In late 2018, Utah lowered its drunk-driving limit from a B.A.C. (blood-alcohol content) of .08 to .05.
A year after the law was implemented, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that fatal car crashes in the state had dropped by nearly 20 percent.
“Believe me, I never thought we would see a significant effect in Utah,” said James Fell, a principal research scientist who studies traffic safety at the independent research organization NORC, at the University of Chicago. The state had one of the lowest impaired driving rates in the United States to begin with, he added.
Utah is currently the only state in the country with a .05 drunk-driving limit; everywhere else, the limit remains .08. But internationally, Utah is far from alone. Australia, France, Thailand and about 50 other countries have a B.A.C. limit of .05, and in more than 30 other countries, the limit is even lower.
With U.S. drunk-driving deaths rising in recent years (about 33 percent between 2019 and 2022, according to the most recent data), several other states – including New York, Washington, Hawaii and Connecticut – are now considering similar legislation to lower the legal driving limit.
“We’re losing, on the highways these days, more than 13,000 people a year,” said Thomas Chapman, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board. “I mean, it’s just an astonishing number.” In 2022, drunk-driving accidents accounted for 32 percent of all traffic fatalities.
I’m doubting there’s much difference in driving impairment comparing 0.08 to 0.05. My guess, folks residing in Utah, given the low limit & severe penalties involved, just decide to not drink anything at all before driving. When I visited Norway, the residents there told me to never drink anything at all before driving, b/c of the low limit and severe penalty.
Interesting that pot is not considered a problem. Maybe that’s their legitimate experience or maybe not, but often times just talking about the issue could reduce the problem, regardless of any law change. Then they go oh boy what if it was .02 instead. Onward onward to utopia.
I’d think we should dive into the actual accident statistics first. Night day, rural city, single occupant multiple, etc. they have all that information.
Seems like another way to make criminals out of ordinary people.
Heavy drinkers and drivers will pay no attention to the law because they don’t now.
Moderate drinkers won’t generally get pulled over for suspected DUI but likely don’t know they can refuse a breathalyzer and get charged blowing a 0.055.
Edit: Maybe not refuse the test, just make them use the accurate machine back in the station not the portable one in the patrol car. 0.05 is a small number with lots of possibilities for errors.
Of course it is. The issue is that there is no reliable method to determine if someone is impaired by using marijuana. Here’s an article that discusses the difficulties in conclusively proving that erratic driving is due to weed intoxication. For now, erratic driving should be enough to get someone off the road. Maybe blood and saliva tests will be reliable enough soon to allow the police to arrest someone for DUI marijuana.
On the DWi limit and remembering back in the good old days when “Can you drive home?” was the defacto limit, I have no problem with lowering the current limit.
The reality is that anything that impairers your judgement, reaction or perception represents a hazard so anything that that might act to prevent your consumption BEFORE you intake is for the best.
And let’s be honest, maybe that first drink doesn’t result in impaired driving but it does contribute to impaired decision making. i.e First drink, “feeling sociable”, Second drink, “feeling good”, Third drink, "got a smile on my face and so on until you’re “God’s own drunk, 6 foot tall and bulletproof”.
So if while you’re sober, before you take that first drink and are still thinking completely rationally, if the law makes you decide to arrange for an Uber or decide on the Designated Driver, what’s the harm?
It certainly doesn’t “make criminals out of ordinary people” unless we’re talking about stupid
people.
And yeah I certainly enjoy a bottle of wine at a nice dinner, the occasional scotch and soda and a couple of beers with my friends but none are worth the attorney fees for a DWI, explaining to my kids that “Daddy’s in the Drunk Tank” or God forbid the guilt of an accident.
Cabs. Uber and good friends are much less expensive in every way!
Yeah I dunno. I think reaction time or judgement is more of an issue than erratic driving but not likely to be stopped for it. Testing is not done until you are stopped, so the fallacy of the law again.
People that drink a lot though have a greater tolerance and unlikely to show the outward clues. I’ll have one glass of wine a month and can feel .
First, I seriously question the “statistics” in your article. Did the fatality rate drop for the whole state, for the whole year? I remember when the national speed limit was dropped to 55 and some “safety expert” claimed that the number of highway deaths dropped by some large percentage. Turns out the statistics came from a single two lane highway in Arizona, for a three month period, and the highway had always been 55 mph.
Next, when a law is changed like this, a spotlight is focused on the problem. People are more careful for awhile, but then they used to the new laws and become careless again.
And third, if you look at the BAC of drivers involved in fatal crashes, almost ALL of them are WAY above the limit. Their BAC is not in the range of 0.05% or 0.08%, it is mostly in the range of 0.16% to 0.24%. Many drivers get arrested for lower limits, but most fatalities are well above the lower limits. And most of those deadly drivers have a lengthy history of DUI violations.
Just because some people will ignore the law is not a reason to not have the law. People will murder people, even in a death penalty state. Does this mean that we should make murder legal? I mean, people are gonna murder anyway. Right? See how silly that sounds?
You make laws that are sensible and are in the interests of public health and safety. Some people will disagree and some will ignore it. Let them suffer the consequences and let others learn that ignoring the law has consequences.
I drink very occasionally and never when I am driving. Period. Make the DUI limit whatever you want and I don’t care. I think lower is better.
But, self-control is possible… assuming that someone isn’t an alcoholic. I usually order a glass of wine at dinner, and every time that the server offers to get me a second glass of wine, I simply say, “I’m driving, so one glass is my limit”.
I am a big boy with a limited ability to process alcohol. One drink is all I want. Not worried about a decrease in BAC limits personally but I can see the bigger picture.
Were there lobbiests pushing the decrease? Who paid them? The auto insurance lobby? One DUI and your rates skyrocket. Hmmm…
Mormons don’t drink and they are in the majority in Utah so the law does not affect them.
Who says that? When I was growing it was a DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) - meaning driving while drunk. Today the laws have changed to DUI (Driving Under the Influence) or DWI (Driving While Impaired) - meaning either drinking or any drug (legal or illegal) that may impair your physical/mental ability to drive.
Pot may be legal in many states, but it’s NOT legal to drive while high.
I lived in Utah in the mid seventies. Alcohol laws were odd.
“Bar” were only allowed to serve 3.2 beer, but you could BYOB then purchase the setup. The setup, no matter even if just water, cost as much as a mixed drink in another state. Hard liquor and wine was purchased at state run liquor stores. You filled out a card at the teller cage, then he/she would get the bottle and hand it to you.
Then the kicker, you could not have an open bottle anywhere in your vehicle. Mini bottles were popular.
The saying was “in Utah, you don’t buy a drink, you buy a drunk”.
A few upscale restaurants could provide wine with a meal.
I dated a LDS woman, she tended bar, and she drank.
Yeah that’s the way some of the dry counties in the south were. You bought a membership for a dollar or so, then ere part of the club. Trying to remember now but I think in South Dakota you could drink 3.2 at 19, but 21 for stronger. I was only 17.