Drinking and Driving.

[nots]

Exactly the stats that are misleading. Thanks for being the one to bring that up.

Those stats include things that are just not even related to actual deaths caused by a drunk driver. A sober driver runs over a drunk pedestrian --- alcohol-related fatality. Clearly we should ban drunk walking (or sober driving). A sober driver runs a red light and crashes into a stopped car driven by someone who has had one beer --- alcohol-related fatality. Someone who has a BAC of .01 (which is not demonstrably different from sobriety in terms of ability to drive) kills someone on the road --- alcohol-related fatality. A passenger in a car driven by a sober driver is intoxicated and that sober driver kills someone --- alcohol-related fatality. The NHTSA even inflates alcohol-related fatality numbers by somewhere around 9% because the assume that when someone wasn't checked for BAC after an alcohol-related fatality, that they must have been drunk.

The actual statistics, which are tough to glean through all this bullsh!t, are that somewhere around 2,000 people are killed annually by a drunk driver. Whether the drunk driver actually did something preventable when sober is another matter entirely --- that would also lower the real number of direct fatalities from drunk drivers.

I'll let you do the legwork and tell me how many speeding-related traffic fatalities there were, since this is also clearly a preventable crime. Here's a hint: way, way, way, way more than DWIs.

Many, many, many more people speed than drive drunk, so it would stand to reason that more people would be killed because of speeding.
Again, if it were someone in your family killed by a drunk driver, given your rather extreme personality, I'm betting you'd have a much different take on this.

[gcstomp]

I am blessed to be in a marriage where my wife does not drink, so I always have a built in designated driver. I am roughly the size of a silverback mountain gorilla, 300 lbs and can toss a mouthy 180 lb person from sidewalk, over a small car, and into the middle of the street without taking a step. I can drink 2 pitchers of beer in 90 minutes socially without perceiving myself to be at all impaired. (I would think factors affecting alcohol tolerance are not just size, and sex, but age, fitness level, & if you have consumed some protein. Or maybe I am just a freak.)

Even so, I always have my wife drive when I have had a drink. Why chance getting into an incident and having to explain away even 1 drink. I am a fan of zero tolerance for most kind of crime, btw, and would like stiff penalties for most anything illegal. If you do the right thing, and follow the law, and every single other person did as well, then what does it matter if the penalties are severe? I understand the flipside, that many laws are unfair, and my view is extreme.

[OaklandA's]

I think his response is in his edit that happened after your question posted.

Well, then his numbers are wrong. Even if you throw out the 60% for which there is no BAC test (which you shouldn't), that still leaves over 4000 deaths per year from alcohol-impaired drivers.

And if there is a specific argument against the imputation method, then point that out. Saying it is meaningless just makes you sound like a climate denier, evolution denier, or poll denier - someone who complains about the analysis, but really just doesn't understand the math/science behind it well enough.

[Gregg]

Again, most people will be over .08 after one hour at a bar...

Waiting to be told to F off too (not by you JC) .... though Im used to it as Im a fundy.....

I have never heard the term fundy off...

[OaklandA's]

My point, which I was clumsy in making, is that the statistics that are used are misleading. Even if the real number is 10,000 (it's clearly not), the measurement is not "how many traffic deaths were attributable to excessive alcohol consumption", is it?

The 10,000 is the estimated number of deaths per year where the driver had a BAC of 0.08 or greater. In at least 4,000 of those, we have actual BAC levels to prove it. In the other 6,000, we have statistical analysis to support it.

You are claiming the correct number is closer to 2,000. If you think there is a problem with the imputation method, what is it? Maybe you are correct, but you haven't shown any reason why I should believe you. You also seem to be saying that half of the actual BAC results are wrong or irrelevant. Why? If you want to claim that the "facts" are on your side, then please provide them.

[overkill94]

Since my job requires a lot of driving, I've been told that I'd basically be fired if I got a DUI. I would accept such punishment if it was an obvious case, but I'm always worried that one of these nights I'll get pulled over when I've had a few drinks (yet nowhere close to impaired) and have my life ruined. If a car is swerving all over the road and presenting an actual hazard to other drivers then by all means, give that guy a DUI, but there was a case in college where my buddy turned fairly abruptly into a turn lane because he almost missed a turn (with no cars around) and got pulled over. Since he was only 20 at the time he would've gotten a DUI with even a .01 BAC which would've been a very costly situation and unfair if you ask me.

[OaklandA's]

The BAC levels to prove what? That alcohol consumption caused those deaths?

No one can ever prove that alcohol consumption caused a death. All we can say is that there were 10,000 fatalities where the driver had a BAC over 0.08.

I still stand by what I initially said --- the whole atmosphere surrounding DWI is far overblown.

