Vermont Mulls Lowered DUI Limit

March 31, 2008

  • March 31, 2008 at 10:56 am
    Jan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Having a lower limit would NOT have prevented this accident. The DUI crowd has no regard for any limit set. I fail to understand this type of a reaction.

  • March 31, 2008 at 11:21 am
    MADD LIES says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The key word is MIGHT. MADD mothers said reducing the BAC from .10 to .08 MIGHT save lives. It didn’t. Why? The drinking drivers doing the killing are well above .15 in BAC.

    In addition, maybe Vermont should look at the sober drivers who kill more people annually than those that have been drinking. Over 90% of death on the road is at the hands of no drinking drivers.

    It seems to me prohibition is all MADD mothers are looking for.

    Google duiblog
    Google Responsibility in DUI Laws
    Google getmadd
    Google dammdrinker

    MADD LIES. Period

  • March 31, 2008 at 12:30 pm
    Sandra says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree with both of you. One of the other things mentioned in the article is installing a “device” in the offender’s vehicle…what if they drive other vehicles? This is a sad thing…no matter what laws are in place, there will continue to be offenders hurting and killing innocent people.

  • March 31, 2008 at 12:47 pm
    Voice of reason says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The article talks about someone who had 8 or 9 beers, chances are he was well above the 0.08 and probably closer to 0.2! What good would it be to drop it to 0.05? Nothing….

  • March 31, 2008 at 12:50 pm
    SP says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I am not against lowering the legal limit, however if the current laws can’t be enforced fully, making new laws will not fix anything.

  • March 31, 2008 at 12:57 pm
    Court Jester says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You are absolutely correct. Proabition brought to you by MADD.
    The diehard drunks will continue to drive and the social drinkers (.05)will just be a source of revenue for the police, courts, councelors, etc.

  • March 31, 2008 at 1:00 am
    Adjuster in New England says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    In my past life as an adjuster on the road I handled many serious losses with alcohol involved and I remember none where the reading was .08 or .10. Usually it was over.20. A lot of small towns make good money over pulling someone who had one or two beers over. I think that often is what pushes these new limits.

    I do agree with having a device to lock out your ignition if you have been drinking. A am sure the habitual drunk can use another car or get someone to blow in the device but it still would cut down on the number of times that person drinks and drives. Even if not foolproof it might help.

  • March 31, 2008 at 1:23 am
    Dread says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The simple reality is that neither legislators nor politicians want to address the problem. Why are multiple offenders able to stay on the road. The habitual offenders could care less about BAC and laws. They perceive no serious consequence to their deviant behavior so they won’t change. The only way to make a positive impact is to impound ANY vehicle a DWI is caught driving, and keep it for 90-days. In addition, there should be a 1 year mandatory jail sentence and a $5,000 fine. No plea deals. This country doesn’t have the stomach to take that kind of action so innocent people will continue to lose their lives because of a few irresponsible, negligent, morons. The sad part about it is most drunks survive the accidents they cause thereby cheating the natural selection process.

    At the same time, people who have a drink or two with friend or over dinner shouldn’t be penalized and painted with the same brush. Alcohol isn’t the problem: ABUSE of it is.

  • March 31, 2008 at 1:24 am
    Sandra says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Dread – you hit the nail on the head. Nicely put!

  • March 31, 2008 at 2:56 am
    anon the mouse says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’t not that I feel strongly, but anything we do must have true societal benefits in order to have value. That is why I suggest Summary Execution of Drunk/Impaired drivers on site. While a local tragedy for the D/I families, it in a ot of cases would have premanent Societal benefits in that many attorneys would be removed from the gene pool.

  • March 31, 2008 at 3:19 am
    Bill Reed says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Here, here………

  • March 31, 2008 at 3:32 am
    Rational Thinker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Just legalize it. All the money we would save on law enforcement and lawyers and jails and court costs could be spent on making safer cars.

    Also, it would be good for the economy because people would go out and eat and drink more.

  • March 31, 2008 at 4:44 am
    Calif Ex Pat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    OK gang – here’s the deal:
    The ONLY thing which has been proven over time to “work” as to removing or excluding HBD drivers from the highways is sanction enforced education and court referrals to the original 12 step program.

    The basic reason the problem is ongoing is the influx of youngsters from each year group as they age into driving (and inevitably drinking beverage alcohol)

    To fix the problem once and for all, it would be necessary to eliminate any new drivers from entering the highway until the reached about age 30. By that time, the problem drinkers would have been identified and educated/treated/sanctioned/ into lifetime sobriety.

    Disdain, disgust and disparagement of current offenders is a feel good exercise – does nothing to address the root cause (new children)

  • April 1, 2008 at 11:25 am
    anon the mouse moron says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Execution for all impaired drivers? Wow, this guy is a severe victim of the MADD marketing and lies. So now driving with alcohol in your system makes you a murderer.

    fyi….drivers with BACs in excess of .15 do 99% of the killing. Sober drivers kill more than drinking drivers. Over 90% of death on the roads is caused by sober inattentive drivers.

    1.6m arrestees annually in the US equates to and 11 billion / yr economy, of which MADD takes a nice cut of.

    It’s amazing mouse, we have over 30m murderers that killed no one since MADD hysteria took over.

    MADD’s sole goal is Prohibition, one bad law at a time. Google neo-prohibition and get educated.

  • April 3, 2008 at 2:17 am
    vermonter says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This same state wants to legalize pot in small quantities (less than 1/4 oz.), supposedly to alleviate the court backlogs and crowded jails. If they only had DUI laws that made sense, there’d be less people in the system with 2 beer (.08) arrests.

  • April 12, 2008 at 12:08 pm
    david says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If this law passes all of us restaurant and bar owners might want to consider folding our tents.It’s the FEAR of not knowing(and not wanting to find out the hard way)what your BAC is after a bottle of wine at dinner.No one wants that “white knuckle” drive home with out knowing.Very very bad for the restaurant business,people will choose to stay home!



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*