Are Smoking Bans Resulting in a Higher DUI/Auto Fatality Rate?

[Gawain 0]

I can totally understand the picture being painted from this article:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10966152&CFID=1924348&CFTOKEN=71499425

Quote

BANNING smoking in public places is supposed to save lives. It encourages people to smoke less, so they do themselves and those around them less harm. That, at least, is the theory. . ...

As lethargic and "detailed" our bureaucrats are supposed to be, I'd be curious if this was ever thought of. I also wonder if this will become a point of contention where neighboring jurisdictions will bring issues like this to court, citing some type of tangible damages, etc.

Quote

How this weighs up against the long-term health effects of smoking bans is unclear. But it serves as a warning to well-meaning legislators.

Indeed.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

I can totally understand the picture being painted from this article:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10966152&CFID=1924348&CFTOKEN=71499425

Quote

BANNING smoking in public places is supposed to save lives. It encourages people to smoke less, so they do themselves and those around them less harm. That, at least, is the theory. . ...

As lethargic and "detailed" our bureaucrats are supposed to be, I'd be curious if this was ever thought of. I also wonder if this will become a point of contention where neighboring jurisdictions will bring issues like this to court, citing some type of tangible damages, etc.

Quote

How this weighs up against the long-term health effects of smoking bans is unclear. But it serves as a warning to well-meaning legislators.

Indeed.

"Although many countries have introduced national bans, America has taken a piecemeal approach"

Could have been talking about guns instead of smoking. A piecemeal approach simply doesn't work when you can drive to the next town and circumvent it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

seems to suggest that the smoker-drinkers are driving drunk regardless, and the higher toll stems from the longer drive.

Solution is to jail DUIs for 30 days like in other countries, since any penalty short of that hasn't gotten through. It has nothing to do with partial smoking bans.

(I thought the article would say that drinkers weren't getting enough of their nicotine stimulation due to the ban and therefore were overly drowsy)

[DZJ 0]

Suppose, for arguments sake, that a smoking ban did result in more road accidents with fatalities, and that the increase cancelled out any decrease in the fatality rate of smoking-related cancers. Would it be worth reversing the ban to make the roads safer, or better have dangerous roads but less people sick? Or would it not make an iota of difference?

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Same consideration for red light cameras. I have read that crashes as a result of a person running a red light have gone down by 70%, but rear-end crashes have increased by 300%!!!!!!!!
So, don't drink and drive, be on the lookout for those who do and do not even think about slamming on the brakes for a yellow light!

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Same consideration for red light cameras. I have read that crashes as a result of a person running a red light have gone down by 70%, but rear-end crashes have increased by 300%!!!!!!!!

Wouldn't surpise me at all.

It's an interesting piece of correlation and the unexpected secondary or tertiary effects.

Similar phenomenon has been observed in other areas – people alter their habits in ways that produce unexpected results. It’s actually got a name - the “Peltzman effect” for the U Chicago economist who originated the idea (back in the 1970s, iirc).

The classic one: Seatbelts and air bag requirements correlate w/increased accidents.

Safety features reduce the probability of death or serious injury to the driver in an accident, but the increased perception of safety causes some drivers to drive slightly more recklessly. What has been observed is that the severity of injury from accidents is decreased. Gets discussed in the context of nuclear (weapons & power) safety.

One can speculate how the Peltzmann effect applies to skydiving and AADs.

The consequences of small perturbations on large, coupled systems are hard to predict (nevermind control).

Of course, it's still driving drunk still causes DUIs and DUI-related fatalities (i.e., lack of personal responsibility).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Same consideration for red light cameras. I have read that crashes as a result of a person running a red light have gone down by 70%, but rear-end crashes have increased by 300%!!!!!!!!

That's because they shortened the yellow-light timing interval.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

One can speculate how the Peltzmann effect applies to skydiving and AADs.

Bill Booth has a couple of laws about it:

Booth's Law No. 2: "The safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant."

Booth's Law No. 1: "The lower you pull, the longer your parachute will take to open, and the more likely it is to malfunction."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I also wonder if this will become a point of contention where neighboring jurisdictions will bring issues like this to court, citing some type of tangible damages, etc.

So who would be the plaintiff, the smoke free jurisdiction suing the enablers or the right to chose jurisdiction suing the source of all those drunk drivers?

[rehmwa 2]

What's the premise here?

That smokers, who are not allowed to kill others in their preferred manner, are now out looking for ways to kill others with an alternate selfish method?

cool - persistence is a very admirable trait

...
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

[billvon 3,132]

Yep, I heard that. I have also heard the Wisconsin state legislature is considering a few other changes to keep drunk drivers from killing people -

First is the "Schlitz Malt Liquor Requirement Bill." It turns out that some alcoholics drive farther to get high alcohol content beer; this bill would require all bars to stock Schlitz Malt Liquor (or a similar high alcohol content beer) so that drunks do not have to drive as far to get their preferred beer.

Second is the "Happier Happy Hour" bill, that would require all bars to have a happy hour equal to the best happy hour deal that any bar in the area has. That way if TGI Friday's has a smokin' three-for-one hot wings happy hour deal, alcoholics won't have to drive all the way to a TGI Friday's to get that deal; their local bar will be required to have it as well.

Finally is the "Hot Chick Equalization Act" that requires all bars to have equally hot women as patrons. Often alcoholics will drive to faraway bars because "the women are hot there." By having an equally attractive assortment of women at all bars, alcoholics will drive less. Needless to say, it's not always possible to just attract hot women as customers, especially when the bar is attempting to use them as bait to attract the sloppy drunk driver crowd. To combat this, bars will be allowed to hire topless dancers, Swedish volleyball players and out-of-work actresses to fill the need for hot chicks.

Note that the last item has been hotly protested by the Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgendered Society of Wisconsin, who are demanding that the bill include the requirement to have both hot guys _and_ women at any given bar.