DUI, traffic deaths, and police indifference

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Millions of people DO drive drunk, and kill about 16,000 people a year in the process. That means it IS reckless.

16000 is a number derived by assuming when alcohol was present in any accident that it was the causative factor vs other causes such as speed, recklessness, someone else's fault, etc. That grossly overstates the true risk. We went over that already. It's circular reasoning. Alcohol is the cause because by assuming alcohol is the cause the numbers go way up.

Quote

A .30 BAC driver

That could be an UNintentional misunderstanding, .08 is the relevant fixed number.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

It's been proven that intoxication reduces your ability to drive safely.

Likewise talking, listening to music, eating and drinking soft beverages, using GPS or looking at a map, doing one's makeup, being under 25 and male, reaching for objects, road signs and advertisements, etc. Using a cell phone is a curious case, not least because people compare it to driving drunk and it's starting to be outlawed in places.

I wonder if the penalties for using a cell phone while driving will be the same as the penalty for DUI. Would that be fair?

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

News Flash! Driving while drunk is by it's very nature a reckless act!

If you assume that to start off with, circular logic will bring you back there. Why do you think it is so to start off with? Apart from your assumptions, that is.

No assumptions needed. Drinking and driving is reckless from both a sociological and physiological standpoint. Consumption of alcohol causes, among other things, slowed reaction times, poor judgement, degraded eyesight, loss of concentration. These are by no means the only effects, just a few to make a point. Any of these can be caused by a mulititude of other activities, including those you have listed in other posts. However, alcohol can and does cause all of these symptoms and more, and all at the same time. This is not an assumption, it is fact proven time and time again through stidies by many foundations, including those representing brewers, distilleries, and wineries. For anyone to ingnore these findings is nothing short of reckless and irresponsible.

[willard 0]

Quote

In this case, the theory is not supported by fact. The theory (that a fixed BAC causes an unacceptable level of risk) was tenuous to begin with...let us dispense with it and be on our way.

What is tenuous about it? Any amount of alcohol causes diminished capacity. The limit has to placed somewhere, most states place it at .08 to .10 since that is slightly below where the effects of alcohol on most people take a very sharp turn for the worse.

It amazes me how, with all the research that has been done, with all the studies to have proven the effects of alcohol, with all the warnings out there by everyone from MADD to the police, from AAA to the producers of alcoholic beverages, some people cling to the idea that they can drive as well drunk as they do sober and, in some cases such as juveniles and totally irresponsible so-called "adults", they claim to be able to actually drive better drunk than sober.

In interesting study is one done by the FAA of the effects of alcohol on pilots. I won't go to the trouble of posting a link here since I don't think you would use it, but instead will give a brief overview. What they found is that, even several hours after the BAC had returned to normal the pilots' capacity to deal with even normal emergency procedures (those that are trained for and practiced regularly) was greatly reduced, even by as much as 90% 24 hours later. If you want the rest, go look it up.

[billvon 3,078]

>16000 is a number derived by assuming when alcohol was present in
>any accident that it was the causative factor vs other causes such as
>speed, recklessness, someone else's fault, etc.

Right. And you could claim that driving 90 through a school zone had nothing to do with most of the fatalities - it was stupid kids who got in front of your car, and it was their stupidity and not your speed that killed them. I suspect it wouldn't fly either.

>That could be an UNintentional misunderstanding, .08 is the relevant fixed number.

You didn't say .08. You said you do not think that . . "a fixed BAC causes an unacceptable level of risk." If you do think that a .30 BAC causes an unacceptable limit of risk, that's fine - then we're just arguing over the level, not the underlying fact that driving while intoxicated is reckless.

>Likewise talking, listening to music, eating and drinking soft beverages,
>using GPS or looking at a map, doing one's makeup, being under 25 and
>male, reaching for objects, road signs and advertisements, etc. Using a
>cell phone is a curious case, not least because people compare it to
>driving drunk and it's starting to be outlawed in places.

I agree. Indeed we do have laws against such things. Several places have laws against using cellphones while driving, or without a car kit. All states have laws against being under a certain age and driving.

>I wonder if the penalties for using a cell phone while driving will be the
>same as the penalty for DUI. Would that be fair?

If cellphones were involved in as many serious accidents as alcohol was, then it would be fair.

[akarunway 1]

"What they found is that, even several hours after the BAC had returned to normal the pilots' capacity to deal with even normal emergency procedures (those that are trained for and practiced regularly) was greatly reduced, even by as much as 90% 24 hours later."_____________________________________________I highly doubt those figures. Who was doing the study.? MADD mothers? Jeesh. Gimme a break

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

What if the tables were turned?--if a .08 driver is in an accident caused by a sober driver (say, the .08 driver was tboned by the sober driver because the sober driver ran a red light) in which the sober driver is killed.

Do you, the .08 driver still deserve manslaughter/aggravated dui (class 4 felony in IL) charges even if you obeyed all non-dui traffic safety laws to the letter, and deserve to pay all related civil penalties? If you were the .08 driver you would surely regret the laws on our books, for it allows a truly criminal sober driver to drive recklessly, crash into you and transfer all the penalties and responsibility to you.

