Issuu on Google+

How Low Can You Go: NTSB Proposes Lowering BAC limit to 0.05 | The Truth About Cars Creator David Hester Aftermath of Carrollton, KY bus crash May 14, 1988. No one is in favor of drunk driving. Don’t do it. Now that I’ve completed the ritualistic incantation prior to writing a piece about drunk driving, let’s hit the jump and discuss the latest proposal from the NTSB. Yesterday the NTSB began a campaign using its bully pulpit to encourage state legislatures to adopt a per se blood alcohol content limit of 0.05%, a significant reduction from the current standard of 0.08%. It’s common in other countries, particularly European ones, to have the limit set that low. However, as with, well, everything, at some point you reach a point of diminishing returns. The usual suspects are lining up on both sides. The NTSB has no regulatory authority, so it can’t impose this. However, as with the campaigns to lower the limit from 0 .10 to 0.08 and the push for mandatory seatbelt usage, eventually the threat of withholding Federal highway funds from states that don’t adopt the lower limit will bring the states in line. The insurance companies are on board, of course, with the NTSB’s recommendation. Advocacy from MADD will most certainly begin apace. On the other side you have the MOD squad, represented in the Post piece I linked to above by Sarah Longwell of the American Beverage Institute. Ms. Longwell pointed out that fatalities aren’t occurring at .05 to .08. They occur most often at .16 or higher. God speed, Ms. Longwell. You’re about to get the opportunity to really earn what I’m sure is the quite handsome salary that ABI pays you. So, in a nutshell the facts are these: The NTSB proposes lowering the per se BAC limit to 0.05%. They have no legal authority to enforce such a recommendation, but they don’t need it because their sister agencies and (let’s not forget this) private associations like the IIHS and MADD have both the legal means and the moral authority to accomplish what the NTSB wants anyway. They’ll work to push it through. On the other side you have the ABI and… selfish alcoholics? People who don’t care to get blitzed (and then endanger themselves and their fellow citizens) allied with the greedy capitalists (with blood stained hands) looking to turn a profit are the only ones who will do much more than raise token opposition to this proposal. That’s the problem. The motives and the storyline are set and the characters have all been cast. Rant all you want about “unconscionable Federal power grabs” and wave your dog-eared copies of Thomas Paine. A betting man would figure that the limit will be 0.05% before the decade is over and buy stock in O’Douls. We can deride the NTSB, IIHS, and MADD as “nanny staters” and the like, but in the end, they’re not wrong. Places, such as Australia, that have lowered their limit to 0.05 have seen a reduction in DUI related fatalities. 12% in the case of Australia. That’s not nothing. To argue the other side means that we have to recognize, and agree to live with, an “acceptable level of DUI related fatalities,” to paraphrase the British during the hey- day of IRA bombings and Ulstermen knee cappings,Who wants to stand up and say “Almost 10,000 men, women, and

children were killed in DUI related crashes last year and I say that’s still not enough!” If we could guarantee that only drunk drivers and, perhaps, their passengers would be the only fatalities in DUI related crashes, then most of us would be on board, the way laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets have been repealed. It doesn’t work that way. Yesterday was the 25th anniversary of the Carrollton bus crash. While largely forgotten elsewhere, it approaches something close to a state day of mourning in Kentucky. The NTSB wasn’t particularly shy about using the anniversary as a backdrop for its announcement either. Of course, a 0.05% limit wouldn’t have mattered in the Carrollton case. The driver who hit the bus, causing it to erupt into a fireball that killed 27 people, was at a 0.24% BAC level. Sentenced to just 16 years, Larry Mahoney spent less than 10 in prison after a jury of his peers elected to convict him of involuntary manslaughter instead of Murder. --> Citeste articolul complet de la sursa Poate va intereseaza si :alarma-auto, inchidere-centralizata, monitorizare-flota-gps-tracking, cdplayer-dvd-mp3, car-radio, boxe, senzori-parcare, xenon