1969912 0 #151 January 7, 2007 Sorry Willard. I wasn't referring to you. It was intended for some of the early repliers. "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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #152 January 7, 2007 QuoteYour normative judgement of the value of driving drunk reflects on you, and despite your protestations it demonstrates your hatred of alcohol. Me? Hate alcohol? That could be, but since I love a pint of stout once in a while, as well as a good porter and an occasional splash of rum or even a bit of tequila on ice you would be hard pressed to prove it. No, I don't hate alcohol. In fact, I enjoy it. But what I do hate is people who have consumed enough to impair their ability to safely drive, yet drive anyway. As for this thread, I am done with it. I have repeatedly asked for you to show where the sociological benefits are for someone to drive drunk and you have offered nothing but a circular path back to the idea that you want to be able to legally drive while intoxicated without fear of being punished until you cause an accident. If you aren't happy with the way the laws are you are free to try to get them changed or move to a place where the laws, or lack of same, more closely resemble your ideals. As for myself, I will continue to do my drinking in a responsible manner and gladly offer my services as designated driver if asked. You see, drunk drivers are a threat to every other person on the highway and I chose not to contribute to that problem and try to help reduce the problem when I can. Others refuse to acknowledge the danger and recklessly contribute to it unless measures are put in place to stop them. One of these is DUI laws. No, they aren't perfect. But they stopped you. And that's the way it is, Saturday, January 6th, 2007. Goodnight Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #153 January 7, 2007 > I think the marketplace alone would be sufficient to deter drunken mass > market airline pilots, between the risk to the owners of damaging the >plane and the public perception issue, no airline would tolerate >drunkenness among its pilots. Why? If, as you state, there are definite benefits to drinking and driving (and flying) an airline that avails itself of drinking pilots will out-compete the other airlines and become dominant. Any other airline that wished to compete would have to follow a similar policy or go under. And surely, with today's automation, accidents due to drunken pilots would be fairly low. The accident rate would likely go up tremendously compared to today (since even now, sober pilot errors cost lives) but again, per your strategy, those are best dealt with after the fact. Plus, of course, there are a great many private pilots that will not be affected by any marketing issues. They currently fly aircraft from Cessna 152's to CRJ's, and it's safe to say that their fatality rate (and the fatality rate of people on the ground) will go up even more, since smaller aircraft tend to have less automation to make up for dulled reactions. But again, we can always go after them after they have proven they can't fly well - say, after they've taken out a 747 full of passengers on a taxiway. Why should you penalize 10 pilots who can fly with a BAC of .08 just to stop the one that kills 200 people? >I think you mischaracterize the effect of the law. ?? You think laws against flying drunk have no effect? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #154 January 7, 2007 QuoteSorry Willard. I wasn't referring to you. It was intended for some of the early repliers. No offense taken. BTW, I've been told the Guinness is much better in Ireland but I've no first hand knowledge. Have you ever been there? If so, could you tell the difference? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #155 January 7, 2007 Haven't been there yet. My parents spent a few weeks there researching the family history. Can't wait to get there myself. I could probably tell the difference just based on the age of the brew. "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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #156 January 7, 2007 Quote Why? Because of the principal agent problem--the principal doesn't share the pilot's enjoyment of alcohol, except insofar as it would potentially cost less to employ pilots where alcohol were not forbidden. The airline industry is fairly competitive and airlines constantly have a huge amount of capital at stake. The price for a jetliner is huge and then there's the cost of the marketing impact of national coverage on an airline's safety after an accident. I think it's safe to say that the principal faces on his assets a level of risk at least commensurate with the total value of the lives on board and well above the risk faced by each passenger. The dual facts that cars cost less than planes relative to their cargo, and that cars are more often conducted by their owners is reason enough for me to believe it's much more likely that we'd have drunk drivers than drunk airline pilots in the absence of any regulatory guidance on the subject. Quote Plus, of course, there are a great many private pilots that will not be affected by any marketing issues. They currently fly aircraft from Cessna 152's to CRJ's, and it's