Nobody should argue that it’s OK to drive while impaired, whether due to alcohol, other drugs, gadget distraction, sleepiness or a mental or physical condition.
This said, context has been lacking in the recent rollout of revised penalties for people with a blood alcohol level of 0.05 percent or higher, which are stricter than the older 0.08 percent limit for criminal charges. That lack of context could bring great harm to the hospitality industry.
“Depending on how strictly the new legislation is enforced, it could have a severe impact on the bottom line,” says Gordon Stewart of the Restaurant Association of Nova Scotia. “Add this impact to the already declining profits, and it adds up to the industry heading into a profitability quagmire.”
The threat to bars and restaurants is that people have no idea how much drinking it takes to get them to 0.05 or 0.08 BAL. All they know are the charges they hear on the news, including deaths due to a drunk driver, typically with BAL levels over 0.10—or as high as 0.24—many times the legal limit.
RANS argues the focus should be there, and not on the people who support the restaurant industry by drinking a moderate amount of wine or beer with their meals, then driving home. “The number one concern right now is with chronic offenders, as they put so many people at risk,” says Stewart. “Harsher punishments, including larger penalties with loss of drivers’ licence for longer periods of time, should be the focus.”
We should always be conservative about safety, but we have to ask ourselves, “Are we willing to sacrifice our restaurant and bar culture?” Not all of us can afford to pay for taxi rides which are not an option in rural areas. There is a good reason why some bars have large parking lots.
But people need to know how much they can drink and not be over 0.05 BAL. There are various calculators and charts available online, including at the inelegantly named rupissed.com, and a good one in Charlie Papazian’s The Complete Joy of Home Brewing. These charts look at time, weight and sex. Some of the more expensive handheld breathalyzers give reasonable estimates of BAL, and have been shown to correlate well to Papazian’s chart. Some scenarios:
After-work drink: A 200-pound man goes to the pub after work at 4:30, drinks two 18-ounce pints of five percent beer, then hops in the car at 6pm to head home for supper. His BAL is 0.04-0.05. Waiting an extra half hour would be smart. For a 130-pound woman, two pints in 1.5 hours likely puts her between 0.07 and 0.09 BAL; she shouldn’t drive.
Wine with dinner: The same couple goes to a restaurant and shares a bottle of 13.5 percent alcohol wine over a two-hour meal. He drinks three glasses, she has two. His BAL when they get in the car is borderline, probably 0.045-0.055. Her BAL is maybe a bit lower. Lingering an extra hour and having a coffee before driving would be prudent.
A night out: The guy goes out for supper and to see a band. He drinks a glass of 13.5 percent wine, four 375 ml bottles of beer and two cocktails from 6pm to 1am. This likely puts him somewhere in the 0.06-0.08 range—there are too many factors over a long evening to give a tighter estimate. The fact remains that, even though he spread the drinks over seven hours, he still shouldn’t be driving. A woman or a lighter guy—say 170 pounds—would be in even more trouble.
Beer league hockey: After the game the same 200-pound guy drinks three bottles of light beer in about 45 minutes. His BAL is around 0.045. Did he really need that third thirst quencher?
One personal policy should override any decisions you make based on calculations of alcohol and time. If you feel impaired, then you should not drive.
This article appears in Dec 2-8, 2010.
can i have a little “whine” with my meal…if i hear the restaurant industry complain once again about logical legislation.i.e,anti-smoking or anti-drinking,ill scream….to get into this over crowded industry,then complain about your choice,is pathetic…if your food is good,they will come in droves,but if your product is bland or the same as the countless on your street,then it’s time to close shop and develop a better business plan !
“logical legislation.i.e,anti-smoking or anti-drinking”
LOL @ logical legislation – the question is logical to whom?
Hi Craig: Your various scenarios are useful guides, but as you point out, they’re not definitive. I know whereof I speak having been convicted of impaired driving in 1991. (Fortunately, there was no accident involved and therefore, no deaths or injuries.)
When I went to get my license back the next year, a helpful official explained to me that there are many factors that influence legal impairment including the number of hours of sleep, the amount of food consumed, the use of prescription drugs, stress levels and overall health. These factors vary from day-to-day making it difficult to gauge whether you’re over the legal limits.
I know the “hospitality industry” is concerned about possible economic losses caused by the uncertainty arising from new government regulations. I would argue, however, that there is no safe level of drinking and driving. That’s why Air Canada rules, for example, stipulate that pilots may not consume alcohol within 12 hours of flying.
Our drinking and driving laws try to balance public safety with the economic interests of restaurants and bars etc. And we all play along by trying to guess whether we meet the standards for legal impairment. (Unfortunately, those guesses become all the more inaccurate with the number of drinks consumed.) I think it would be far better all the way round, if we made drivers adhere to airline pilot standards — no drinking 12 hours before driving.
That’s a standard that seems harsh, but it’s necessary if we’re really serious about public safety. Meantime, we might reflect on the anti-conviviality of the private automobile as our main means of public transport.
The thing is, life is all about managing $, risk and balancing with enjoying life. If we could forget the shackles of economics, then things could be different. We could all spend our lives in metallic suits that make us safe no matter what, if we could afford it. But we can’t. So, do we stay home all the time and never go out and have fun? What is a happy, balanced life worth to you? We have to reach a pragmatic balance. I think that zero tolerance is going far too far. If they would release the actual statistics, I think you’d find that there are almost no deaths (it could actually be zero) due to people driving at BAL levels under 0.05. There are likely far more due to sleepy drivers, or people who are just plain bad drivers. Think about that for a minute, before going after responsible members of society who have 2 drinks over supper and drive home.
Setting the legal limit at anything other than zero is an open invitation for some people to guess and thus risk a disaster. If you drink don’t drink, it’s that simple.
Craig P: Coast comments are a wonderful resource for connoisseurs (like me) who collect illogical arguments. Logical arguments are based on factual evidence. But illogical ones rest on unsupported assertions like yours as noted in square brackets [].
“If they [who?] would release the actual statistics, [what actual statistics and from whom?] I think [based on what?] you’d find that there are almost no deaths (it could actually be zero) [according to what evidence?] due to people driving at BAL levels under 0.05.”
A logical analysis of your argument would conclude that you have no evidence for the assertions you make. Instead you rely on rhetorical devices:
“If they would release actual statistics — [you suggest that “they” are suppressing “actual statistics” without ever saying who “they” are and why “they” won’t release these statistics.]
You go on to pile on more unsupported assertions:
“There are likely [who says?] far more due to sleepy drivers, or people who are just plain bad drivers. [who says?] Think about that for a minute, before going after responsible members of society who have 2 drinks over supper and drive home.”
Do you seriously want us to “[t]hink about that for a minute”? Think about a series of assertions based on no factual evidence only tired rhetorical flourishes.
C’mon Craig P: Get off your ass and do the research to support your assertions.
Wow. That’s quite the post, Bruce!
The point remains valid: we all balance the good and the bad when we make decisions about how to live our lives. Having a glass of wine with dinner does not impair the vast majority of people. Yet this legislation has a chilling effect on that innocuous activity, and removes one of the small joys we have as supposedly a free society. This is bad legislation, designed only to pander to the special-interest groups who would move us back to prohibition times, while imposing the will of a nanny govt upon the populace — and adding a little bit of extra revenue to their coffers. The authorities have the statistics that would show people with a BAC of .05 are not the problem on our roads. Like other bad legislation, it will be widely ignored and thus become ineffectual. But it remains bad legislation regardless.
You can say what you like Bo Gus, but judging by the number of deaths and injuries each year (see below), drinking and driving remains a serious problem in Canada and Nova Scotia. Experts agree that stricter laws and tougher enforcement of them, (including increased use of roadside licence suspensions), has helped reduce the incidence of impaired driving offences, although StatsCan reports the numbers have been creeping up again.
“Police reported 89,000 impaired driving offences in 2009, resulting in a 3% increase in the rate (Table 2). This was the third consecutive annual increase. Prior to 2007, the rate of impaired driving had generally been declining for over 25 years.” http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010…
According to StatsCan, Nova Scotia saw an 18% jump in impaired driving offences in 2009 with a total of 3,142 for a rate of 335 per 100,000 significantly higher than the average rate of 263 for all provinces and territories. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010…
The most recent edition of the B.C. Medical Association Journal carries an article which opens with some figures drawn from an extensive report by Stephen Pitel, a law prof at the University of Western Ontario. It’s called: “Estimating the Presence of Alcohol and Drug Impairment in Traffic Crashes and their Costs to Canadians: 1999 to 2007.”
Here’s the quote from the BCMAJ: “Impairment-related crashes are the leading criminal cause of death in Canada, accounting for approxÂimately 1239 deaths, 73 120 injuries, and as much as $12.6 billion in financial and social costs annually.” http://www.bcmj.org/council-health-promoti…
The mother of all statistical reports can be found on the Traffic Injury Research Foundation’s website. It’s called: “The alcohol-crash problem in Canada: 2007.” http://www.ccmta.ca/english/committees/rsr…
The report is packed with stats. In 2007, for example, its authors estimate that 1,127 people died in alcohol-related crashes which accounted for 37% of all fatal crashes. (p.14) The report says that in 2007, 20.3% of crashes which resulted in serious injury were alcohol-related. (p.32)
While it’s true that the TIRF report counts all crashes in which a driver had been drinking, it also shows a high correlation between impairment and crashes resulting in death or serious injury. For example, more than 80% of fatally injured drinking drivers who were tested were legally impaired in 2007.
I know you might argue, therefore, that the .05 law is unnecessary, but the point is (as StatsCan notes), experts agree that tougher laws and stricter enforcement resulted in dramatic declines in impaired driving offences over the last three decades. The point of the .05 law is to get drivers to drink less so they won’t be impaired when they get behind the wheel.
