this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2026
34 points (73.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

48936 readers
1290 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

When I was a kid it was 0.10%. And I think it was pretty well attested by a lot of different studies that that was too high, so MADD succeeded in lobbying to get it dropped lower.

And you think 4 beers is "small" for the purposes of driving? I know some people have pretty strong tolerances, but there are definitely people I know who shouldn't be driving after two. Maybe even one. Remember, you don't have to be completely sloshed to be a danger to others. You just have to be a little bit slower, a little bit less observant, a little bit less in control of your muscles, a little bit more inclined to take unnecessary risks. Your body just has to respond a little bit differently than you're used to. You just need to be a little bit more likely to nod off.

[–] zod000@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If 4 beers produces 0.08% (I have no idea if this is accurate), then it should probably be lowered by at least half as driving after 4 beers seems like a quite a bad idea.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I also have no idea if it's accurate, I was just granting that premise. As the other person noted, with the definition of percentage being what it is, it necessarily has to be a different number of beers for people with different volumes of blood.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

As a bigger guy with much higher volume of blood than most of you, no way would I drive after four beers, plus I think that’s wrong

[–] Furbag@pawb.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It depends a lot on your BMI. Larger (bother taller and fatter) people need to imbibe more drinks to get that number up whereas smaller (shorter and skinnier) folk will need fewer. Then there is also tolerance for chronic alcohol consumption which skews that number even further.

If 4 beers were universal, every bar in America would take your car keys away after serving you the third. Hence why they rely on BAC instead of a flat number of drinks consumed.

[–] zod000@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

Quite true, I thought about this as soon as I had made the last comment.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

While I agree with you, I feel like the more effective way to reduce risk on the road is to take the implications here all the way to their logical conclusions. Some people ARE a little slower, a little less reactive, more likely to take risks, or less capable behind the wheel.

It seems to me that the testing process to pilot a personal road missile ought to take a page from this and be more frequent and more strict.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Sort of, but I believe someone found that the actual risk isn't so much in the low reaction time or impulse control, it's in the change between the inebriated person's usual faculties and what they're experiencing under the influence of alcohol. Drivers who are used to having a 1-second reaction time are likely to continue driving as if they have a 1-second reaction time even if their actual speed is more like 1.75-second due to alcohol.

You're not going to get any argument from me that it's insane we allow anyone to pilot a four-thousand-pound vehicle after only a single one-hour test, and retain that permission indefinitely, though.

I agree, but that doesn't really work outside a city in the USA, given how little we invest in public transit. The entire economy in outlying areas would go to shit because everyone has to drive an hour to get to work.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

2 reasons, remembered from a lawyers lecture on the subject at uni, years ago, in the UK.

  1. Some people produce small amounts of alcohol in their gut. It's generally not much (more becomes auto brewery syndrome) but not zero. This can blip the test up slightly, even when they haven't drunk.

  2. The awkward fact that a small amount of alcohol actually improves driving. It's somewhere between 1/4 and 3/4 pint of beer. It's also the reason alcohol is considered a performance enhancing drug in some olympic sports.

The limit is set high enough that there is no arguing these points in a court. It also covers the residual alcohol in people's systems the morning after. It's well into the point where all but the heaviest alcoholic will definitely be impaired. That lets them use blood alcohol as a proxy for impaired driving due to alcohol.

On a side note. I know someone who blew red on the breathalyser. He knew something was wrong, since he has been teetotal for 20 years. He got arrested, only for the blood test to show 0.0. The police were quite confused, but let him go. It turned out, he had (unthinkingly) eaten a liqueur chocolate before being pulled over. It was enough to mess up the breathalyser.

[–] RoddyStiggs@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It shouldn't be 0.0%, but 0.08% is quite generous. At 0.02%, it is clearly detectable with equipment but you aren't likely to notice. Some people also naturally have a constant BAC in the 0.01% range. At 0.05%, you definitely feel it and are twice as likely to cause an accident than sober.

4 beers in an hour is a significant amount. People who drink that much and drive are not hardasses. They are murderers.

Get off the road.

[–] Cornpop@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It should most definitely NOT be .00. That would lead to massive abuse by the police as having a sip of cold medicine could land you a dui.

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Some counties are 0.0%. My friend in Japan slept in his car after a night if drinking and got pulled over the next morning (I think cops had seen him in the car and were waiting). He had ~~0.1%~~ 0.01 and got deported

[–] Cornpop@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Yea that’s dumb

[–] raef@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

Oh right, typo. I meant 0.01

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

A bit of whipped cream made with vanilla extract could put you over 0% since the extract is mostly alcohol and it isn't being cooked.

[–] Karmanopoly@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Mother Against Drunk Driving decided all of it.

Nobody can defend drunk driving, but the fact you give up your rights during a stop should make you angry.

If you get charged with any other crime you are allowed to talk to a lawyer except in drunk driving. You are tried and convicted on the side of the road and the evidence they use to convict you (your breath) isn't preserved.. it just blows away in the wind.

Nobody should be drunk driving but we still need to change the way we handle suspected drunk driver's

[–] Hiro8811@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure that if they find a person drunk they have to take that person to a hospital to get a blood test and accurately gauge the alcohol percentage, the test also stands as proof.

