T1B

A new study says states should lower the legal threshold for drunken driving and enact laws to reduce the availability of alcohol.

Peoples’ ability to operate motor vehicles begins to deteriorate at levels much lower than the 0.08 percent blood alcohol concentration that is the standard in the United States, according to the report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.

Authors of the peer-reviewed study, funded by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, recommend setting a 0.05 BAC limit, which they say has proved to be an effective strategy for reducing alcohol-related crashes in countries such as Austria, Denmark and Japan.

About 10,000 people die each year in alcohol-related crashes in the United States, 40 percent of whom weren’t drinking, according to the report, which concludes that despite efforts in the 1980s to lower BAC limits and raise the legal drinking age to 21, progress in reducing drunken driving deaths has stalled.

“The plateauing fatality rates indicate that what has been done to decrease deaths from alcohol-impaired driving has been working but is no longer sufficient to reverse this growing public health problem,” said Steven Teutsch, an adjunct professor at UCLA Fielding School of Public Health who led the study committee.

The report also recommends raising alcohol taxes, which have not kept pace with inflation, and reducing the number of places where booze is sold as well as the hours it’s available.

Other recommendations include:

•Policies and programs to encourage convenient and affordable transportation alternatives for drinkers.
•Well-publicized sobriety checkpoints.
•Wider adoption of OWI courts, which La Crosse County has been using since 2006.
•Insurance coverage for alcohol abuse prevention and treatment.

Utah last year became the first state to adopt a 0.05 BAC, though the law doesn’t take effect until Dec. 30. The Associated Press reports that a New York lawmaker plans to introduce similar legislation there.

Utah last year became the first state to adopt a 0.05 BAC

Goober McTuber wrote:He's actually taken repeated shots at the "DUI industry".

Moving Sale wrote:
What a scam

Mikey wrote: If you want to remove the speed limits on the freeways - fine. But if there's a posted limit you should fucking enforce it. I have just as much right to drive 75 in the second or third lane (from the left) as the asshole in the pickup who wants to go 90 and will sit on my back bumper until I move over (which I won't do).

22400.
(a)No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law.

No person shall bring a vehicle to a complete stop upon a highway so as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the stop is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

(b) Whenever the Department of Transportation determines on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that slow speeds on any part of a state highway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the department may determine and declare a minimum speed limit below which no person shall drive a vehicle, except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law, when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected along the part of the highway for which a minimum speed limit is established.

Subdivision (b) of this section shall apply only to vehicles subject to registration.

21461. (a) It is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to fail to obey a sign or signal defined as regulatory in the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or a Department of Transportation approved supplement to that manual of a regulatory nature erected or maintained to enhance traffic safety and operations or to indicate and carry out the provisions of this code or a local traffic ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local traffic ordinance, or to fail to obey a device erected or maintained by lawful authority of a public body or official.

Moving Sale wrote:We are in the weeds, but if you are in the left lane and someone doing 90 wants to pass you should get over. On a three+ lane freeway it's not as important, but the law still applies. It's also a lot safer to have the slow people on the right.

Moving Sale wrote:It is true and is doesn't say anything good about American drivers. If cops wanted to actually make the roads safer they would ticket slow drivers in the passing lane because passing on the right is way dangerous.

Mikey wrote:Actually, I do.

22400.
(a)No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law.

No person shall bring a vehicle to a complete stop upon a highway so as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the stop is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

(b) Whenever the Department of Transportation determines on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that slow speeds on any part of a state highway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the department may determine and declare a minimum speed limit below which no person shall drive a vehicle, except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law, when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected along the part of the highway for which a minimum speed limit is established.

Subdivision (b) of this section shall apply only to vehicles subject to registration.

Driving 75 in a zone that's posted at 65 or 70 is not such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
Just because some asshole wants to drive 90 doesn't mean that somebody driving at a slower speed is impeding the normal flow, especially if the rest of the traffic is moving at 75.
Also, if he can reasonably go around me, then I'm not impeding him in any way especially if I'm not in the "passing lane."

Joe in PB wrote:

Mikey wrote:Actually, I do.

22400.
(a)No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law.

No person shall bring a vehicle to a complete stop upon a highway so as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the stop is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

(b) Whenever the Department of Transportation determines on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that slow speeds on any part of a state highway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the department may determine and declare a minimum speed limit below which no person shall drive a vehicle, except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law, when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected along the part of the highway for which a minimum speed limit is established.

Subdivision (b) of this section shall apply only to vehicles subject to registration.

Driving 75 in a zone that's posted at 65 or 70 is not such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
Just because some asshole wants to drive 90 doesn't mean that somebody driving at a slower speed is impeding the normal flow, especially if the rest of the traffic is moving at 75.
Also, if he can reasonably go around me, then I'm not impeding him in any way especially if I'm not in the "passing lane."

Thanks for admitting Mikey you fuck up traffic and cause congestion on the freeway.

I've driven through 5-10 radar checks with the CC set to 80 mph, and the HWY Patrol officer doesn't even flinch, because they know within a minute or two someone will be going 85+ mph.

But when I'm in the left lane going 80 and someone rolls up behind me, I move over.

Who knows, maybe it's a doctor on his way to hospital, but it really doesn't matter, it's just common courtesy when the freeway isn't full.

Mikey, I think you're a closet conservative!


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Moving Sale wrote: And BTW we DO need categories of rape.

Moving Sale wrote:
I have literally never had one dui where anyone was hurt.

Derron wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:
I have literally never had one dui where anyone was hurt.

That is because they need some one competent to defend them in a case like that and not some cereal box lawyer cashing their check and getting them less public service time.

Derron wrote:

Moving Sale wrote: And BTW we DO need categories of rape.

Want to expound on that a bit??