Washington wants to lower BAC to .05

[LateToCult 31,096]

A bill to reduce Washington’s BAC limit for drivers is now in the fast lane after the state’s Senate and Law Justice Committee referred the legislation to the transportation committee Thursday.

If passed, Senate Bill 5002 would bring a whole new meaning to drinking responsibly in Washington – as it would lower the state’s legal limit for operating a motor vehicle from a BAC of .08 to .05.
 

Soure: https://www.koin.com/news/washington/washington-legislature-sending-a-message-with-bill-to-lower-blood-alcohol-level-while-driving/amp/ 

The drinkers are big mad at this but I hope it goes through. Utah reported seeing a 20% decrease in vehicle fatalities when they made the switch.

[PartySick 119,125]

I'm always here for anything that makes drunk drivers less likely

[weed 58,025]

I think it seems reasonable

[jimmytimestep 1,818]

As a drinker myself, i am in support of this. You shouldn’t drive anywhere after even one drink.

I wish there was a way to keep sleep deprived drivers off the road as well.

[Economy 41,582]

1 hour ago, PartySick said:

I'm always here for anything that makes drunk drivers less likely

Not sure this would prevent "drunk drivers" per say as someone who's actually drunk would be over 0.08 and someone who doesn't care is not likely to be detered by a lower limit than what was set before as they were likely already surpassing it anyway

 

What this might prevent is ppl who do pay attention that maybe think they are ok with a couple drinks and now maybe instead have only 1 and wait a couple hours to drive... For those ppl it may do something as even a couple drinks can slightly impact ur ability to reflex

 

Funny enough btw these are the 2 limits where I live as well. 0.08 is Canada's Federal limit while 0.05 is my Provinces limit

[Ployd 801]

This is probably a good measure but if America really wants to stop drunk driving it should create more public transportation and have less of a car centric drinking culture 

[TortureMeOnReplay 3,805]

42 minutes ago, Ployd said:

This is probably a good measure but if America really wants to stop drunk driving it should create more public transportation and have less of a car centric drinking culture 

Public transportation won't be widespread in the US unless the attitude on taxes changes. So nearly impossible. 

[Ployd 801]

5 minutes ago, TortureMeOnReplay said:

Public transportation won't be widespread in the US unless the attitude on taxes changes. So nearly impossible. 

We have plenty of tax revenue, we just spend so much of it on the military 

[Helxig 34,253]

I wanted to compare it to my country so looked it up, and apparently we lowered our limit from 0.8 to 0.5 in 2014. And tbh I wouldn't want anyone over that amount to be driving anyway    it's basically 1-2 standard drinks, or like 0-1 standard drink per hour with food and water if you're out. If someone is having like 3-5 standard drinks I really don't think they should be driving! 

[Lukasson 295]

I‘m always confused how glamorous and desirable drinking alcohol is depicted in american tv shows (at least educate actors how to properly hold a wine glass because none of them is doing it right).

[TortureMeOnReplay 3,805]

8 hours ago, Ployd said:

We have plenty of tax revenue, we just spend so much of it on the military 

I agree. But people aren't going to support public transportation. Because they don't want to support the government taking money to build things for others. Despite our endless road expansion and upkeep. 

[Economy 41,582]

On 1/23/2023 at 8:05 AM, TortureMeOnReplay said:

I agree. But people aren't going to support public transportation. Because they don't want to support the government taking money to build things for others. Despite our endless road expansion and upkeep. 

I think what they mean is, the current level of taxation doesn't need to be raised to have public transportation. It needs to be spent better

 

Also cuz transit does have fares in most jurisdictions, that does cover a good portion of the cost. It's not the entire thing that has to be funded by tax payers anyway so it's not some massive cost

 

I think the biggest hurdle is the construction phase

 

In my Country public transportation is pretty lackluster as well

[TortureMeOnReplay 3,805]

5 hours ago, Economy said:

I think what they mean is, the current level of taxation doesn't need to be raised to have public transportation. It needs to be spent better

 

Also cuz transit does have fares in most jurisdictions, that does cover a good portion of the cost. It's not the entire thing that has to be funded by tax payers anyway so it's not some massive cost

 

I think the biggest hurdle is the construction phase

 

In my Country public transportation is pretty lackluster as well

Yeah I agreed. We collect enough taxes. And spend it on the military. Or road expansion. If you notice, most if not all cities with a decent train/subway system are led by democratic local governments. Republicans for the most part aren't going to support public transit because they don't want their tax dollars going to public transportation. Despite spending endless amounts to fix an unnecessarily large road infrastructure and continue to expand it. Additionally, there's the argument that we'd be putting our own transportation in the hands of the government which they wouldn't trust either (despite relying on the government to provide road construction in the first place). The only hope of building an effective rail system would be if a republican built a cult-like following and proposed an effective federal system that fixed the rail passenger service act and further funded/overhauled Amtrak's operations that made the party believe it's a good way to spend tax dollars. 

[Economy 41,582]

2 hours ago, TortureMeOnReplay said:

Yeah I agreed. We collect enough taxes. And spend it on the military. Or road expansion. If you notice, most if not all cities with a decent train/subway system are led by democratic local governments. Republicans for the most part aren't going to support public transit because they don't want their tax dollars going to public transportation. Despite spending endless amounts to fix an unnecessarily large road infrastructure and continue to expand it. Additionally, there's the argument that we'd be putting our own transportation in the hands of the government which they wouldn't trust either (despite relying on the government to provide road construction in the first place). The only hope of building an effective rail system would be if a republican built a cult-like following and proposed an effective federal system that fixed the rail passenger service act and further funded/overhauled Amtrak's operations that made the party believe it's a good way to spend tax dollars. 

Agree exept for the part about unnecessarily large road infrastructure...

 

Public transit does take some cars off the road but not enough tbh to shrink roads much

 

Go to parts of Europe or the few North American big cities where public transit is more sophisticated and traffic is still always congested AF

 

I'd rather use the reduction in cars public transit allows to help reduce congestion a little instead of reducing the amount of roads and keeping traffic just as congested

 

Edited Wednesday at 02:38 AM by Economy

[TortureMeOnReplay 3,805]

4 hours ago, Economy said:

Agree exept for the part about unnecessarily large road infrastructure...

 

Public transit does take some cars off the road but not enough tbh to shrink roads much

 

Go to parts of Europe or the few North American big cities where public transit is more sophisticated and traffic is still always congested AF

 

I'd rather use the reduction in cars public transit allows to help reduce congestion a little instead of reducing the amount of roads and keeping traffic just as congested

 

It can be harder to compare US infastructrure  to European infastructrure for a couple of reasons though. Americans are ridiculously inefficient when it comes to driving, probably  because of their young age at which they start to drive (which is seen as a sign of freedom in part because of how restrictive transportation in the US is otherwise). Europe follows the science for roads much more closely. Roundabouts, less traffic lights, clearer marking, etc. They build their roads around the landscape while the US builds their landscape around roads. In my town there is a road in the main shopping area where the speed limit is 55mph with 3 lanes to each side and no streets to turn off to, just parking lots. Take a right turn into an undeveloped area with 3 lanes to each side, lanes built as if it was part of a highway, no stores around, and half the amount of traffic lights and the speed limit is 45. An hour away they're adding 2 lanes to create a 4 lane each way road for the 5 o clock traffic that takes 3 hours to clear with exits every half mile, but the speed limit is also 55 mph. I feel like I could confidently say those roads could stay 2 lanes each way if public transportation was built. But instead we build our country around cars rather than people.