but I'd be willing to bet that the driver was smashed.
You're probably right. Would have been late 1964. Driver pulled out of a line of cars to pass, didn't see my family in oncoming traffic. Head on collision. I wasn't born for another 5 years, but dealt with issues with my sister every day, from her health, to the cruelty kids can torment other kids with.
That man can never pay for what he did to my family. Never. I can't imagine risking doing that to someone else.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 11:15 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
That said, I seriously doubt people driving with a BAC of .05-.079 contribute significantly to the 10,000 people killed annually by drunk drivers, which among other things, point me to believe this is not about saving lives.
I have no problem with going after the truly drunk people on the road. Having two beers is not too drunk to drive home.
I agree with your point about .05 not being impaired, but the studies suggest a lower "limit" reduces alcohol-related accidents/deaths because people are more conscious of the limit and concerned about having one more drink.
I guess you can liken it to a speed limit. Many people drive 5 mph over the limit, whatever the limit may be. Lowering the speed limit effectively lowers the speed at which many people drive.
Most people get in a car and drive off because they don't feel like they're impaired. If you lowered the limit to .05, and people realized that two drinks made you illegal to drive, I think we can agree that drinking and driving would be curtailed. Studies suggest lowering the limit to .08 from .10 resulted in fewer alcohol-related deaths involving drivers with a BAC of .10 or higher.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 11:18 am to troyt37
quote:
The objective fact is that something like 10K people are killed every year by drunk drivers. It's easy to chalk my position up to emotion, but there are 10,000 graves out there that says too many people in this country are cavalier about drinking and getting behind the wheel.
If the result of any new requirement is the public coming to the conclusion that you just can't do this, I support it.
If we are using statistics and science to drive policy, then we should use it in every aspect. BAC of .08 was set due to research. Lowering that number because of a "well, less is better" attitude does nothing more than criminalize benign behavior.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 11:25 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Men weighing up to about 160 pounds would likely reach the lower threshold at two, and those over 180 pounds at three.
Welp...looks like the US government is now PROMOTING obesity .
Posted on 1/18/18 at 11:56 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
then evaporate once automated vehicles hit the roads.
Just wait til you hear “operating while impaired”. You know that self driving fully automated car needs to have a sober person behind the wheel in case of an emergency.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 12:29 pm to NYNolaguy1
Good. Less drunks on the road. I hope they increased check points as well.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 1:12 pm to Adam Banks
I'm gonna take a 6-pack and cruise some country roads this evening in your honor.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 1:14 pm to troyt37
quote:
If the result of any new requirement is the public coming to the conclusion that you just can't do this, I support it.
You a big fan of tyrannies, baw?
Do you consider yourself a "small-government conservative" as well?
This post was edited on 1/18/18 at 1:32 pm
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News