Utah politicians do the darnedest things

[Diehard Ute]

No clue why they decided to pass this.

The law already allowed for arrest if someone was impaired with a BAC of below .08.

DUI's below .10 are fairly rare, let alone at .05. I really don't think you'll see very many new arrests because of it. What could change is the punishment. The current law increases penalties if you're "double" the limit. This drops "double" to .10, which is an issue IMO.

Oddly according to data published in the media this week people from .05 to .08 accounted for the least amount of DUI related fatalities in Utah. People below .05 accounted for more, the vast majority were far above .10

Europe has far different laws and the comparison is bogus. Most countries there have a sliding scale which is non criminal at .05


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

No clue why they decided to pass this.

The law already allowed for arrest if someone was impaired with a BAC of below .08.

DUI's below .10 are fairly rare, let alone at .05. I really don't think you'll see very many new arrests because of it. What could change is the punishment. The current law increases penalties if you're "double" the limit. This drops "double" to .10, which is an issue IMO.

Oddly according to data published in the media this week people from .05 to .08 accounted for the least amount of DUI related fatalities in Utah. People below .05 accounted for more, the vast majority were far above .10

Europe has far different laws and the comparison is bogus. Most countries there have a sliding scale which is non criminal at .05


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I apologize for any "bogus comparison" I was just asking a question (and thought I made it clear I didn't support the law).

For your reference here is a summary of the European laws by country. Some countries do have sliding scales but in general it seems the punishments are pretty harsh along those scales:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drun...country#Europe


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diehard Ute]

I apologize for any "bogus comparison" I was just asking a question (and thought I made it clear I didn't support the law).

For your reference here is a summary of the European laws by country. Some countries do have sliding scales but in general it seems the punishments are pretty harsh along those scales:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drun...country#Europe


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My issue wasn't with you, but rather our fine elected leaders who throw out "but Europe does this" without admitting they do it far differently The vast majority of those countries don't consider DUI a "crime" until .08 or .11.

At .05 they will issue fines and license suspensions but it's not a criminal act.

As the Utah law is currently written the punishments remain the same, they just start earlier.

It's a class B misdemeanor, which can be up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. 48 hours of jail time is mandatory, but can be exchanged for community service. Vehicle impoundment is mandatory and costs approximately $600 to get back.

Your license is then an entirely separate civil matter and can be suspended, or revoked and an ignition interlock can be required.

(And then there are DUI attorneys. Many who charge insane amounts to get people off...but people pay it)

It's a stupid law. If we really want to curb DUI we should really go after repeat offenders. We also should get rid of justice courts. The justice courts being a court that is not on the record means people get two trials and two sets of motion hearings.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Utah]

My issue wasn't with you, but rather our fine elected leaders who throw out "but Europe does this" without admitting they do it far differently The vast majority of those countries don't consider DUI a "crime" until .08 or .11.

At .05 they will issue fines and license suspensions but it's not a criminal act.

As the Utah law is currently written the punishments remain the same, they just start earlier.

It's a class B misdemeanor, which can be up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. 48 hours of jail time is mandatory, but can be exchanged for community service. Vehicle impoundment is mandatory and costs approximately $600 to get back.

Your license is then an entirely separate civil matter and can be suspended, or revoked and an ignition interlock can be required.

(And then there are DUI attorneys. Many who charge insane amounts to get people off...but people pay it)

It's a stupid law. If we really want to curb DUI we should really go after repeat offenders. We also should get rid of justice courts. The justice courts being a court that is not on the record means people get two trials and two sets of motion hearings.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup.
All of this. It's nothing more than punishing Utahns for trying to repeal the Zion Curtain laws.

[mUUser]

I apologize for any "bogus comparison" I was just asking a question (and thought I made it clear I didn't support the law).

For your reference here is a summary of the European laws by country. Some countries do have sliding scales but in general it seems the punishments are pretty harsh along those scales:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drun...country#Europe


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I'm reading this right, the majority of these countries appear to be more strict that our .08 level. I'd be interested to see any peer reviewed studies that look at the differences in safety, if any, between .05 and .08

[Scorcho]

If I'm reading this right, the majority of these countries appear to be more strict that our .08 level. I'd be interested to see any peer reviewed studies that look at the differences in safety, if any, between .05 and .08

I heard someone make an interesting point that many of those countries have much better public transportation than we do, which is a valid factor.

[Rocker Ute]

If I'm reading this right, the majority of these countries appear to be more strict that our .08 level. I'd be interested to see any peer reviewed studies that look at the differences in safety, if any, between .05 and .08

Well many states used to be .10 and then most people switched to .08. A doctor I know said .08 is basically right between one and two drinks. The idea was you could have a single drink and not get a dui. Now that isn't the case.

Diehard is right about public transportation with this too. It is true for all kinds of activities that take you past 11pm.

My main point though was catching someone at .05 seems unlikely, so this law changes virtually nothing but has everyone freaking out about its stupidity and won't modify behavior.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diehard Ute]

Well many states used to be .10 and then most people switched to .08. A doctor I know said .08 is basically right between one and two drinks. The idea was you could have a single drink and not get a dui. Now that isn't the case.

Diehard is right about public transportation with this too. It is true for all kinds of activities that take you past 11pm.

My main point though was catching someone at .05 seems unlikely, so this law changes virtually nothing but has everyone freaking out about its stupidity and won't modify behavior.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that really depends on how the state decides to use it.

The lowering of the "double the limit" punishments to .10 instead of .16 is a pretty big deal.

The idea being someone who was .16 was impaired to the point their punishment should be more severe. Now that's changed to .10, which is a pretty big difference.

BAC is a weird thing. I know how much it takes to get me to a .10, but only because I've helped UHP train new officers on field sobriety tests. It's far more than I would normally have. But I also have seen people drink far less and hit .05 pretty quickly.

Devildog also made a good point, the tests are all tested for .08, so what adjustments can be made? What effect will this have in court? DUI cases are already full of technicality arguments, this may just open the door to a flood of new ones.

I think the biggest question about this bill is why? Why the change? Data that's been made available doesn't suggest people between .05 and .08 are the issue. So why?

Why are we so reluctant to restrict distracted driving. Utah actually rolled back the distracted driving law last year, making it easier to drive while doing other things. Things that are just as, if not more dangerous than someone at a .05 or even a .08.

Do I think we'll see many people arrested at .05? Probably not. But our old law worked just fine for people who were impaired and below .08




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diehard Ute]

If I'm reading this right, the majority of these countries appear to be more strict that our .08 level. I'd be interested to see any peer reviewed studies that look at the differences in safety, if any, between .05 and .08

The strictness is in the details.

Many European countries treat DUI as a civil issue until it hits higher alcohol levels, then it becomes a criminal action. Utah has no such distinction.


As for safety I would love to see such a study. Utah's statistics for DUI's and fatal traffic accidents certainly don't seem to indicate this was a safety issue.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...-above-08.html

(As a side note most every Utah police department takes blood from any driver involved in a fatal accident so that data is very accurate)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk