Having a lower limit would NOT have prevented this accident. The DUI crowd has no regard for any limit set. I fail to understand this type of a reaction.
The key word is MIGHT. MADD mothers said reducing the BAC from .10 to .08 MIGHT save lives. It didn’t. Why? The drinking drivers doing the killing are well above .15 in BAC.
In addition, maybe Vermont should look at the sober drivers who kill more people annually than those that have been drinking. Over 90% of death on the road is at the hands of no drinking drivers.
It seems to me prohibition is all MADD mothers are looking for.
Google duiblog
Google Responsibility in DUI Laws
Google getmadd
Google dammdrinker
I agree with both of you. One of the other things mentioned in the article is installing a “device” in the offender’s vehicle…what if they drive other vehicles? This is a sad thing…no matter what laws are in place, there will continue to be offenders hurting and killing innocent people.
The article talks about someone who had 8 or 9 beers, chances are he was well above the 0.08 and probably closer to 0.2! What good would it be to drop it to 0.05? Nothing….
You are absolutely correct. Proabition brought to you by MADD.
The diehard drunks will continue to drive and the social drinkers (.05)will just be a source of revenue for the police, courts, councelors, etc.
In my past life as an adjuster on the road I handled many serious losses with alcohol involved and I remember none where the reading was .08 or .10. Usually it was over.20. A lot of small towns make good money over pulling someone who had one or two beers over. I think that often is what pushes these new limits.
I do agree with having a device to lock out your ignition if you have been drinking. A am sure the habitual drunk can use another car or get someone to blow in the device but it still would cut down on the number of times that person drinks and drives. Even if not foolproof it might help.
The simple reality is that neither legislators nor politicians want to address the problem. Why are multiple offenders able to stay on the road. The habitual offenders could care less about BAC and laws. They perceive no serious consequence to their deviant behavior so they won’t change. The only way to make a positive impact is to impound ANY vehicle a DWI is caught driving, and keep it for 90-days. In addition, there should be a 1 year mandatory jail sentence and a $5,000 fine. No plea deals. This country doesn’t have the stomach to take that kind of action so innocent people will continue to lose their lives because of a few irresponsible, negligent, morons. The sad part about it is most drunks survive the accidents they cause thereby cheating the natural selection process.
At the same time, people who have a drink or two with friend or over dinner shouldn’t be penalized and painted with the same brush. Alcohol isn’t the problem: ABUSE of it is.
I’t not that I feel strongly, but anything we do must have true societal benefits in order to have value. That is why I suggest Summary Execution of Drunk/Impaired drivers on site. While a local tragedy for the D/I families, it in a ot of cases would have premanent Societal benefits in that many attorneys would be removed from the gene pool.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Having a lower limit would NOT have prevented this accident. The DUI crowd has no regard for any limit set. I fail to understand this type of a reaction.
The key word is MIGHT. MADD mothers said reducing the BAC from .10 to .08 MIGHT save lives. It didn’t. Why? The drinking drivers doing the killing are well above .15 in BAC.
In addition, maybe Vermont should look at the sober drivers who kill more people annually than those that have been drinking. Over 90% of death on the road is at the hands of no drinking drivers.
It seems to me prohibition is all MADD mothers are looking for.
Google duiblog
Google Responsibility in DUI Laws
Google getmadd
Google dammdrinker
MADD LIES. Period
I agree with both of you. One of the other things mentioned in the article is installing a “device” in the offender’s vehicle…what if they drive other vehicles? This is a sad thing…no matter what laws are in place, there will continue to be offenders hurting and killing innocent people.
The article talks about someone who had 8 or 9 beers, chances are he was well above the 0.08 and probably closer to 0.2! What good would it be to drop it to 0.05? Nothing….
I am not against lowering the legal limit, however if the current laws can’t be enforced fully, making new laws will not fix anything.
You are absolutely correct. Proabition brought to you by MADD.
The diehard drunks will continue to drive and the social drinkers (.05)will just be a source of revenue for the police, courts, councelors, etc.
In my past life as an adjuster on the road I handled many serious losses with alcohol involved and I remember none where the reading was .08 or .10. Usually it was over.20. A lot of small towns make good money over pulling someone who had one or two beers over. I think that often is what pushes these new limits.
I do agree with having a device to lock out your ignition if you have been drinking. A am sure the habitual drunk can use another car or get someone to blow in the device but it still would cut down on the number of times that person drinks and drives. Even if not foolproof it might help.
The simple reality is that neither legislators nor politicians want to address the problem. Why are multiple offenders able to stay on the road. The habitual offenders could care less about BAC and laws. They perceive no serious consequence to their deviant behavior so they won’t change. The only way to make a positive impact is to impound ANY vehicle a DWI is caught driving, and keep it for 90-days. In addition, there should be a 1 year mandatory jail sentence and a $5,000 fine. No plea deals. This country doesn’t have the stomach to take that kind of action so innocent people will continue to lose their lives because of a few irresponsible, negligent, morons. The sad part about it is most drunks survive the accidents they cause thereby cheating the natural selection process.
At the same time, people who have a drink or two with friend or over dinner shouldn’t be penalized and painted with the same brush. Alcohol isn’t the problem: ABUSE of it is.
Dread – you hit the nail on the head. Nicely put!
I’t not that I feel strongly, but anything we do must have true societal benefits in order to have value. That is why I suggest Summary Execution of Drunk/Impaired drivers on site. While a local tragedy for the D/I families, it in a ot of cases would have premanent Societal benefits in that many attorneys would be removed from the gene pool.