Do you still stand by your number of 2000 deaths per year? You haven't explained why your number is so low. Instead, you keep bringing up new arguments. I'm willing to throw out the "alcohol-related" cases, and the pedestrian cases that you brought up. Let's try to keep it simple - how many traffic fatalities per year are there where the driver has a BAC of 0.08 or greater? Do you really think the number is as low as 2000 per year? I don't think the facts support that, especially since 40% of the cases (>4000) have actual BAC tests. The other 6000 cases are imputed from scientific and statistical analysis, which is done by actual scientists, not the leaders of MADD. So my guess is that number of 6,000 is pretty close to accurate too, making a total of ~10K per year.

Edit to add: Or are you agreeing that there are ~10K cases where the driver had a BAC greater than 0.08, but saying that the alcohol was only a factor in 2000 out of those 10000 accidents?

[DJBeasties]

Beer muscles. I've had them, done and said stupid things, drove impaired, etc. To me, the biggest difference is if I am speeding or texting, it's usually brief and not sustained. If I'm driving impaired, I'm drunk the whole ride and the whole trip is a huge risk. I haven't done it in several years and I won't again because it seems very foolish and selfish to me.

[Gregg]

I originally posted this as a result of finding out that the NFLPA has a service to pick up drunk players and that the service was not used in the latest fatality. Unfortunately I knew this all to well from back in my days of drinking, when I made decisions to drive because I could handle it. I wanted to see if things had changed. They really haven't all that much. I am glad to see some in here have a game plan. Others are like me in that they think they can guage their ability to drive on how they feel. The fact that I did not hurt or kill anybody should prove that I was right about handling my booze, but it does not. I was blessed not to have hurt anybody.

Those of us who drink and drive have or will make decisions that could potentially alter lives forever. In our sober moments we know better.

Eld, I understand your position. I was very angry at MADD back when they first started interferring with my right to drink and drive. You seem to be ok with the penalties after the fact. Would you be ok with life in prison or the death penalty in the event that a drunk driver kills an innocent?

[B-Fly]

OK, I'm starting to not really like your tone very much. Climate denier? What kind of thing is that to throw at me?


My point, which I was clumsy in making, is that the statistics that are used are misleading. Even if the real number is 10,000 (it's clearly not), the measurement is not "how many traffic deaths were attributable to excessive alcohol consumption", is it? Hey, perhaps 10,000 traffic deaths a year involved radio use. Ban radios in cars!

I am trying to say that the statistics quoted commonly are misleading and/or false. The DWI problem is dealt with in a manner disproportionate to its actual impact. In his defense of DWI checkpoints vis a vis violation of the Constitution, Judge Rehnquist said that 25,000 driving deaths due to alcohol per year were enough to suspend the Fourth Amendment. That number, which originated from MADD, was found to be nearly double the real number.

A majority of states can revoke your license before you are even brought to trial if you're accused of DWI.

Courts have ruled that prosecutors are not obligated to provide defendants with their blood or breath samples for independent testing, despite the fact that some of the tests used can be dramatically off the mark (the difference between being innocent and getting hit with the insane DWI punishments).

Washington passed a law that says that not only must juries hear every single DWI case, the jurors are to consider evidence "in a light most favorable to the prosecution."


This is not some sort of fight-against-all-available-facts sort of thing I'm doing here.


When the .08 standard was adopted in 2002, what do you think happened? The "factual" alcohol-related fatality rate increased, after 20 years of decline. $0.25 if you can tell me why that might be...

A 2001 study done by AAA concluded that there are a laundry list of things that a driver can do (all preventable, mind you) that impede his driving WORSE than driving with a .08 BAC --- talking on a cell phone (even with a hands free device), eating, adjusting a radio or CD player, and having kids in the backseat were among those that were worse than "driving drunk". Let's start demonizing people who eat while they drive, shall we? It makes about as much sense as these ridiculous DWI laws. These DWI laws are not passed based on good evidence, but rather an atmosphere of emotion (fear, mainly) and political expediency. DWI should obviously be against the law, assuming the person is actually intoxicated, but should be treated like any sort of reckless driving --- potentially severely but always within the boundaries of the Constitution.

The back-and-forth debate between elD and Oak about how to interpret the data notwithstanding, I do think that elD raises interesting points here that can be discussed without reference to data.