safe to say that their fatality rate (and the fatality rate of people on the ground) will go up even more Sure. CRJ's are pretty expensive and C152's are not, we'd probably see a greater increase of accidents with C152s than CRJs if drunken piloting were allowed. But given the high base rate of sober accidents with such planes and the level of safety consciousness in the culture of small craft aviation, I think it's also likely that most pilots wouldn't be interested. Correct me if I'm wrong. Individual pilots would be faced with addressing their own safety. These are citizens and privileged residents we're talking about, educated ones when we talk about pilots. They're quite capable of deciding their preferred risk levels, even if they are prone towards making mistakes. Insurance costs would probably offer an incentive to fly sober, in the absence of regulation on the subject, insurance co.s would probably offer cheaper policies for people willing to commit to flying sober. Insurance, btw, would be excellent criteria to establish the benefit depending on whether it would be popular or prohibitively expensive to fly drunk (and especially if anybody were willing to pay for it up front). The previous paragraph applies to driving as well as piloting, although it'd be challenging to implement in the context of mandatory coverage for automobiles--a person driving drunk in spite of his policy would effectively be driving without coverage, no? Don't you think it's counterproductive, in the case of a drunken driving accident, that we depress the perp's prospects for employment with incarceration? It reduces the perp's ability to compensate the victim and his family for vengeance alone, it seems, in spite of the victim's own interest. This paper I found online deals with the subject. It points to a ~35% decrease in annual income and marked reduction in long term wage growth among people who were incarcerated. Some of what the perp can't pay comes out of the insurance co, I suppose, the rest is lost. Would you not suppose this also drives up the cost of insurance? Quote ?? You think laws against flying drunk have no effect? I think it's surely overstated.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #157 January 8, 2007 Do you think anyone (sober or not) should be allowed to drive a bicycle or moped or zamboni or tractor on a major interstate? (in the 'fast' lane even) walk on the highways? what about speed limit laws? good or bad? laws all designed to control traffic for the safety of others. before disputing the analogies, what do think of them if they were brought up in a separate discussion? ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shawndiver 0 #158 January 8, 2007 Easy answer why DUI is so popular these days, money. DUI is an easy, socially accepted way to seperate tens of thousands of dollars out of the persons pocket directly into the state and county coffers in one quick ticket. Law enforcement does not give a rats ass about your safety. A person driving down the highway swerving back and forth in their lane while applying eye makeup on their way to work. Endangering everyone around them. If they are caught, they will receive a reckless driving citation ($150). A 250 pound person is coming back from going out. BAC is .08. May not even feel the effect, and is driving in a normal manner. Pulled over for broken tail light. Cop smells beer, breath test, tens of thousands of dollars later... -DUI Same person above is riding a bicycle in California, runs a stopsign. - DUI. (Exactly the same as if driving) Same person decides they may be close to the limit, climbs into the back seat of the car for a nap, but has car keys in their pocket - DUI Same person decides to walk home - Drunk in public, night in jail, fines. Driving without a license, uninsured, in a smoking vehicle with 4 tires worn down to the cords. - Fixit ticket and citation. (County has determined that vehicle impoundment for traffic stops is too expensive.) Alcohol has proven to be extremely profitable for law enforcement, and it is not politically correct to say otherwise. I do not resent the fact I cannot drive legally drunk, I do not. But I do resent the fact that if I go out for a nice dinner, have two glasses of wine over the course of the evening, get pulled over in a license/DUI checkpoint, even though I am not drunk if there is alcohol on my breath I will spend the next forty minutes questioned, subjected to physical testing, all while hoping that the cop doesnt just give me a DWI just to justify his time when I blow under the legal limit. For my safety? My ass._________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #159 January 8, 2007 Try posting something like that as a new thread, where everybody will see it. You'll be called a Fucking Cunt, Fucking Dick, Petty Criminal, Troller, Drunk Asshole, etc. DUI enforcement has turned into a modern-day witch hunt. Its way out of control, with a huge percentage of the population totally hoodwinked by years of lies and lobbying by wacko special interest groups, aided by the false and dishonest accident statistics put out by the government. The "DUI industry" is huge, from cabinet-level gov't., all the way down to car stereo shops that install alcohol interlocks. There is no