Should the Legal Blood Alcohol Limit Be Lowered?

0 Flares 0 Flares ×

The NTSB has recommended that the nationwide, the blood-alcohol legal limit should be lowered. As a hard-working truck owner, what is your take on this? Should it be changed?

Should the Legal Blood Alcohol Limit Be Lowered?

The NTSB has recommended lowering the blood-alcohol limit. Should it be lowered?bloo

Officials for the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board have said that the current threshold of 0.08% is too high and we should be more in accordance with the worldwide limit of 0.05%.

A story on says:

“That’s about one drink for a woman weighing less than 120 lbs., two for a 160 lb. man. More than 100 countries have adopted the .05 alcohol content standard or lower, according to a report by the board’s staff. In Europe, the share of traffic deaths attributable to drunken driving was reduced by more than half within 10 years after the standard was dropped, the report said. NTSB officials said it wasn’t their intention to prevent drivers from having a glass of wine with dinner, but they acknowledged that under a threshold as low as .05 the safest thing for people who have only one or two drinks is not to drive at all. … Alcohol concentration levels as low as .01 have been associated with driving-related performance impairment, and levels as low as .05 have been associated with significantly increased risk of fatal crashes, the board said.”

Related Posts:

Filed Under:


RSSComments (17)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Shawn says:

    Montana has a bad bad habit of drinking and driving.
    Believed to be #2 in the nation.
    Being a first responder myself..
    You could lower it to .0000.
    People will still drink and drive. Its not about the limit.
    Its about the laws and how/who enforces them.

    • mendonsy says:

      It’s not just Montana, it’s everywhere!!!
      And ………… a significant portion of them don’t have a driver’s license either.

  2. reckless says:

    Stay drunk and drive fast.

  3. Larry says:

    Since this is a Tundra forum, is this directed at Tundra drivers who might drink and drive?

    • Tim Esterdahl says:


      Nah, just a general question. Every once in a while, we like to expand beyond the Tundra and get your feedback on other things. This is one of those times. 🙂


  4. LJC says:

    If the world wide limit is .05% then there’s probably a good reason for it. It would be helpful to see the difference between .08% and .05% for the same person.

    I believe lowering the limit will reduce the number of deaths, but it won’t stop habitual offenders.

    I know some bars will call the po-po if a patron has had too much to drink and attempts to drive.

    Keep in mind, the police need a reason, for the most part, to pull someone over. If the BAL is .05% and driver’s driving is showing sings of impairment, then they shouldn’t be driving.

    Finally, some people can hold their alcohol better than others, so the threshold will vary from person to person.

    If it’s proven to save lives, especially innocent lives, then I’m all for it.

  5. Mickey says:

    My take is they can lower it. I don’t drink since I retired from the Navy. The wife always drove if I had even 1 beer at dinner. You don’t take chances with your life and others. I do believe it’s a money maker for the court systems.

  6. JL says:

    Agree with Shawn, it’s all about the laws and how/who enforces them.

  7. GoBig says:

    The strange part about B.A.C. limits, is they don’t really fit all. I’ve seen teenage girls who can barely function at .10 and professional alcoholics who operate as normal at .2 or higher. I think the highest I encountered was .342 for a guy who was still conscious.

    The laws are written to apply to most people, and called “per se” laws meaning you’re assumed to be impaired above that limit.

    The best policy is get a cab, walk, or crawl. It’s not worth the heartache and monetary avalanche that comes with a DUI.

  8. Larry says:

    This drinking and driving thing is a problem for sure.

    If you are out and have 1 drink with dinner and drive home 1/2 hour later and you are smart about your driving behavior the risk of being pulled over is about zero.

    I may have 3 drinks a week. If they make the limit zero, I can live with it.

    I would also like to see all fine revenue go directly to drug related recovery programs so our government has no direct monetary incentive to go out and look for people to hassle.

    If people are not driving around drunk they have very little to fear with a zero limit.

    I will add that in places like WY and MT it is my opinion that only Ford/GM/Ram truck owner have problems,,,,,, alcohol or otherwise.

    • GoBig says:

      While the government does collect penalties, the real money comes when it’s time to pay for an attorney, and then pay for the increase for “high risk” auto insurance.

      It’s not the government getting rich off DUIs, it’s the insurance industry, and Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe.

      • Larry says:

        True but,,,,,,,
        I would much rather see money go to Dewey, Cheatham and Howe or Skin N Flint associates then to see one more penny going to Washington DC, the state or local dictators who will use the money to hire more staff who come up with useless junk like TPMS systems for our wheels.

        In 25 more years a truck will have 20,000 dollars motor, real parts and another 30 grand worth of junk and a breath analyzer which will lock us out of our 50,000 dollar truck after we have a beer.

        • Tim Esterdahl says:


          Your optimism is so high today! LOL.


          • GoBig says:

            Our state already requires an ignition interlock device following DUI arrests. (breathalyzer to start the car) I see this as one more scam where the state is in cahoots with private businesses who sell those things.

            It just makes the people round up a designated “blower” not necessarily a designated driver.

0 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 Email -- 0 Flares ×