People drive far more affected everyday that someone (an average person) at 0.08%. It's far too low a marker for something to arrest for especially if that person wasn't even driving.
The funny thing is the masses are those mostly for stricter and stricter laws, while many of the advocates that have been affected by this don't believe these lower limits help anything by the MADD lobby grow.
Statistically, at less than 0.10 there was not a major reduction in fatalities. Just a major increase in arrests and revenue generation. DUI arrests are very profitable.
Anyone dying is a terrible thing, however; many of these late night accidents that had 0.08 readings had no fatalities, were not caused by the DUI driver and/or probably could not have been avoided anyway. Just the fact that one of the drivers was DUI makes it now a DUI crime that skews the statistics further.
The real fatalities are caused by those way over 0.10%. I think 0.10% is a better limit, but I don't agree with road blocks nor arresting someone that only had potential to commit a crime.
You've still said nothing that has any merit to defend your claim that the .08% standard, at which a driver is several times more likely to have an accident, is ok.
I guess at this point, instead of having you say the same thing not proving your point again, I'll try helping you a little.
You can't defend your statement. But if you want to argue that the policies regarding more heavily inebriated drivers are not what they should be, make that argument, with clear and supported points. If you want to argue that while there is no defending .08 drivers driving, but there is something wrong or excessive about our policies, make clear arguments and support them.
I have no idea what you're talking about arresting .08 people who aren't driving for drunk driving.
Just ranting how you hate MADD and asserting they're somehow getting bad laws enacted is not proof of anything.
You try to change the topic from '.08 several times more likely to have an accident' to the number of fatalities not being what you think is very high for that group. I'm not persuaded.
Nothing in that argument defends why it's ok to put people in danger by your choosing to drive impaired so that you have several times higher more chance of causing an accident.
If you're 4 times more likely to cause an accident, the chances are still low you will have one. That doesn't make it ok. Tell the people who are hit, who are injured and killed, because of that unnecessary increase in danger how it's ok because you don't think it's that many people.
You have not proven your point that it's ok to drive at .08 when that makes you several times more likely to cause an accident.