In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption "How safe are women in India when travelling around the streets of its cities?" asks the BBC's Yogita Limaye 
  
 Authorities in the Indian capital, Delhi, have banned international taxi-booking service Uber after a driver allegedly raped a female passenger. 
  
 A transport department official said the company had been "blacklisted" for "misleading customers". 
  
 The 26-year-old woman used the smartphone app to book a taxi home on Friday but says she was taken to a secluded area and raped. 
  
 The driver has been remanded in custody for three days. 
  
 He was arrested on Sunday and appeared in court on Monday afternoon. 
  
 Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Scuffles broke out at a protest in Delhi over the case 
  
 Some who had gathered outside the court tried to attack him as he was brought out, but police rushed him to a waiting van and took him away. 
  
 Police say they will charge him with raping the finance company employee on Friday night when she used the taxi to take her home from a restaurant. 
  
 Image copyright EPA 
  
 Uber, which is growing in popularity in India, has been accused of failing to conduct adequate checks on its drivers. 
  
 "(The) Transport Department has banned all activities relating to providing any transport service by the www.Uber.com with immediate effect," news agency AFP reported, quoting from a government statement. 
  
 The ban means any Uber taxi in Delhi will now attract a fine or even be impounded, officials say. 
  
 The company is still accepting bookings on its app and it is not yet clear how the ban will be enforced since Uber taxis do not carry any visible branding. 
  
 Before the ban was announced, Uber described the incident as "horrific" and said it would do everything "to help bring this perpetrator to justice". 
  
 "Our entire team's hearts go out to the victim of this despicable crime. We will do everything, I repeat, everything to help bring this perpetrator to justice and to support the victim and her family in her recovery," Uber CEO Travis Kalanick said in a statement. 
  
 He said Uber would "work with the government to establish clear background checks currently absent in their commercial transportation licensing programs". 
  
 Using Delhi taxis: Shilpa Kannan, BBC News, Delhi 
  
 Image copyright AFP 
  
 I have been using taxis in Delhi for the past 14 years. The main option initially were black-and-yellow, smelly and dilapidated Ambassadors run by the local taxi rank and I used them regularly, night and day. 
  
 That was until a few years ago when private "radio taxi" services were introduced which promised swanky new cars and better trained, more polite drivers. 
  
 That's when many people, including me, switched to them even though they were more expensive. 
  
 I began to use Easy Cabs, Mega Cabs and Meru. I would call into their call centres and book a pick up and they almost always delivered. 
  
 These cars are all fitted with GPS which means they can be tracked as they journey through the city's streets. 
  
 Safety is an issue in Delhi and like most women in the city, when I get into a taxi alone, I call home and give the car licence plate number and an estimated arrival time. 
  
 Meru, one of the largest radio taxi operators in India with nearly 6,000 cars, also introduced a "trip tracker facility" where an automatic messaging system sends regular updates about your trip to a contact of yours. 
  
 But as many of the Meru, Mega and Easy cabs have been run down from overuse, in recent months, I began using the newer services like Ola, TaxiForSure and Uber which connect customers with drivers through their apps and charge a commission on every ride. 
  
 After the weekend incident, I have decided to go back to my local taxi rank - I'm more comfortable with the smelly Ambassador with the driver who has been driving it for decades. 
  
 Uber, which is based in San-Francisco, said safety was paramount and that it had GPS traces of all journeys. 
  
 Established in 2009, the company operates in dozens of countries and recently attracted investment which values it at $40bn (£25bn). 
  
 The latest allegation of rape has again put the spotlight on the issue of sexual violence against Indian women, following a series of recent incidents. 
  
 It comes days before the second anniversary of the gang rape and murder of a student on a bus in Delhi, which prompted global outrage and a tightening of the laws on sexual violence. 
  
 Correspondents, however, say tougher laws have failed to bring down the number of rape cases - according to the National Crime Records Bureau, India recorded 33,707 cases in 2013 as against 24,923 in 2012. 
  
 And many in India are taking to social media to express their anger about the latest incident with #DelhiShamedAgain trending heavily on Twitter. 
  
 Image copyright Tweet 
  
 Image copyright Tweet ||||| The Delhi government banned Uber today, after one of the company's taxi drivers was arrested on charges of raping a female passenger. In a statement issued today, the Delhi transport department said the mobile taxi-hailing service has been blacklisted from providing any transport services in the Indian capital. 
  
