13

Lower legal blood alcohol concentration limit laws are passed under the assumption that a lower legal limit will reduce the number of accidents.

For example, the U.S government lowered the legal BAC for driving from 0.1% to 0.08%.

Is there any evidence to support that roads are made safer as a result of lowering the legal limit, or is it the case that beyond a certain level there are diminishing returns?

Improve this question
9
  • I've broadened your question slightly to make it less localized.
    – Sklivvz
    Apr 15, 2011 at 23:30
  • Fair enough, same intent in the end. Although to be technical, the states all individually decided to lower the legal BAC.
    – GBa
    Apr 16, 2011 at 1:51
  • 5
    Diminishing returns can be physiological or social. Setting the limit too low risks people not taking it seriously any more. I think the most important effect MADD and such groups had was making it socially unacceptable to drink and drive, not different enforcement practices.
    – David Thornley
    Apr 16, 2011 at 14:08
  • Even 0.08% seems quite high. 0.03% means impairment, 0.06% being drunk.
    – vartec
    Oct 20, 2011 at 11:46
  • "The U.S. government lowered the legal BAC"... AFAIK, there is no (and can be no) federal law to this effect in the U.S. I believe every state sets this themselves, with some lower than 0.08%. Do you have a source?
    – Flimzy
    May 17, 2012 at 4:50

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
18

There is clear evidence that driving performance is impaired even at those levels.

Examining the statistics of traffic accidents supports the conclusion that 0.08% is clearly related to accidents:

BACs of .08 g/100 mL or higher were found in 38% of killed and 30% of injured drivers, 37% and 27% of passengers, and 35% and 22% of male motorcycle riders.
—source

More evidence, even for lower limits, comes from double blind experiments:

Statistically significant and meaningful decrements in driving-related performance were identified at 0.05% BAC or below in many studies. Younger and inexperienced drinkers and drivers appear to be a greatest risk for alcohol-related traffic crashes. It is concluded that on scientific grounds, there is support for setting the legal limit at 0.05%.
—source

This paper also confirms the findings.

Now, are BAC lowering policies effective? Not very, unfortunately. This has been studied in Slovenia:

Further concern arises from the finding that heavily drinking drivers are not responsive to penalty increases. We came to the conclusion that, in addition to raising fines and expanding penalty points, the introduction and effective enforcement of complex legislative measures together with wide community action are necessary to resolve DUI problems in Slovenia.
—source

Improve this answer
5
  • I edited to emphasize the efficacy findings, since that appears to be the main point of the question. Feel free to rollback
    – user5341
    May 3, 2011 at 16:55
  • 3
    Of course, it is not effective because people don't measure their BAC before driving. They either drink and drive, or don't, so whether the limit is 0.1% or 0.08% doesn't matter.
    – psusi
    Jul 1, 2011 at 14:58
  • 1
    What percentage had levels above .10 compared to between .08 and .10? Just because that's what they measured doesn't make it "clearly related". While it establishes a correlation between alcohol and crashes; it does not support .08 as the "magic number".
    – Random832
    Sep 14, 2011 at 21:01
  • @Ran I never said that 0.08% is a magic number of sorts. In fact the subsequent quote supports an even lower 0.05%.
    – Sklivvz
    Sep 14, 2011 at 21:19
  • 3
    A full answer requires two parts: what is the effect of BAC on driving performance; and what is the effect of changing the rules on people's behaviour. Without effective enforcement, changing the rules makes no difference at all.
    – matt_black
    Nov 11, 2011 at 10:50
5

The article The effectiveness of reducing illegal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limits for driving: Evidence for lowering the limit to .05 BAC supports this idea, saying

strong evidence in the literature that lowering the BAC limit from .10 to .08 is effective, that lowering the BAC limit from .08 to .05 is effective, and that lowering the BAC limit for youth to .02 or lower is effective.

Improve this answer
2
  • 4
    This study was produced by an advocacy group, pire.org. As such, I don't think proper skeptics will find it compelling.
    – I. J. Kennedy
    Jun 19, 2016 at 3:58
  • 2
    @I.J.Kennedy The cited doc is a survey of 14 other studies. It was published in J. Safety Res. and is linked on the NIH web site. "It's an advocacy group" is not a valid argument.
    – user45478
    Jul 17, 2019 at 18:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .