Utah lowering DUI limit

interesting, you can definitely tell that this is designed to make people not drink and drive at all..

But in practice though, how much does this really change? The only jury duty I ever had to serve was for a DUI case, and at least in Massachusetts the judge had told us that even if you are below the legal limit if you can't walk in a straight line or pass a sobriety test they still consider you under the influence and will charge you as such..

a friend who was a cop said they tend to just do the walk in a straight line etc sobriety tests instead of breathalyzer because too many people were getting off being below the legal limit even though they were too buzzed to walk in a straight line without falling over, which is clearly visible on the dash cam, and makes a more compelling case for a jury then simply saying you were below the legal limit

as far as I know you can't get pulled over without the officer having some sort of probable cause anyway.. so how would they really know if you were 0.04 or 0.06 or 0.09

Full disclosure: I have family who works in emergency rooms and the number of needless injuries and deaths from drunk driving is crazy.. I'm a big proponent of small government, but this is one area where I don't understand why people can't just take an Uber or have a designated driver
 
I believe this is the case in all states, your either Impared or you blow above the legal limit (drunks can function with higher BAC.) it’s sort of a catch all, not a bottom limit as most people think.
 
X2 on the small govt but i have a zero tolerance for folks who drink then drive. 35-yr career in public safety comms. too many calls to family members late at night advising them "there's been an accident and your (son, daughter, husband, wife) is being transported to the hosputal".
 
I don’t think lowering the limit is the solution. Ppl who make bad decisions will still go out and kill people driving drunk lowering the limit in which you can be charged will punish the wrong group.
Making the penalties meaner, Making it harder to drive after 1st offense makes more sense to me. The laws should be set up to really make think about unthinkable consequences to driving drunk. It blows my mind how many ppl have 2-3 DUI’s and are driving in a year or two
After. Or drive anyway on suspended license.
 
Tantalum said:
interesting, you can definitely tell that this is designed to make people not drink and drive at all..

But in practice though, how much does this really change? The only jury duty I ever had to serve was for a DUI case, and at least in Massachusetts the judge had told us that even if you are below the legal limit if you can't walk in a straight line or pass a sobriety test they still consider you under the influence and will charge you as such..

a friend who was a cop said they tend to just do the walk in a straight line etc sobriety tests instead of breathalyzer because too many people were getting off being below the legal limit even though they were too buzzed to walk in a straight line without falling over, which is clearly visible on the dash cam, and makes a more compelling case for a jury then simply saying you were below the legal limit

as far as I know you can't get pulled over without the officer having some sort of probable cause anyway.. so how would they really know if you were 0.04 or 0.06 or 0.09

Full disclosure: I have family who works in emergency rooms and the number of needless injuries and deaths from drunk driving is crazy.. I'm a big proponent of small government, but this is one area where I don't understand why people can't just take an Uber or have a designated driver
Click to expand...

Essentially, the “legal limit” is the BAC above which the state believes is representative of someone who is impaired. This does not mean that if you exhibit impairment, you cannot be charged if you are below the limit. In my personal experience, however, the vast majority are well over the limit, many by a long shot (.15, .20, and a few well over .30-one who was nearly a .40...!).

“Breathalyzer” is a misunderstood term. There is a PBt done in the field, and a BAC machine (in WA, it used to be the “BAC Datamaster” but is now the Draeger). The PBT is used as a field test to aid judgement on where the person is at. It can add or subtract probable cause. The reading is not admissible in court, just the fact that one was administered. The Draeger (done back at the station or jail) IS admissible. In some cases a search warrant for blood is obtained (typically when impairment level is high but alcohol is low or absent, or when investigating a DUI collision, Vehicular Assault/Homicide, or a multi-time DUI offender who is facing a felony DUI).

I am all in favor of less DUIs. However, I have a tough time with the DUI being reduced to .05. I think it’s a bit of a stretch and in my experience the tougher DUI laws/penalties get, the tougher they are to successfully prosecute. The courts are already packed, and we have some of the best attorneys money can buy going up against some of the greenest prosecutors because it’s district court (misdemeanor).

I think the best tactic would be to keep the DUI laws the same, but create specialized DUI courts with more experienced prosecutors. Hammer those who drive impaired.

Law changes like this are largely aimed not at safety, but the careers of politicians who can then say “look at me, I passed tough legislation...”
 
.08 is the presumption of impairment.....

.05 to .079 no presumption is made. Impairment is based upon the totality of the observations.

I have seen full DUI convictions on .05 BAC and .78 no arrest made at all.

So the .05 is not new. But the presumption of impairment at .05 is more of a catch all deterrent than an actual demonstration of intoxication. Not surprised Utah was first to do this.
 
There might be reason why people drink and drive more than once. Maybe because they have an unhealthy relationship with the drugs, especially with ETOH.

My first call as a firefighter was an impaired driver vs a beautiful family of 5 in a minivan. My last call was an arsonist's fire. There wasn't enough money in the house, so they burned it down. Addiction sucks.

Here in AK, there's a descent program (Alcohol Safety Action Prog) that allows one who has a misdemeanor with drugs (like alcohol) to obtain education and treatment for substance use-abuse-dependancy. A nudge from the judge, so to speak.

So I'm all for decreasing the requirements that gets someone a DUI's. And, more importantly, getting these same people into a program of education or treatment for their relationship with drugs, SO THEY DON'T DO IT AGAIN!

We are not saints
 
Tantalum said:
a friend who was a cop said they tend to just do the walk in a straight line etc sobriety tests instead of breathalyzer because too many people were getting off being below the legal limit even though they were too buzzed to walk in a straight line without falling over, which is clearly visible on the dash cam, and makes a more compelling case for a jury then simply saying you were below the legal limit
Click to expand...

This may be why some attorneys recommend (depending on the State) declining the roadside sobriety test. Take the breathalyzer at the station or the blood test, but don't incriminate yourself by agreeing to stagger around on the side of the road.
 
benyflyguy said:
I don’t think lowering the limit is the solution. Ppl who make bad decisions will still go out and kill people driving drunk lowering the limit in which you can be charged will punish the wrong group.
Making the penalties meaner, Making it harder to drive after 1st offense makes more sense to me. The laws should be set up to really make think about unthinkable consequences to driving drunk. It blows my mind how many ppl have 2-3 DUI’s and are driving in a year or two
After. Or drive anyway on suspended license.
Click to expand...

I live in Arizona and went to college here, and my first 3-4 years here there was no Uber/Lyft. When Sheriff Joe and Tent City were still around it was a huge deterrent of drinking and driving. They would have mobile DUI trucks that literally just rounded up drunk drivers. You knew if you got caught you got 1-10 days in Tent City (non-negotiable), a license suspension and an ignition interlock. I know 2 people who got DUIs, neither ever thought to try it a second time I can assure you of that. It was strict, and it worked IMO. I took a lot of cabs in college and now later in life I take Uber/Lyft even going to a restaurant just to be safe. If more states were like Arizona punishment wise I think we'd see a far more positive impact than just lowering the definite impairment limit.
 
^I totally agree, I have friends who view things like that as just a transactional cost of life. living where I do now I'm either walking to meet people or taking an Uber. Simply not worth the risk
 
The NTSB is pushing for that threshold. Utah just happens to be the first jurisdiction (in the US) to implement it. The data supports the lower threshold.
 
weilke said:
The NTSB is pushing for that threshold. Utah just happens to be the first jurisdiction (in the US) to implement it. The data supports the lower threshold.
Click to expand...
NTSB wants lower threshold and stiffer deterrents. NTSB did not have info on what deterrents work though.

A few years ago a MD state committee recommended changing the age from 18 at the time to 21 and increasing the penalty. First strike was going to be 500 bucks or 10 percent of blue book value of the car whichever was higher. Second offense within some time period (I think three years) and the car is impounded and sold, money used for alcohol addiction or rehab. Killed by the head if the state Senate, who's legal practice is almost 100% defending drunks.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
James331 said:
Logic FAIL
Click to expand...
I agree with most of your posts, but when it comes to booze and driving I have a very low tolerance there.

A person might pass a field sobriety test but if you're above a certain BAC limit it will impact your reaction time (any alcohol in your system will impact reaction time).. you may be able to walk in a straight line and drive yourself home without getting in an accident, but you might also hit that person who is jay walking or the dog who runs out in front of the car... which wouldn't ordinarily happen if you had no alcohol in your system

We take drinking and flying very seriously, but driving and drinking seems so innocuous yet I would say it is at least as risky, if not more. The whole eight hour or .04 tolerance with aviation basically guarantees sobriety, yet we don't extend that same level of vigilance and respect to driving.. which frankly most people sitting behind the wheel of a car are total morons. Even though there a lot of dumb pilots out there, I would still venture to guess that the average pilot has a higher intellectual level than the average car driver..
 
