Federal officials: Lower DWI threshold to .05


From CNN:



Categories: Food/dining media, News
Steve Barnes

Leave a Reply

133 Responses

  1. Joe says:

    This is just going to cause the DWI rate to go up. .05 is absurdly low. I don’t know for sure but I am willing to bet that there are more deaths from texting and driving.

  2. $cott says:

    They don’t exactly provide many statistics behind the numbers. Are there currently 500 to 800 car accident deaths above the normal expected rate for people that are between .05 and .07? I find that hard to believe but if so then they should drop it. If they are simply estimating that 500 to 800 on the basis that people who are .08 or higher will be less likely to drive if the standard was .05 than .08 then that is a much more dicey estimate. How about less focus on if someone is between .05 and .07 and instead drastically increase the penalties for excessive speed while .08 or higher? That would probably drop the death rate far more significantly.

  3. DC says:

    For starters I or anyone in my family been arrested for DWI or DWAI, I certainly hope it stays that way.
    As far as this news goes, who are they the NTSB trying to kid with this news, go after the problem where it should be addressed, glorifying the advertising of Booze Wine Beer consumption in front of kids when they are very vulnerable, in their teens.
    I remember my son when he was in grammar school listening to DARE officers coming to school and telling him and his classmates the pitfalls of alcohol and drugs.
    I also remember my son watching football games with me on Sunday afternoons and watching non stop commercials during the game selling beer and alcohol, party commercials, Kid Rock saying somebody has to feel this holding a Coors Lite can.
    What seems to be the answer every time they try to address DWI problems kill the business owners who sell alcohol.
    Will they go after the advertising of alcohol, of course not, money money money, they do not have the guts to even spell out the real problems that cause a lack of judgement concerning DWI, they just want to act like they are doing something to justify their existence whether it actually addresses the problem or not.

    • Willie Pittman says:

      In your own words, DC, “For starters I or anyone in my family been arrested for DWI or DWAI”. That says you HAVE been arrested. True or not?

      In your further words, “What seems to be the answer every time they try to address DWI problems kill the business owners who sell alcohol.” Sounds like you’re requesting murder. Are you?

      More generally, it appears that you are disclaiming any responsibility for improper alcohol usage in your family and saying “Go blame THEM.” Was that your intention?

    • DC says:

      I knew when I read this after I sent it I would be hearing from you Willie, Iforgot the n on ornad none in my family including me has ever received a DWI DWAI or been arrested in any way related or not to alcohol.
      What I meant by kill the business owners is the dropping of the bac levels will only make it even harder for business owners who sell alcohol to sell enough to stay in business, example being my wife and I ordering a bottle of wine with dinner would make it a little too close for me to even share the bottle during dinner which might cause me to not even order one which would hurt the business that sells it.
      Keep on me Willie sooner or later I will proofread better before I hit send.

  4. Willie Pittman says:


    Any more cliches, people?

    • Cassius says:

      “Willie Pittman” -

      So, you favor this “NANNY STATE” machination?

      We aren’t your “people”, either, Chum.

    • Willie Pittman says:

      My, aren’t you belligerent, Cassius.

      Wonder if it will get you anywhere? You don’t seem to be there now.

    • JIm says:

      Since you asked for cliches, Willie, how about these:
      1. Let’s give up the war on drunk driving since it has not been effective and it only keeps law enforcement from going after real criminals.
      2. We should just legalize and tax drunk driving, that way it will go away!

  5. Parma Ham says:

    More of a reason why people should move back to cities.

  6. Jackson P. says:

    .05 is the standard in many other countries. I think the difference is more the awareness factor and the change in behavior that will come when people realize it’s not okay to “just have a few” and then drive. .05 is already the limit for the lesser charge of DWAI but a lot of people don’t realize that they could still be arrested when they get behind the wheel even if they’re under .08 – it just means that the potential penalty for what is now DWAI would increase, and people will be more on notice that what is already a violation of the law means that they should either not drink, use a DD or get a cab if they plan on having more than one or two drinks.

    If anything, 500 to 800 lives saved seems like a modest estimate. Alcohol impairs judgment, and someone who thinks they can have a couple drinks and legally get behind the wheel at .049 or have a couple more and drive at .079 but not face a more serious charge are probably walking a very fine line when it comes to endangering public safety. Most people are probably also not very good at accurately calculating or estimating their actual BAC, so it’s probably smart to make it known that there are still serious consequences even for “impaired” driving (as opposed to “intoxicated” driving). You can publicize awareness through ad campaigns and the like until the cows come home, but the biggest impact comes from people recognizing the threat of serious legal consequences.

