DUI, traffic deaths, and police indifference

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

You can be charged for doing ANYTHING and causing an accident.

Yeah I know. But I seem to recall that there is a negligence charge for simply getting behind the wheel when you know you are exhausted (recall this from driver school)

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[dbattman 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You can be charged for doing ANYTHING and causing an accident.

Yeah I know. But I seem to recall that there is a negligence charge for simply getting behind the wheel when you know you are exhausted (recall this from driver school)

That's not my point. You can ratchet down BAC limits to 0.06, or .05, or .02, or even <0.01 but all that is well past anything reasonable. Talking on a headset impairs your ability. Sipping a Starbuck's impairs your ability. Having two screaming kids in the back impairs your ability. Staying up late studying impairs your ability. Get distracted for a second and rear end someone that stops short at a yield sign after having a Bud watching the game and you're an alcohol impaired driver.

Which brings me back to what I inquired at the begining- where does it become a factor in the field? And yeah I know the 'everyone is different' thing.

[nathaniel 0]

It seems there's at least one US judge who you'd agree with:

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/12/drunk_drivingpo.html

Quote

If there are 1.4 million annual arrests for drunk driving, and if we assume realistically that this is only a fraction of the actual incidents of drunk driving, yet only 2,000 innocent people are killed by drunk drivers, then it follows that most drunk driving is harmless. Why then punish it with arrests and severe penalties? Why not just punish those drunk drivers who cause deaths or injuries to nonpassengers?
...
In general, heavy punishment of fewer people is chaper (sic) than light punishment of more people.
Thus, only if ex post punishment failed to deter optimally would there be a strong case for punishing drunk drivers who are not involved in accidents with nonpassengers...

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

It seems there's at least one US judge who you'd agree with:

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/12/drunk_drivingpo.html

Quote

If there are 1.4 million annual arrests for drunk driving, and if we assume realistically that this is only a fraction of the actual incidents of drunk driving, yet only 2,000 innocent people are killed by drunk drivers, then it follows that most drunk driving is harmless. Why then punish it with arrests and severe penalties? Why not just punish those drunk drivers who cause deaths or injuries to nonpassengers?
...
In general, heavy punishment of fewer people is chaper (sic) than light punishment of more people.
Thus, only if ex post punishment failed to deter optimally would there be a strong case for punishing drunk drivers who are not involved in accidents with nonpassengers...

On paper it looks good. Less money spent, more money coming in. But try to explain that logic to the family of someone who is killed by the "harmless" drunk driver who had been observed operating a vehicle while intoxicated many times before but the cops can't do anything because he hasn't hurt anyone yet. I'd rather see the sorry S.O.B. taken off the streets before he has a chance to hurt someone.

[L.O. 0]

The solution to just about everything, is to kill. When pulled over and breathalized, If above a reasonable limit ? , Kill them. This will stop the next guy. If this doesn't stop the next guy, then he dies to. Eventually they all die, and we are left with only those who abide by the law, or are smart enough to get away with breaking the law. we need to do something a little different. if we continue to allow everything, our way of life is doomed.

We are Rome, just before the fall. if our love peace joy attitude continues, we will all perish. Or our children will. Grow up, and look at things through the eyes of reason. This is logic. Please read and learn.

I am drunk, and take no responsibility for this post. It may be the truth, but I know it can never be.

HPDBs, I hate those guys.
AFB, charter member.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I just started thinking about the time cops waste on nailing people for being just over the limit after pulling them over for something like not signalling for a turn

Fact is that stops people from driving drunk.

Quote

If they really gave a shit about protecting the public, they would be out looking for drivers exhibiting clear evidence of impairment.

What, you think they are not looking for clearly drunk drivers?

Quote

Lives saved? That was my whole point. Busting people who are driving home after having 3 or 4 or 5 beers doesn't save lives. Having the police out patrolling looking for truly fucked-up drivers would save lives.