[–] Karmanopoly@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

If you were accused of murdering and taken to the hospital for a blood test with a lawyer present people would lose their minds

But suspected drunk drivers it happens all the time without a lawyer present

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How many other crimes are directly defined with a time-sensitive impairment?

If they allowed you to both call a lawyer and wait for them to arrive you could arrange for your lawyer to be a) 2+hrs away, b)alseep or c)any other time delaying tactic.

I agree I don't like the status quo, but if you have a reasonable alternative that still allows them to catch people who are drunk driving, I'm all ears.

[–] Karmanopoly@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Miranda Rights give you the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney

These rights go out the window because if you exercise them they simply charge you refusing to comply which carries the same penalty as a drunk driving conviction

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 hours ago

I mean I'm not even American and I know Miranda rights only need to be read to apply to interrogation AFTER being arrested. Typically by that point theyve already determined you're drunk driving based on questions during the detention period.

refusing to comply with breath tests during a vehicle stop is against the law - I'm not aware of it violating any US rights, though again I'm not american. That'd be like refusing to stop when they tell you to

[–] Hiro8811@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because these are two different things, if you're accused of murder they can use whatever you say against you, but in case of drunk driving it doesn't matter what you say, what matter is the results of the test.

[–] Karmanopoly@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

The courts have ruled we have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

If you do that they then simply charge you with another crime.

[–] Hiro8811@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

I agree that traffic rules enforcement is not being done in the most fair way but it kinda works.

Let's say they somehow manage to have lawyers present at the hospital in case of drunk drivers, how would a lawyer help suspected drunk drivers?

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] aburrito@sh.itjust.works 80 points 3 days ago (5 children)

In many states, like NY anything above 0 is illegal. Above 0.08 is criminal.

4 12oz beers is NOT small, be responsible.

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 18 points 3 days ago (3 children)

The answer for why is MADD and the reason it's illegal to drive above zero is MADD. They lobby hard for zero tolerance whatsoever. They want the criminal limit to be zero as well. Once they get that they'll try to ban cars entirely.

BTW I don't drink so I don't necessarily care. My criticism is about the goalpost moving of a successful non profit after it gets what it wants. You change the goal to keep your org and funding. They'll never ever go "mission accomplished, let's wind this down"...

[–] aburrito@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 days ago (4 children)

This is one of those “idk man I think it depends”. I think the average median person probably should not drive, let alone drink and operate 2 ton vehicles near where people walk. But the law is bs and clearly isn’t nearly effective enough for what the policy it sounds like they advertise for. But on the surface level I’m like 🤷‍♀️ maybe it should be lower, but everything related to the enforcement of the law is so fucked idek

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

IIRC, it used to be 0.10, but was lowered to 0.08 because some studies (and maybe some advocacy groups) found out that there was significant impairment at 0.08 BAC.

The number really shouldn't be round. It should be the number where 99.999% of people are not too impaired to drive a car.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Driving simulation studies show impairment far below 0.08.

0.08 is pretty fucking drunk.

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Isn’t 0.08 around 3 beers for the average person?

While I wouldn’t drive at that level that is definitely not “pretty fucking drunk”

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

TBF, I think most drivers are impaired at 0.00.

It's been really bad on the roads lately.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 26 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Why does even-ness matter? Just because our number system is decimal doesn't mean nature fits into that pattern nicely.

at 0.08 you can be measurably tested to have worse reaction capability, so that's where they set the limit.

4 beers at 12 oz isn't exactly 0.08, that's just approximately what it takes in the average person. Some people will be more, some less. Time and other factors affect it too.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Shimitar@downonthestreet.eu 20 points 3 days ago (7 children)

The safe amount of alcohol science recommend for an adult is zero.

Alcohol is one of the few substances for which these is proven evidence that any quantity is bad and will cause progressive and irreversible damage to you.

I do drink albeit not much, like a few times a year, so I am not against alcohol at all, it's your body your choice.

But given the above, I am only happy if the tolerance on driving under any alcohol influence at all is punished

[–] VanRado@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Don't take this the wrong way, but this is an answer to a question OP didn't ask. They were asking for a descriptive answer to the driving limit, not a normative opinion of what you think the limit should be.

Also your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. (I could be wrong; but it really doesn't matter anyway considering the first paragraph of my response)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] farmgineer@nord.pub 7 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I'd rather it be zero. Walk, public transit, or taxi your way to drinks. Stay in a hotel.

I say this as someone who grew up driving home from the club and such when I most likely should not have been. I know a lot of people who got OMVI/DUI/DWI/whateverYourJurisdictionCallsIt and nearly lost my bandmate.

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Get ready to face DUI charges when you take cough medicine, eat some overripe fruit, or have some yogurt, among other things. Trace amounts of alcohol exist in a number of foods, so you could easily fail a 0.0 test by simply eating breakfast.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I recently tried to plan a night out in "the city" and was looking for a hotel since I would like to have a few drinks. I can't believe how stupid prices are.

A shitty motel is like $400 a night, so you would have to hire a cab already to drive you to a cheaper hotel like 15-20 minutes away.

Nicer hotels are going like $600-$800 a night.

How on earth does anyone afford a vacation for prices like that?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›