Results 1 to 27 of 27
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,203

    Heads up - Utah will give DUI for .05% BAC

    Utah governor says he will approve strictest DUI limit in U.S. – The Denver Post

    Two beers will get you a full DUI in Utah after December 31, 2018. One beer if you are small.

    You have been warned.

  2. #2
    Rent this space for $
    Reputation: Oh My Sack!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,469
    I can't say that this bothers me. In fact, I wouldn't be bothered if it happened here in Crapifornia where driving drunk is off the hook. I'm done with drunks and impaired drivers killing friends, families, and otherwise good, innocent people.

  3. #3
    I didn't do it
    Reputation: Mookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    9,461
    This seemed to come out of nowhere and I just don't think the "pro drink" (for lack of a better term) lobby hasn't had a chance to lodge the counterarguments. I have to think that Ski Utah, for example, is going to be against this. I believe this is going to end up being amended by 2019. My bet is that 0.05 to 0.079% will be a noncriminal offense - you'll get a big fine, points, maybe loss of driving for a month. DUI for 2 beers just isn't going to work. But we'll see, it is Utah...
    Let's eat Ted
    Let's eat, Ted
    Remember, commas save lives

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Oh My Sack! View Post
    I can't say that this bothers me. In fact, I wouldn't be bothered if it happened here in Crapifornia where driving drunk is off the hook. I'm done with drunks and impaired drivers killing friends, families, and otherwise good, innocent people.
    I'm OK with it, as long as they also pass a law to penalize people with poor eyesight, ADHD, texting, talking on the phone, looking at their radio, looking at their passengers, eating, drinking coffee, or any number of other things that cause drivers to crash.

    .05 will put a 120lb woman over the limit with one regular Coors, and will put a 170lb man over the limit with one IPA. It is basically a money-making bill that will have zero impact on road safety.

    Colorado road fatalities are up, even though they passed a .05 BAC DWAI law about ten years ago. DWAI prosecutions are down. The police, lawyers, prosecutors and "rehab" providers love the DWAI .05 law, it basically sustains their livelihood. But a full DUI for .05? Why not 0.01?

    Colorado is seeing the Law of Unintended Consequences play out. Knowing that they can get a DWAI for .05, people now party with other drugs that are not as obvious if they get pulled over.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    I'm OK with it, as long as they also pass a law to penalize people with poor eyesight, ADHD, texting, talking on the phone, looking at their radio, looking at their passengers, eating, drinking coffee, or any number of other things that cause drivers to crash.

    .05 will put a 120lb woman over the limit with one regular Coors, and will put a 170lb man over the limit with one IPA. It is basically a money-making bill that will have zero impact on road safety.

    Colorado road fatalities are up, even though they passed a .05 BAC DWAI law about ten years ago. DWAI prosecutions are down. The police, lawyers, prosecutors and "rehab" providers love the DWAI .05 law, it basically sustains their livelihood. But a full DUI for .05? Why not 0.01?

    Colorado is seeing the Law of Unintended Consequences play out. Knowing that they can get a DWAI for .05, people now party with other drugs that are not as obvious if they get pulled over.
    Care to share some sources?

    Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    363
    Even Mothers against drunk drivers is against this law. They think we should be cracking down on chronic drunk drivers as they are the ones causing most of the fatalities... Besides at .05% you will probably be driving better than the 4 people talking on their phones surrounding you. Why would they pull you over? Taillight out?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by mactweek View Post
    Why would they pull you over?
    In search of revenue.
    Goodbye '95 ZJ. Just so you know, transfering box of left behind womens panties to next truck. Thank you ZJ!

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,203

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,203
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxmark View Post
    In search of revenue.
    This is certainly the case in Colorado with their .05 DWAI law. It is basically a way to make money.

    I got pulled over after turning onto CO-93, after pulling out of the 7-11 in front of the Cannonball Brewery in Golden. The cop obviously thought I had been in there. I had just pulled into 7-11 for gas. The cop said I didn't use my turn signal when I merged into the main lane of 93 at the end of the merge lane. Umm, yeah, there were no cars for 500 feet in any direction, sorry officer. He grilled me on whether I had been in Cannonball, where I had been, and where I was going. He was clearly trolling. Good thing I hadn't been in Cannonball having ONE beer.

