08-01-2014, 10:42 AM
(08-01-2014, 04:28 AM)crash Wrote: My 'carry on' was simply that; I don't have a vote in your country, what you do doesn't affect me directly. It's just an opinion..
Thanks for clarifying, crash. I understand that these are just our opinions and like reading them all, but wasn't clear to whom yours pertained. I'm with you now.
Yeah, it's frustrating to me as an American that sometimes laws that would ensure greater public safety take so long to pass or are inconsistent across states. Often, there's a strong national business lobby or group dedicated to blocking such laws and regulations.
On most issues, I support the states' rights to decide for themselves. But, when it comes to life or death for thousands of people per year, I sometimes wish there was more consistency, even if that meant more federal laws and regulations (of which we already have too many, IMO).
Universal background checks for guns in every state is a no-brainer to me. Lowering the BAL driving limit makes sense to me, too. But, I read up a little on the resistance to lowering it again and understand better why the NTSB's recommendation is getting so little traction.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and a couple of the other "don't drink and drive" organizations -- whose national campaigns and lobbying efforts were instrumental in the reduction to .08 -- are not advocating in favor of the NTSB's .05 recommendation.
Instead, they're focused on pushing laws related to breathalyzer ignition interlock devices in autos, steering wheels that measure BAL from skin contact, etc... because rendering the vehicle inoperable to all .08 and above drivers would be more effective in reducing fatalities and injuries than hoping that drunk drivers at .08 or above get caught before it's too late and then stop driving drunk. "Preventative vs. punitive" kinda thing -- that's their mid to long term goal, I think. I understand the reasoning and imagine if they succeed in achieving that goal, they'll then focus on getting the BAL lowered to .05 or .02 (like Norway, Sweden, Poland...).
MADD's current goal and focus, however, is making it mandatory in all 50 states for convicted DUI offenders to have an ignition interlock device placed on their vehicles. If any level of intoxication is registered on the breathalyzer unit, the vehicle ignition locks. MADD has succeeded in getting that requirement implemented in 25 states, which have reportedly seen a 30% reduction in drunk driving related fatalities as a result.
I like the ignition interlock device requirement for DUI offenders -- it keeps P.J. Tucker and other super extreme drunken drivers off the road, along with keeping those who get busted for driving after overdoing it a bit from continuing to take such selfish risks.
Refs:
http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/ignition-interlocks/
http://www.icap.org/table/BACLimitsWorldwide