 The driver, Shiv Kumar Yadav, was arrested Sunday after allegedly raping a 25-year-old woman who was returning home from dinner on Friday night. As Reuters reports, Yadav, 32, faced rape charges in 2011 as well, though they were ultimately dropped after his accuser — also a taxi passenger — agreed to a settlement. 
  
 Questions emerge over background check policy 
  
 The incident comes two years after the fatal gang rape of a woman on a New Delhi bus, which sparked nationwide protests and calls for tougher laws to protect women in India. New Delhi police will also question Uber executives about their hiring practices and how the company conducts background checks on prospective drivers. 
  
 "Every violation by Uber will be evaluated and we will go for legal recourse," Madhur Verma, deputy commissioner with the Delhi police, told Reuters. 
  
 Uber has expanded rapidly across India over the past year, and has proven particularly popular among women who perceive it as a safer transit option. According to recent government statistics, more women in Delhi were raped in 2012 than any other major Indian city, with 585 reported cases. That figure notably doesn't account for the many rape and sexual assault cases that go unreported. 
  
 In a statement issued prior to Monday's ban, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick appeared to deflect responsibility for Friday's incident, noting that clear background check policies have not been implemented by the Delhi government. 
  
 "We will work with the government to establish clear background checks currently absent in their commercial transportation licensing programs," Kalanick said. "We will also partner closely with the groups who are leading the way on women’s safety here in New Delhi and around the country and invest in technology advances to help make New Delhi a safer city for women." 
  
 Uber expanded background checks for US drivers earlier this year, making both federal and county checks mandatory for drivers. Uber did not immediately respond to a request for further comment. ||||| NEW DELHI — The Delhi region on Monday banned Uber, the popular hail-a-ride service, after one of its drivers appeared in court on suspicion of raping a passenger who dozed off during a ride home only to discover that the driver had taken her to a secluded spot and climbed into the back of the vehicle. 
  
 Criticism of Uber’s licensing and screening procedures was heightened when it emerged that the driver, Shiv Kumar Yadav, had been detained for seven months on suspicion of raping another female passenger three years ago. That case was ultimately closed and Mr. Yadav was acquitted, said Madhur Verma, the deputy commissioner of the police for the northern district of New Delhi. 
  
 Regional authorities followed up late on Monday by banning all taxi services based on smartphone apps, which may result in the closure of as many as 20 popular services. 
  
 Since its launch last December, Uber had gained a large following among young, tech-savvy women in Delhi, where finding safe transportation after dark is especially difficult. |||||
In 2011, driver Shiv Kumar Yadav allegedly did the following: picked up a fare who was heading home from her job at a bar, altered the route, and raped her; he spent seven months in jail before he reached a settlement with his accuser and was acquitted. Today, Yadav appeared in court, having been accused a second time of raping a passenger, this time on Friday night as an Uber driver. Now, both Uber—which has operated in New Delhi for 12 months—and the Delhi government are coming under fire. The Transport Department has banned Uber in New Delhi and surrounding urban areas on the heels of the alleged crime, the New York Times reports. Uber CEO Travis Kalanick vowed his company would help "bring the perpetrator to justice," but he also shifted some of the blame back to Indian officials, noting Uber would work with the government to establish clear background checks that are "currently absent in their commercial transportation licensing programs." The Times notes, by way of the company's blog, that such background checks on US shores are pretty involved, with the last seven years of a would-be driver's criminal record reviewed; the Verge reports that both federal and county checks are now required. Police have said no background checks were performed on Yadav, and a GPS device hadn't been installed in his car, as required for commercial taxis by law. The BBC reports people tried to assault Yadav as he was led out of court by police; he has been remanded into custody for three days.

Yesterday while I got my hair cut, my wife witnessed something in Starbucks (while she hung out with Lily, waiting for me) that she felt couldn’t go unnoticed or unmentioned. Her letter says it all, but I wanted to share this open letter to Starbucks corporate office as a plea for awareness and solidarity. Please forward this link on… and please leave comments to show your support. Let’s all let Starbucks know that this is not OK. Missy keeps saying that a stranger to us, Jeffrey, had a HORRIBLE day yesterday, let’s see if we can make his (and others’) todays and tomorrows better. 
  