    BTW, in Colorado, riding a bike with .05 BAC has the exact same penalties as driving a car with .05 BAC. That's right, a cop can see you getting on your bike after coming out of a brewery where you just had a nice IPA, and the moment your wheels touch the street they can bust you for DWAI, and it will be just as expensive and bad on your driving record as if they pulled you over in a car.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    160
    Thank you. Your links confirmed what I already knew. People are stupid and die because of it.

    You mentioned that the lowered BAC made people do other drugs. Where did you read about that? Or is it first hand experience?

    Cole says investigators have pinpointed the states limited seat belt use an estimated 84 percent do as being a major factor in the rise in deaths.
    Motorcycle fatalities also are up, about 50 percent in the past few years, Cole said. One easy thing motorcyclists can do to help reduce that number is wear their helmets and safety gear.
    Farr said he is most concerned about an increase in aggressive driving and street racing in the city.
    As the numbers decline, you are left with people who dont care and are going to drink and drive no matter what you tell them, she said.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,365
    I agree with the general consensus of this thread. In case anyone is not paying attention there is a BIG and growing lack of respect for law enforcement. I think the real question here is if you are impaired at 0.05 BAC...probobaly not so fo 99% of the drinking popululous. We are not Europe with puplic transportation everywhich way.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,203
    Quote Originally Posted by PiousInquisitor View Post
    Thank you. Your links confirmed what I already knew. People are stupid and die because of it.

    You mentioned that the lowered BAC made people do other drugs. Where did you read about that? Or is it first hand experience?
    I don't know where you live, or if you realize THC is legal in Colorado.

    I'm 56, and I don't do weed, but I know anecdotally from co-workers that getting a DWAI/DUI is high on the radar of things that suck, and many see pot as a "safer" alternative in the sense that you are less likely to be busted. In CO, you can walk into a weed shop and buy THC-infused candy, drinks, or even just drops that you put under your tongue. You don't smell like weed, and most people don't get the bloodshot eye problem either. It is also much easier to "straighten" up in the presence of police if you are just a little wasted.

    If a cop suspects you might be high, they have to haul you down to the station for a blood draw, and go through the associated hassle. There is no Breathalyzer for weed. They don't bother unless someone is obviously, over the top high. Compare that with smelling even a little bit of beer breath, and knowing that a driver with even one beer in them might earn them another score on the board in the form of a DWAI bust.

    Even Sam Adams and Jack Daniel's are worried that weed will affect their alcohol sales: https://www.ft.com/content/f72c1f00-...c-f4a01f1b0fa1

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,164
    Honkinunit....I'm not saying I agree with the .05% BAC level being a good idea for somebody actually being intoxicated but I can tell you that ONE drink isn't going to be sending anybody over a .05% BAC. As a retired police officer with 31 years on the job, I've arrested a few DUI folks. We also used to take our breathalyzers to the bar with us occasionally just to make sure we weren't getting too drunk to drive. I was about 165 lbs and could have (3) drinks and I was a .042% BAC. It surprised me to learn what it really took for people to get over an .08% BAC which is the limit in CA.

    Regarding some of your other comments. speaking specifically for CA law: While .08% BAC is the standard to be presumed intoxicated, I've seen people arrested for DUI as far down as .04% BAC because the officer was still able to determine impairment due to the subjects poor performance during testing. That rarely occurs though, barring the use of other substances along with the alcohol. I personally let people go if they were a .07% BAC but highly suggested they get a ride because that BAC could go up in time depending on when they last stopped drinking.

    In CA, riding a bike intoxicated used to carry the same penalties as DUI in a vehicle but was changed. It's still a misdemeanor and stays on your record. As far as smelling weed, I personally smell it much quicker than I do alcohol. We don't take blood samples for weed (or didn't in my time), we took urine. As far as testing for it now, there is a brand new machine out that they are using at DUI checkpoints that show THC usage in your saliva. New Tool to Detect Stoned Drivers Unveiled in San Diego | NBC 7 San Diego
    2019 Yeti SB5C
    2018 Intense Tracer
    2017 Intense Primer

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    I don't know where you live, or if you realize THC is legal in Colorado.

