"Although several organizations are behind the proposed change, the bigger question is whether or not the current limits are enforced. In the UK, only motorists that have given police cause to pull them over are subjected to DUI testing – that means that no random checks are instituted, nor are DUI check points employed."

Call me crazy, but I prefer to live in a world where I am not subject to random stops or check points without probable cause. Decreasing the legal limit or imposing stiffer penalties are both more in tune with my notion of personal liberty.

Not to get on a soapbox, but in America, the political pressure brought down on drinking while driving has resulted in a huge eroding of our personal freedoms not only in the realm of what constitutes probable cause but also in the area of unreasonable search and seizure. It is most unfortunate when bad events lead to knee jerks and then to bad laws or precedent.

Reply

↓↑report

The only reasonable limit is zero. If you want to drive, don't drink, period.

Reply

↓↑report

Peter,

If the point here is to reduce 'imparment' we should also consider the following types of imparments:

- Radio / music / loud music. This effectively makes you 'deaf'. Deafness can make driving dangerous.

- unsuitable clothing (stilettos, tight pants, baggy pants, winter coats, gloves. All of these can hinder one's ability to drive.

- Eating / drinking while driving.

- Having children in the vehicle without another adult / responsible to supervise. Soccer moms yelling at kids in the back seat and not looking forward.

- Elderly diseases. Cataracts impare your vision , arthritis slows reaction time and reduces effective strength and speed (pressing hard on the brake, turning the wheel quickly), mental issues (alzheimers, dimentia)

- Cell phones / reading-writing material.

The only reason that DUI (and speeding) get dinged so hard is that there is some sort of empirically observable result. In the case of DUI it's mg/ml in the case of speed it's Kph and the technology is essentially irrefutable in court. It's a simple question of what is easiest to prove to the exception of "a reasonable doubt.

While we are at it let's RFID / GPS all cars and force a speed limit on all cars, per the posted speed limit. The way the UK is going that is Big Brother's next step.

All in all I wouldn't mind if these draconian measures were implemented, IFF (if and only if) there is a direct, measurable and permanent impact on the cost of driving.

Insurance would come down due to less accidents / deaths. Gas prices would come down due to better fuel economy (less speed and designs for lower speeds). Car repairs would be less due to less abuse of cars.

Of course the insurance companies would never try to find another 'most-dangerous' or 'most-deadly' category to abuse of. Gas companies will not reduce production to create a false lack of supply. Car companies won't re-under-design parts so that they break on schedule.

This is all another way to screw poor old Joe Taxpayer with another tax.

Reply

↓↑report

Unfortunately DUI/DWI has just become another means for the state to take your money, not make us safer. Lets face it, if they wanted to protect us the penalty would be mandatory jail time. I read a few times about a drunk driver killing someone and its their 2nd 3rd or 4th dui and they have a suspended license and only face jail time for manslaughter. A fine is not enough to deter. 1 DUI should carry a minimum of 1 year in jail, 5 years restricted license, 10 years probation and $20,000 in fines. A second DUI should carry 5 years jail time. The penalty needs to be great enough to actually deter people from getting tanked and getting behind the wheel, not a slap on the wrist that only hurts those without the money to pay the fines and fees.

Reply

↓↑report