The Ad Council and the NHTSA sent me a link to their campaign: “Buzzed Driving is Drunk Driving.” The ad and seat belt folks want Joe and Jane Q. Public to sign an e-pledge promising not to drive buzzed. Yes, well, what’s the definition of “buzzed”? At first, I thought it meant driving under the influence of non-alcoholic drugs: cannabis, crack, coke, Clonazepam, etc. (and those are just the “c”s). More poetically (though far less likely), I wondered if it had something to do with the after-effects of doing the horizontal mambo with Jill Wagner or [your choice of homosexual heartthrob here]. But no. The campaigners contend that “Buzzed driving is drunk driving.” So why not call it drunk driving? Theory: they’re trying to position the “technical” debate downwards, to the lowest possible Blood Alcohol Content level. Which ignores the simple, inescapable fact that the majority of drunk drivers are habitual offenders who are WAY over the legal limit. SUBMIT? Not without a little clarification, thanks. What say you?
Actually, its that a lot of drunk drivers go “I’m not drunk, just a little buzzed”, when they blow a .10.
I have some personal reasons to come down very hard on drunk drivers, but I’m not buying this. Like you say, most drunk driving accidents occur at the hands of habitual offenders, and these are the guys who should be put away for a very long time, not folks who drive after 2 beers.
It’s driving while “getting lipstick on your dipstick”. Easy to lose concentration.
Twotone
“The campaigners contend that “Buzzed driving is drunk driving.” So why not call it drunk driving? … What say you?”
I say this is a good thing. Based on conversations with my kids’ friends (20s thru mid-30s) most define drunk as walking into walls and puking on their shoes. “I’m not drunk, just a little buzzed…” They think it’s OK as long as you can still stand up. It ain’t.
Having had two close friends killed at different times by drunk drivers (“buzzed”?), I take a dim view of impaired driving by any name.
If this stops one person from getting behind the wheel, I’m for it.
I think they are trying to make people aware that what they considered “buzzed” is really drunk, and that they shouldn’t be driving. I’m sure most people that drive “buzzed” really are driving drunk. Unfortunately, the habitual drunk drivers out there will not be affected by any campaign short of sever bodily harm/punishment (and some not even then), and will continue to drive “buzzed” or drunk.
Only teenagers and light weights get buzzed. Anyone who drinks routinely skips the buzzed phase and goes right to hitting on the waitress and starting fights over what’s playing on the jukebox.
What is appalling is that this doesn’t come from a private group like MADD or IIHS, but from the NHTSA.
The NHTSA should not be campaigning against anything that is legal, unless Congress tells it to (although Congress likely did appropriate money for this campaign as a provision that got lost in a much larger piece of legislation).
This, like the campaign for GPS road use taxing, is part of LaHood’s attempt to take everyone except elite politicians, the very wealthy and connected, and the security forces that protect them out of cars.
.08 is a very low level, it would be a lot more productive to focus on enforcing that (even if the person is white, financially well off, or, where the greatest abuse occurs, a cop) than making the BAC level even more arbitrarily low.
By the way, I don’t drink, but, as they say. . .
Buzzed is about a 6er of Widmer Hef.
Actually, I think most people consider buzzed that feeling where you feel somewhat altered, but are still able to control your motor skills. Drunk is the slurred speech, seeing double, hugging strangers, and tipping strippers with $20s that comes later in the evening. Neither is okay if you’re going to get behing the wheel. Driving demands full attention, and even if you’re only slightly drunk (buzzed), you’re still drunk. Period.
Driving demands full attention, and even if you’re only slightly drunk (buzzed), you’re still drunk. Period.
So then why does the law state that you can drive legally if, say, you blow a .07 and you pass the other sobriety tests? Did you ever notice that the DWI cutoff is .01 if you’re under 21 but .08 otherwise?
Clearly the government has acknowledged that some level of impairment is allowable with drivers, or else the cutoff for a convictable DWI would be .01 for everyone.
A combination of fear-mongering, and the long term goal of justifying their existence – the true goal of every bureacrat’s job.
So then why does the law state that you can drive legally if, say, you blow a .07 and you pass the other sobriety tests? Did you ever notice that the DWI cutoff is .01 if you’re under 21 but .08 otherwise?
Someone must have determined that .08 is where the alcohol causes measurable impairment. I can’t answer your question completely as I don’t know the difference of impairment between say, .06 and .08. What I do know is that if you’re not able to focus all of your attention on driving, you can be a danger to yourself and others. Alcohol affects every one of your body’s functions. Even a little buzz can reduce your peripheral vision and decrease your reaction time. It’s not safe to drive with a buzz.