 Please add us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lil-Family-Blog/139186336101600 
  
 *********************************************************************************************************************************** 
  
 This slideshow requires JavaScript. 
  
 Dear Starbucks, 
  
 I am writing this letter to you as a loyal customer with concerns. I know probably 90% of the letters you receive trying to solicit something from you probably start the same way, but this is different. When I say, I am a loyal customer I mean you have had me for the better part of my adult life, hook, line and sinker. I will spend the extra $2.50 for a cup of your coffee. When I worked in Hoboken I would walk an extra three blocks for your coffee, walking past a Dunkin Donuts, Panera, Macdonalds and two bodegas to purchase from you. Every morning I drink my coffee out of one of your ceramic mugs and I have for years. A dozen of them line my shelves, (even the poorly conceived “Father’s Day” argyle mugs from 2005 that have metal bottoms which means I can’t pop it in the microwave to reheat) I only buy Starbucks for my home consuption. When you roll out a new product, I flock to your nearest location like a moth to a flame. I mourned the loss of the Chantico and I even rushed out to try that banana mocha abomination (a match made in hell) blindly following your suggestions like a lemming. I know, and speak your “lingo” that grates on me like nails on a chalk board and is sometimes so complicated I feel like I speak a second language. I even, as much as I am ashamed to admit it, buy most of the adult contemporary CDs you peddle in the front of the store. By the time I reach the front of the line somehow the newest James Taylor CD or whatever swing jazz collection you put together seems like something I can no longer live without. I am your disciple. I am part of the Starbucks machine. I am your dream customer because whatever your company puts into the market, I have and I would have continued to buy. I never felt bad about my commitment to your chain either because I felt like you were a company that was ethically sound. Your commitment to free trade, The Starbucks Charitable Foundation, your appearance as a diverse work environment. These are all things that I as a customer felt good about. I felt like I was supporting a company that although huge, I felt you were doing your best to “do good” and leave a positive mark on the world. 
  
 That was the case, until yesterday. 
  
 Which is why I am writing to you today. 
  
 The sentiments above, about me being a loyal customer were not written to solicit anything from you. I do not want free coffee or a refund. I ask, as a loyal customer for the past 15 years that I have your attention. Your time and consideration. 
  
 Yesterday when I walked into your Centereach, Long Island location I saw one of the most brazen and unapologetic displays of homophobia I have ever witnessed in my entire life. What was most concerning about it was it was perpetuated by not one, not two but THREE of your employees and it was directed towards a fourth employee. I don’t know this man, but I know his name is Jeffrey because the woman (who seemed to be in charge of this circus) loudly scolded, spoke to in a condescending manner, humiliated, and then let go. In the middle of your store. Two feet away from my table. Then when Jeffrey, who was visibly shaken went to the bathroom to collect him self, the women at the table went on a long, ranting homophobic rant that lasted about five minutes. This rant transpired two feet away from my table where I sat with my daughter. A three year old child, with two mothers. I have never, in my entire life seem such a gross and unapologetic display of ignorance and intolerance. The most horrific aspect of it was that it was by someone that your corporation put into a position of power. I have never, ever in ANY context seen ANYTHING so unprofessional in my entire life. I was horrified that my daughter was exposed to that. 
  
 The whole incident spanned about 15-20 minuets. It looked like it was a sit down discussion about something that had happened in the store, an earlier problem. What that was, I couldn’t be certain. I do know however, the fact that Jeffery’s sexuality was brought into the conversation (and it obviously was for me to know about it) is inappropriate. The woman (Who I will refer to going forward as the “Manager” although she may have been someone from Human Resources) spoke to him in a sharp condescending manner. She told him that they were not interested in his politics or beliefs and his thoughts were down right offensive to his co-workers. They did not want to hear about his personal life. When Jeffrey pointed out that they ALL talked about their personal lives (during the course of the conversation I learned that the manager had a daughter that went to tennis camp and another one of the women had a birthday coming up so the irony and the hypocrisy of that statement was mind blowing.) That his beliefs were not welcome at Starbucks. She went on, an on and on talking about leadership building workshops where she learned to “Keep it to herself” (again I will remind you of tennis camp). She was even so condescending to tell him, 
  
 “It might not be today, it might not be tomorrow, but ten years from now you will thank me for this…” 
  
 For what? For for letting him go for speaking about his personal life? For learning to put up with bigotry in the work place? 
  
