In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 668
Online now 179 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
This is the "drunk driving" thread. I expressed my opinion re: stupidity of laws re: terrorism in the Boston bombing thread. Drug laws are probably stupid too.
To be fair, my money is on her being drunk or high on something to do that.
"It's just so hard," Greivis said. "It's my heart, my love. Maryland made me who I am."
She appears to be asian
Thank god, kunal is finally coming around to RightThink.
The NTSB has recommended that the legal limit be dropped to .05.
Pretty sure I'm .05 after I use mouthwash and shine my shoes in the morning.
I'm definitely at .05 for the first 30 minutes after reading a ravensnterps post
seems like 39% increase will been seen as too high in a decade so why not just set the limit at Blutarsky?
So anyone leaving a HH ever?
No way this gets done anytime soon... will take years.
I believe the article states it took around 20 years for every state to get to .08 after the last recommendation, so I don't see this happening anytime soon.
Although I have to think MD will be close to the front of the line on this.
Looks like I'll be taking the Looney's shuttle in the future
They say it COULD save a thousand people, like it is even a big number in comparison to the 2.5 million people that die in the U.S. each year. It is such an insignificant amount in relation, and it is at huge expense to the average american who would like to be able to have 2 glasses of wine or 2 beers at dinner. Put it this way, about 5,000 pedestrians die each year. If we were to require all pedestrians to wear helmets, i bet we could reduce pedestrian deaths by 40% and save twice as many people as changing the BAC would...in the most optimistic scenario. This would be a much more reasonable and effective solution to implement, but we'd never do it because it's ridiculous. but it's less ridiculous than lowering the BAC to .05.
I'm guessing this is a case where the lawyers who have an absolute racket going on DUI cases successfully lobbied the NTSB because they want more.
The major issue I have with this recommendation is that it seems more like a strategy to generate revenue, and not to save lives. A law like this seems to target people that are attempting to drink in moderation. When news broke that this recommendation was coming out, it got me thinking. How deadly is the driver that is driving with a BAC of .06 or .07? After doing some in depth research (a Google search and scanning a few documents), I found this paper discussing drunk driving and fatalities in 2006:
Figure 3 has a distribution of driver BAC for drivers involved in a fatal crasy with a BAC >= .01. The large majority of the distribution occurs at .08 and above. You might get incremental benefit by moving the limit down to .05, but not much. Additionally, you have to question what the circumstances were that caused the crash as you get that far down the spectrum in terms of BAC levels.
Given that the chair of this committee stated that their goal in this recommendation is to eliminate alcohol related traffic fatalities, how does moving the limit truly solve the problem? It doesn't. Even if you move the legal limit down to .05, you're still going to have the drivers (the large majority, in fact) that blow through the legal limits without regard and choose to drive. Whether the level is .02, .05, .08, or .15, people are going to drink and drive, and hurt themselves and others. The only thing this recommendation does is hurt the person that attempting to operate within the confines of the law that ends up getting in jail because their third drink in two hours put them over the limit.
Disclaimer: In no way am I advocating drinking and driving. I'm just bothered by the reasoning here.
Gotta think the restaurant and adult beverage lobbies will fight this hard.
Yeah, this would be a huuuuge fight. It pretty much means no more than 1 beer at a happy hour or dinner unless you're sticking it out for a long time.
Yea I'm not sure how you can order alcohol at dinner and then drive home if that's the legal limit.
My driving is way safer at .05 than sober
"I think girls are fun to fuck, except I only fuck guys"
There's a difference between supporting liberty and supporting anarchy.
well I also want to remind you about the 2nd amendment which is the foundation of the Bill of Rights.
I don't even know what that means. Are you under the impression that I don't support the Second Amendment?
An unaccounted for lobby is automobile interlock systems companies. The proposals would require devices to be installed at $100/pop for everyone convicted of driving at the .05 level, along with a $50/month payment for the device. What company wouldn't want the government to mandate that citizens are required to give them $700 a year?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports