PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: JeffDG on February 05, 2016, 05:42:52 AM
-
http://www.kspr.com/news/local/NTSB-wants-to-lower-legal-blood-alcohol-level/21051620_37823592
The NTSB wants to drop the legal limit from .08 to .05. Discuss...
-
More revenue generation for government, and the court system. It's not about "safety" at all.
-
http://www.kspr.com/news/local/NTSB-wants-to-lower-legal-blood-alcohol-level/21051620_37823592
The NTSB wants to drop the legal limit from .08 to .05. Discuss...
http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/mwl8-2016.aspx
"When it comes to alcohol use, we know that impairment begins before a person’s BAC reaches 0.08 percent, the current legal limit in the United States. In fact, by the time it reaches that level, the risk of a fatal crash has more than doubled. That is why states should lower BAC levels to 0.05— or even lower.
Unfortunately, for most drugs, the relationship between the amount consumed and crash risk is not well understood. We need more and better data to understand the scope of the problem and the effectiveness of countermeasures. "
Sounds like there might be justification for lowering the limit.
-
I guess I've never noticed it before, and honestly, I'm not happy about it.
I'm not particularly happy with an agency of the federal government (NTSB) utilizing taxpayer funds to lobby state governments to change state laws.
I have no issue with them presenting facts without the political spin of saying that states should change something. There are plenty of interest groups that can take up those facts and lobby state governments without taxpayers doing so.
"When it comes to alcohol use, we know that impairment begins before a person’s BAC reaches 0.08 percent, the current legal limit in the United States. In fact, by the time it reaches that level, the risk of a fatal crash has more than doubled. That is why states should lower BAC levels to 0.05— or even lower.
The red part above is what is bugging me.
-
http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/default.aspx (http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/default.aspx)
http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/mwl8-2016.aspx (http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/mwl8-2016.aspx)
"When it comes to alcohol use, we know that impairment begins before a person’s BAC reaches 0.08 percent, the current legal limit in the United States. In fact, by the time it reaches that level, the risk of a fatal crash has more than doubled. That is why states should lower BAC levels to 0.05— or even lower.
Unfortunately, for most drugs, the relationship between the amount consumed and crash risk is not well understood. We need more and better data to understand the scope of the problem and the effectiveness of countermeasures. "
Sounds like there might be justification for lowering the limit.
Sounds to me like paragraph #2 negates paragraph #1
-
Sounds to me like paragraph #2 negates paragraph #1
Not necessarily.
Paragraph 1 addresses alcohol specifically.
Paragraph 2 addresses other drugs.
At least, that's the way I read it.
-
Here's some lovely bits from the NTSB's wish list-
Certain countermeasures have been shown to reduce the rate of alcohol-impaired driving and alcohol-related crashes, including stronger impaired driving laws and increased use of high-visibility enforcement, such as sobriety checkpoints.
Other countermeasures are needed to ensure that people who are caught driving while impaired (DWI) do not do so again. For example, requiring ignition interlocks for all alcohol impaired-driving offenders can ensure that vehicles will not start if the driver has been drinking. For repeat offenders, DWI courts (modeled after drug courts) provide a tailored approach that involves treatment and supervision.
Finally, emerging in-vehicle technology, such as the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety—a system that will use touch-based or breath-based systems to detect driver alcohol use—may one day ensure no drivers operate impaired.
A great excuse to stop and interrogate citizens. The dream of law enforcement and government. Hey, if you have to have a government mandated biometric finger print scan to fire your gun, why not a government mandated gismo to start your car? Whatever it takes to stop the carnage and horror on our roads!
-
Here's some lovely bits from the NTSB's wish list-
A great excuse to stop and interrogate citizens. The dream of law enforcement and government. Hey, if you have to have a government mandated biometric finger print scan to fire your gun, why not a government mandated gismo to start your car? Whatever it takes to stop the carnage and horror on our roads!
I don't understand how sobriety checkpoints are legal. I am also not going to buy a gun with a chip in it, nor a car that I have to breathe into to start. No thanks.
-
I guess I've never noticed it before, and honestly, I'm not happy about it.
I'm not particularly happy with an agency of the federal government (NTSB) utilizing taxpayer funds to lobby state governments to change state laws.
I have no issue with them presenting facts without the political spin of saying that states should change something. There are plenty of interest groups that can take up those facts and lobby state governments without taxpayers doing so.
The red part above is what is bugging me.