Well, it would suck to be you if you were the .08 driver in that situation. So don't drive after drinking and you won't ever be the .08 driver in that situation.

Though I do agree that it's unfair to place the entire blame on the drunk driver if it was the other person that ran a red light.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

"What they found is that, even several hours after the BAC had returned to normal the pilots' capacity to deal with even normal emergency procedures (those that are trained for and practiced regularly) was greatly reduced, even by as much as 90% 24 hours later."_____________________________________________I highly doubt those figures. Who was doing the study.? MADD mothers? Jeesh. Gimme a break

I recently read an article (or maybe listened to an NPR report?) about a similar study (or maybe it's the same one Willard's talking about). I don't have the exact link, but the study focused principally on the effects of hangover on pilots' performance. In essence, the study showed that pilots' performance, even 14 hours after their having technically recovered sobriety, were significantly degraded by the residual effects of hangover.

Here are 2 studies I found with a quick Google search that arrived at this conclusion:

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/143/12/1546

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=8201140&dopt=Abstract

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

then we're just arguing over the level, not the underlying fact that driving while intoxicated is reckless.

That's not an accurate characterization because the correlation of level with risk diminishes as the level. We would not debate a BAC of 40.08 because it would kill without exception. Perfect correlation. Correlation at 40.08 does not make correlation at 0.08, and certainly not causation at .08. I suppose there is a level at which BAC does become causatively harmful beyond our benefit, but I do suspect that the threshold of causation is so high that it is generally irrelevant.

The debate is lopsided in that while .08 demonstrably has physiological effects, those effects are manageable for the vast majority of so-called drunk drivers. The level .08 has come to mean pure evil in our culture and in our legislation, when it is demonstrably not causative in and of itself of anything particularly harmful, and it is demonstratively beneficial.

We should instead focus our laws and sanctions on deterring things more tightly causatively entwined with injury and death, such as actual failure to conduct a vehicle safely rather than preconditions which slightly elevate the risks of such.

You could think of it in terms of reasonable doubt--our criminal system currently abolishes reasonable doubt due to what seems to be puritanical hatred of alcohol.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[billvon 3,078]

>I suppose there is a level at which BAC does become causatively harmful . . .

I agree. What might that number be? I have always thought .08 was a good compromise. .10 might be a better level. I don't think a lower level would make sense.

>The level .08 has come to mean pure evil in our culture and in our
>legislation, when it is demonstrably not causative in and of itself of
>anything particularly harmful, and it is demonstratively beneficial.

The claim that a .08 BAC is demonstrably beneficial to drivers is not supportable. The opposite has been demonstrated several times. The only question is - how detrimental is it? Perhaps it's detrimental enough to make it illegal to drive at that level; that's what we have now. Perahps it's not quite detrimental enough to be treated at the level we do now. Perhaps .10 might be a more reasonable level.

NY used to have a pretty reasonable system. I believe that the levels were .06 and .10. .06 was a warning or a traffic ticket, .10 was a much more serious offense (i.e. loss of license, impoundment.)

>You could think of it in terms of reasonable doubt . . .our criminal
>system currently abolishes reasonable doubt . . .

No it doesn't. You can still have a BAC of .08, go to court, question the method used to measure it (or the timing) and get freed without charge.

>due to what seems to
>be puritanical hatred of alcohol.

We are currently a LOT more tolerant of alcohol than we have been, historically. The history of alcohol in america is a complex one.

[willard 0]

Quote

"What they found is that, even several hours after the BAC had returned to normal the pilots' capacity to deal with even normal emergency procedures (those that are trained for and practiced regularly) was greatly reduced, even by as much as 90% 24 hours later."_____________________________________________I highly doubt those figures. Who was doing the study.? MADD mothers? Jeesh. Gimme a break

Like I said in my post, the FAA. The numbers are there. Whether you choose to accept them is up to you.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

The claim that a .08 BAC is demonstrably beneficial to drivers is not supportable.

You would tell millions of people that they cannot choose for themselves, in the total absence of justification. That is contrary to the interests of a free society.

Tort law exists to balance the costs and benefits of one citizen's actions on others, and it is rather effective. Apart from the faults introduced by our present corrupt DUI laws, why would tort law not suffice to balance the ups and downs of intoxication as it balances the ups and downs of most other aspects of society?

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[rehmwa 2]

Do you resent that your desire to drink and drive is not socially acceptable or considered safe (for whatever reasons, justified or not)?

Or do you, in reality, drive sober, and this is just an interesting debate?

(it shouldn't really matter to the debate, but it would be interesting to see what's behind your passion on this one and close the whole "methinks he doth protest too much" impression)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[willard 0]

Quote

You would tell millions of people that they cannot choose for themselves, in the total absence of justification. That is contrary to the interests of a free society.

In an anarchy you would be able to do as you wish. But this isn't an anarchy. Our society balances the rights of people. "The right to swing your fist stops where the next guys nose starts". We have a right to free speech, but not the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Get the picture? The right of the majority of the public to drive on the streets and do so in a relatively safe environment outweighs your right to drive on the same highways in an inebriated state.

