Lower alcohol limit essential for safety

Lower alcohol limit
essential for safety

The state Senate approved a measure recently that will lower the legal blood-alcohol-content limit for drivers from .10 to .08.

The lower limit is intended to stop drunken drivers from getting behind the wheel. But will the lower limit get the message across to potential drunken drivers?

Over the past 10-15 years, the penalties for drunken driving have gotten a lot more expensive.

Despite this, some law enforcement agencies around the state report an increase in drunken driving offenses between 2002 and 2003.

A strong argument can be made in support of the law change.

As many veteran law enforcement officers who have experience dealing with drunken drivers will tell you, the first thing to go when a person drinks alcohol is judgment.

That lack of judgment can easily cause problems not only for the impaired driver, but for other drivers on the road.

New Jersey is a state where driving is a necessity, and with more people moving here each year, driving is becoming increasingly difficult.

It’s hard enough to maneuver a car on the overcrowded streets and highways throughout the state; who needs the added aggravation of dealing with drunken drivers who have impaired judgment?

With all of the aggressive drivers weaving in and out of lanes, tailgating, speeding and generally driving recklessly on roadways across the state, the last thing anyone needs is drunken drivers adding to the dangers.

How many drunken drivers have caused serious injury or death to sober drivers throughout the state?

How much money have drunken drivers cost car and medical insurance companies who in turn pass the buck on to law abiding customers?

It’s great the Senate decided to follow the state Assembly’s lead by approving the lower limit, but that approval did not come easily.

The federal government basically had to blackmail the state by threatening to withhold funding if the state did not approve the lower limit.

It’s a shame that the prospect of losing money, not the threat of losing innocent lives, forced our legislators to do the right thing.