    I'm 56, and I don't do weed, but I know anecdotally from co-workers that getting a DWAI/DUI is high on the radar of things that suck, and many see pot as a "safer" alternative in the sense that you are less likely to be busted. In CO, you can walk into a weed shop and buy THC-infused candy, drinks, or even just drops that you put under your tongue. You don't smell like weed, and most people don't get the bloodshot eye problem either. It is also much easier to "straighten" up in the presence of police if you are just a little wasted.

    If a cop suspects you might be high, they have to haul you down to the station for a blood draw, and go through the associated hassle. There is no Breathalyzer for weed. They don't bother unless someone is obviously, over the top high. Compare that with smelling even a little bit of beer breath, and knowing that a driver with even one beer in them might earn them another score on the board in the form of a DWAI bust.

    Even Sam Adams and Jack Daniel's are worried that weed will affect their alcohol sales: https://www.ft.com/content/f72c1f00-...c-f4a01f1b0fa1
    I didn't write illegal drugs. Everyone knows​ CO is a stoner state.

    I was just curious if there was real data on the subject. You make good points though.

    Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,203
    Quote Originally Posted by k2rider1964 View Post
    Honkinunit....I'm not saying I agree with the .05% BAC level being a good idea for somebody actually being intoxicated but I can tell you that ONE drink isn't going to be sending anybody over a .05% BAC. As a retired police officer with 31 years on the job, I've arrested a few DUI folks. We also used to take our breathalyzers to the bar with us occasionally just to make sure we weren't getting too drunk to drive. I was about 165 lbs and could have (3) drinks and I was a .042% BAC. It surprised me to learn what it really took for people to get over an .08% BAC which is the limit in CA.

    Regarding some of your other comments. speaking specifically for CA law: While .08% BAC is the standard to be presumed intoxicated, I've seen people arrested for DUI as far down as .04% BAC because the officer was still able to determine impairment due to the subjects poor performance during testing. That rarely occurs though, barring the use of other substances along with the alcohol. I personally let people go if they were a .07% BAC but highly suggested they get a ride because that BAC could go up in time depending on when they last stopped drinking.

    In CA, riding a bike intoxicated used to carry the same penalties as DUI in a vehicle but was changed. It's still a misdemeanor and stays on your record. As far as smelling weed, I personally smell it much quicker than I do alcohol. We don't take blood samples for weed (or didn't in my time), we took urine. As far as testing for it now, there is a brand new machine out that they are using at DUI checkpoints that show THC usage in your saliva. New Tool to Detect Stoned Drivers Unveiled in San Diego | NBC 7 San Diego
    One pint of IPA (6-7%) will most certainly get anyone under about 160lb over the .05 BAC. Someone under 120lb will get there with a regular 4% Budweiser.

    Urinalysis gets thrown out for pot testing in CO, they need a blood test for prosecution. There is a lot of controversy around the testing, because apparently a heavy pot user will exceed the legal limit for up to a month after they last used it. As for smelling weed, people don't smell like weed if they eat an edible or use drinks or drops. That is a huge part of why edibles are so popular in CO.

    I know CO is trying to find some way to measure pot levels on the roadside, but they don't have anything yet. As you know, that machine in your link will have to go through a lot of legal challenges to be as accepted as a breathalyzer.

    Back to the original reason for this thread, I personally find it ridiculous that Utah is going to ruin someone's life over a .05 BAC by giving them a full DUI. There are a LOT of people for whom a DUI would be a life altering event. A lot of jobs will fire you immediately for a single DUI. I think that is why Colorado went with the label of "DWAI" for .05, it keeps people in that category from facing potential ruin.

    It is the "speedtrap" mentality that seems to be permeating society now. No one likes it when a municipality sets an unreasonable speed limit to generate revenue. It causes people to lose trust and faith in law enforcement and government - is the government by the people/for the people, and is law enforcement there to serve and protect when there is crap like that? No, it is a game and a racket. A full DUI for .05 BAC is the same thing only worse. I think it is telling that even MADD isn't behind this. They see it for what it is - a useless waste of resources that would be better directed toward getting people who are truly inebriated. A cop who is hauling in a .05 BAC isn't going to see the .2 BAC weaving down the street ten minutes later.