evidence at all that the attack on DUI in the last 30 years has saved a single life. Jim "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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #160 January 8, 2007 Quoteall the way down to car stereo shops that install alcohol interlocks. Now, that's the final straw. The line is crossed. How dare they force me to be sober when listening to my stereo! that's just too much ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #161 January 8, 2007 Quote The laws have been proven to be quite efficient in deterring drunk driving. What is proven about drunk driving is that laws have tightened and drunk driving has reduced. That does not prove deterrence tho. AAA's own data shows Canada has had .08 since the 70's, but in the 80s experienced a similar decline as set in when the US states established .08 controls. Furthermore, AAA's own data establishes that the deterrent effect is a weakness of current DUI law: In a 2002 report they write: Quote Drinking and driving is common. About 21 percent of driving-age Americans reported they had driven after drinking in the past year, making about 950 million drinking-driver trips. In about 9 percent of these trips, or about 80 million, the driver's blood alcohol level (BAC) was 0.08 or above. Drunk driving arrests are rare. With 1.55 million arrests for drunk driving (DWI) in 1999, the chances of arrest on any drunk driving trip were less than one in 50. ... Many drunk drivers are not deterred. While most of the public supports DWI laws and enforcement, a substantial minority of drivers believes it is unlikely that they would be stopped, arrested, or convicted if they drove after drinking too much. What is needed? An improved drunk driving control system will ensure that drunk drivers are consistently arrested, regularly convicted, and appropriately punished. When everyone understands that driving drunk is likely to bring certain and uncomfortable consequences... I think they are spot on with the third point -- a substantial minority of drivers correctly believes that it is unlikely they would be stopped, arrested, or convicted. Less than 2% qualifies as unlikely in my book. Furthermore it is unlikely that any harm would come from the average instance of DUI at all. 80 million incidents vs some 2000-5000 est deaths actually caused by DUI vs other factors (explained amply already in this thread why not to use 17000) puts the incidence of death caused by DUI at between .00003 and .00006 (or between .003% and .006%) per drunk drive as established by the .08 BAC standard. To what everyday risks can we compare the risk of causing death with an instance of drunk driving? Quote DWI LAWS AND ENFORCEMENT. Of all drivers, 58% believed that it was at least somewhat likely that they would be stopped by police if they drove after drinking too much, 65% believed that it was very likely they would be arrested if stopped, and 62% believed that those arrested were very likely to be convicted. Put differently, 39% believed it was unlikely that they would be stopped (20% said very unlikely), 15% believed that it was unlikely they would be arrested if stopped (10% very unlikely), and 15% believed that a conviction was unlikely (8% very unlikely). About one-third of all drivers had seen a sobriety checkpoint in the previous year and 19% had been stopped at a checkpoint at least once. Nearly two-thirds agreed that checkpoints should be used more frequently. Only 4% believed that drunk driving sanctions are too severe. About 3% of drinking drivers and 8% of problem drinkers had been arrested for DWI in the previous two years. By comparison, in a national household survey 13% of white men, 19% of Hispanic men, and 11% of black men reported having a lifetime DWI arrest (Caetano and Clark, 2000). Only 27% of drivers knew their state's BAC limit. Most drivers who thought they knew their state's BAC limit underestimated the number of drinks needed to reach the limit. Too bad they didn't try to identify whom among the 58% of people who thought they would get caught, would otherwise have driven drunk. As a result, these numbers can only be used to establish the ineffectiveness of DUI laws--how many people demonstrate preference for DUI in spite of the law. They don't tell us how many people would have preferred DUI if it were not for the law. AAA themselves say that 21% of people had driven after drinking in the study year, but 42% of people did not believe they would get caught if they were to DUI. Since the number of actual DUI-drivers must be under 21%, there's considerable room for increases of DUI before the threshold of deterrence is reached--I wouldn't be surprised if the degree of overlap between DUI drivers and deterred drivers was low. It's not right to conclude that deterrence is the reason behind the fall in DUI in the 80s and 90s, or particularly related to the current levels of DUI. I think that sustained marketing campaigns have a lot more to do with it than law. Unfortunately AAA goes on to propose further stiffening penalties for all DUI and subtracting more money from the economy to address the "problem" of DUI. To aggravate it further it I suppose, rather than to properly resolve it.