I actually thought it was against the law for federal funds to be used to influence local politics/elections, maybe just election/ballot issues in particular but I agree this is troubling.
'Gimp
-
Here's some lovely bits from the NTSB's wish list-
A great excuse to stop and interrogate citizens. The dream of law enforcement and government. Hey, if you have to have a government mandated biometric finger print scan to fire your gun, why not a government mandated gismo to start your car? Whatever it takes to stop the carnage and horror on our roads!
maybe it would be more effective to get rid of the alcohol.
wait, that didn't work.
maybe it would be more effective to get rid of cars. The enviro-nazis would love it.
-
Sounds to me like paragraph #2 negates paragraph #1
Agreed.
-
This sounds like Marxists Against Drunk Driving (MADD) are at it again.
More lives ruined by having a couple of drinks at dinner.
As pilots our stakes are higher than the general public, so I'm more careful than I used to be. But this is nothing more than a trap.
I wonder how many people are killed by wasted, unlicensed illegal aliens driving the wrong way on the interstate and killing families? That seems to be a prevailing problem.
-
I actually thought it was against the law for federal funds to be used to influence local politics/elections, maybe just election/ballot issues in particular but I agree this is troubling.
'Gimp
Oh, they're not trying to influence. They will out and out blackmail the states.
No .05 BAC? No federal highway funding. They did that with the national 55 MPH limit in the 1970s and 1980s.
-
This sounds like Marxists Against Drunk Driving (MADD) are at it again.
More lives ruined by having a couple of drinks at dinner.
As pilots our stakes are higher than the general public, so I'm more careful than I used to be. But this is nothing more than a trap.
I wonder how many people are killed by wasted, unlicensed illegal aliens driving the wrong way on the interstate and killing families? That seems to be a prevailing problem.
Just because it happened to Princess Diana doesn't mean that we can be fortunate enough to have it happen to Hillary and Sarah.
-
Oh, they're not trying to influence. They will out and out blackmail the states.
No .05 BAC? No federal highway funding. They did that with the national 55 MPH limit in the 1970s and 1980s.
Whatever happened to the study data that concluded that not having a speed limit improved safety? Buried?
-
This sounds like Marxists Against Drunk Driving (MADD) are at it again.
More lives ruined by having a couple of drinks at dinner.
As pilots our stakes are higher than the general public, so I'm more careful than I used to be. But this is nothing more than a trap.
I wonder how many people are killed by wasted, unlicensed illegal aliens driving the wrong way on the interstate and killing families? That seems to be a prevailing problem.
It's a trap, and it is also a revenue generator for government. Government is our new big business. It is in government's and the court system's best interest to grow, control, and invent ways to ensnare us.
-
http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/mwl8-2016.aspx
"When it comes to alcohol use, we know that impairment begins before a person’s BAC reaches 0.08 percent, the current legal limit in the United States. In fact, by the time it reaches that level, the risk of a fatal crash has more than doubled. That is why states should lower BAC levels to 0.05— or even lower.
Unfortunately, for most drugs, the relationship between the amount consumed and crash risk is not well understood. We need more and better data to understand the scope of the problem and the effectiveness of countermeasures. "
Sounds like there might be justification for lowering the limit.
Additional back-door tactic to make self-driving cars indispensable.
-
I don't understand how sobriety checkpoints are legal.
They're legal but not Constitutional. F SCOTUS.
-
They're legal but not Constitutional. F SCOTUS.
Well, like you, I consider the Constitution a legal document. Maybe the SCOTUS no longer does.
-
I was watching the last GOP Debate, as uninteresting as it was, and then Rand Paul made a comment that has stuck with me ever since. He said that the city of Ferguson, Missouri derives roughly one-third of their revenue off of fines, which mean they have to aggressively take money off of citizens all day, every day to remain solvent.
He thinks a large portion of their cop versus people problem is caused by the negative relationship built through the institution of fining for profit.
That pretty much sums up my feelings about this issue. It's just another chance to steal from people to provide funds for government.
-
I was watching the last GOP Debate, as uninteresting as it was, and then Rand Paul made a comment that has stuck with me ever since. He said that the city of Ferguson, Missouri derives roughly one-third of their revenue off of fines, which mean they have to aggressively take money off of citizens all day, every day to remain solvent.
He thinks a large portion of their cop versus people problem is caused by the negative relationship built through the institution of fining for profit.
That pretty much sums up my feelings about this issue. It's just another chance to steal from people to provide funds for government.
