State unlikely to act on push for lower booze level for driving

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Federal officials are recommending that states reduce the amount of alcohol people can drink and still get behind the wheel. But a key state lawmaker says that’s not likely to happen in Indiana.

The National Traffic Safety Board voted Tuesday for a series of recommendations, including that states lower the legal blood-alcohol limit for driving to 0.05 percent. Currently, the legal blood-alcohol level for driving is 0.08 percent in Indiana and most states.

The board’s vote came on the 25th anniversary of the nation’s deadliest drunk-driving incident, a bus crash in Carrollton, Ky., where 3 adults and 24 children died.

Sen. Tom Wyss, R-Fort Wayne, fought for 11 years in the Indiana General Assembly to bring the blood-alcohol level down from 0.10 percent to 0.08 percent before lawmakers approved the change in 2001. Wyss said at the time that the law passed in part because the federal government was threatening to withhold significant amounts of transportation money from Indiana if it didn’t make the change.

On Tuesday, Wyss said he’s doubtful the General Assembly would consider reducing the level again – and it would be “nearly impossible” to bring the level to 0.05 percent.

“It’s an effort I would not undertake again,” Wyss said.

Sen. Phil Boots, R-Crawfordsville, said he probably would not support the move. He said he would need to see more evidence that moving the level would actually be beneficial.

Indiana law does allow a person to be arrested if caught driving with a 0.05 percent blood-alcohol level – but only if the officer can prove impairment.

“I think we are just getting over the top and harassing people,” Boots said.

However, Wyss said that with a blood-alcohol level of 0.05 percent, a person shows signs of impairment and shouldn’t be driving. He said he showed his colleagues data more than a decade ago that proves about 98 percent of people are impaired at 0.05.

But he said many people feel it is their right to drive drunk or impaired – and it’s not.

At least 100 other countries have a blood-alcohol limit of 0.05 percent, including Europe.

“Other countries are much further ahead of the U.S. and their understandings of drunk driving,” Wyss said.

Kara Brooks, press secretary for Gov. Mike Pence, said the office is aware of the federal agency’s recommendation but has not had official communication about it.

“When we do, we will give the review consideration,” Brooks said.

The NTSB also recommended that states increase the use of visible law enforcement on the roads, require ignition interlocks for all drunk driving offenders and create and use more courts specializing in cases of driving while under the influence.


  • Lock'Em up
    I say we up the penalty on turn signal offenses. Forget to turn your turn signal on, minimum two years. Really, we elect politicians thinking they are supposed to work for citizens and they waste time on stupid stuff like this. How many tax dollars and hours are being wasted trying to go from .08 to .05. Are there not better things to focus time and energy. Wonder how many accidents are caused by drivers at the .06 level, or is this just another reach for more taxes through fines.
  • Another Stupid Idea From Washington
    What other countries do is a distinction in search of a difference. First Wyss cites Europe. Europe has is a much smaller, more densely populated continent with highly developed mass transit systems. It is also filled with small local pubs in about every block, so people do not tend to venture far from home. Wyss claims they are "way ahead" of us. Does the fact that many countries have no minimum drinking age make them "way ahead", Senator? This is clearly another way the goveernment can extract money from responsible, law abiding citizens. The only people this affects are those who are conscientious enough to "say when" between .05 and .08. So now, for three one hundredths of one percent less BAC, you go to jail, lose your license and thousands of $$? Serious offenders won't be deterred.
  • Boozin'
    Who is telling us that we cannot drink, text, talk and drive? What an intrusion on our rights. David Bissard agrees...
  • Enough Fed Nanny
    I think most of us are getting sick and tired of the Feds becoming our Nanny, and almighty protector from ourselves. Do they not have enough work to do? Sounds like we should be downsizing the multiple Fed agencies so they can do the work they were legislated to do in the first place. Obsession of catching people in the act of something wrong has gone way to far in this country.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

  2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

  3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

  4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

  5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.