Feds mull lowering blood alcohol limit

[maryjane48]

http://m.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/08/08/f ... a-homepage


i would like to see zero tolerance but it a step in right direction

[sljburton]

What does the science say?

.08 is not some arbitrary number pulled out of the air. From my understanding it came about from many years of study in the 50s, 60,s and even in to the 70,s. From data developed from statistics from Universities and insurance companies. The data showed that accident rates did not increase, and in fact decreased from 0% to .08%. At 0.08% it was approximately the same as 0% but climbed greatly after that.

Hence, .08 was chosen. Based on research and data, not knee jerk reactions.

I know people will say that "Yeah but some people can't even have 1 drink or their reactions suffer." That's true, but under that criteria, it could be said that some people people with licenses shouldn't drive at all, and that some hard core drinkers could drive while at double the current limits and still be fine.

If anyone out there can find the data, I would sure love to see it. The last time I saw an article on the research was probably in the late 70's.

[Dizzy1]

Hopefully it'll apply to the use of pot as well

[maryjane48]

zero tolerance for anything should be the law . you say that like somehow booze is less harmfull than weed

[zzontar]

I've said it many times before, test for impairment, not numbers... unless stopping actual impaired drivers isn't part of the equation anymore.

[Dizzy1]

you say that like somehow booze is less harmfull than weed

You got that from this?

Hopefully it'll apply to the use of pot as well

[lesliepaul]

Again............this is PROFIT driven. When our 3 levels of government talk "safety" or "saving lives", the main goal is always what they can extort dollar wise out of the public (safety = $$$). Not being a drinker I could care less and this should just about eliminate many people from having a drink with a meal while in a restaurant (other than hardcore drinkers of course) and their profit margins will PLUNGE!

As mentioned earlier here, .08 did not just get pulled out of someone's a$$........a lot of study was done to arrive at that. The bottom line is that the ones that drive considerably over the limit now will do the same IF it is reduced to ZERO.

[jimmy4321]

Should be 0% , Zero tolerance.
This idea that it's fine to drive after impairing judgment is bizarre.
Driving takes all you got mentally at times and even at that you luck out occasionally.
Pedestrians get hit in city crosswalks quite often. Mostly due to visability whether it be rain,fog,poorly placed lights from signs,distractions sometimes from other traffic.
When you consider some people should never drive, anyone driving needs to be 100%

[Osoyoos_Familyof4]

For both alcohol and drugs, I would like us to have scientific tests to justify limits. If it's impossible to have a scientific measure of impairment (as is the case or roadside testing for drugs) we need to be actively looking for a more reliable test, or go back to a strict standard roadside test, that would give enough probable cause to draw blood back at a detachment.

Either way it gas to be based on science and not personal opinion.

[GordonH]

Impairment by either alcohol or drugs, it's ashame people don't have the brain power to know better then to get behind the wheel after having either (or both).

Anyone who drives while impaired according to the law (not according to their feelings/there false sense of being able to drive) impo is a f ing idiot, should have book thrown at them.

some people are just to damn stupid

[zzontar]

... and the crappy drivers who cause most of the collisions will still be crappy drivers, but let's not do anything about that!

[johnny24]

zero tolerance for anything should be the law . you say that like somehow booze is less harmfull than weed

[my5cents]

I've said it many times before, test for impairment, not numbers... unless stopping actual impaired drivers isn't part of the equation anymore.

They've had two type of charges for many decades :

- Over 80 mg in 100 ml of blood "Over 08"

- Impaired driving

Everyone's ability to operate a motor vehicle is reduced to some degree when "Over 08", thus why the "Over 08" charge isn't dependent on proving impairedness.

[jimmy4321]

Just drink and get a sober ride.

[zzontar]

They've had two type of charges for many decades :

- Over 80 mg in 100 ml of blood "Over 08"

- Impaired driving

Everyone's ability to operate a motor vehicle is reduced to some degree when "Over 08", thus why the "Over 08" charge isn't dependent on proving impairedness.

The problem is the charge isn't always relative to impairment or whether you're even a danger on the road. It would be safer to drive in traffic surrounded by professional drivers at .08 than the candidates from "Canada's Worst Driver" who are completely sober, yet the safer drivers would all lose their licenses. It's a flawed system.