 She kept reminding him, “You are not fired but….” as if to say, you are not fired but you are really not welcome here anymore. I assume this was a clever HR move so he would not be able to collect unemployment. He told her that he felt like he was being FORCED to leave because he felt like the “problems” at that location were not being addressed and the workplace had turned into a hostile environment. She in turn told him that if he was not, “Part of the solution, he was the problem.”and his two weeks notice would not be needed. He asked if he would be marked by the corporation as “un-hireable” 
  
 She smugly looked at him and said, 
  
 “Well I don’t know. It’s not looking good for you.” 
  
 Basically threatening his professional future. 
  
 Know, I am not going to swear by what the original confrontation was. I only heard bits and pieces, but I know that worker was attacked and humiliated on the middle of your shop floor. I don’t care what his offense was, that sort of business should be conducted in a back room. I also know, the “manager” was not willing to listen to him and personally attacked him several times with snide, condescending comments. Telling him, in the subtext of her words that he was “Less than” and his personal belief system was no longer welcome at the shop. 
  
 The event got more horrific, when he, who had kept his composure through the entire incident, not once raising his voice despite being attacked, got up from the table to go to the bathroom to cry in private. 
  
 Then the three women turned on him like Vultures. 
  
 “I’m done. I’m done. Nobody wants to hear it anymore. I don’t care who he is dating. I don’t want to hear about it.” 
  
 “He should not get upset at the things people say to him. He should be used to it. It’s not like he turned gay yesterday.” 
  
 “I used to listen to it, now I’m just sick of hearing about it.” 
  
 “Nobody does, but it’s over now. You won’t have to hear about it anymore.” 
  
 It went on, and on and on. 
  
 The focus of their discussion then when he left the table, was not about an incident that occurred in the previous days. It was about how they were intolerant to his lifestyle, nobody wanted to hear about the fact that he was gay, they didn’t want to be exposed to that. The focus was not about his poor performance as an employee but their intolerance towards him as a person. I sat at there at my table with the impression that, 
  
 This man, this Starbucks employee was losing his job, because he was gay. 
  
 Whether that was the case or not. Whatever Jeffrey’s offense might have been… that is how one of your loyal customers perceived the events as they transpired based on the actions and the statements of your “manager”. She was bigoted, intolerant, insensitive and no matter how upset she was at Jeffrey, her comments and sentiments should not have been overheard by one of your customers, gay or not. 
  
 So I guess the biggest irony is, that nobody in the Starbucks that afternoon wanted to hear her politics, the very thing she was scolding Jeffrey for. 
  
 When Jeffrey returned from the bathroom she asked him for his keys. She was pretending to be sensitive and offered him her card if he needed to talk. Which disgusted me because, she was anything but concerned for his well being. 
  
 I followed Jeffery out of the store horrified by what I had just witnessed. 
  
 I said to him, “That was unreal. That was “bullshit” and I was so sorry. 
  
 He walked away at first, then he approached me and said, “Thank you.” 
  
 I hugged him and he said, 
  
 “I came to this company because I thought it was supposed to be better. I thought that it was a positive and tolerant work place to work. I was passed over for promotions, they hired from the outside, I fought against their vendetta. I couldn’t take it anymore. I didn’t have a chance here.” 
  
 I hugged him again. 
  
 Disgusted that something so ugly, so cruel could happen in this day in age in America and that the perpetrator was basically patting herself on the back. Not caring that she had not only destroyed this man’s life, but that she also humiliated him and threatened his future. She was going to sleep soundly that night. She was going to get away with her gross display of how disgusting one human can be to another if they have a position of power and slap a fake smile across their face. 
  
 I walked away from Jeffrey and I started to cry. At how cruel we can still be to each other. How awful I felt for him. I strapped my daughter into her car seat and I thought about how in this society we are so self congratulating as we scream to the rafters promising our children, 
  
 “It gets better!” 
  
 I found myself wondering, “Better than what?” 
  
 What I saw on that Starbucks floor was pretty awful. 
  