They do both.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

It seems there's at least one US judge who you'd agree with:

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/12/drunk_drivingpo.html

Quote

If there are 1.4 million annual arrests for drunk driving, and if we assume realistically that this is only a fraction of the actual incidents of drunk driving, yet only 2,000 innocent people are killed by drunk drivers, then it follows that most drunk driving is harmless. Why then punish it with arrests and severe penalties? Why not just punish those drunk drivers who cause deaths or injuries to nonpassengers?
...
In general, heavy punishment of fewer people is chaper (sic) than light punishment of more people.
Thus, only if ex post punishment failed to deter optimally would there be a strong case for punishing drunk drivers who are not involved in accidents with nonpassengers...

Context is everything, he seems to be arguing for the status quo, what heavy punishment? Currently you get your driving privileges revoked and a fine which seems absolutely appropriate, most other consequences stem from insurance companies charging you market rates based on RISK which they have a pretty good handle on. If you're a repeat offender or you hurt someone then the penalty increases. The fact is society has deemed this unacceptable conduct via an elected legislature because of the pile of corpses this judge mentions.

The problem is drunk drivers don't expect they'll cause an accident when they start out. Punishing the few who do will not make drunks reflect on their risk taking with other's lives.

2000 dead a year isn't even the appropriate statistic to look at although it's a heck of a pile of corpses and ignores people maimed and other lives wrecked. How many more would be killed or maimed if DUI were more prevalent?

[Richards 0]

Quote

That's not my point. You can ratchet down BAC limits to 0.06, or .05, or .02, or even <0.01 but all that is well past anything reasonable. Talking on a headset impairs your ability. Sipping a Starbuck's impairs your ability. Having two screaming kids in the back impairs your ability. Staying up late studying impairs your ability. Get distracted for a second and rear end someone that stops short at a yield sign after having a Bud watching the game and you're an alcohol impaired driver.

You will never have a perfect system. Evidence indicates that alcohol is a significant factor in traffic fatalities, and alcohol consumption is measurable. As an alternative to the status quo what would you recomend (Not looking for what you wouldn't reccomend)

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[dbattman 0]

Quote

Quote

That's not my point. You can ratchet down BAC limits to 0.06, or .05, or .02, or even <0.01 but all that is well past anything reasonable. Talking on a headset impairs your ability. Sipping a Starbuck's impairs your ability. Having two screaming kids in the back impairs your ability. Staying up late studying impairs your ability. Get distracted for a second and rear end someone that stops short at a yield sign after having a Bud watching the game and you're an alcohol impaired driver.

You will never have a perfect system. Evidence indicates that alcohol is a significant factor in traffic fatalities, and alcohol consumption is measurable. As an alternative to the status quo what would you recomend (Not looking for what you wouldn't reccomend)

I have neither recommended or not recommended anything. Jim started this suggesting (in not the best wording, admitedly) the whole thing is starting to spiral to absurdety and I agree. Down here, impairment is now at the discretion of the officer regardless of what you blow and combined with other forces campaigning for even lower restrictions and tougher penalties amounts to nothing more than fearmongering.

Consider this:

Bobosa Smith the DUI lawyer gets a few thousand just to talk to you. Possibly $10k or more if he goes to a few court dates.
The great state of 'whatever' gets a high three to low four figure fine.
The insurance industry sticks you high risk for another $3k a year
Those Defensive/DUI schools all over metro Atlanta get $300 a pop

That is an awful lot of money to throw towards tougher restrictions, more manpower at roadblocks and other things of questionable benefit.

I'm gong to polish off my beer and head home. You guys have a good one.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

The insurance industry sticks you high risk for another $3k a year

It's a free and competitive insurance market. That high figure indicates that drunk drivers pose a significantly increased liability due to high rates of recidivism, the additional risk of being in an accident and the added culpability due to being intoxicated. That hardly characterizes a scenario where the punishment is excessive given the potential harm.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

I wonder how many lives have been saved because of fear of being busted for just a few beers?