  7. Sean says:

    Good news. .08 is equivalent to four drinks in your system and with that amount there is no way that anyone can drive safely. I have driven in downtown albany, sober, at 2 in the morning and it is shocking what you see with other drivers. Anyone who is responsible shouldn’t fret over a reduction to .05 since it won’t apply to them.

    • EriK says:

      BS my friend.

    • Albany Landlord says:

      Where did you get that info??? .08 is NOT equivalent to 4 drinks unless you are well over 200 lbs and all 4 of those are standard drinks, and no glass of wine served anywhere today is a “standard” glass of wine

    • Realist says:

      1 12 oz beer= 1 6 oz glass of wine = 1 1 oz shot of 80 proof liquor….they teach you those things in DWI class…unfortunately….and not prior to people making mistakes….

    • Bill says:

      @Landlord – 1 drink – .02 BAC, so 4 * .02 = .08.and the measure is for a 180lb man in 1 hour. The body then excretes alcohol at the rate of .02 per hour, so it would take a couple hours of abstaining to get below .05. Also beer would have to be at arund 4.5ABV.like Bud Light. Many craft beers are between 5.0 and 9.5ABV and when you drink them must work into your calculation of BAC!

  8. Jorabi says:

    After one Bud Light I feel impaired and I probably don’t even register a BAC. It seems to depend on the person’s tolerance. I would not be cited, but I still might be a danger.

    • Woodrow says:

      Jorabi – Three unfortunate things for you…

      1) You have horrible taste in beer.
      2) You are likely a weenie, as far as drinking goes.
      3) You actually admit to your beer-drinking shortcomings.

  9. Elizabeth says:

    I absolutely disagree with this. The current limit is already absurdly low. Restaurants and bars in areas without public transportation will be put out of business, and people living in areas without public transportation will only be able to enjoy wine with meals in their own homes, and will have to put all their guests up overnight. I do not for one second believe that people with .05 or .08 blood alcohol levels are too drunk to drive safely. This is neo-prohibitionist nonsense. Show me the statistics that support this faulty belief. I have not seen any.

  10. J'mo says:

    This sounds good, but it’s based on false assumption. Car crashes happen every day involving people with ZERO alcohol in their blood, and they are just called accidents. However, when someone DOES have alcohol in their blood, regardless of how little, it is assumed to be the cause. Therefore, someone getting in a car crash with a BAC under the legal limit is used as an argument to lower the limit on the pretense that if it had been lower that accident would not have happened. Dumb.

  11. elmer says:

    Let’s pretend the 500 to 800 isn’t a “Hey, let’s pick a number” number, which I suspect it is. We could absolutely, positively save many times more than that by lowering the speed limit to 50 on all interstates.


  12. r says:

    . of this = $

  13. Uncle Bill says:

    Do the right thing! Pay a designated Driver for their time or pay a taxi fare or just hop on the bus Gus!

    • pico de gallo says:

      because there are just GREAT public transportation options in the capital area?

      the thing is, the amount of DWI’s would drop dramatically if they invested in public transportation. How there isnt a light rail system in place connecting albany/troy/saratoga is beyond short-sighted and contributes greatly to the number of people who wind up getting these to begin with.

    • Alex B says:

      There are no busses running in the Capital Region past 12AM, the bars stay open until 4AM. Herein lies a huge problem for people trying to get home. Many times it is extremely difficult to get a cab when the bars close.

    • mic says:

      Wasn’t there a TU article recently about getting robbed by the taxi companies in the Capital Region as there is ZERO regulation and oversight on what they are charging customers? http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/The-Advocate-Taken-for-a-ride-while-seeking-a-4508268.php
      LOVED the quote by Myers (Albany Airport) saying it’s buyer beware…Yes let’s call a cab and hope that we have enough money to pay the fare!!! Yes, that’ll be AWESOME for bars and restuarants when their patrons have to swing-budget for their cab fare!! Putting some regulations in place for these cab companies might actually help promote their usage.

      I also agree 100% with the other comments here. How can public transportation be a viable option here when we have no light rail (dumb!!) and the buses don’t even run late?

  14. Chad Polenz says:

    1. Let’s stop referring to unelected bureaucrats as “officials.” They don’t officiate diddly. Bureaucrats are worse than politicians because at least politicians can be recalled or voted out of office. Besides, you change this headline to “Bureaucrats: Lower DWI threshold to .05″ and it sounds laughable doesn’t it?

    2. Let’s not kid ourselves into thinking this has ANYTHING to do with safety. Now that states are loosening up their marijuana laws that means less otherwise law-abiding/good people in jail for crimes of vice. So of course they’re going to go after the already legal vices. These bureaucrats aren’t dumb. They read the news. They know Americans are suddenly becoming foodies and drinkies. They know craft beer has much higher alcohol than fizzy yellow pee beer, and they know they can essentially entrap people like me the minute they walk out of a bar after one imperial stout.

    Bureaucrats like the NTSB are usually part of ironclad unions and hold a lot of power. Prison guard unions regularly lobby for stronger laws. More people in prison means more jobs for them.

    3. Lest we forget THE UNITED STATES HAS THE LARGEST PRISON POPULATION OF ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD! This is an absolutely travesty when you compare our population and our so-called progressive Western lifestyle to that of China and India. A large portion of our prisoners are doing time for simple possession or even non-violent “drug trafficking.” It’s nice to see states like Colorado waking up to reality, but we’ve still got a long way to go.

    • Cassius says:

      It has to be “legal”, first, before it can be taxed.

      It is a new ‘revenue stream’, that’s all.

    • ann says:

      It really does sound like the first step towards saying “no drinking outside of the household”.

      We all know that Bureaucrats and cops aren’t subjected to these rules…

      I would assume you’d have to attract the attention of a cop though in order to be pulled over and given a BAC, so either you are driving poorly or unlucky enough to have a light out or an expired something.

    • pico de gallo says:

      @ann: never heard of roadside sobriety checks where they can question where you have been with no probable cause in the first place?

    • ann says:

      14-3 Yep. I was trying to be positive and not mention those turd-I mean roadside sweeps. That is too low for a random BAC.

  15. Uncle Joe says:

    comment 3–DC, you is on target………..good comment.

  16. Cassius says:

    “The Feds” need to mind their own business. They have no legitimate role to play in States’ Rights, so bugger off.

    This ‘Nanny Nation’ crap is Unconstitutional. ALWAYS.

    • Willie Pittman says:

      You a constitutional lawyer or something, Cassius?

    • Strange Bedfellows says:

      The Federal Government has not authority to tell states what they may do. What it does instead is threaten to withhold money from states that don’t comply with its wishes.
      The irony is that the tendency to crackdown on alcohol is concurrent with a loosening on marijuana policy. The worst car wreck I was ever in involved being T-boned in an intersection by a man stoned out of his mind. The officer could see he was high but had no protocols for testing him so he was never charged though he totaled my car.

  17. Stacia says:

    If they truly wanted to get rid of DWI arrests, they would make it mandatory for ignition interlock devices to be installed in new cars. Real simple, except that you would not get the revenue that DWI’s generate, and that is huge.

  18. Trusted Commenter says:

    @$scott, @elmer, @elizabeth, The NTSB’s statistics and arguments are here: http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2013/SR1301.pdf

    • elmer says:

      Lies, damn lies, and stats.

      Report starts off talking about “alcohol-impaired driving” which it defines as BAC > .08 (page 2). By page 4 we are discussing “alcohol involved”, defined as a BAC > .01.

      And for all the stats, the death figures, even PAST death figures, are just estimates. Look, they state their goal is “zero deaths and serious injuries from substance-impaired driving”, and that is sweet, but do we really want to have rules which seek an unattainable goal?

  19. Scott says:

    This whole issue should be as simple as if you’re not feeling well enough to drive a two-ton machine at speeds that humans weren’t biologically meant to travel at, don’t do it. But idiots insist that they can, so we have to have laws to discourage it.

    However, our “ME ME ME” society has no respect for others, and no sense of personal accountability. Drunks ruin it for the rest of us who choose to imbibe responsibly. Same goes for perpetually high stoners, cellphone addicted socialites, etc. who create traffic accidents because they aren’t capable of driving and end up ruining it for the rest of us.

    Some of you people need to take off your foil hats and realize there aren’t ulterior motives to everything that lawmakers suggest doing.

    Until someone has an idea that will make everybody mature and responsible about drinking/driving, this lower BAC limit will have to do. Let’s not forget that driving is a privilege, not a right.

    • Rich J. says:

      Wow – a comment that actually made me glad I checked the blogs today. Good job, Scott.

    • Albany Landlord says:

      Scott, I agree with you in principle, but there is absolutely no evidence that a BAC level below .1 impairs driving. That is why it was set at .1 in the first place. There was no science behind lowering it to .08 and there is no science behind lowering it to .05. They did driving test with different alcohol levels and determined where it began to have an impact. Science…

      I have a tremendous sense of personal responsibility to others and would never jeopardize someone else’s safety intentionally by driving with an alcohol level that would cause risk to anyone else. But driving home at.05 or even .09 is not creating a risk to me or someone else.

      Your arguments would hold true for lowering the nationwide speed limit to 30mph, and THAT would actually save a lot of lives, but none of us want to pay that price. Lowering the BAC limit to .05 (which it already is in NY) would not save lives, but would have a big impact on restaurant and bar sales, and more importantly people who were driving safely would have their licenses taken away. That creates a HUGE HUGE downward spiral for many people. Lose your license, lose your job, lose your family, everything. All for no gain at all.

    • Realist says:

      Agree whole heartedly with Scott, however Albany Landlord is on the money, where is the science and statistical proof? Same as 7 rounds vs 10 rounds….no data to back it up

    • Rachel T. says:

      Albany Landlord — your post is contradictory. If the BAC limit is already .05 in NY, then how would this change have a big impact on restaurant and bar sales here?

      Also, your comment about “no evidence” support that a BAC level below .1 impairs driving is simply untrue. Perhaps you don’t BELIEVE any of the studies, but there are plenty of them. Example: http://www.pire.org/more.asp?cms=991 (collecting studies)

    • Willie Pittman says:

      Rachel, you’re mostly right in all your postings, but you’ve just gone FAR beyond what most of the posters can handle.

      Science? I don’t want it that way, so it must be anti-scientific. Just like evolution: my deity says it didn’t happen that way, so it didn’t. And global warming: if we stop it, my living will be imperiled; therefore, it’s not happening.

      Also, people don’t understand that if you have several drinks and still drive without looking like a dangerous fool, you’re OK. That may mean you can have 1 drink, or 4 drinks, or less than 1 drink and still drive sensibly.

      But no. It’s “NANNY STATE! NANNY STATE!” “Don’t make it illegal if I want to do it.” and ekc. ekc.

    • KenHR says:

      It’s “etc.,” Willie. If you’re going to be a pedant, please check yourself first.

    • Willie Pittman says:

      We’ve been through this a zillion (by actual count!) times before, KenHR. If you can’t keep up, shut up.

  20. Snapdragon says:

    Let’s get real, folks. Spend some time on the internet, checking out the DWI laws in other countries and you will see penalties that would send the ACLU into orbit.

    Confiscation of your vehicle – it was an instrument used in the commission of a crime. They really don’t care how many more payments you have to make.

    Fines of $50,000 and more – some countries base their fine structure on the violator’s ability to pay (i.e., the fine is meaningful to millionaires).

    Prison sentences measured in years, not weekends.

    Drive you outside the city limits, beat you senseless, and leave you to get home on your own (I forget which Arab country does this).

    And in the good old USA, commercial truck drivers are held to even stricter standards, so much so that they avoid mouthwash that contains alcohol. Don’t believe me? Read the CDL rules and regs.

  21. Dave says:

    I am surprised that I am still surprised at the level of ignorance of some people. Restaurants will go out of business? Really? Do I agree with the change? Not entirely? Am I a conspiracy nut who thinks the government made up numbers to convince me to get behind the change? Also no.

  22. Bill says:

    Count me in with the .05 is absurdly low vote. Folks, the problem is not people who have a drink or two with a meal. It’s the repeated DWI offenders who get bombed in bars and wind up driving the wrong way on the interstate!

    Comments 10 and 11 are right on the money

  23. AmandaSue says:

    In Germany – a beer culture if there ever was one – they have a huge selection of NA beers that actually taste good, and shandies are very popular, in large part because of their intolerance for drinking and driving. My enjoyment of dinner there was certainly not diminished because I could only have 1 Warsteiner instead of 2 before driving … and if I wanted more that, I made sure to make alternate plans for getting back to my hotel.

    I think this type of restriction would help people to make better decisions and not try to guess at what 1 too many will be.

    • mic says:

      Wouldn’t it be excellent if we could get some NA beers locally that didn’t taste horrible!!

  24. Parma Ham says:

    For those of you who say this is good news, is .05 your ideal level or would you go even lower?

    • J'mo says:

      An excellent question. It’s sad when people speaking out against harsher laws are viewed as being somehow in favor of the crime or insensitive to its victims.

  25. enough already! says:

    Who here has driven while impaired in the last year? Your reason?
    Let’s hear from you.
    These laws help protect you, your friends, your family and your children, if you have any. Talk to a parent who lost a child because of this.
    Elizabeth, I believe your statements have no merit.

    • J'mo says:

      Yes, drunk driving laws certainly help keep us safe. Nobody on here is pro-drunk-driving (probably). We are simply debating what can be reasonably considered an impairing quantity. It’s not fair to suggest that anybody who is opposed to this doesn’t care about the tragedy of a life lost. (If the current limit was .01 and they were considering making it .005, would I be a monster for saying I think it’s a ridiculous idea?)

      And please don’t take this as a personal attack. If you have lost someone close to you at the hands of an intoxicated driver, you have my sympathy.

  26. Lola Beedo says:

    keep knuckling under, and before you know it we won’t even be able to legally SMELL a beer.
    these .05 people make me want to puke.
    personal responsibility trumps all.

    • Willie Pittman says:

      You’re right about personal responsibility, Lola; but it looks as though you don’t have any.

      This “it will get worse & worse” philosophy leaves me colder than dry ice. More probably, it will get as bad as it needs to, and will stop there.

    • Albany Landlord says:

      Willie (@26.1) that is what they said when they set it at 0.1. And it is what they said when they lowered it to .08. And it is what they said when they lowered it to .05 already in NY for a DUAI without any science or proof that those lower levels caused impairment. But you’re right it won’t get worse and worse and it will only get as bad as it needs to and stop there. Whoops, too late.

    • Lola Beedo says:

      personal responsibility willie? yeah, i got it — i don’t drive if i’m gonna drink. period.

      not all that terribly difficult for most everybody to comprehend. sorry if it confuses you.

      like i said, keep bowing down. and in five years you’ll need the feds’ permission in order to put your socks on.

    • Willie Pittman says:

      “They’re after us! They want to make life impossible!”

      You’re not living in Belarus, are you? Quit complaining.

      That goes for the gun nuts, too.

    • Realist says:

      Willie, you offer zero intellectual insight to any of this. Go find something else to do. Leave the rest of us intelligent folk to debate without someone like you getting in the way of real talk.

  27. LJ says:

    I wish there was a test that measured “impairment” instead of BAC. I know people who are silly idiots after a single drink, and some who are seemingly completely normal after several. Not to mention those on the road who are high on pot, or on Xanax, Oxycodone, Ambien, cold medicine, etc, sleep-deprived and let’s not forget the elderly seniors who barely do the speed limit, can’t see over the wheel, drift, albeit slowly, from one lane to another……..I could go on.

    I’m 160 lbs. and I wouldn’t for a minute consider myself impaired in the least if I had 2 drinks in an hour. Because I know I’m not. This law would say I am.

    • Willie Pittman says:

      Not to mention, LJ, diabetics who drive with blood sugar so low they’re a threat to everyone on the road. I’ve been one of those – fortunately, not for a long time. But it’s a real pistol!

  28. Iverson says:

    Albany police officers need not worry you’ll still get away with your DWI’s.

  29. The U.S.S.A. says:

    The Feds could care less about safety. This is about money for lawyers andmoney for the prison building business. The easiest money lawyers make is DWI defense. They get $500+ and all they do is meet their client at the courthouse and within an hour they have their $500+ and they leave. The first offense gets reduced to DWAI and the second might or might not get reduced depending on the strength of the lawyer. If cars had breath testing machines and it was a $2,000 penalty to remove it or have a friend start your car; then DWI’s would be reduced by 90%. And the lawyers would no longer get their easy $500+. So the lawmakers go for the money and say no to the breath machines and yes to the lower limit.

  30. EriK says:

    Announced on the anniversary of the worst DWI accident of all-time. The Kentucky bus crash. 27 dead.

    BTW, the driver, who caused that accident was a repeat offender and had a BAC of 0.26 (or 0.24, I’ve seen varying reports), about five times the suggested new legal limit.

    0.05 is nuts.

    • ann says:

      Why was he still a bus driver? I find it absolutely absurd that he was allowed on that bus. Why don’t we get the people we already know don’t drive without getting trashed and remove them from the road BEFORE they kill people.

      I know. If you want something done right or well don’t look to the government.

  31. Russ says:

    I guess this would mean if you consume ANY alcohol, male or female, you better not drive! I sort of agree with that, if it saves ANY lives. I was charged with a DWI way back in 1988. I had been out with my BIL and realized I had had too much to drink. It was late Fall, I got into the parked car, reclined my seat and shortly started shivering. I started the car to turn on the heat, and within 20 minutes had an Albany Police Officer banging on my drivers side window. I was arrested, put in a van that seemed to take great pleasure in taking tight turns to make the handcuffs dig into my skin, etc. I protested the DWI because I was not driving, but was told the car was running and I could have driven at any point, I guess? I plead guilty to DWAI, but I never driven with any alcohol in my system to this day. Did that experience save a life/lives, I have no idea. If you drink anything and drive, very bad idea!

    • Willie Pittman says:

      I disagree, Russ – from personal experience.

      I’ve driven plenty after drinking; no problem. Only a few times have I driven after drinking too much; problems then, but not from the police. In that way, I’ve been lucky.

