Uber is a hell of a lot cheaper than dealing with the government.

I dont drink so this doesnt affect me directly. BUT, if they made eating TWIX bars illegal because of the sugar in them, THEN I would be up in arms.

Its stupid. I dont happen to drink, but I dont get the penalties especially when there is no injury or property damage involved at all.

I say all of the accidents are caused by stupid drivers not paying attention to what they are doing.

This is a mormon thing. They are trying to enforce their religious restrictions on alcohol. Its got nothing to do with driving drunk, just drinking in general. If they could, they would make buying booze illegal as in prohibition.

I admit that in my young and stupid days, I drank (excessively) and drove back to the base with no accidents. However, that was in the days before lawmakers started being nannyish. Because of MADD and other groups pushing the nanny laws on us, I stopped drinking 37 years ago, mostly because I was stationed in Europe and they are complete assholes over there. When I came back to the states, I saw the new laws that came into being and just decided that it was not worth going through all that just to get home after enjoying myself in the bar. So, now, I still go out but I am the Designated Driver for my friends. In the early days of the laws, it was cool because Budweiser and other brewers gave out goodies for the DD but now it just because I care about my friends and relatives and don't want them to go through what my brother did when he got his DUI.

Driving under the influence is never good and I don't much care what the influence is. Pot. pills, alcohol or any of the other intoxicants and IMO what is just as bad is what I label as FIP, (Face In Phone). I have been run right into the ditch twice in the past 3 years and both time by some fool texting while driving. When we go out to dinner I will have one beer or drink and then nothing more for well over an hour before we drive home. A DWI around here is sure to cost you $15K.

I couldn't get to the article because of their site settings wanting a subscription. Can you explain what the bill is about?

:-D

The vast majority of all drunk driving fatalities are caused by drunk drivers with blood alcohol content well in excess of.10. They typically also have multiple drunk driving convictions. The "not a drop" crowd is going a little bit too far with this. Not surprising that it's in Utah where LDS is such a High proportion of the population but it won't make any real difference in fatalities & after all fatalities an actual accidents is what these laws are supposedly all about. In point of fact though it's just another part of the regulatory state and a revenue generator.

Bah! Humbug! No way this old Alabama boy is going anywhere near Utah a\gain after driving through it during 1973.
Me dino was Car #5 stopped on a deep in a desert two-laner by a herd of wild mustangs.
Utah license plates drivers blew their horns Honk! Honk! Honk!
Horses totally ignored that.
Utah license plate drivers persisted some more Honk! Honk! Honk!
Alabama me had seen enough Westerns to stick my head out my car window and yell, "HEE-YAH!"
All those wild mustangs bolted and took off running,
Sheesh! Was that common sense simple or what?
As for that stupid law, it was a decade ago when I last sat in a bar. An ex-sister-in-law was having a birthday. That happens when you have children with cousins.
Anyhoo, we moved from a Mexican restaurant to the nearest bar.
Old me ordered an old-fashioned whiskey sour and was surprised someone knew how to make it.
All my ex-relatives and friends spoke of bar hopping. When they drove to the next bar, me dino simply drove home.
Sober me dino did not have a bit of trouble getting there.
I'm to go to jail for showing common sense?
I'll say it again~
Freakin' bah! Humbug! .

A good portion of the Utah populace are LDS adherents, and don't drink anything even as strong as coffee. I can't say I'm too surprised about this law and that the lawmakers aren't willing to change it.

While I certainly agree that driving impaired is a huge problem, you really don't have to have been drinking to be impaired. You can be angry. You can be sleep-deprived. You can be ill. You can be worried. You can be distracted. You can even be on drugs that aren't apparent in a blood or breath test (I heard on the radio this morning that OK is about to start using a test that discovers marijuana in the blood/breath - can't remember which - but it can't be used in court because there's no way -yet- to determine concentration)

All those things (and more) increase the likelihood for having a wreck. Where is the test for those?

I agree with ZenRoy about stop and check and reasonable cause.

For me, it's no different than having to prove I am not a thief every time I exit Costco or Sam's (and increasingly Walmart). I hate having to prove I'm not drunk.

About a third of all auto accidents are caused by drunk drivers. Naturally, this means that two thirds are caused by sober drivers, making sobriety twice as dangerous. If we could just outlaw sobriety... think of the lives we could save! :-)

You misunderstood my post.

It was in no way for or against rules regarding BAC content.

It was simply an informational post.

Sounds like a real barrel of monkeys!

This law is about revenue generation on the backs of the hapless guy who drinks a couple of beers and drives home fine. This kind of charge can be overly damaging to people.

Any dolt would agree that driving truly impaired should result in real punishment. The government isn't interested in that with this.

So what? There are countries to stone women to death for driving a car at all...

Not really a joke as far as BAC of .05 goes. Accidents are caused by people at .04, which is why most businesses will fire a person who works with a .02 or higher, and a federal law makes it criminal to work as a commercial driver with .04. Data has shown that the majority of drivers are impaired at .04.

On the flip side I am not a fan on stop and check. I believe the police only have a responsibility to react to one causing harm, not attempt to prevent it.

I have a friend that, until the doc told him to quit or die, was always at about .06 to .10 (I would bet) and had a machanic shop the whole time, became rather well off from his business and had 18 employees along with 2 or his 3 sons working for him. A highly functional person with high levels of Alchohol. He drove all the time, never did get busted, but had he been pulled over and checked, he would be in trouble.

I do not care for laws that punish all people because they are taking preventative measures rather than reacting to a crime. While I have no problem at all with .05 blood alcohol, use it to check people that get in a accident, run off the road and need help.... swerve all over the road or demonstrate signs of impaired driving. If there is no sign that says "check me out" the police should not do so.

Actually, there are many countries with a total ban of alcohol while driving:

http://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.mai...

This is what happens when responsibility, accountability and self introspection is frowned upon, isn't expected of you; Then you get the ever increasing "Man made rules" that punish the many, because of a few, in favor of a few and/or to aggrandize the man that made the rule...Oh, and let's not forget the enrichment of the man and the man made entities that will forever enslave the men that don't need to be ruled.

It has nothing to do with that.

The US is still very liberal allowing some blood alcohol level.

In Europe, after you consume a liquor filled cherry, you can be arrested.

No German chocolates for you!

Many countries in Europe have a rule of zero blood alcohol level for drivers.

It's a population control and revenue raising measure that benefits insurance companies, self driving cars, taxis, government, and favors dope smokers and pill takers. Let's make sure that all the highway patrol in Utah has grenade launchers to stop those almost tipsy drivers in case some don't consent to serfdom.