At what cost have their lives been spared? When does it become too expensive to spend incrementally more money to save incrementally more life?

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 a free and competitive insurance market.

No, that's not right, not in the US anyway. It's not a free market because most (all?) states force drivers to buy insurance whether they want it or not as a condition of driving--the exchange may not be voluntary on the part of the consumer.

On top of that there's rather limited information and extensive state regulation about what can and can't go into an insurance premium. This reduces competition, the freedom and the efficiency of the market. There is often competition, but it's inaccurate imo to paint over the gross deficiencies in the auto insurance market. For instance, many (most/all?) states have resorted to providing high-risk pools for drivers that the marketplace won't cover at all.

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

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I wonder how many lives have been saved because of fear of being busted for just a few beers?

At what cost have their lives been spared? When does it become too expensive to spend incrementally more money to save incrementally more life?

Oh, I don't know. Whats your life worth? I kind of value mine.

If the lushes would place a higher value on their own lives and others, we wouldn't need to spend so much to keep the dumb fucks off the road now would we?

If you think we spend a lot of money keeping drunken assholes off the road, wait till you see what my lawyer does to the next one who hits me.

-

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Oh, I don't know. Whats your life worth? I kind of value mine.

Depending on how you look at the data, people express on average that the value of a life is around 5-10 million USD. Posner uses $7m in his blog on the topic, Becker uses $5m.

How much is spent on saving one life by drunk driving? ie, how many dollars lost by incarcerating people or by forcing people to stay home, drive slower, or misdirected by forcing people to take cabs and underconsume?

Do you have any sense of the figure at all? It's quite dishonest to pretend there's no cost to regulating drunk driving--just as there is a cost to people when they are injured by a drunk driver, there is a cost to screwing up people's lives who would not have caused any damage to themselves or anyone else (statistically speaking this means most drunk drivers).

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

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

As you read about the traffic carnage over the new years holiday, please stop to think about our "heroes" in law enforcement, and their role in protecting us. For every accident caused by some drunk asshole with a .2+ BAC who crossed the center line at 100+ MPH, reflect on what the local cops were likely doing at the time.

No, they were not out looking for dangerous drivers, they were looking for busts to add to their, and their department's records. While some incapacitated driver was in the process of killing someone, there were several area cops spending 2+ hours gathering evidence, performing tests, etc., in an effort to nail some low-risk driver with a .080 BAC (as little as two drinks). That time would be much better spent looking for truly risky drivers.

What a masterfully created troll of a post...using the obvious sore spot of DUIs and the pain drunk drivers cause as bait...wow.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[rehmwa 2]

it's interesting that the OP is upset at the cops instead of the DUI who chose to drive at 0.08 or higher....

...
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

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh, I don't know. Whats your life worth? I kind of value mine.

Quote

Depending on how you look at the data, people express on average that the value of a life is around 5-10 million USD. Posner uses $7m in his blog on the topic, Becker uses $5m.

Well, the way I look at the data, my life is priceless.

Quote

How much is spent on saving one life by drunk driving? ie, how many dollars lost by incarcerating people or by forcing people to stay home, drive slower, or misdirected by forcing people to take cabs and underconsume?

Ohhhhh the poor drunken bastards. Maybe in prison someone will find something for them to "do".

Quote

Do you have any sense of the figure at all? It's quite dishonest to pretend there's no cost to regulating drunk driving--just as there is a cost to people when they are injured by a drunk driver, there is a cost to screwing up people's lives who would not have caused any damage to themselves or anyone else (statistically speaking this means most drunk drivers).

Best way I know of to reduce the cost of drunken assholes on the road is to lock the poor babies up for 30 days on the first offense (6 months if they caused an accident while drunk) with a $2000. fine plus court costs, lawyer fees, alcohol intervention and loss of driving privileges for 6 months.

2nd offense is 60 days in jail (1 year if they cause an accident), a $10,000 fine, legal fees, major alcohol intervention which would include daily urine testing, A.A. and loss of driving privileges for 2 years.