 I have had friends tell me, to boycott. I have had other friends tell me that Starbucks is a positive and tolerant corporation. The latter has always been my impression. I don’t think this is how Starbucks wants themselves represented. However, I think you should be aware of the people who you currently have representing you and the way they are doing it. I am hoping by bringing this to your attention, you will do the right thing. As you can tell by the tone of my letter I am not a political activist. I am not militant and I do not have an axe to grind nor am I looking for a soap box. I’m pretty boring to be quite honest with you. I do not even march in pride parades and I swear I own not a single thing that has a rainbow on it. I don’t celebrate my diversity, That’s simply not the type of person that I am. In fact, I’m more the type to wallow in how mediocre I am. I am an average American who just so happens to be gay. I live my life, I raise my family and I hope to also leave a mark on this world that is positive. I do not like seeing anyone hurt, abused and degraded. I know that should go without saying, a sentiment akin to “All babies should be fed.” but after yesterday, and what I witnessed, I feel like it has to be said. 
  
 I want to still be able to walk into a Starbucks with my head held high. I want to drink your drinks, speak your code and even buy your newest record releases, even though they make me feel middle aged and unhip… and feel good about it. 
  
 I want you to restore my faith that you are the company I always thought you were. 
  
 Please don’t let this incident go unnoticed. Do something, anything you can to make this right. Please protect your (former) employee. Take a step, and take action to protect basic human dignity. To protect equal rights and equality. Please do something. I don’t want you to lose my business forever. 
  
 A loyal customer, 
  
 Missy Alison 
  
 631- xxx-xxxx 
  
 ************ 
  
 Edited to add: we have been contacted by Starbucks. Please see updates here: https://lilfamilyblog.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/starbucks-update-part-1/ 
  
 I can’t reply to every comment here, but if you’re a media outlet, Missy is available for interview. If you have questions, Please contact me directly at LilFamilyBlog @ gmail dot com. 
  
 Thank you so much, everyone! 
  
 Love, 
  
 Dana ||||| On Sunday, a woman named Missy Alison went to a Starbucks in the Long Island, N.Y. town of Centereach for a Mocha-choco-loco-hobo-latte, and while there witnessed what she calls "one of the most brazen and unapologetic displays of homophobia I have ever witnessed in my entire life." She wrote an outraged letter to the company, which her wife published on the Internet. The company noticed! 
  
 Alison's letter describes a scene in which a gay male employee named Jeffrey is reprimanded by another, female employee in front of everyone in the cafe. When he goes to the bathroom to escape the haranguing, the castigatrix and two other employees allegedly go on "a long, ranting homophobic rant" about him and his sexual life, which apparently vexed them so very much: 
  
 ...the fact that Jeffery's sexuality was brought into the conversation (and it obviously was for me to know about it) is inappropriate. The woman (Who I will refer to going forward as the "Manager" although she may have been someone from Human Resources) spoke to him in a sharp condescending manner. She told him that they were not interested in his politics or beliefs and his thoughts were down right offensive to his co-workers. They did not want to hear about his personal life. When Jeffrey pointed out that they ALL talked about their personal lives ... [...] The focus of their discussion then when he left the table, was not about an incident that occurred in the previous days. It was about how they were intolerant to his lifestyle, nobody wanted to hear about the fact that he was gay, they didn't want to be exposed to that. 
  
 Alison admits that she "only heard bits and pieces" of the full conversation between the staffers and Jeffrey, "but I know that worker was attacked and humiliated on the middle of your shop floor. I don't care what his offense was, that sort of business should be conducted in a back room." In the end, she writes, Jeffrey had to hand his keys over to the yelling woman and left. 
  
 Alison followed Jeffrey out and consoled him. And then she wrote her letter, which has been making the Internet rounds as well as and the mainstream news. Bloggers recounted the story in their own words—sometimes in ways that seem to implicate the entire company. One blog post, for example, features the headline, "Patron: I Watched Starbucks Fire An Employee 2 Feet From Me For Being Gay." Ooooh, that doesn't sound good. Meanwhile, a Seattle Post-Intelligencer article is titled, "Starbucks accused of anti-gay behavior"; how inconveniently vague! One could interpret the headline to refer to a company-wide policy—not a couple of chuckleheads in a single location. 
  
