Drunk Driving

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Linky

 

"Under current law, a 180-pound male typically will hit the 0.08 threshold after four drinks over an hour, according to an online blood alcohol calculator published by the University of Oklahoma. That same person could reach the 0.05 threshold after two to three drinks over the same period, according to the calculator."

 

Two beers? Seriously?

 

I bet there'd be a lot of money made by lowering the standard too - think off all the revenue to be generated from folks drinking 2 beers at a ball game or concert!

[tvashtarkatena]

Fortunately, many Americans are large enough to swim inside a beer truck for an hour and still drive home legally.

[rob]

I don't even really like alcohol that much. It kind of makes you feel like shit to have more than two or three drinks. I like a good bourbon, but getting drunk just kinda sucks. Am I getting old?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I don't even really like alcohol that much. It kind of makes you feel like shit to have more than two or three drinks. I like a good bourbon, but getting drunk just kinda sucks. Am I getting old?

 

I wonder how many drunk driving accidents cited occur for people with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. This all smacks of nanny-gov't puritanical BS to me.

 

Good on you if you don't like alcohol - it's junk calories, but some of us like a couple or three beers after a climb or at a concert/ballgame/whatever.

[tvashtarkatena]

I don't even really like alcohol that much. It kind of makes you feel like shit to have more than two or three drinks. I like a good bourbon, but getting drunk just kinda sucks. Am I getting old?

 

I wonder how many drunk driving accidents cited occur for people with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. This all smacks of nanny-gov't puritanical BS to me.

 

Good on you if you don't like alcohol - it's junk calories, but some of us like a couple or three beers after a climb or at a concert/ballgame/whatever.

 

More accurately, its a fleecing operation.

 

Accidents, particularly the serious ones, are being caused by hardcore drunks who are fucking blottoed, not by working stiffs who've had a couple of beers. The public should strongly oppose any attempt to lower the already very low limit further. Stricter policies have been very successful at addressing the problem. Now its time to provide more widespread, AFFORDABLE, and effective (AA cerca 1930 - seriously?) treatment and education for alcohol abuse - particularly targeting teens. That's where being a drunk starts for most folks with a problem.

Edited May 14, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[rob]

The beer they serve at ballgames barely even has any alcohol in it -- my daughter could probably have three and still get her homework done before bed

 

I dunno, I wouldn't care if they lowered it to .05 -- that's what it is throughout much of the world and nearly all of Europe.

 

According to the CDC, .05 isn't that low:

http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/Impaired_Driving/bac.html

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The beer they serve at ballgames barely even has any alcohol in it

 

Not if you shell out $10 for a microbrew.

 

So, because you don't drink 2-3 drinks it should be illegal. Nice logic.

[tvashtarkatena]

You might consult a less biased source there, Rob.

 

Buttfuckit, in 30 years, nobody but robots will be driving. Bottomz up!

Edited May 14, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[rob]

 

 

So, because you don't drink 2-3 drinks it should be illegal. Nice logic.

 

Um, this wasn't my logic at all, nor did I say anything that should have given you that impression. I believe my logic was that .05 seems like a reasonable limit, based on department of transportation studies on the effects of alcohol and driving (published by the CDC) and based on the current laws of most other developed western nations.

 

If you have data that indicates that .08 isn't actually that high nor have many ill-effects on driving, feel free to post up -- I don't really have a vested interest here and would be open to scientific data. But don't cry like a baby about it

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

 

So, because you don't drink 2-3 drinks it should be illegal. Nice logic.

 

Um, this wasn't my logic at all. I believe my logic was that .05 seems like a reasonable limit, based on department of transportation studies on the effects of alcohol and driving (published by the CDC) and based on the current laws of most of other developed western nations.

 

If you have data that indicates that .08 isn't actually that high, feel free to post up. But don't cry like a baby about it

 

Read the article. They cite the # of accidents (in 10's of thousands) but fail to state what the BAC levels were for those accidents. Then make some vague assertion that they will "save" like 400-800 lives a year. I smell something rotten here.