  16. #16
    I didn't do it
    Reputation: Mookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    9,461
    Great, another liquor law enacted by people who've never had a drink. They just know that drinking is bad mkay.
    Let's eat Ted
    Let's eat, Ted
    Remember, commas save lives

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    190
    They have had a similar thing here in Ontario for many years now. The legal limit is 0.079% but they can impound your car, suspend your license and 5 points if you blow the 0.05%.

    There was a case here were a cyclist was charged with walking his bike home after a few brews. They used the logic that as the bike was there, he had the opportunity to ride. It is like getting charged with sleeping off a buzz inside your car. They have charged people as there is the opportunity to drive if you have your keys in your possession or easily accessible.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,203
    Quote Originally Posted by roadkill401 View Post
    They have had a similar thing here in Ontario for many years now. The legal limit is 0.079% but they can impound your car, suspend your license and 5 points if you blow the 0.05%.

    There was a case here were a cyclist was charged with walking his bike home after a few brews. They used the logic that as the bike was there, he had the opportunity to ride. It is like getting charged with sleeping off a buzz inside your car. They have charged people as there is the opportunity to drive if you have your keys in your possession or easily accessible.
    The Ontario .05% sounds kind of like the Colorado one. I guess I can see something like that, but Utah is going to throw the full DUI on someone for .05%. Among the repercussions for that, you can't even legally go to Canada if you have had a DUI within the past ten years, and even after 10 years it takes paperwork and legal wrangling. The Canadian border police have access to the US FBI crime database!

    I've never heard of someone in CO being busted while walking their bike home, but it wouldn't surprise me, because CO has the same thing about sleeping it off. If you are in the driver's seat and your keys are not LOCKED away somewhere, you can be busted as if you were driving. It is that kind of stupidity that makes people just drive home. Should they not be in that position in the first place? Sure, but would you rather have someone walking or riding their bike, or sleeping off a buzz, or just driving anyway because they know they would be busted no matter what? It is a deep idiocy that gets us to places like this.

  19. #19

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,222
    In other news, Utah resorts hit with wave of cancellations.

    Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    190
    It sort of reminds me of a Dave Allen joke.

    It was at the local pub and the police knew to stake it out. And as the pub closed this little fellow wonders out stumbling about looking for his car. He goes from door to door trying his key to see if it would fit. He even tried the door of the police car. Eventually he finds his car at the end of the lot. Hops in and takes off, fast. So the police with sirens on chase on after him. And pull him over a good 5-6 blocks away and get him out to do the breath-alizer. it reports back nothing. So they try again, and the same. ZERO. So they do a on the street sobriety test that he passes with total ease. So they question him about how much he has had to drink, and he responds back. Paddy Murphy, professional decoy.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,164
    The .20 BAC guys are the one driving 30 MPH on the freeway. They are by far the easiest to spot. Believe it or not, it's the .08-.12 guys that are the most dangerous because *for the most part*, they think they are fine and the fact that their reaction times are compromised aren't registering with them.
    2019 Yeti SB5C
    2018 Intense Tracer
    2017 Intense Primer

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    190
    The problem with BAC is it's based on totally bad science. If you look at the history, they wanted a method to screen for intoxication that is repeatable. There was a limited study that showed that you could determine the level of alcohol in a blood supply through a breath analyzer. So they took that and then did a second study to try and figure out the average level of intoxication that would effect the general population.

    This seems to be pretty simple, our so you would think. But the problem is that the results they got were all over the map in statistical deviation. You take 1000 people and give them alcohol and measure their reaction time and at 0.10% BAC you will find that less lan 40% are impaired. But then if you take that 40% that failed, and redid the exact same test again (at a later date) you would find that only about 53% would fail a second time.

    I am 6'2 and weigh over 250lbs. There are times when I have 1/2 a beer and know that I am impaired enough that I will not get behind the wheel of a vehicle. I wil bet my BAC is well below the 0.05%. Am I safe to drive. NO. But on other occasions, I can have 4-5 beers and am functioning at top form. I don't know my alcohol level because I don't have a bethalizer but would hazard to guess I am over.
    Think of the numerous people who are functioning alcoholics. I know of many and I would rather be driving on the road with most of them then some of the idiots on the roads today that are sober.