[billvon 3,078]

>You would tell millions of people that they cannot choose for
>themselves, in the total absence of justification. That is contrary
>to the interests of a free society.

The position that there is no public safety issue with driving drunk is just plain indefensible. Sorry. Not even worth debating.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Or do you, in reality, drive sober, and this is just an interesting debate?

You can count the total number of moving infractions on my driving record with zero fingers--I'm one of the people that doesn't particularly like a BAC even as high as .08 because of the subjective experience.

I do think there's a big philosophical aspect to ex ante regulations that's substantially contrary to our founding social principles, apart from the economic implications which are in turn substantial. It's a naive and costly way of thinking, that we can improve society by them. And I think that it draws an amusingly PC-compatible reaction from a usually PC-hostile crowd.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Or do you, in reality, drive sober, and this is just an interesting debate?

You can count the total number of moving infractions on my driving record with zero fingers--.

I resent you making fun of me since I lost both hands in an industrial accident 3 years ago.





Freak accident - involving loading a liquid cheese dispenser and three different can openers.

and a midget

and four jelly donuts


(seriously, I'd hesitate to stereotype responses to this issue to groupings of PC and anti-PC crowds, I'm seeing agreement across boths "sects")

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[1969912 0]

Quote

Dude, we're from the same town. Who gave you the DUI?

Never had one.

Up for some toproping at Granite Point when it warms up? PM Me.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Or do you, in reality, drive sober, and this is just an interesting debate?

You can count the total number of moving infractions on my driving record with zero fingers--I'm one of the people that doesn't particularly like a BAC even as high as .08 because of the subjective experience.

I do think there's a big philosophical aspect to ex ante regulations that's substantially contrary to our founding social principles, apart from the economic implications which are in turn substantial. It's a naive and costly way of thinking, that we can improve society by them. And I think that it draws an amusingly PC-compatible reaction from a usually PC-hostile crowd.

Until a way is developed to test each and every driver for their own tolerance to alcohol and other drugs we have no choice but to go by past experience and other available data to make an educated decision as to where we draw the line. Just saying that one should be allowed to drive intoxicated just because he has somehow managed to do it before doesn't quite cut it. How long would you allow a staggering drunk to pack both your main and reserves? You may be able to get away with it for years, you may pay the price the first jump. The only way to make sure a drunk doesn't pack your chute incorrectly is to not let him in the first place.

What do you consider in this discussion to be politically correct? This is one case where, truly, if you aren't doing something to help prevent it, then you are contributing to it. I'm glad to see that you don't drive if you feel your BAC is near .08. It shows that you are doing something to help prevent an intoxicated driver, even if it is just yourself.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

I'd hesitate to stereotype responses to this issue to groupings of PC and anti-PC crowds,

Yeah it's a bit of a taboo as well. That also makes it fun.

"I can't believe what I just read."

"Won't somebody think of the children!"

"You would cry too if it happened to you."

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

How long would you allow a staggering drunk to pack both your main and reserves?

If you could have a guaranteed 100% save your butt from anything reserve for only $100,000,000, would you tax the drunks so you could have it?

We need protection from people who would tax us for their own risk insensitivity.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

How long would you allow a staggering drunk to pack both your main and reserves?

If you could have a guaranteed 100% save your butt from anything reserve for only $100,000,000, would you tax the drunks so you could have it?

We need protection from people who would tax us for their own risk insensitivity.

You haven't answered the question.

[billvon 3,078]

>We need protection from people who would tax us for their own risk insensitivity.

We also need protection from people who put our lives at risk due to their negligence. Hence laws against things like DWI, firing guns in crowded areas, and excessive industrial pollution.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

DWI,

Circular.

Quote

firing guns in crowded areas,

Not an established good in the US, although it is practiced elsewhere. We do have fireworks tho.

Quote

and excessive industrial pollution.

Now this is a delightful analogy. Purely ex ante pollution controls were a dismal failure. The only way we've been able to put any sort of control on pollution is to enter it into a civil process, such as emissions trading, by which the beneficiaries and benefactors of pollution come to terms on the cost that one has on the other.

Would you propose a DUI fatality trading system? How much do you suppose a fatality would go for?

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Until a way is developed to test each and every driver for their own tolerance to alcohol and other drugs we have no choice but to go by past experience and other available data to make an educated decision as to where we draw the line.

Exactly. That's essentially how legal BAC/driving limits have been set. Such laws need to have a degree of consistency that applies equally (in the legal sense) to everyone, so that there will be a common standard that everyone can predict without having to guess what applies to them.

What I mean is this: any statutory BAC limit – be it 0.10%, or 0.08%, or whatever, is essentially a compromise out of necessity. They take studies that show that people's driving performance tends to become substantially impaired at, say, somewhere in the 0.07% to 0.11% range, depending on the individual. Person A may be able to drive safely at 0.11%. Person B has a low tolerance, and becomes an unsafe driver at 0.06%. So the legislature decides to compromise at a mid-range. The law may be unfair to the guy who can drive safely at 0.11%, and may place the public at risk from the lightweight who's unsafe at 0.07%, but hey – it's all part of the social compact.