NTSB recommends lowering BAC level to .05, introducing in-vehicle alc. detection devices | BeerPulse.
I am vehemently against the ideas put forth by the NTSB. I also think they are muddying the waters with a preponderance of evidence that doesn’t necessarily help prove any point, but the sheer volume of statistics offered overwhelms the reader, causing them to yield. The actuaries are getting paid a fortune to pick and choose what statistics to use, and creating meaning that isn’t actually there. Let’s be honest, if someone hands you a 100 page document on BAC and driving, are you going to read it all, or thumb through a few pages and assume they’re right. I have a feeling most fall into the latter category.
Let’s take a look at their graphic and expose some more of their fallacies:
Supposedly, we follow these steps and we’ll reach a point where there are no alcohol-related automobile fatalities. But, obviously, that’s not the case. Their own graph doesn’t even point to such results.
If the aim is to reach “zero,” why set the legal limit at 0.05? Why not set it at 0.00? I mean, the goal is to have no alcohol-related auto deaths, right? Why legally allow for any chance? At least be consistent.
It also comes down to how much liberty you’re willing to give up for the sake of “safety”? The NTSB is promoting the use of Passive Alcohol Sensors, a device that bypasses driver cooperation to test the atmosphere for alcohol content. It may look like the officer is pointing a flashlight at you, but your “Good evening, Officer,” just got you nailed for driving over the limit. The small gasp of breath it took to be polite is enough to get you busted.
Busting more people won’t work either. It’s just going to bog down the system. More people in jail for “driving under the influence” means more officers distracted from more important tasks. It also means we’ll have to hire more officers, and spend more if the taxpayers’ money. Following their pyramid to “zero,” if we do the steps in blue, that will use all of our resources. We’ll never get to the “yellow” or “red” steps.
They also use an “everybody’s doing it” arguments. They offer this graphic, painting a picture of BAC levels around the world.
What this graphic doesn’t say is if fatality rates in lower BAC countries are actually any lower. They’ve come up with theoretical projections of how fatalities would decrease, but no real numbers. Even if they offered those numbers, it wouldn’t account for things that skew the data, such as the amount of densely populated metropolitan areas we have, how much more we drive compared to other countries, speed limits, driving restrictions, and countless other variables. They offer little evidence that lowering the BAC would actually help the problem.
It seems to me the NTSB would accomplish more if they would leave the the BAC level alone and concentrate on the “yellow” and “red” initiatives, not that I even support that.
Really, this whole thing repulses me. I’m not in favor of losing any of my liberties for “safety” provided by the government. The thing is, even Hamilton wouldn’t have wanted to give up his beer for “safety.” That idea might have made him an Anti-Federalist.
La Trappe Monk's Beer Blog 