Government is now a for profit business that funds the elite, political/government class. They have WAY too much power over us.
-
Government is now a for profit business that funds the elite, political/government class. They have WAY too much power over us.
And the sycophant Millennial Bernie supporters can't even grasp that power would be so concentrated in the political elite that they would lose all say in their lives, probably because they've never read a history book that was longer than 140 characters.
-
And the sycophant Millennial Bernie supporters can't even grasp that power would be so concentrated in the political elite that they would lose all say in their lives, probably because they've never read a history book that was longer than 140 characters.
I am beginning to think they don't want a say in their lives. It's too hard.
-
Back the NTSB and accident reports for a moment. Those accident statistics are about the same as "gun violence" statistics. They don't show the whole picture.
Say a guy is driving down the road and he's at a 1.0 BAC for whatever reason. He's driving just fine and if you were behind him, you would never know. He's driving as good as, if not better than many sober people. He crosses an intersection on a green light and gets blind sighted by a red light runner that is stone cold sober, but just in a hurry and an asshole.
People die, they clean up the mess and the coroner, or hospital says the one guy was 1.0. It gets recored as one of the "alcohol involved" accidents, even though the same exact accident and outcome would have happened to any sober driver. People read this statistic and say- "My God!! 1/3 of the drivers on the road are drunk and they are all likely to cause an accident and kill somebody!! We must do something!!"
Anyhow, rant over... Carry on.
-
I am beginning to think they don't want a say in their lives. It's too hard.
Agreed. They're fine with some technocrat telling them what they can, or have to do cradle to grave.
-
Agreed. They're fine with some technocrat telling them what they can, or have to do cradle to grave.
Scary as hell.
-
Oh, they're not trying to influence. They will out and out blackmail the states.
No .05 BAC? No federal highway funding. They did that with the national 55 MPH limit in the 1970s and 1980s.
Elizabeth Dole used the same tactic when she pushed for drinking age going from 18/19 to 21.
-
Elizabeth Dole used the same tactic when she pushed for drinking age going from 18/19 to 21.
Bingo. I forgot about that one.
-
Elizabeth Dole used the same tactic when she pushed for drinking age going from 18/19 to 21.
I have less of an issue when a Cabinet Secretary (Dole) or Congress itself (the National Minimum Drinking Age Act) lobby/pressure states.
I do have an issue when executive agencies do it. Again, this is a new issue that I've not deeply considered before.
-
I have less of an issue when a Cabinet Secretary (Dole) or Congress itself (the National Minimum Drinking Age Act) lobby/pressure states.
I do have an issue when executive agencies do it. Again, this is a new issue that I've not deeply considered before.
It's the federal blackmail tactic that I despise, whether it comes from a Cabinet secretary, her agency's bureaucrats through Rulemaking, or from Congress itself.
They ALL shit on the Tenth Amendment.
-
It's the federal blackmail tactic that I despise, whether it comes from a Cabinet secretary, her agency's bureaucrats through Rulemaking, or from Congress itself.
They ALL shit on the Tenth Amendment.
Aided and abetted by state governments that take the money.
Who's worse: the one offering the bribe or the one taking it?
-
Aided and abetted by state governments that take the money.
Who's worse: the one offering the bribe or the one taking it?
Great question. Let's ask John Kasich. He likes to take federal money and play puppet for FedGov.
In all seriousness, this has been going on for a long time. I remember when the FedGov grants ran out from Bill Clinton's "100,000 cops" initiative. Departments were scrambling to fill the budgetary hole.
-
If interdiction lowered rates of DUI there would be no need to employ a stricter standard. That interdiction doesn't lower such rates suggests it nothing more than institutional larceny.
-
If interdiction lowered rates of DUI there would be no need to employ a stricter standard. That interdiction doesn't lower such rates suggests it nothing more than institutional larceny.
The stricter standard just closes the threads of the net.
-
If interdiction lowered rates of DUI there would be no need to employ a stricter standard. That interdiction doesn't lower such rates suggests it nothing more than institutional larceny.
be careful when considering rates. Arrests are not necessarily a good measure of actual rates of people driving drunk (e.g., consider the likely correlation between not have checkpoints, etc and lower rates of arrests for DUI)
-
If interdiction lowered rates of DUI there would be no need to employ a stricter standard. That interdiction doesn't lower such rates suggests it nothing more than institutional larceny.
I honestly have little to no sympathy for DUI convicts. You make a choice, you live with the consequences thereof.