The TIRF report gives extensive info on alcohol-related deaths and injuries in Nova Scotia beginning on page 157.
All provinces and territories are now near the end of an eight-year campaign to reduce deaths and serious injuries in alcohol-related crashes by 40%. http://archive.safety-council.org/info/tra…
Unfortunately, the TIRF report shows that Nova Scotia is nowhere near meeting that target. (The discussion and statistical comparisons start on page 165.)
After reading Pinhey’s articles and Twitter comments about his numerous “tasting sessions” one has to wonder how often his BAL has been over 0.08? Be honest now Mr Pinhey, do you ever push the limit before driving?
No, I never drink and drive. I do drink before driving, but never to the level of impairment. As you read in my article, I actually support the 0.05 policies – my reason for writing the article was to give people some useful PRACTICAL (imagine!) information, not to condone drunk driving.
As for those “alcohol related” crash stats, you have to be very careful with those. Their data collection has been called into question, for counting data as related to alcohol when it wasn’t (for example, when the person who had nothing to do with the cause of the crash had been drinking – this should not count).
As I recall when I last saw the federal data, the #1 cause was “falling asleep,” by far. Anyway, my object here is to ask people to be responsible and reasonable. Punish chronic severe offenders more harshly, and leave us good people alone – we are important for keeping the hospitality economy alive.
It seems to me that it is easier from a legal stand point to chip away at the good people, the law abiding majority, by increasing penalties for low level offenses, than it is to really nail the true problem people. I don’t believe in 3 strikes for severe offenders. One is enough. Take away their licence for life.
Craig P., if you want to understand how the Traffic Injury Research Foundation calculates alcohol-related deaths and injuries you should read pages 3 to 13 of their report. There is an extensive discussion there on the data sources and indicators used in the calculations and the reasoning behind them: http://www.ccmta.ca/english/committees/rsr…
You write: “As I recall when I last saw the federal data, the #1 cause was ‘falling asleep,’ by far.” That observation, even if true, is not relevant because we are not talking about other causes of serious crashes, only the well-established role of alcohol in a significant percentage of them.
I also have trouble understanding the logic behind other points you make, namely: “I actually support the 0.05 policies…Anyway, my object here is to ask people to be responsible and reasonable. Punish chronic severe offenders more harshly, and leave us good people alone – we are important for keeping the hospitality economy alive.”
If you support enforcing the 0.05 blood alcohol level, what do you mean by your appeal to “leave us good people alone”? One of the strongest points in your article is that people (even “good” ones) “have no idea how much drinking it takes to get them to 0.05 or 0.08 BAL.” And, as the official explained to me when I went to get my licence back a year after being convicted of impaired driving, it’s possible to have a few drinks on Wednesday after work and be perfectly OK to drive while the same number of drinks the next night consumed over the same time period will put you over the legal limit. As I pointed out in an earlier comment, there are many factors that affect the body’s ability to process alcohol. Given the levels of uncertainty, it’s important to err on the side of caution and the new 0.05 provincial limit encourages us to do that. A “good” person who doesn’t know he is impaired, is potentially just as lethal a driver as someone of more dubious moral character. I was perfectly confident the night I was stopped that I was fine. I wouldn’t have been driving otherwise.
Craig, please stop feeding the troll.
Dear NGreader: God bless you for advising Craig P. not to feed the troll. Am I the troll? Oh dear. I had thought I was contributing to the debate by adding verifiable facts to counter Craig P’s empty assertions. By the way NGreader, who are you? Perhaps a shill for the “hospitality industry?” Please come out from behind your cover and tell us what interest you have in these debates over the “hospitality economy” vs. public safety. And while you’re at it, please feel free to counter any of the evidence I have presented with evidence of your own.
Bo Gus: having *a* glass of wine *does* impair the vast majority of people, not the other way around. Research has shown that .02 BAC already affects vision, motor coordination and decision making. At this level of impairment, the chances are admittedly tiny that a driver will *cause* an accident, but if they are in an emergency situation they will not react as well as they would have if they were sober.
There is no “switch” that gets thrown at .08. If the legal limit equates to *obvious* impairment for the majority of people, and in fact it does, then it stands to reason that lower BAC levels aren’t completely safe either. We can quibble over acceptable risk, but that’s silly. Use common sense and use some variation of the airline pilot’s rule.
As a side note, Craig P indicated that the number one cause was “falling asleep”. I don’t suppose it ever occurred to him that a nice drinkie-poo (or 2, as he suggested) at the end of a long work day, settling in during a drive home, might sometimes have something to do with “falling asleep”?
Having a law that does not have definition and leaves the police full powers of discretion is never a good law, regardless of how many applie pies it is wrapped up in. I would normally go out for dinner and over a four course dinner I would have 2 glasses of wine and coffee, but how can you dress for an evening with the spectre of having your car taken, being arrested, or at least detained and having that kind of embarrassment and trauma. It is not the .05 person who causes the carnage, but as usual, it sounds good to politicians and so there is goes again.