I think they are trying to slowly lower it as not to cause a huge backlash. Kind of like the frog in a pan of water analogy. As for the level in which you're impaired; I think that would do a great deal with metabolism. Some people get impaired quicker and at lower levels than others. I think they are trying to find the golden mean. Where the most people are affected at the lowest possible level.
I have learned over the years that ones opinion towards hot botton issues directely correlates to whether or not it has directly affected them personaly; kIida like gun violence. The problem with that is in most cases it is too late to prevent a tragic event. I do concur that the study does need to further provide average BAC for alchohol related accidents/deaths. .08 is for some two drinks while .05 would be one for and average drinker as oppossed to a portly fellow like myself...You are better off creating BAC key FOBS that will not start the car if the BAC is above a certain limit. I know there are some variations of that out there already, just not sure what. At the end of the day what is more dangerous? an impaired driver? a drunk driver? or is there a differeence?
I do not know why they didn't just go ahead and set it at .01. There needs to be some sort of standard across the board. It probably should be booze or no booze on the computer readings, IMHO regarding the opperation of the vehicle.
It would represent a societal shift. A strictly soberd person operating a vehicle of a carload of drunks, gets a pass. While the one operating the vehicle who earlier, by group concensus, was the "most sober of them all, was doing the driving blew say an .01 should bear the consequences.
It's and all or none thing I think.
It's my understanding that you might have as many different levels of "impairment" as you have drivers - like up2 said. Somebody might be "impaired" with one drink, but it's okay for them to drive impaired because their blood alcohol level is below the limit. To answer the question - IMHO - to lower it so drastically to .01 would probably create an unwanted backlash - ala gun control. I remember when we had the oil crisis in the '70s and they reduced the speed limits. A supposed by-product was that there would probably be fewer traffic accidents and fatalities/injuries with lower limits. This was part of the campaign to ease the people into accepting the lower speed limits. I'm not sure about the stats, but as you know we've been back to the higher speed limits for some time now - because the people wanted it so. They probably think a more gradual/smaller reduction in the BAC limit will result in less opposition.
You gotta have a standard somewhere, don't you?? How many AK-47's with extender clips are REALLY necessary for the public to have?
How many people that have imbibed do you want driving your kids home or behind the wheel of 2-ton Weapon in the wrong hands??
The Gun Lobby and the Alcohol Lobby are very potent and dangerous in the hands of Conservatives policy makers.