It shouldn’t be 0.0%, but 0.08% is quite generous. At 0.02%, it is clearly detectable with equipment but you aren’t likely to notice. Some people also naturally have a constant BAC in the 0.01% range. At 0.05%, you definitely feel it and are twice as likely to cause an accident than sober.
4 beers in an hour is a significant amount. People who drink that much and drive are not hardasses. They are murderers.
Get off the road.
It should most definitely NOT be .00. That would lead to massive abuse by the police as having a sip of cold medicine could land you a dui.
Mother Against Drunk Driving decided all of it.
Nobody can defend drunk driving, but the fact you give up your rights during a stop should make you angry.
If you get charged with any other crime you are allowed to talk to a lawyer except in drunk driving. You are tried and convicted on the side of the road and the evidence they use to convict you (your breath) isn’t preserved… it just blows away in the wind.
Nobody should be drunk driving but we still need to change the way we handle suspected drunk driver’s
I’m pretty sure that if they find a person drunk they have to take that person to a hospital to get a blood test and accurately gauge the alcohol percentage, the test also stands as proof.
If you were accused of murdering and taken to the hospital for a blood test with a lawyer present people would lose their minds
But suspected drunk drivers it happens all the time without a lawyer present
How many other crimes are directly defined with a time-sensitive impairment?
If they allowed you to both call a lawyer and wait for them to arrive you could arrange for your lawyer to be a) 2+hrs away, b)alseep or c)any other time delaying tactic.
I agree I don’t like the status quo, but if you have a reasonable alternative that still allows them to catch people who are drunk driving, I’m all ears.
deleted by creator
IIRC, it used to be 0.10, but was lowered to 0.08 because some studies (and maybe some advocacy groups) found out that there was significant impairment at 0.08 BAC.
The number really shouldn’t be round. It should be the number where 99.999% of people are not too impaired to drive a car.
Driving simulation studies show impairment far below 0.08.
0.08 is pretty fucking drunk.
Isn’t 0.08 around 3 beers for the average person?
While I wouldn’t drive at that level that is definitely not “pretty fucking drunk”
TBF, I think most drivers are impaired at 0.00.
It’s been really bad on the roads lately.
In many states, like NY anything above 0 is illegal. Above 0.08 is criminal.
4 12oz beers is NOT small, be responsible.
I think that being impaired with anything above 0 is illegal. You could be at .06 but have such a low tolerance that it affects you pretty badly and get cited for it. But 0.08+ is automatically considered impaired, no matter how good your tolerance may be, if you get tested at that level.
Why does even-ness matter? Just because our number system is decimal doesn’t mean nature fits into that pattern nicely.
at 0.08 you can be measurably tested to have worse reaction capability, so that’s where they set the limit.
4 beers at 12 oz isn’t exactly 0.08, that’s just approximately what it takes in the average person. Some people will be more, some less. Time and other factors affect it too.
Why does even-ness matter?
Because significant figures.
0.1 means you have a margin of error of ±0.05 (i.e. the true value is between 0.05 and 0.15).
0.08 means the margin of error is ±0.005 (i.e. the true value is between 0.075 and 0.085).
OP’s question can be rephrased as “how did we obtain a value to this level of precision?”
I mean, that’s just an issue of notation. OP could have just as easily meant 0.10 but chopped off the trailing zero out of habit.
OP actually did write 0.10, but I think it’s pretty clear from context that they meant it with one sigfig.
In some cases insurance won’t pay for medical expenses or life insurance premiums if alcohol is involved.
It’s because of the children
