all 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 13 points 2 hours ago (1 child)

I don't see this making much difference unless those 37% of crashes were done by drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. My guess is that the alcohol related crashes were probably above anyway.

Sure it'll catch a few more in that interval after the crash has already happened or in random stops, but if they actually want to avoid the crashes they need other measures. Lower speed limits would help more, but I guess it's more important to focus on finding more people to blame than to avoid the crashes.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 hours ago (1 child)

    IMO, the limit should be 0.00. Motor vehicles kill plenty people with a sober driver. This is a step in the right direction and I hope other states follow the lead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    Yes, sure it doesn't hurt to lower it. At 0.00 though, they will at some point encounter somebody who is sober but has auto-brewery symptome or other kinds of digestion related diseases.

    Anyway, all I'm saying is that the legal limit doesn't stop anyone from drunk driving regardless of what it is. They do it anyway - maybe because they're drunk or something.

    The better solution is to lower the speed limit in cities and make the necessary road designs to keep the speed at less than lethal even if someone is drunk. My main concern is keeping other people safe from the stupid decisions made by drunk drivers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    That's a really stupid way too say 63% of crashes did not involve alcohol. Why not focus on that number instead?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 hours ago