 On Tuesday, a representative for Starbucks posted a response to Alison's letter on the company website. Titled, "Our Dedication to Embrace Diversity," the statement says Starbucks is investigating the Jeffrey incident, and also spells out all the nice things the company's done for LGBTQ people over the years—from offering domestic partner benefits, to participating in LGBTQ events. (One thing not mentioned: its gay-friendly cups.) The company has dealt with charges of discrimination against gay people in the past, but in general gets high marks from organizations like the Human Rights Campaign, which lists it as a "Best" workplace for LGBTQ people. 
  
 A Starbucks spokesman told the Post-Intelligencer that "What [Alison] saw and what she heard wasn't exactly what was going on"; Jeffrey the Employee "quit of his own, "without coercion." Maybe so, but that still doesn't address the issue of why the employees were handling private matters in public. In any case, the company is pressing on with its damage-control initiative—responding to many of the Twitterers who ask about what the company plans to do re: Alison's letter. "[P]lease know that we are getting to the bottom of this and we do stand by our policies," says one Starbucks tweet. 
  
 Overall, Starbucks has been doing a much better job at handling its Jeffrey-related PR nightmare than its competitor, McDonald's, has been dealing with "Seriously McDonalds," its discrimination-related hoax-scandal problem from the weekend. Where Starbucks has responded to concerned people one-by-one in an earnest voice, and directed the public to its equally earnest company statement, all that McDonald's seems to have done is respond to an inquiry from Mashable and post a tweet about diversity. Read into that what you will. 
  
 What's the next chapter in Starbuck's story? Well, the company will continue investigating, and people will continue tweeting and blogging, and Jeffrey—sounds like he might be suing, if a letter sent to Alison and her wife is legit. Story developing, as they say. 
  
 [Lil Family Blog, Post-Intelligencer. Image via Marcopako/via Flickr.] ||||| At Starbucks, we pride ourselves on being a great place to work. We are deeply dedicated to our core values – to embrace diversity and treat each other with respect and dignity. We’re committed to providing an inclusive, supportive and safe work environment for everyone. Moreover, we look for ways in which we can honor and celebrate the diversity of our partners as they, too, represent the communities that are home to our stores. 
  
 We are disheartened by the allegations reported in an East Coast Starbucks store and are taking immediate measures to investigate and take any steps necessary to make this right. The actions reported do not correspond with our values, who we are as a company or the beliefs we try to instill in our partners. 
  
 Starbucks has supported the LGBT community for many years, and we have zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind. We have one of the largest Employer Resource Groups for LGBT employees in the United States helping to raise awareness about issues in the communities in which we live and work. Our benefits program has always offered domestic partner benefits in the United States and Canada, and Starbucks partners actively participate and organize local LGBT events in their communities. We’re also very proud of the 100% score we received on the Corporate Equality Index from the Human Rights Campaign. We will continue to work very closely with this organization and others on topics relevant to the community. 
  
 UPDATE: Many of you have asked to hear specifically what, if any, disciplinary actions are taken as a result of our investigations into this incident. As this is a personnel matter, it is our policy not to provide such details regarding those steps. |||||
Starbucks is in hot water after a customer witnessed what she calls “one of the most brazen and unapologetic displays of homophobia I have ever witnessed in my entire life” at one of its Long Island locations. Missy Alison wrote an open letter to the company, which her wife posted on their blog, describing how she witnessed a gay employee being dressed down in full view of everyone in the store. When the employee went to the bathroom to compose himself, the other employees allegedly went on “a long, ranting homophobic rant” about why they were sick of hearing about his homosexuality. The employee ultimately handed over his keys and left, sans job. Gawker notes that the media were quick to imply the entire company is at fault (sample headline: “Patron: I Watched Starbucks Fire An Employee 2 Feet From Me For Being Gay.”), though Starbucks in general is known as an LGBTQ-friendly workplace. And the company was quick to respond, posting a letter this week noting that it is investigating the incident and is “committed to providing an inclusive, supportive, and safe work environment for everyone.” Starbucks even responded to individual tweeters, writes Lauri Apple on Gawker—overall, it’s doing a much better job at damage control than, say, McDonald’s.

Focused crawls are collections of frequently-updated webcrawl data from narrow (as opposed to broad or wide) web crawls, often focused on a single domain or subdomain. ||||| Please enable Javascript to watch this video 
  
 SALT LAKE CITY -- The Utah State Legislature has passed a bill lowering the blood alcohol content level for DUI from .08 to .05. 
  