I’d be willing to bet that the sleep-deprived, texting teens and beta-blocked oldsters are more of a danger to others than someone who is “buzzed”.
However, the outrage and the infrastructure (breathalyzers) exist to enable this highly-diminishing-return enforcement.
Just be sure that you use the “non-alcoholic” Listerine…
I’d have to take a guess that on average half of the people that go out to eat at a restaurant (not fast food and depending upon the restaurant of course) have a drink or two as I sure do. As far as I’ve heard, restaurants don’t make money on the food, it’s the booze, and they require that they have people drink to stay in business.
Even the police in my local town need people to drink. Like in one case when a new brew pub opened, the police started to pull over customers as they left until the owner agreed to give them a nice discount. No kidding.
The greater question seems to me is how to account for relative levels of impairment and relative levels of driver skill? I know a guy who has limited motor skills and can’t shuffle a deck of cards sober. On the other hand, I know drummers who can pound out perfect sextuplet paradiddle-diddles at 180 bpm in the midst of a 6-hour bender.
Sooner or later, we have to face up to the fact that not all drivers are created equal. By this logic, a naturally-skilled driver could be impaired by alcohol and still be safer on the road than other sober drivers. No better example illustrates this point than the endless news stories of confused octogenarians plowing into crowds; sometimes in broad daylight. Until there is some sort of test that can take into account all factors that go into a person’s ability to drive, the DUI witch-hunt in this country remains a flawed endeavor.
-Ken
@ superbadd75
The move from .10 to .08 was almost purely political, and motivated by groups like MADD whose goal is to make .01 and above an arrestable (and hopefully felonius) offense as part of a larger neo-prohibitionist campaign. There isn’t a statistically significant difference between .08 and .10.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/olrdata/app/rpt/2002-R-0516.htm
Depends on if you are a Kennedy or not.
Seriously though. If I was out partying with Michael Schumacher, and let’s say we took an F40 or Maclaren F1 to the bar. If he drank three beers but I only drank one, I would still rather he drove. If the US ever got serious about driver testing it would be a moot issue.
Only teenagers and light weights get buzzed. Anyone who drinks routinely skips the buzzed phase and goes right to hitting on the waitress and starting fights over what’s playing on the jukebox.
–
I hope that was sarcasm, because you’ve actually got it entirely backwards.
If you are a teenager or a light weight you go straight to hitting on waitresses and starting fights over whats playing on the jukebox.
But if it takes 5 drinks for you to blow .08, at drink #4 I’d say you qualify for buzzed. I know I feel .06 according to my breathalyzer, but I wouldn’t say I’m “drunk” at it.
I know tons of people who routinely (and safely) smoke marijuana while driving. I’m not saying that novice pot smokers should drive under the influence, I’m just saying that there’s demonstrable evidence that some folks can drive safely while high on pot. Likewise, I’m sure that there are people that have the combination of driving skill and drinking experience, to be able to drive safely with a BAC of >.075%.
MADD, like many advocacy groups, has had mission creep, since accomplishing its original goals of reducing teen drinking and driving. Then they lobbied to lower limits from .1% to .08%. Now MADD advocates that any alcohol intake necessarily impairs driving. The organization has departed so far from its original mission and morphed so much into a modern temperance organization that MADD’s original founder has been openly critical of the group.
The only times I’ve really been dangerously impaired behind the wheel have been when I’ve been tired and falling asleep.
One problem with MADD, nanny staters and revenue hungry police departments is that current enforcement regarding drinking and driving discourages the right thing. People who have decided that they are too drunk to drive have been successfully prosecuted for sleeping it off in the car. Yes, Virginia, you can be found guilty of a drunk driving offense even while asleep. Getting behind the wheel, even if you never put the key in the ignition, has been ruled (by judges paid with traffic fines) to be “operating a motor vehicle”.
If they were successful in lowering the allowed BAC to some low level like .01, then they would focus their energies on curtailing other aspects of motoring.
MADD would alter their name to Mothers Against DANGEROUS Driving.
They would seek horse power and acceleration limits, saying “Only police and emergency rescue vehicles need such power, blah blah, sky falling, limit, tax, surcharge, blah, blah”.
Personally, I’d rather share the road with a hundred “buzzed” drivers than one soccer mom pseudo-driving an Escalade while yacking on the phone, applying makeup, and screaming at her kids in the back seat.
What I wouldn’t give for an anti-idiot advocacy group.
Yeah, because an internet pledge will really make someone say, “But I promised my computer I wouldn’t drive buzzed.” and take a cab home after a beer.