3rd time is permanent loss of driving privilage for life, 5 years in prison if caught driving. Don't need fines or alcohol intervention because the problem is now solved and we don't have to spend any more money trying to catch and prosecute them and I have less of a worry about dying at the hands of some asshole who didn't get the message the first 2 times.

So from this standpoint I agree with you, we shouldn't need to spend a lot of money getting drunks off the road. 3 strikes and we assume you aren't getting the message so we just give up on them and revoke their privilege to drive forever.

-

• Quote

[Richards 0]

Most impaired drivers resent having to make alternative travel arrangements. The convenience of driving themselves home supercedes the right of others to get home safely. Thus they rationalise thier actions with counterarguments about what cops should have been doing. Again what always staggers me is the ones who argue that they were not over by that much.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Well, the way I look at the data, my life is priceless.

What you say and what you do are two different things. This is a well known economic problem, it's generally better to look at what people do vs what they say (esp on the internet :)

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

[SpeedRacer 1]

There are other ways to be impaired besides just alcohol. Perhaps impairment due to alcohol, though definitely a serious problem, is getting more attention than other types of impairment.

Here's another opinion to consider:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171383,00.html

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[dorbie 0]

Quote

There are other ways to be impaired besides just alcohol. Perhaps impairment due to alcohol, though definitely a serious problem, is getting more attention than other types of impairment.

Here's another opinion to consider:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171383,00.html

That's a compelling case against roadblocks, which is an orthogonal issue. I wouldn't support roadblocks, nor would I allow anyone from MADD near an investigation or arrest.

.10 vs. .08 is marginal, the average fatality at .17 tells us very little, certainly the limit should be lower than .17 if that's the case. Rewording another statistic, 1/3 of alcohol related accidents occur < .14 BAC, but of couse the author said 2/3 occur above .14 because he's suggesting limits are set too low but the information just isn't there to support the argument.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Here's another article, with footnotes:
http://www.alcoholfacts.org/CrashCourseOnMADD.html

Quote

A case in point. Research suggests that using a cell phone while driving may cause more traffic fatalities than driving drunk. But when a MADD official was asked how traffic fatality statistics involving cell phone use compared to those involving drunk drivers, he tellingly replied "I have absolutely no idea, nor do I care." 7 The issue for MADD is no longer preventing auto accidents but preventing drinking.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Rainbo 0]

I'm personally against the roadblock theory that we are removing DD's from the road. I'll give you a real life example:

I was driving to my place fron the ex's one evening with the kids for the weekend. We were following a car whose driver was obviously impaired (from what I haven't ny idea), but they could not stay in one lane on a two lane highway. They drove one oncoming car off the road at which time I called 911 from the car and reported the vehichle and license number. I continued to follow and watch waiting for an accident. Followed them for fifteen minutes until I had to turn towards home. Never saw a response from the authorities. Funny thing is that five minutes later I pulled into a curbside "safety checkpoint" where I was checked for everything and had the big light shined in my eyes several times and asked why I kept turning my eyes away from the light. Why were they spending time here when I just called to report a truly dangerous situation.

I'm not cop bashing here, I come from a cop family and respect them. I do have a problem with the way they have to perform these checks to satisfy certain groups who feel they have a better answer (MADD) which is to treat everyone like a criminal instead of justly dealing with the real offenders (who by the way are statistically repeat offenders).

Enforce the laws where they need to be, that's all I'm saying.

BTW, I don't drive after drinking, I tend to drink where I am going to be staying.

Rainbo
TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything
"Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting."

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

WTF?

Your post is almost comical, what's up, did you get nailed for DUI after hoping they'd let it slide?

That's my take on his asinine rage, no matter how much he denies it.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Good Post! It's a good example of people thinking that a mindlessly zealous "zero tolerance" mentality is a better substitute for addressing a problem than doing so in a rational, intelligent manner.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------