Not trying to argue that alcohol is not an intoxicant at low levels, just trying to argue that it doesn't seriously impact driving ability at .05. By seriously, I mean there is a meaningful statistical difference in that person's chances of driving without an accident.
All the studies ever done prove otherwise. Noticeable and effective impairment on driving skills tests begins by .02 at the least, and by .035 someone performs at best with half the ability they started with. And yes, car accidents are caused/avoided in milliseconds of response time and coordination.
If your golfer buddies were going to play for money in an amateur tournament tomorrow morning with a chance for the winner to make sizable one-time earnings and get a shot at pro sponsorship if they performed exceptionally well, would they knock down two beers at 8am and a short shot of whiskey just before taking the greens?
If those same gentleman were supposed to drive the school bus to your kids basketball game tonight, would you meet them at the bar at 3:30 this afternoon and buy them free shots?
If you were out walking your dog on a side road coming back to your house and one of those buddies was driving oncoming after drinking just two beers less than an hour ago while at the same time there was traffic from the other direction, would you be content that he can pass you within a couple of feet and not mess up?
Some of those golfing buddies have sipped beer throughout a morning round in an amateur tournament, no money at stake, but plenty of pride. Not condoning it, just commenting on performance. 2 beers and a shot at 8:00 am is going to put you above the BAC I thought we were talking about.
No, I wouldn't buy the bus driver shots at 3:30.
I wouldn't be worried walking my dog with a two beer driver coming my way...well, maybe if he was messing with his cell phone at the time.
Response times vary greatly between people and age groups, lots of people with poor response times are legally driving.
Aces below tells of another study with different findings, maybe bias, maybe they were trying to evaluate something other than maximum performance.
Is someone with .05 BAC a much greater risk on the road than one with .08? You say there is a difference, I say the difference isn't worth a new restriction.
I live in a state where safety laws are regularly passed (including gun laws), all in the name of good...sure has changed the living experience over the past 50-60 years. Some good, some not so good...it surely isn't as "free" as it used to be. Laissez faire doesn't work all that well, trying to legislate 100% safety doesn't work all that well either, there needs to be balance. IMO .05 BAC = DUI is too far on the safety side. Sounds like your opinion differs. I have spoken my piece, take it fwiw.