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #162 January 9, 2007 QuoteQuoteall the way down to car stereo shops that install alcohol interlocks. Now, that's the final straw. The line is crossed. How dare they force me to be sober when listening to my stereo! that's just too much Seriously, I am involved in the audio industry and have had a few stereo shop owners tell me they are doing pretty well renting out, installing, and maintaining the interlocks that states are requiring for offenders. Might be a good business to get into. Better yet, maybe I'll come up with a battery powered "air freshener" that just happens to output air at the same temperature, humidity, and chemistry as fresh, clean human breath. Of course, the packages would need a warning against drunks using them to fool their interlocks. Could sell a million of 'em. "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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 7 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 3,119 #153 January 7, 2007 > I think the marketplace alone would be sufficient to deter drunken mass > market airline pilots, between the risk to the owners of damaging the >plane and the public perception issue, no airline would tolerate >drunkenness among its pilots. Why? If, as you state, there are definite benefits to drinking and driving (and flying) an airline that avails itself of drinking pilots will out-compete the other airlines and become dominant. Any other airline that wished to compete would have to follow a similar policy or go under. And surely, with today's automation, accidents due to drunken pilots would be fairly low. The accident rate would likely go up tremendously compared to today (since even now, sober pilot errors cost lives) but again, per your strategy, those are best dealt with after the fact. Plus, of course, there are a great many private pilots that will not be affected by any marketing issues. They currently fly aircraft from Cessna 152's to CRJ's, and it's safe to say that their fatality rate (and the fatality rate of people on the ground) will go up even more, since smaller aircraft tend to have less automation to make up for dulled reactions. But again, we can always go after them after they have proven they can't fly well - say, after they've taken out a 747 full of passengers on a taxiway. Why should you penalize 10 pilots who can fly with a BAC of .08 just to stop the one that kills 200 people? >I think you mischaracterize the effect of the law. ?? You think laws against flying drunk have no effect? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #154 January 7, 2007 QuoteSorry Willard. I wasn't referring to you. It was intended for some of the early repliers. No offense taken. BTW, I've been told the Guinness is much better in Ireland but I've no first hand knowledge. Have you ever been there? If so, could you tell the difference? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #155 January 7, 2007 Haven't been there yet. My parents spent a few weeks there researching the family history. Can't wait to get there myself. I could probably tell the difference just based on the age of the brew. "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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #156 January 7, 2007 Quote Why? Because of the principal agent problem--the principal doesn't share the pilot's enjoyment of alcohol, except insofar as it would potentially cost less to employ pilots where alcohol were not forbidden. The airline industry is fairly competitive and airlines constantly have a huge amount of capital at stake. The price for a jetliner is huge and then there's the cost of the marketing impact of national coverage on an airline's safety after an accident. I think it's safe to say that the principal faces on his assets a level of risk at least commensurate with the total value of the lives on board and well above the risk faced by each passenger. The dual facts that cars cost less than planes relative to their cargo, and that cars are more often conducted by their owners is reason enough for me to believe it's much more likely that we'd have drunk drivers than drunk airline pilots in the absence of any regulatory guidance on the subject. Quote Plus, of course, there are a great many private pilots that will not be affected by any marketing issues. They currently fly aircraft from Cessna 152's to CRJ's, and it's safe to say that their fatality rate (and the fatality rate of people on the ground) will go up even more Sure. CRJ's are pretty expensive and C152's are not, we'd probably see a greater increase of accidents with C152s than CRJs if drunken piloting were allowed. But given the high base rate of sober accidents with such planes and the level of safety consciousness in the culture of small craft aviation, I think it's also likely that most pilots wouldn't be interested. Correct me if I'm wrong. Individual pilots would be faced with addressing their own safety. These are citizens and privileged residents we're talking about, educated ones when we talk about pilots. They're quite capable of deciding their preferred risk levels, even if they are prone towards making mistakes. Insurance costs would probably offer an incentive to fly sober, in the absence of regulation on the subject, insurance co.s