Lower DUI threshold is not feasible

How many drinks does it take to become too drunk to drive?

That's the wrong question to ask, because it assumes that there are a fixed number of drinks that are acceptable before you get behind the wheel. That's not the case.

For example, if you are taking medication, one drink could put you into the "DUI" category. For some people, it often takes very little alcohol to become legally drunk and certain physical characteristics such as weight, gender and body fat percentage can all be factors in the equation.

Eating can also affect your outcome - you are more likely to fail a blood alcohol test if you do not eat. Lack of sleep will affect the BAC reading, too. So, practically, if you're wondering how many drinks you can have before driving, the best answer is "None." Realistically, though, we know that this is ridiculously impractical.

Legally, in all states you should not be operating a motor vehicle with a higher blood alcohol concentration than 0.08 percent. In other words, whether you consider yourself "drunk," the law considers you to be an offender if your BAC is above 0.08 percent.

Now, the National Transportation Safety Board is recommending lowering the legal BAC for drivers to 0.05 percent. The NTSB reports nearly half of deadly crashes would go down if the country cut the alcohol legal limit. It is one of the government agency's top priorities for 2016.

We strongly oppose this proposal.

The NTSB said other countries such as Australia have a 0.05 percent legal limit. Not only has it reduced crashes, but the overall average blood alcohol content for drivers has dropped, the agency said.

"Impairment starts before a person hits the 0.08 percent level. And by the time it reaches that level, the risk of a deadly crash is more than doubled," an NTSB representative said.

In general terms, under current Pennsylvania state law, it takes about five 12-ounce beers, five 5-ounce glasses of wine or five 1.5 ounces of hard liquor for a 180-pound man to be too drunk to drive. It would take about three of those types of drinks for a 100-pound woman to be similarly affected. But these numbers do not take into account the variables listed above.

The NTSB knows its fight to lower the limit won't happen overnight. It did say instead of giving an impaired person a DUI at 0.05 percent, maybe the penalty could be lesser, for example, suspension of a driver's license.

Not everyone is on board with the proposal. Tavern owners are livid, claiming that such a move would further impact business. Remembering how they were affected when the national BAC reading was reeled back from 0.10 percent to 0.08 percent in 2004, bar owners are urging states to stick with the status quo.

Opposition also came from an unlikely quarter - Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. MADD founder Candace Lightner, who was the sparkplug in the national campaign to crack down on drunken driving after her daughter was killed by a drunken driver, spoke out against the NTSB proposal.

"I don't believe it is a practical long-term solution," Lightner said. "You could go to 0.0 and that would save lives. You could go to a 40 mph speed limit, and that would save lives, but you have to look at what's realistic." The laws would likely save lives in the short-term due to media attention, she said, but, ultimately, "they won't be enforced and will be a waste of time."

Lightner fears that if the NTSB proposal is adopted, it will overshadow what Lightner sees as the most significant highway safety issues: high-BAC drunken driving, drugged driving and distracted driving.

We agree with Lightner. Drivers whose BAC is higher than 0.01 percent but lower than 0.08 percent account for only 5 percent of all highway deaths. Reducing the BAC level from 0.08 percent to 0.05 percent will snare some impaired drivers, but is it worth the cost and commitment? There are no free rides in law enforcement, and using valuable resources to enforce a lower limit means fewer resources to pursue other pressing issues. The rewards do not justify the outlay of money and manpower, which is why we strongly oppose this proposal.

Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com