      But if I’d just used reasonable judgment those few times, I’d never have gotten in any trouble at all. And that wouldn’t have been because I refused to drive after ANY drinking.

    • enough already! says:

      Willie – when you say “no problem”, what does that mean? That you got to your destination without incident?
      What if a situation Arose where you had to react quickly to prevent

    • enough already! says:

      .(to continue)…a misadventure. Who knows if there would have been “no problem”. Fortunately for you there was not. You may not always be so lucky.

    • LJ says:

      I feel for you Russ. You were hosed! In my 20′s, the 90′s, I used to do what i thought was the responsible thing and sleep it off in my car until the sun came up. Apparently you can’t do that anymore. Even with the car off you’re nailed as long as you have the keys on you. Tell me that’s not a money grab.

    • Willie Pittman says:

      “enough” et al., what I’m saying is that maybe personal responsibility has a place in the world.

      If you can drink with a somewhat high BAC and not endanger someone, fine. In that case, you won’t get stopped and everything will be peachy.

      If you can’t drink more than half a drink without driving like an idiot, you’ll probably get stopped by the cops and FSM help you.

    • Willie Pittman says:

      To be more specific, I’ve driven from Cromwell, CT, to Schenectady many times after having about 4 glasses of wine. No problem, no danger to others, no police stops.

      If that doesn’t prove that a little discretion is of use to people, I don’t know what does.

      I expect many to attack this posting. Do your (“you’re”?) worst.

    • Lola Beedo says:

      I get it willie. you write just to see yourself in print.

      you push “personal responsibility” and then brag about how you drink and drive. stay off our roads.

      two faces of willie. see ya.

    • Willie Pittman says:

      “you write just to see yourself in print.”

      Name one person who posts on this (or any other) blog of whom that isn’t at least partly true.

    • G says: G says:

      ‘Even with the car off you’re nailed as long as you have the keys on you.’ – Do what I did a few weeks ago, after having one (or three) too many. Instead of driving back to Long Island from Westchester, I pulled into a rest area, put my keys in the trunk, got in the back seat ond slept a good 4 hours. Technically, the keys were on me…but the cop wouldn’t have known that, if he questioned me.

    • ann says:

      How can they give you a DWI if you weren’t driving?? You should have pled innocent but who knows if it would have helped. Up to that point you hadn’t done anything wrong, though I’m glad you didn’t drive that night.

    • $cott says:

      As stupid as the law is, if you want to sleep in your car after drinking then you should put the keys behind the tire or somewhere else outside of the vehicle. Otherwise they can give you a DWI. Where it gets even more absurd is if your phone dies in a bar, you run out to charge your cell phone in your car, and still have every intent to leave your car and cab home at the end of the night but they could get you for a DWI while charging your phone.

    • J'mo says:

      It is sad and scary that we now have the pre-crime division arresting people who they think MIGHT commit a crime… and without the aid of psychics. Thank you for using good judgement; sorry you were a victim of this nonsense. The dumbest part is that if you HAD driven, you most likely would NOT have gotten in trouble. Laws are written so carefully to make sure no guilty person can get off on a technicality – always with good intentions, I hope – but then police use those technicalities to charge people who were never guilty in the first place. Saying you COULD have driven drunk? Same thing holds true if you are drinking in your living room. You COULD go out and drive drunk at any time, right? Why not play it safe and arrest you just in case? Should a person be arrested for murder because there is a knife in their kitchen drawer that they COULD take out and stab somebody with? So insane.

    • mic says:

      Well said @J’mo! Being that this is the food blog, I think we are all going down if they start questioning the knives!! :-)

  32. hamlet says:

    Well said number one and responsible people should be able to go to dinner and have a glass of wine .05 is not fair to those who obey the law and if this is the new to be future threshold no free get out of jail cards for cops enough of the Blue Code. Hit a car no jail? Only in SMALLBANY

    • Rachel T. says:

      If you go to dinner and have one glass of wine, your BAc is not going to be .05

    • J'mo says:

      Rach, keep in mind it is already a DWAI to drive at .05. They are talking about making that the DWI level, so the DWAI would most certainly be quite a bit lower. A good size glass of wine with dinner? Yes, that would very likely be illegal to drive after (depending on your size and how much you ate.)

    • Rachel T. says:

      If it’s already against the law to drive with a .05 BAC, why are people so upset?

      And why is it “most certain” that they’re likely to lower the DWAI threshold to quite a bit lower? Perhaps they’d just eliminate that altogether, and make any driving with impairment by alcohol at .05 or drugs a DWI? Stronger penalties, more incentive to not do it?

    • J'mo says:

      Common, Rachel, now you are just being silly. They are talking about tighter restrictions. Why would they do away with the DWAI charge? People are upset because they are talking about dropping DWI from .08 to .05. This likely (better than “most certainly”?) means DWAI would drop to .02 or .03. If, by some bizarre twist, NYS decides to completely get rid of this lesser charge, give me your address and I will send you a nice card apologizing for calling you silly. :)

    • Willie Pittman says:

      Rachel T, I’m with you.

      And I still say, and no one has answered: if you drive sanely regardless of alcohol consumption, who’s going to pull you over?

      Drink as much as you want and can still drive as a sensible person. Stop when you get there. Don’t drive like a drunken idiot.

  33. another state Worker says:

    I have a Commercial Drivers License;
    for those who have Earned a CDL the DWI and DWAI standards are even stricter, .02 for DWAI and .04 for DWI.

    This applies even if I am driving my own vehicle, not only if I am driving a truck.

    I am also subject to Random Drug and Alcohol testing,
    and I am willing and Ready to do so 24/7.

    Lets make ALL of these stricter standards apply to Everyone. :)
    I am ready. Why aren’t You?

    • ann says:

      Because I don’t drive for a living and you do. I also don’t drink while on the clock.

      How do you feel about commercial drivers with multiple dwis? How do they possibly keep their jobs?

  34. Ike says:

    Government can’t control you until it makes you a criminal. Is anyone seriously impaired by 0.05? Where’s the science?

  35. jayster says:

    This is crazy. It’s not the social drinkers who are at .05 or .06 or .07 who are killing people. It’s the habitual drunks who are at 1.5 or higher who are a problem. There is probably not a priest who celebrates mass who could pass this de facto ZERO tolerance.
    Most European cities and towns have an adequate mass transit system not found in any but the largest of our metropolitan areas. Goodbye to yet another constitutional amendment.
    To the writer who said Nanny State … Amen brother

    • pico de gallo says:

      thats almost 100% my point. I dont care about the %(as massively stupidly low as they want to make it) as much as ‘whats the alternative to getting home then?’. You go out for happy hour, drink three beers in 90minutes then nothing for the next 2 hours, you’ll still probably be over this limit.

  36. jayster says:

    Sorry I got my numbers mixed up. I should have written .15 instead of 1.5. Just didn’t want some whiner who knew what I meant to jump on that instead of addressing my real point.

  37. Uncle Joe says:

    they are nuts……………..

  38. Suzy says:

    Prohibition is back ! Every time the DWI arrest numbers go down, they lower the rate of intoxication to keep that old gravy train flowing. Went from .12 BAC in the 70′s to .08 BAC now.. seems like every 10 years or so they drop it again until they can get to .00 BAC or prohibition! Anyone that was lucky enough to be alive when the drinking age was 18 and there were bars on pretty much every corner knows first hand there were MANY MORE drunk drivers on the road then. So as the number of arrests drop, job justification kicks in by just lowing the numbers AGAIN! But luckily you can soon go smoke a joint and feel free to drive… after all that is “medically necessary”.

    • Cihan says:

      Prohibition is back? Except for the the fact that you can buy as much alcohol as you want, and drink yourself stupid every single day at your domicile if you so choose. And that you can still go out to bars and clubs and get drunk, as long as you aren’t driving yourself home.

      Cry me a river.

  39. Chester11 says:

    It is all about MONEY. This will ring the registers for state and local government for sure. And it will make a few lawyers even richer.

  40. The Ghost says:

    If they are not a criminal, make them one. This is nothing more then a ploy to get more people arrested so towns and city’s can get more money form more people. This will not solve the problem and it’s not like lowering the BAC limit is going to stop the crime from happening. This is the same ridiculous logic as limiting the number of bullets you can have in a mag, news flash: Criminals DON’T care what the law is stupid!

  41. DC says:

    I just heard on the radio that the Albany County Sheriff endorses this latest moneymaker, maybe he needs the money to help pay for the money wasted on some of his employees who did not work or live in the county.
    Maybe he is missing some of the gambling revenues generated on the job by some of his employees.
    These latest ideas to make more money and not fix the main problem which is people with much higher BACs causing accidents is really getting sickening to read about.
    Next will be a press conference, probably from the new State Police Palace wearing their latest police jewelry endorsing this moneymaking joke.

  42. G says: G says:

    Lower it all you want, we’re Americans, we’ll find another way to kill 500-800 of our fellow countrymen.

    USA! USA! USA!

  43. T. Wayne Lucas III says:

    $$$ is down, so let’s make more people criminals.