would probably offer cheaper policies for people willing to commit to flying sober. Insurance, btw, would be excellent criteria to establish the benefit depending on whether it would be popular or prohibitively expensive to fly drunk (and especially if anybody were willing to pay for it up front). The previous paragraph applies to driving as well as piloting, although it'd be challenging to implement in the context of mandatory coverage for automobiles--a person driving drunk in spite of his policy would effectively be driving without coverage, no? Don't you think it's counterproductive, in the case of a drunken driving accident, that we depress the perp's prospects for employment with incarceration? It reduces the perp's ability to compensate the victim and his family for vengeance alone, it seems, in spite of the victim's own interest. This paper I found online deals with the subject. It points to a ~35% decrease in annual income and marked reduction in long term wage growth among people who were incarcerated. Some of what the perp can't pay comes out of the insurance co, I suppose, the rest is lost. Would you not suppose this also drives up the cost of insurance? Quote ?? You think laws against flying drunk have no effect? I think it's surely overstated.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #157 January 8, 2007 Do you think anyone (sober or not) should be allowed to drive a bicycle or moped or zamboni or tractor on a major interstate? (in the 'fast' lane even) walk on the highways? what about speed limit laws? good or bad? laws all designed to control traffic for the safety of others. before disputing the analogies, what do think of them if they were brought up in a separate discussion? ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shawndiver 0 #158 January 8, 2007 Easy answer why DUI is so popular these days, money. DUI is an easy, socially accepted way to seperate tens of thousands of dollars out of the persons pocket directly into the state and county coffers in one quick ticket. Law enforcement does not give a rats ass about your safety. A person driving down the highway swerving back and forth in their lane while applying eye makeup on their way to work. Endangering everyone around them. If they are caught, they will receive a reckless driving citation ($150). A 250 pound person is coming back from going out. BAC is .08. May not even feel the effect, and is driving in a normal manner. Pulled over for broken tail light. Cop smells beer, breath test, tens of thousands of dollars later... -DUI Same person above is riding a bicycle in California, runs a stopsign. - DUI. (Exactly the same as if driving) Same person decides they may be close to the limit, climbs into the back seat of the car for a nap, but has car keys in their pocket - DUI Same person decides to walk home - Drunk in public, night in jail, fines. Driving without a license, uninsured, in a smoking vehicle with 4 tires worn down to the cords. - Fixit ticket and citation. (County has determined that vehicle impoundment for traffic stops is too expensive.) Alcohol has proven to be extremely profitable for law enforcement, and it is not politically correct to say otherwise. I do not resent the fact I cannot drive legally drunk, I do not. But I do resent the fact that if I go out for a nice dinner, have two glasses of wine over the course of the evening, get pulled over in a license/DUI checkpoint, even though I am not drunk if there is alcohol on my breath I will spend the next forty minutes questioned, subjected to physical testing, all while hoping that the cop doesnt just give me a DWI just to justify his time when I blow under the legal limit. For my safety? My ass._________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #159 January 8, 2007 Try posting something like that as a new thread, where everybody will see it. You'll be called a Fucking Cunt, Fucking Dick, Petty Criminal, Troller, Drunk Asshole, etc. DUI enforcement has turned into a modern-day witch hunt. Its way out of control, with a huge percentage of the population totally hoodwinked by years of lies and lobbying by wacko special interest groups, aided by the false and dishonest accident statistics put out by the government. The "DUI industry" is huge, from cabinet-level gov't., all the way down to car stereo shops that install alcohol interlocks. There is no evidence at all that the attack on DUI in the last 30 years has saved a single life. Jim "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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #160 January 8, 2007 Quoteall the way down to car stereo shops that install alcohol interlocks. Now, that's the final straw. The line is crossed. How dare they force me to be sober when listening to my stereo! that's just too much ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #161 January 8, 2007 Quote The laws have been proven to be quite efficient in deterring drunk driving. What is proven about drunk driving is that laws have tightened and drunk driving has reduced. That does not prove deterrence tho. AAA's own data shows Canada has had .08 since the 70's, but in the 80s experienced a similar decline as set in when the US states established .08 controls. Furthermore, AAA's own data establishes that the deterrent effect is a weakness of current DUI law: In a 2002 report they write: Quote Drinking and driving is common. About 21 percent of driving-age Americans reported they had driven after drinking in the past year, making about 950 million drinking-driver trips. In about 9 percent of these trips, or about 80 million, the driver's blood alcohol level (BAC) was 0.08 or above. Drunk driving arrests are rare. With 1.55 million arrests for drunk driving (DWI) in 1999, the chances of arrest on any drunk driving trip were less than one in 50. ... Many drunk drivers are not deterred. While most of the public supports DWI laws and enforcement, a substantial minority of drivers believes it is unlikely that they would be stopped, arrested, or convicted if they drove after drinking too much. What is needed? An improved drunk driving control system will ensure that drunk drivers are consistently arrested, regularly convicted, and appropriately punished. When everyone understands that driving drunk is likely to bring certain and uncomfortable consequences... I think they are spot on with the third point -- a substantial minority of drivers correctly believes that it is unlikely they would be stopped, arrested, or convicted. Less than 2% qualifies as unlikely in my book. Furthermore it is unlikely that any harm would come from the average instance of DUI at all. 80 million incidents vs some 2000-5000 est deaths actually caused by DUI vs other factors (explained amply already in this thread why not to use 17000) puts the incidence of death caused by DUI at between .00003 and .00006 (or between .003% and .006%) per drunk drive as established by the .08 BAC standard. To what everyday risks can we compare the risk of causing death with an instance of drunk driving? Quote DWI LAWS AND ENFORCEMENT. Of all drivers, 58% believed that it was at least somewhat likely that they would be stopped by police if they drove after drinking too much, 65% believed that it was very likely they would be arrested if stopped, and 62% believed that those arrested were very likely to be convicted. Put differently, 39% believed it was unlikely that they would be stopped (20% said very unlikely), 15% believed that it was unlikely they would be arrested if stopped (10% very unlikely), and 15% believed that a conviction was unlikely (8% very unlikely). About one-third of all drivers had seen a sobriety checkpoint in the previous year and 19% had been stopped at a checkpoint at least once. Nearly two-thirds agreed that checkpoints should be used more frequently. Only 4% believed that drunk driving sanctions are too severe. About 3% of drinking drivers and 8% of problem drinkers had been arrested for DWI in the previous two years. By comparison, in a national household survey 13% of white men, 19% of Hispanic men, and 11% of black men reported having a lifetime DWI arrest (Caetano and Clark, 2000). Only 27% of drivers knew their state's BAC limit. Most drivers who thought they knew their state's BAC limit underestimated the number of drinks needed to reach the limit. Too bad they didn't try to identify whom among the 58% of people who thought they would get caught, would otherwise have driven drunk. As a result, these numbers can only be used to establish the ineffectiveness of DUI laws--how many people demonstrate preference for DUI in spite of the law. They don't tell us how many people would have preferred DUI if it were not for the law. AAA themselves say that 21% of people had driven after drinking in the study year, but 42% of people did not believe they would get caught if they were to DUI. Since the number of actual DUI-drivers must be under 21%, there's considerable room for increases of DUI before the threshold of deterrence is reached--I wouldn't be surprised if the degree of overlap between DUI drivers and deterred drivers was low. It's not right to conclude that deterrence is the reason behind the fall in DUI in the 80s and 90s, or particularly related to the current levels of DUI. I think that sustained marketing campaigns have a lot more to do with it than law. Unfortunately AAA goes on to propose further stiffening penalties for all DUI and subtracting more money from the economy to address the "problem" of DUI. To aggravate it further it I suppose, rather than to properly resolve it.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #162 January 9, 2007 QuoteQuoteall the way down to car stereo shops that install alcohol interlocks. Now, that's the final straw. The line is crossed. How dare they force me to be sober when listening to my stereo! that's just too much Seriously, I am involved in the audio industry and have had a few stereo shop owners tell me they are doing pretty well renting out, installing, and maintaining the interlocks that states are requiring for offenders. Might be a good business to get into. Better yet, maybe I'll come up with a battery powered "air freshener" that just happens to output air at the same temperature, humidity, and chemistry as fresh, clean human breath. Of course, the packages would need a warning against drunks using them to fool their interlocks. Could sell a million of 'em. "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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