    But going back to the tests, if it was only 40% who initally failed, then it is more than half the population that is fine even at 0.10%. Now they are dropping it to 0.05% with the misguided belief that any intoxicated driver on the road is too many. The logic is that one drunk driver is one too many. I don't have a problem with going for that goal, but I do with the way they are going about it.

    Reality is that there is no correlation between a certain percentage of alcohol on your blood until you get to a high enough level that a vast enough percentage of the population cannot drive. But at that level, there is a number of the population that cannot stand let alone drive, that sort of invalidates the whole thing.

    How happy would you be if they decided that cycling kills people. Every year there are a number of deaths caused by cyclists hitting people and killing them, so as that number is just too high, we should limit where and when people can ride a bike. Use their logic that one death is one too many, you loose the right to ride your bike responsibly just because there is someone somewhere who may not.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,365
    ^ I would tend to agree with that. Having cought some talk radio shows on the new law with pundits including state representatives it seems the official point of the law is just that. That people do not drink anything and drive or "think twice" about driving.

    I think it's worth pointing out that Utah was the first state to mandate 0.08% with far more hullabaloo in the press then, yet every other state quickly fell in line.

    While I'm sure there's a cross section of society that likes the 0.05% bac law, there are probably just as many people or more that see it as another step toward the police state. I think the reality is most adults are not impaired at 0.05% but would be curious to see accident statistics on the matter.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    190
    There is a push and pull side to the drinking laws. The side of the law is yes, limit or inhibit the ability to have a drink and get behind the wheel of a vehicle. That in itself causes some to have problems, but to really get the big picture of what is going on, you don't have to look back that far, to the 1920 - 1933 prohibition laws.

    If you look at the social side of drinking in places like England, for the most part there is at least one pub in walking distance from any housing subdivision. This is considered to be in the best interest of the community as it allows for patrons to freely get home without the need to drive.

    But here in Canada and from what I have seen in most of the USA, it is frowned upon. I have heard everything from since each community has it's own public elementary school located with walking distance to the houses, having a bar local will just promote under age drinking. Yea, a whole load of crap. But it seems that having a choice of places to drink that you can easily get to from your house is frowned upon by city planners. So you are left with having to travel to get a drink out with your friends.

    In bringing the BAC down to 0.05% it is just getting that one step closer to bringing back prohibition or dry communities. Slippery slope if you ask me.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,222
    More clubs and bars should adopt the "after hours" model.

    After hours clubs don't close when the alcohol stops pouring. The music and dancing continues for several hours afterwards. The clubs make money selling Red Bull and pizza. The patrons have time to sober up before they go home (and don't have to dodge drunk drivers on the way home).

  27. #27
    trail gnome
    Reputation: ray.vermette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by roadkill401 View Post
    They have had a similar thing here in Ontario for many years now. The legal limit is 0.079% but they can impound your car, suspend your license and 5 points if you blow the 0.05%.
    I was curious, so I Googled....

    In Ontario, from .05 to .08, the officer may give an immediate roadside suspension (3 days, first offense, no recourse to appeal). There is a $198 administrative charge as well, but no demerit points, as far as I can tell. The car is not impounded, but if the officer decides the car has to be moved, and there is no one to move it, and he needs to call a tow truck, the owner is responsible for towing and storage charges.

    The legal limit is .08, not .079. The only reference I could find to .079 was a Toronto Sun article. The HTA, drivers handbook, and multiple other sources all say .08. You gotta blow above that.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 08-18-2015, 11:24 AM
  2. Heads in, heads out on rim lace?
    By flyxaos in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-14-2013, 04:06 PM
  3. Exploring Utah's Paunsaugunt Plateau (Utah Xpost)
    By evdog in forum Riding Passion and Stories
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-03-2013, 12:26 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-21-2012, 03:00 PM
  5. Heads up
    By SlowerThenSnot in forum Utah
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-26-2011, 09:47 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.