Tantalum said:
I agree with most of your posts, but when it comes to booze and driving I have a very low tolerance there.

A person might pass a field sobriety test but if you're above a certain BAC limit it will impact your reaction time (any alcohol in your system will impact reaction time).. you may be able to walk in a straight line and drive yourself home without getting in an accident, but you might also hit that person who is jay walking or the dog who runs out in front of the car... which wouldn't ordinarily happen if you had no alcohol in your system

We take drinking and flying very seriously, but driving and drinking seems so innocuous yet I would say it is at least as risky, if not more. The whole eight hour or .04 tolerance with aviation basically guarantees sobriety, yet we don't extend that same level of vigilance and respect to driving.. which frankly most people sitting behind the wheel of a car are total morons. Even though there a lot of dumb pilots out there, I would still venture to guess that the average pilot has a higher intellectual level than the average car driver..
Click to expand...

I agree they do market DUIs very well.

Point is we should have docs and professional drivers get together and make a good field sobriety test, pass and you’re good, don’t and you’re not driving home, that is that, cut and dry. Proof of the pudding and all that jazz
 
Last edited:
This law is basically a 38% reduction from the previous persay standard. Honestly I do not see this law making a substantial reduction in alcohol related accidents.
 
Clip4 said:
This law is basically a 38% reduction from the previous persay standard. Honestly I do not see this law making a substantial reduction in alcohol related accidents.
Click to expand...
As my father often said, locks only keep honest people out. The conscientious will Uber their way home, the habitual offenders will drive. Also, vocabulary expansion hint: "per se".
Of course, I gotta ask what is so wrong with someone's life that they feel better in an altered state? Zero of the best times in my life relate to alcohol.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
As my father often said, locks only keep honest people out. The conscientious will Uber their way home, the habitual offenders will drive. Also, vocabulary expansion hint: "per se".
Of course, I gotta ask what is so wrong with someone's life that they feel better in an altered state? Zero of the best times in my life relate to alcohol.
Click to expand...


Lots of folks don’t drink to the point of being in a “altered state”
 
Kenny Phillips said:
If you can feel it, you are in an altered state.
Click to expand...

I also feel different after eating too much nasty fast food, or after spending time with my girlfriend, or after scoring a deal on something.

The only people who arnt altered based on that definition are the poor bastards in comas.

Point is, if you can demonstrate that you can pass a field sobriety test (as in balance and stuff like that, not some random reading on a box), it’s really none of anyone’s business, and on that note unless a cop witnesses you swerve for no reason or something you shouldn’t have been stopped anyways, ie the unconstitutional “safety” or “dui” road blockades seen in many states.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
As my father often said, locks only keep honest people out. The conscientious will Uber their way home, the habitual offenders will drive. Also, vocabulary expansion hint: "per se".
Of course, I gotta ask what is so wrong with someone's life that they feel better in an altered state? Zero of the best times in my life relate to alcohol.
Click to expand...

If you believe that most people consume alcohol because they have something wrong with their life you are incorrect.
 
Many, many years ago the lead man in our repair shop would go to the store every Friday afternoon before quitting time and bring back cases of Budweiser for us to enjoy before we went home. I was a new mechanic and couldn't believe how much beer those mechanics could consume! It was a tradition that everyone looked forward to and soon so did I! I was lucky that I was never pulled over or involved in any type of accident.
The thinking concerning alcohol has changed a lot in the last 40 years but folks still drink, drive, kill. Uber/Lyft and self-driving cars (once they are perfected...) on a large scale will save thousands of lives and will be the biggest factor in the war against impaired driving. Lowering the BAC limit may help some, but the real issue is inside the drinkers head as some people lose their ability to judge alcohol intake once they have a drink and don't know when enough is enough. How do you convince someone that they are impaired and need to stay off the highway and out of the air?
 
Yep, times have definitely changed. I remember 35 years ago I was quite the social drinker. I drank Crown Royal like it was water. I've been pulled over more times than I can count while my friends and I were sloshed out of our minds. Never ever got a DUI though. I was always able to talk my way out of it. I remember being pulled over 3 times in one night with a car load of my buddies. Cops told us to get our asses straight home. Back then were very tolerant and understanding. Wasn't long after I had my "come to Jesus moment" about drinking and driving when I flipped my car 6 times end over end. Luckily I was so drunk I walked away with just a scratch on my ear. Thankfully I didn't have anybody with me.