 House Bill 155, sponsored by Rep. Norm Thurston, R-Provo, passed the Senate on Wednesday night on a close 18-11 vote. Having previously passed the House, it now goes to Governor Gary Herbert for his signature or veto. 
  
 The governor's office told FOX 13 on Wednesday night he plans to sign the bill into law, making Utah's DUI threshold the lowest in the nation. 
  
 During Senate debate, lawmakers clashed over the bill. Some argued that it helps prevent drunk driving while others said HB155 goes too far. 
  
 "It helps prevent drinking drivers from getting behind the wheel in the first place," Senate Majority Whip Stuart Adams, R-Layton, said. 
  
 He said Canada and a number of European countries have lower DUI levels and insisted it would help cut down on highway fatalities. But some lawmakers appeared uneasy with the bill. 
  
 Sen. Jim Dabakis, D-Salt Lake City, said it makes Utah look like "a peculiar people" at a time when the state is clamoring for tourist dollars. That view was echoed by Sen. Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City. 
  
 She asked rhetorically why Utah just didn't go to 0.0 as a BAC, noting that the drinking laws in Europe have people as young as 15 imbibing? Sen. Lyle Hillyard, R-Logan, defended the bill saying it sends a message that Utah does not tolerate drinking and driving. 
  
 "Utah leads," Sen. Adams said. 
  
 In a statement to FOX 13, American Beverage Institute Managing Director Sarah Longwell said her group opposed the bill. 
  
 "By passing H.B. 155 and lowering the legal BAC limit to .05 Utah legislators have damaged the state’s hospitality and tourism industries, while doing little to make the roads safer," she said. "Over 77 percent of alcohol-related traffic fatalities in Utah are caused by people with BACs of .15 and above, and the average BAC of someone in a fatal crash is .20—well over twice the legal limit. Utah legislators missed an opportunity today to target the hard-core drunk drivers who cause the vast majority of drunk driving fatalities and instead decided to criminalize perfectly responsible behavior." 
  
 The Sutherland Institute praised the bill's passage. 
  
 "We applaud Utah’s legislators for their decision tonight to support HB 155. A mountain of evidence suggests that moving Utah’s DUI blood alcohol content (BAC) standard to .05 will save lives and improve public safety on Utah’s roads," said Derek Monson. "This is common-sense policy in much of the civilized world, which already has a .05 BAC standard with no discernible harms to tourism, court/prison systems or the rights of responsible drinkers." 
  
 The Utah Restaurant Association also opposed the bill. Melva Sine, the group's President and CEO, said restaurants will have to scramble to retrain their staff, while they worry that Utah's reputation for strange liquor laws will be cemented. 
  
 "We've taken a step forward for creating other alcohol policy that's an improvement, and we've taken one giant step backwards as far as how America will look at us in terms of .05," Sine said. ||||| "This is not a drinking bill," Adams said. "It's a driving bill. It's a public safety bill." 
  
 The average man would reach the legal limit with three drinks, the average woman at two. 
  
 The National Transportation Safety Board recommends that all states transition to a 0.05 BAC limit. And Adams pointed out that Canada, Australia and most European countries currently use a 0.05 restriction. 
  
 Utah was the first state to adopt a BAC limit of 0.08, Adams said, and should continue the trend of setting safe driving standards. 
  
 "Utah leads," Adams said. "Utah led then, and I think we ought to lead now." 
  
 But Sen. Jim Dabakis, D-Salt Lake City, suggested the change could hurt the state's tourism industry. It would be better to let other states lead out on lowering BAC, he said, so that Utah lawmakers could make the decision based on traffic fatality and DUI data. 
  
 "Let's let another state go ahead of us," he said, "and let's see if this really will work or not." 
  
 Sen. Evan Vickers, R-Cedar City, said he supported the policy of a lower BAC limit, but was concerned about the timing. The Legislature's actions had already drawn attention to the state this year, he said, and a change to DUI laws would be better postponed for another session. 
  
 "I think maybe this is one that I would prefer to address at a later time," he said. 
  
 Sen. Lyle Hillyard said the state needs to send a message against drinking and driving. And tourists, he said, will feel safer on Utah's roads knowing that individuals who drink are electing not to drive. 
  