 

[rob]

 

Read the article. They cite the # of accidents (in 10's of thousands) but fail to state what the BAC levels were for those accidents. Then make some vague assertion that they will "save" like 400-800 lives a year. I smell something rotten here.

 

I see your point. But, does the National Safety Board get a percentage of every drunk driving fine, you think? What do you think is "rotten"?

 

It sounds like they've done research that indicates that even a slight impairment (.04 and below) has negative effects on driving. A quick look on wikipedia and google seems to confirm this line of reasoning. Assume for a second that it's accurate, and the research is valid -- why would it be allowed for drivers behind the wheel of a thousand+ pound vehicle capable of ruining lives to be at a level of impairment that is measurably negative in reproducible studies?

 

Have you seen any research that refutes the impairment present at .05 and above? If you have, post it up. I'd be interested to see some data that says that .08 BAC isn't actually that bad.

 

Also, from that article, it sounds like lowering the limit to .08 was quite successful in reducing drunk driving fatalities. How do you reconcile that against your rotten smell?

 

You think this is all a trick?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Also, from that article, it sounds like lowering the limit to .08 was quite successful in reducing drunk driving fatalities. How do you reconcile that against your fish smell?

 

Was it that or stricter enforcement of laws? Checkpoints? Stiffer penalties? Don't assume causality.

 

And I love how you read one article based on one report and believe everything in it! LOL

[rob]

 

Was it that or stricter enforcement of laws? Checkpoints? Stiffer penalties? Don't assume causality.

 

And I love how you read one article based on one report and believe everything in it! LOL

 

I'm not assuming anything, except that maybe it's *not* a grand conspiracy and that *maybe* there is something behind the vast corraborating research on the subject that took me about 30 seconds to find on the internet.

 

I love how personally you take this stuff. Do you have more articles that you think do a better job proving how "rotten" this is?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Was it that or stricter enforcement of laws? Checkpoints? Stiffer penalties? Don't assume causality.

 

And I love how you read one article based on one report and believe everything in it! LOL

 

I'm not assuming anything, except that maybe it's *not* a grand conspiracy and that *maybe* there is something behind the vast corraborating research on the subject that took me about 30 seconds to find on the internet.

 

I love how personally you take this stuff. Do you have more articles that you think do a better job proving how "rotten" this is?

 

You just like being an annoying contrarian. Roger.

 

[rob]

http://www.northeastern.edu/open/Green_Zone.html

 

Maybe this is why I've discovered I'm happiest having just a few drinks.

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Fuck all yall.

 

Lowering to .08 did help a lot - in addition to much stricter enforcement, penalties, and verification (required treatment, piss tests, blah, blah). Seems appropriate.

 

One beer is going to 'impair' you. Two will 'impair' you more. The question is, who's causing the bulk of the accidents, and how should the state target that particular group most effectively?

 

The NTSB does have an agenda - to stay in business and keep their funding. Just like any agency. They should provide links to the actual studies from which they draw their conclusions (like the I502 campaign did). That's the modern way of upping your cred.

 

Frankly, I couldn't find any studies in the 60 precious seconds I devoted to looking for them. - it's all government website soundbites out there. It would be ridiculous to focus on the 2 beer crowd while the 10 beer crowd continues to plow into minivans filled with innocent children and puppies. There's an opportunity cost to every policy.

 

If anyone does come up with them, that would be kewl.

 

Meanwhile...FUCK OFF, BOTH OF YOU!!!!!!

Edited May 14, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[rob]

You should try using scholar.google.com, although usually you only get the abstract. But whipping out an abstract scares away most people, anyway. And isn't that really all that matters?

 

Anyway, I found this relevant article *about* a study. What could be more trustworthy than an article about a study? From US News, no less!

 

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2011/06/24/even-one-glass-of-beer-wine-boosts-car-crash-risk-study

 

Accidents are 36.6 percent more severe even when alcohol was barely detectable in a driver's blood," study author David Phillips, a sociologist at the University of California, San Diego, said in a university news release.