Nowadays it's a different story. I'll have a couple glasses of wine with dinner or at a social gathering and that's about my limit if I know I'm going to be driving. Way too risky and way too expensive these days to even think about driving while impaired.
 
Unit74 said:
.08 is the presumption of impairment.....

.05 to .079 no presumption is made. Impairment is based upon the totality of the observations.

I have seen full DUI convictions on .05 BAC and .78 no arrest made at all.

So the .05 is not new. But the presumption of impairment at .05 is more of a catch all deterrent than an actual demonstration of intoxication. Not surprised Utah was first to do this.
Click to expand...

I see no reason to arrest someone at 0.78. They're going to be dead soon anyway.
 
I really think in terms of DUI laws we long ago passed the point at which making laws tougher and penalties stiffer was going to do anything. If the consequences currently in place won't stop someone I don't see how any additional law/penalty is going to make any difference.

I would expect within the next 20 years, if not a lot sooner, self-driving car technology will be a lot better than it is and that's going to be the real solution to all of this.
 
arnoha said:
I see no reason to arrest someone at 0.78. They're going to be dead soon anyway.
Click to expand...
I know, right...? The highest I have seen still talking was a .31..... He was a career drinker and would kill a bottle every day. Highest behind the wheel was a .24. Hard to defend that type of BAC and asking for a treatment program is more than likely not going to be a get of jail card.
 
I am in Utah tonight. I wouldn't have had more than one beer with dinner with the old law and I won't have more than one with it.
 
cowman said:
I really think in terms of DUI laws we long ago passed the point at which making laws tougher and penalties stiffer was going to do anything. If the consequences currently in place won't stop someone I don't see how any additional law/penalty is going to make any difference.
Click to expand...

The problem with repeat offenders are the judges. Even when the law calls for jail sentences, they will frequently ''suspend' everything but the few hours the offender may have spent in detention.
 
I don’t understand why people drink at all. I drank in college, but it really wasn’t appealing. I don’t drink at all now.

Makes all of this so much easier. :)
 
Tantalum said:
interesting, you can definitely tell that this is designed to make people not drink and drive at all..

But in practice though, how much does this really change? The only jury duty I ever had to serve was for a DUI case, and at least in Massachusetts the judge had told us that even if you are below the legal limit if you can't walk in a straight line or pass a sobriety test they still consider you under the influence and will charge you as such..

a friend who was a cop said they tend to just do the walk in a straight line etc sobriety tests instead of breathalyzer because too many people were getting off being below the legal limit even though they were too buzzed to walk in a straight line without falling over, which is clearly visible on the dash cam, and makes a more compelling case for a jury then simply saying you were below the legal limit

as far as I know you can't get pulled over without the officer having some sort of probable cause anyway.. so how would they really know if you were 0.04 or 0.06 or 0.09

Full disclosure: I have family who works in emergency rooms and the number of needless injuries and deaths from drunk driving is crazy.. I'm a big proponent of small government, but this is one area where I don't understand why people can't just take an Uber or have a designated driver
Click to expand...

When I moved to Norway, it was interesting. Here I believe it is 0.02 (and just noticed places like Romania, czechrepublic, Hungary, and Slovakia are all 0.00!).

When I moved here in '93 I'm not sure what the limit was but a Norwegian friend gave me a small piece of advice that went like this..."put it this way. If I came home from work, went up to my apartment, took a beer and then remembered that left something I needed in the car I would go down to the parking area, do a very careful 360 degree scan, if no cars with someone sitting in them, or police cars, I would go in on the passenger side, leave the keys in the door, lean in keeping both feet outside, grab it as quickly as I could, then get hell back out of there asap"

I took it to heart. It seemed to be effective, in that most Norwegians have a simple rule. If I have a drink I don't drive that day, at all. Simple. None of this sitting in a bar, trying to judge myself. obviously after a few beers, a person asking themselves if "I'm okay to drive" knowing that if the answer is no, means leaving behind your car, expensive taxi or other, inconvenient, having to come back the next day to get it...and also our own judgement usually is "hell yeah I can drive, in fact I drive a little better as I am more relaxed!".