In my mind, the biggest policy reason for treating DWI differently than other reckless driving in terms of enforcement and penalties is deterrence. Because an intoxicated person is going to have deficiencies in judgment when making a decision about whether or not to get behind the wheel, there is arguably a societal benefit to having easy bright-line, fear-inducing, err significantly on-the-side-of-not-driving rules. But what's a good and practical bright line, and how should it be enforced? "Don't Drink and Drive" sound like a bright-line rule, except it doesn't clearly demarcate the temporal connection between drinking and driving or distinguish among other factors likely to indicate impairment/intoxication. And most people don't have an objective way to self-assess their level of impairment prior to making the decision to drive or not. While potentially judgment-impaired, they have to rely on their judgment to determine whether they're impaired.

If it actually works, I almost think that requiring people to puff into a breathalyzer to start their car could simplify elD's constitutional/fairness concerns and actually be helpful for drivers. Once phased in, they would presumably limit if not end the impetus for police to establish sobriety checkpoints that amount to a stop without reasonable suspicion, as well as, arguably, the basis for suspension of one's licence without due process. Arguably, requiring one to puff into a breathalyzer any time one wishes to start a car is constitutionally equivalent to requiring one to obtain a driver's licence (which itself requires the taking and passing of a test and the payment of a fee), let alone the presumably constitutional duties on a car owner to have registration and insurance. One is not stopped or searched by any governmental authority.

If the puff-to-drive idea is intolerable or impractical, then we get back to the question of what laws can and should be in place to (1) help guide the potentially-judgment-impaired prospective driver's decision, and (2) effectively deter impaired driving?

I do agree, by the way, that other forms of distracted driving can be just as risky as DWI. It's a bit easier to bright-line a law against talking or texting on a hand-held device, because that can be observed by police in real time. If you're stopped for texting while driving, it's almost always because the police officer physically saw you texting while driving, therefore creating probable cause to stop you and issue a summons. But being distracted by the radio or by the kids in the back seat, etc, can presumably only be policed through observation of recklessness in the actual driving of the car.

Now, elD, you may well be suggesting that DWI (and talking/texting on a phone) should also be enforced only upon observation of actual recklessness in the operation of the vehicle. Are you? If so, I fear that the valuable deterrent impact is too diluted, because too many folks think that they're good enough to do it without endangering themselves or others.

[Gregg]

[QUOTE=eldiablo505;114070]Oh god, c'mon. I don't drink and drive, Gregg. I do, however, value my Constitutional rights and legal measures based on facts rather than fear mongering bullsh!t.
QUOTE]

I didn't say you did. I said I did. I was around when MADD was just getting off the ground. I was not to happy about them either. Keep in mind we have a right to drink and drive. Just not too much.

So I am asking you, in the event that someone has a blood alcohol of .10 or higher and is at fault in a traffic fatality would you support life in prison or the death penalty for that person?

[bryanbutler]

some food for thought here (i mean there already is some in this thread, and maybe i'll add some).

. nobody is happy that people die from drunk drivers. even elD. behind the numbers there are people, and it sucks that they die.

. people die from many things, including in auto accidents. does one cause deserve a stigma more than another? even if we limit this to only driving related deaths, there are many causes for driving deaths, and it's not clear to me that one should be called out more than another. yes, drinking and driving is "preventable" behavior, but so are *many* other causes for auto (and other) accidents and deaths.

. as a particular example, i have a feeling that phones and texting is a *far* bigger problem than drinking, while driving. i have a brother-in-law who has been in two accidents caused by people who were on the phone (one talking, one texting), and his backed is foo-bar'ed for life. in my own day-to-day experience, i've had *many* (i'd say in the 10's - i spend a lot of time on the road commuting to and from work) close encounters driving with folks who were clearly occupied on phones, where i can count on one hand the close calls i've had with folks i thought were probably drunk. is one worse than the other? they are both impaired driving. they should be litigated in the same way. but if you kill someone while texting, the penalty is far less than if you kill someone while drunk. why is that? one problem is that when an accident is caused by phone or texting, it is often not provable that it was caused in that way. there is a huge incentive to not admit that you were talking on the phone or texting at the time. and yes, phone records can be subpoenad, but it's hard to prove that at that very instant, somebody was looking down at their phone to read an incoming text (to, say, plus or minus 10 seconds). whereas if the person is "drunk" there is a quantifiable way to prove that.

. another (and very common) cause of auto accidents is sleepiness. like phone/texting, however, there is no quantifiable way to gauge sleep deprivation. i once saw a story on a news show that showed that sleep deprivation was far worse than alcohol consumption (at moderate levels) for driving performance.

. as a future issue, i think the texting thing is a far bigger issue with younger people. they are simply used to texting all the time. as this trend continues (as they age and are replaced by more younger people with similar trends), i think the fraction of accidents related to phones and texting is going to increase.