 "Not all tourists come here to drink," he said. 
  
 bwood@sltrib.com 
  
 Twitter: @bjaminwood ||||| Utah could soon have the strictest DUI threshold in the nation after state lawmakers on Wednesday night voted to lower the limit for a driver's blood-alcohol content to 0.05 percent, down from 0.08 percent. 
  
 The measure heads to Utah's governor, who has said he supports the legislation. 
  
 If Republican Gov. Gary Herbert signs the bill, it would take effect Dec. 30, 2018 — an unusual effective date for Utah laws that would ensure the harsher standard is in place before alcohol-laden celebrations on New Year's Eve. 
  
 Supporters of the legislation said it would save lives by keeping people off the road if they've been drinking. A mix of lawmakers, including Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans, opposed the measure. Some cited concerns that it could hurt tourism as the heavily Mormon state grapples with its reputation as an unfriendly place for drinkers. 
  
 The proposal would mean that a 150-pound man could get a DUI after two beers, while a 120-pound woman could get one after a single drink, according to the American Beverage Institute, a restaurant trade group that opposes the bill. A number of factors, including how much food is in someone's stomach, could impact how much a drink will raise someone's blood-alcohol content. 
  
 American Beverage Institute Managing Director Sarah Longwell said in a statement Wednesday night that the proposal will do little to make roads safer because more than 77 percent of alcohol-related traffic deaths in Utah come from drivers with a blood-alcohol content of 0.15 and above. "Utah legislators missed an opportunity today to target the hard-core drunk drivers who cause the vast majority of drunk driving fatalities and instead decided to criminalize perfectly responsible behavior," Longwell said. 
  
 Lawmakers in Washington are considering lowering the limit for blood-alcohol content this year, while a similar proposal recently died in Hawaii's Legislature. 
  
 Across the country, the blood-alcohol content limit for most drivers is 0.08, but limits vary among states for commercial drivers or drivers who have had a past DUI conviction. 
  
 Rep. Norm Thurston, R-Provo, who sponsored Utah's measure, said it's important because a person starts to become impaired with the first drink. He notes a number of foreign countries have blood-alcohol content thresholds at 0.05. or lower. 
  
 At a blood-alcohol content of 0.05 percent, a driver may have trouble steering and have a harder time coordinating, tracking moving objects and responding to emergencies, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 
  
 For several years, the National Transportation Safety Board has encouraged states to drop their blood-alcohol content levels to 0.05 or even lower, though local officials have not adopted the standards, in part because of pressure from the hospitality industry. 
  
 The tougher stance on DUIs comes as Utah legislators passed changes Wednesday easing other liquor laws that deal with the preparation of alcoholic drinks in restaurants. That measure, waiting for approval from the governor, would let diners see their drinks being poured or mixed if restaurants set up child-free buffer zones around bars. 
  
 Associated Press writer Hallie Golden contributed to this report. ||||| Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period. |||||

Show your work and conclude with the exact phrasing "Therefore, the final answer is [answer]." where [answer] is just the final number or expression that solves the problem.
user
Rolling out what the AP calls "the toughest DUI limit" in the country, Utah lawmakers have brought a new measure to the governor's desk that would limit a driver's legal blood-alcohol content to 0.05%. House Bill 155—which would go into effect right before New Year's Eve on Dec. 30, 2018, if Gov. Gary Herbert signs off—passed in the state Senate Wednesday, Fox 13 reports. Herbert's office informed the station he would indeed approve the measure. All other states currently have DUI limits set at 0.08% (though the AP notes that limit may vary for commercial drivers and those who have past DUIs), which would make Utah's the lowest in the country once it's given the governor's OK. The National Transportation Safety Board wants all states to follow suit, notes the Salt Lake Tribune. Republican Rep. Norman Thurston, the bill's sponsor, compares the new limit to lower ones in Canada and some EU countries, asserting the measure will cut down on deaths. But critics say the ceiling—which the American Beverage Institute says a 120-pound woman may hit after just one drink, depending on how much she's eaten—will mar the state's hospitality and tourism industries and make the Mormon-leaning state look more "peculiar" to outsiders, as one senator put it. The managing director of the ABI also argues that most DUI-related deaths are tied to drivers who well exceed legal limits. Still, the law may keep those who've imbibed from "getting behind the wheel in the first place," says GOP Senate Majority Whip Stuart Adams. (An alcohol-gauging tat, maybe?)