 

The researchers suggested that there are three factors that might explain their findings. Comparing sober drivers to those driving with a so-called "buzz," Phillips said, "buzzed drivers are more likely to speed, more likely to be improperly seat-belted and more likely to drive the striking vehicle, all of which are associated with greater severity" in an accident.

 

Here's the abstract if you're into that kind of thing.

[rob]

 

from: http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/muarc175.html

 

 

[Pete_H]

We learn it early in the West, drinking and driving, chasing away from the ticking stillness of home toward some dim aura glowing over the horizon, call it possibility or excitement. Henery James once said there are two mental states, excitement and lack of excitement, and that unfortunately excitement was more interesting than lack of excitement.

 

From the essay "Drinking and Driving," By William Kittredge

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

from: http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/muarc175.html

 

 

Curious that they don't have

 

0.05 - 0.08

then > 0.08 separately

 

LOL

 

[rob]

 

Curious that they don't have

 

0.05 - 0.08

then > 0.08 separately

 

LOL

 

LOL, I know right?? Something smells ROTTEN!!!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Curious that they don't have

 

0.05 - 0.08

then > 0.08 separately

 

LOL

 

LOL, I know right?? Something smells ROTTEN!!!

 

Bet they are afraid to show that data as it would undermine their agenda.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Europe's the place to look at. All but 3 countries have had the lower .05 limit for over a decade now. As you can imagine, its complicated and many of the results ambiguous. There really isn't that much out there to draw from, either, so everyone gloms onto to any study that does come out.

 

I found this paper, which concludes:

 

"The estimation results for the total fatality rates are reported in Table 5.

Specifications (1) and (2) show that the coefficients associated with the 0.5 mg/ml BAC limit

are not significant neither for the total fatality rate per population nor for the total fatality rate

per Km driven. On the contrary, when I use as a key policy variable the interaction between

BAC limits and Random Checks in models (3) and (4) I find an important negative impact

even at the 5% level of significance in the latter model. This result suggests that lowering

BAC levels does not have a global impact unless this regulation is enforced in practice by

random checks on the road. Thus, when these two regulatory measures go together both

fatality rates seem to decline substantially. The fatality rate on population declines a 4.3%

while the fatality rate on km driven falls a 6.1%."

 

In other words (per the author), you need random sobriety checkpoints AND a lower limit - not just the latter. While the former are legal, with restrictions, there are limited studies indicating that saturation DUI patrols in problem areas are more effective. As uzhe, there's a dearth of studies about any of this stuff.

 

It seems that the only population effected by the .05 limit was men 20-49.

 

Other relevant factors are cars per 1000 population (development). Condition of a nation's main roads also appeared to be a (less significant) factor.

 

This will put you to sleep in a hurry:

 

Linky

 

The question is whether reducing drunk driving fatalities by 3 to 6% (or whatever it will be) is worth the required extra enforcement, economic, and social costs of such a move, and whether another policy would serve to produce the same or better result more cost effectively. Hell, I don't know.

 

In the end, each state would have to enact the new limit separately.

 

Some other countries do take their DUI laws more seriously. In NZ I was warned - if you drink at all, DON'T DRIVE. It's not like the States here.

Edited May 14, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[denalidave]

Linky

 

"Under current law, a 180-pound male typically will hit the 0.08 threshold after four drinks over an hour, according to an online blood alcohol calculator published by the University of Oklahoma. That same person could reach the 0.05 threshold after two to three drinks over the same period, according to the calculator."

 

Two beers? Seriously?

 

I bet there'd be a lot of money made by lowering the standard too - think off all the revenue to be generated from folks drinking 2 beers at a ball game or concert!

That, and all the new revenue they will reap with pot DUI's now that it's legal and peeps will be using more "casually". Two words - CASH COWS!

[rob]

OMG AGENDA!!!