    I have an idea, let’s pass the law today and make it go into effect one year after the last cop gets arrested for drunk driving. Ulp. Won’t have to worry about it then…

  44. ravioliollie says:

    Since 9/11, this country has evolved into a police state. All of our rights are going away bit by bit. The insurance companies dictate much of this nonsense and the police state is in lock step with them. Just sayin’

    • Willie Pittman says:

      Oh, come on. You sound paranoid to me – probably more than you really are, but why go into this “the government is turning Commie” kind of nonsense?

      True, insurance companies are getting too much power, especially in medical matters. But the Democrats, at the very least, are trying to rectify this. And yet you’re “[j]ust sayin’” that the whole government is creating a “police state”?

      You’re sounding like a spoiled little “I want it MY WAY!” kid.

    • Rachel T. says:

      Sorry, where in the Constitution is driving specified as a “right”? Particularly driving while impaired by a substance?

    • pico de gallo says:

      not for nothing, but cant you get a BWI for being drunk whilst riding your bike?

  45. ravioliollie says:

    No, no communist, but rather a Fascist State. Find a definition of Fascism and then tell me what you think.

    • Willie Pittman says:

      I’m sorry to say that you sound more & more as though you’ve gone off the deep end, ravioliollie.

      Fascist? Read Follett’s novel “Winter of the World” some time and THEN tell me how fascist the USA is.

      I lived through the era of fascism and know something about it. You don’t have a clue.

    • enough already! says:

      Check out wiki’s definition. One can see a similarity in some respects to the ultra right wing republicans.

    • Cihan says:

      Reading “Winter of the World” won’t fix this. A historical perspective won’t fix deliberate ignorance. The ravioliollies of this world are the Erik von Ulrich’s of Follett’s.

    • Willie Pittman says:

      Good point, Cihan – but in the context of this blog, how are you going to convince people who insist on acting stupid to do otherwise?

    • enough already! says:

      Willie, I’m sorry but what do you call driving after 4 glasses (that’s ONE BOTTLE) of wine,as you stated?

    • Willie Pittman says:

      Well, “enough”, since you continue to think that you can stick your nose in any part of my colloquy without concern for the facts, the reasonable conclusions, or anything beyond your obvious dislike for me, I don’t see why I should feel it necessary to answer anything at all from you.

      But, since I’m apparently an utter fool myself, I will.

      In the first place, I have NEVER seen a bottle of wine that contains only four glasses as I pour them. Six is more like it.

      In the second place, I did this umpteen times and got through all the 175-some miles from Cromwell to home without attracting the attention of any cops, without clearly alarming anyone else, and without myself thinking (and I WAS still capable of thinking) that any dangerous situation had arisen.

      Could you do it? Probably not – but then there are a lot of things you seemingly can’t do, including being civil. But my experience, which for me counts for something, told me I could. And what’s more, I was right.

      Perhaps if you have any further “embarrassing” questions for me, you should just stow them away and consider that to have been a good turn. Right, Boy Scout?

  46. non-foodie says:

    Wow! I can’t believe some of the comments on here. People are dying and sustaining horrible injuries from drunk driving every day. Lowering the threshold will save lives and you’re all complaining about a nanny state or money grab?

    I’ll stick with either diet soda or taking cabs, thank you. I have no objection to it at all.

    • G says: G says:

      All the diet soda in the world won’t keep a drunk from crossing the yellow line and plowing into you.

    • non-foodie says:

      But at least I wouldn’t be the cause of it.

    • pico de gallo says:

      people are dying and sustaining horrible injuries from simply driving every day without even bringing alcohol into the equation. why not lower the speed limit to 30mph if thats the case?

      and i dont think people are really against DWI laws here, they are simply saying ‘whats the fn alternative to get home?’ if you want to meet up with a few friends for a couple of drinks.

    • Willie Pittman says:

      Pico, you’re writing like an ass.

    • r says:

      I fear someone who drinks diet soda (aspartame etc) out on the road much more than someone who goes out to dinner and has a wine or 2.

  47. Stephen says:

    Lowering the speed limit to 30 mph would save many more lives but I don’t see the non-drinkers advocating for that – wonder why………Hum I guess because then that would affect them. Funny how liberals like to create laws that affect others but never any that affect them.

  48. ravioliollie says:

    No comment…. after all of this. Sorry for bringing the police state into the conversation, but….. It is a food blog but sometimes it goes awry. Didja’ look up fascism, WP??? Just askin’.

    • Willie Pittman says:

      I don’t answer questions followed by “just askin’” – unless I REALLY want to.

  49. T. Wayne Lucas III says:

    Gee, I’m starting to like that Willie guy…