My Norwegian wife was amazed when we drove through part of New Mexico and Arizona on a trip, and like twenty five miles from the nearest town, out in the desert, a huge bar, with a huge parking lot. Like it was designed to promote drunk driving. No public transportation.

Anyway, the laws here are strict, and you can lose your license, and get fined a percentage of your income, so it is more equal and a rich person isn't tempted to think of the fine as just "the cost, and I can afford it".

It seemed like an elegant solution. But the backside is this. You go to a party, arrange to sleep over, or stay at a hotel, whatever, then the next morning you maybe feel a little reduced, but good...eat a breakfast drive home and either get stopped at a checkpoint or else get in a small fender bender. Now, it can be that you have some remnant of alcohol in your system. That can and often Is looked at by the courts as the same as you were raging drunk, weaving down the road.

Two cops up in the north of Norway showed that if they enthusiastically use the windshield spray in their car, and immidiately take a breathalyzer, they were over the limit by a decent margin. Of course a few breaths later they were back to normal.

I remember being at a blues festival with my brother in law, and the last day of the three day festival the police set up a free breathalyzer test point. The lines were long. We had been up til about one or two a.m. And all had slept then. We had breakfast and went to stand in line. It's a long time ago, but I think this was around like noon. My wife and I passed and were told we could drive. Her brother, they just looked at him and shook their heads no very deliberately. We waited for him. Around two or three went with him again to get rechecked. Still no.
We had to leave, but later heard it was around five p.m. They gave him the go ahead.

And he seemed fine and thought himself, even at the first check, that he was ok and would pass. He could have easily passed a field sobriety test.

Heard of a few people that have some kind of weirdness with their metabolism, where just drinking water can result in small amount of alcohol in their blood, over the limit.
Also, my wife mentions, you could eat some older fruit for example, that happened to be going just a little through the process of fermentation, turning to alcohol, could be enough.

I just don't drink and drive, at all. Morning after can be tricky, even if I didn't drink much, but still am unsure. I know the times, and rough calculation (one beer/hour, but here they are half liter, so count them as two..so one beer here count for two hours.) so if I drink four beers, go to bed at one a.m. I need to wait until after 9 a.m. To drive, and even there I add a few hours to be sure.

There is a lot of drinking in this culture. But it is concentrated for most on the weekends. But it is so ingrained in the culture here that it is normal to have a desingnated driver, arrange to sleep over, take public transport. Or taxi, etc. maybe the most often is one of a couple will abstain. Some couples, it is often the husband, other often the wife,mouth mots often they take turns so next party the other one gets to drink. I have no data on how this affects the couples. :) thinking it could be detrimental when a partner sees thier partner being stupid..

I'm not so sure about out in the "sticks". I lived in a place like that for a few years, and it seemed like all we knew also did not drink and drive, but a subculture was also there that felt they wouldn't get caught.

I should mention too, here in Norway you don't see people getting stopped by police much on the roads. I don't understand it, but they don't have a highway patrol per se, it's a rarity to see someone stopped by police. But they do set up checkpoints.

When we are in the USA, it's like every ten minutes someone is "caught" on the side of the road.

In the end though, it seems like it's the old 80/20 rule gone amok. Like twenty procent of drunk drivers are the big danger, 80 percent are not significantly impaired, yet in order to get tough they will prosecute 100% of them. I agree with some here that feel it ought to be more nuanced with respect to enforcement and penalties. A person slightly hungover should not be lumped in with a sloppy drunken driver and be treated the same by the courts. But I have never liked "zero tolerance" (I have zero tolerance for it) as it bypasses judges, judgement, and proportionate penalizing.
 
Last edited:
LongRoadBob said:
Hungary
Click to expand...
outside of my immediate family everyone else in my family still lives in Hungary.. when visiting they're I've always been taught basically the same as you.. that if you drive and even think about booze you'll be locked up in the Gulag. They take drinking and driving REMARKABLY seriously

...BUT: they also have a working infrastructure system.. where, from my grandmother's house (which is on a dirt road in the boonies) I can walk half mile to a bus stop, ride it a few stops, and take the train all the way into downtown Budapest.. under 50 minutes to make it from her house into downtown. And, even after the train stops around midnight, you still have busses running all night

the reason we have drinking and driving here is that the same infrastructure doesn't exist here..
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top