. one of my problems with drunk driving laws is that while there is a quantifiable blood-alcohol level, that particular quantity does not correlate directly with impairment, other than in a statistical way. i'd be ecstatic if, instead of a blood-alcohol level test, they could apply a real "impairment" test. in any of the studies that have been done, the blood alcohol level considered to be "impaired" (and that level has changed over time from 0.13 to 0.08 - for no *real* reason) always has some statistical uncertainty related to it. bottom line is that some people really *can* hold their liquor better than others. so, if we changed the criteria for DUI to be a real impairment test, rather than a blood-alcohol level test, i'd be happy. now, it's clear that if somebody blows 0.25% BAL, they're impaired, because that's at the 6-sigma level of the studies. but if somebody blows 0.09%, statistics say that probably 35% of the populace are not "impaired."

so, bottom line, i think the stigma that has been attached to drinking and driving is that it is one of the few things that impairs driving that can be quantified. unfortunately, that quantification is not as accurate as one would like it to be. but, because it *is* quantifiable, it gets the attention. if we had a quantifiable SDL (Sleep Deprivation Level) or TDL (Texting Distraction Level), i suspect they'd get as much attention. unfortunately, those behaviors are simply not quantifiable.

[Gregg]

some food for thought here (i mean there already is some in this thread, and maybe i'll add some).

. nobody is happy that people die from drunk drivers. even elD. behind the numbers there are people, and it sucks that they die.

. people die from many things, including in auto accidents. does one cause deserve a stigma more than another? even if we limit this to only driving related deaths, there are many causes for driving deaths, and it's not clear to me that one should be called out more than another. yes, drinking and driving is "preventable" behavior, but so are *many* other causes for auto (and other) accidents and deaths.

. as a particular example, i have a feeling that phones and texting is a *far* bigger problem than drinking, while driving. i have a brother-in-law who has been in two accidents caused by people who were on the phone (one talking, one texting), and his backed is foo-bar'ed for life. in my own day-to-day experience, i've had *many* (i'd say in the 10's - i spend a lot of time on the road commuting to and from work) close encounters driving with folks who were clearly occupied on phones, where i can count on one hand the close calls i've had with folks i thought were probably drunk. is one worse than the other? they are both impaired driving. they should be litigated in the same way. but if you kill someone while texting, the penalty is far less than if you kill someone while drunk. why is that? one problem is that when an accident is caused by phone or texting, it is often not provable that it was caused in that way. there is a huge incentive to not admit that you were talking on the phone or texting at the time. and yes, phone records can be subpoenad, but it's hard to prove that at that very instant, somebody was looking down at their phone to read an incoming text (to, say, plus or minus 10 seconds). whereas if the person is "drunk" there is a quantifiable way to prove that.

. another (and very common) cause of auto accidents is sleepiness. like phone/texting, however, there is no quantifiable way to gauge sleep deprivation. i once saw a story on a news show that showed that sleep deprivation was far worse than alcohol consumption (at moderate levels) for driving performance.

. as a future issue, i think the texting thing is a far bigger issue with younger people. they are simply used to texting all the time. as this trend continues (as they age and are replaced by more younger people with similar trends), i think the fraction of accidents related to phones and texting is going to increase.

. one of my problems with drunk driving laws is that while there is a quantifiable blood-alcohol level, that particular quantity does not correlate directly with impairment, other than in a statistical way. i'd be ecstatic if, instead of a blood-alcohol level test, they could apply a real "impairment" test. in any of the studies that have been done, the blood alcohol level considered to be "impaired" (and that level has changed over time from 0.13 to 0.08 - for no *real* reason) always has some statistical uncertainty related to it. bottom line is that some people really *can* hold their liquor better than others. so, if we changed the criteria for DUI to be a real impairment test, rather than a blood-alcohol level test, i'd be happy. now, it's clear that if somebody blows 0.25% BAL, they're impaired, because that's at the 6-sigma level of the studies. but if somebody blows 0.09%, statistics say that probably 35% of the populace are not "impaired."

so, bottom line, i think the stigma that has been attached to drinking and driving is that it is one of the few things that impairs driving that can be quantified. unfortunately, that quantification is not as accurate as one would like it to be. but, because it *is* quantifiable, it gets the attention. if we had a quantifiable SDL (Sleep Deprivation Level) or TDL (Texting Distraction Level), i suspect they'd get as much attention. unfortunately, those behaviors are simply not quantifiable.

I believe the purpose of the .080 is to make "sure" it is a level where the vast majority are not impared.

The woman who recently killed my friend is being prosecuted and could face some time... it won't bring him back.

[Gregg]

Absolutely not.

What if it was their 3rd offense and they blew 2.8.

[swampdragon]

What if it was their 3rd offense and they blew 2.8.

I would not support the death penalty - the other I would think about. Split it up and see what ElD says