# Drunk Driving **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 18, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379 "2011-11-18T19:34:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Stan\_Shmenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Stan\_Shmenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stan_Shmenge)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/81 "2011-11-27T03:45:06Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > You statement is wrong. There are nearly as many people killed with .08 as higher levels The graph says nothing of the sort. By your logic, someone with a .41 is good to go, because there are very few fatalities at that level of impairment. The graph more closely reflects the distribution of BAL among drivers involved in accidents, than the danger that a particular level of impairment represents. /graph reading comprehension FTW ---
**Author:** ![Stan\_Shmenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Stan\_Shmenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stan_Shmenge)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/82 "2011-11-27T03:49:37Z")
And furthermore, common sense would tell you that danger is a function of impairment. To claim that someone with a .08 BAL is almost as dangerous as someone with .17 is silly. .08 represents about two drinks, a level of impairment that is minor. By the time you are at .2, then you are really impaired, and obviously pose a much greater danger. But thanks for playing. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/83 "2011-11-27T05:31:32Z")
> [@OpalCat](#): > > I’m totally with you on this one. A friend of mine got a DUI because he was at a party and he went out to his car to get something. He wasn’t getting in the car, wasn’t going to drive, etc. He was just getting something out of his car, but he had been drinking and a cop saw him and gave him a DUI. That’s fucked up. The important thing to understand is that a police officer can arrest anyone at anytime for any charge at all. The important to remember is that arrest doesn’t mean conviction and that police officers are often ignorant of the law they are supposed to enforce. The problem isn’t with the law, but with the people enforcing them. The fact that you got arrested, doesn’t mean you violated the law. The laws will vary from state to state, but the doctrine of **actual physical control** will be important. [http://www.lawadvicenow.com/law/criminal-law/can-you-get-a-dui-while-parked/](http://www.lawadvicenow.com/law/criminal-law/can-you-get-a-dui-while-parked/) If you weren’t in the drivers seat with the car in drive, then there is an excellent chance you will either have the charge dismissed or plea down to drunk and disorderly. Of course, if you admit to the officer that you were driving or were planning on driving, then you are SOL. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/84 "2011-11-27T05:50:13Z")
> [@Stan\_Shmenge](#): > > The graph says nothing of the sort. By your logic, someone with a .41 is good to go, because there are very few fatalities at that level of impairment. > > The graph more closely reflects the distribution of BAL among drivers involved in accidents, than the danger that a particular level of impairment represents. > > /graph reading comprehension FTW No, what the graph shows is that very few people with a blood alcohol of .41 are capable of walking to their car and opening the door much less driving it. You must be rather innumerate not to figure that out. [http://www.goodcocktails.com/drinking/bac.php](http://www.goodcocktails.com/drinking/bac.php) The chart indicates most people will pass out at around a BAL of .3 and above .4 you may die before you have a chance to become a traffic statistic. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/85 "2011-11-27T06:01:18Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Graphs can be quite misleading if you don’t interpret them properly. Yes, the drivers with a BAC of .17 % are only responsible for 50% more fatalities as the BAC .08 drivers, at 1.2% of all fatalities but did you know that if the graph included the BAC .00 drivers who make up approximately 50 % of fatalities that graph would spike right off the page!!! :D:D If you had presented some data that drivers below .08 were enormously more common than higher BAL, you might have a point, but since you don’t actually present any data, you are just blowing smoke. > [@](#): > > So you are okay with the cop who taps on the window of the vehicle in the pub parking lot occupied by a driver with no cab fare and who decided not to drive home. He’ll get charged with DUI regardless if the motor is running so he can stay warm. If you looked at my post above, then there is some question whether such arrests are actually legal. A few multimillion dollar class action suits might stop them. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/86 "2011-11-27T06:33:11Z")
> [@Stan\_Shmenge](#): > > And furthermore, common sense would tell you that danger is a function of impairment. To claim that someone with a .08 BAL is almost as dangerous as someone with .17 is silly. .08 represents about two drinks, a level of impairment that is minor. By the time you are at .2, then you are really impaired, and obviously pose a much greater danger. > But thanks for playing. I proven that your statement that people with a BAL of .08 or are ‘hardly dangerous’ is ignorant and unfounded. You haven’t demonstrated that your ‘common sense’ is reliable. I watching a video with Steven Levitt were he mentioned that 1 mile out of 140 is driven by drunk drivers. I thought if 38% of traffic fatalities are alcohol related, then drunk drivers are 53 times as dangerous as sober drivers on a vehicle mile basis. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFi-tKZ3ijQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFi-tKZ3ijQ) The quote is about 50 seconds in. It might be that someone who has one drink might only be 10 times as dangerous as a sober driver and two drinks might be 20 times as dangerous and someone who is at .2 BAL might be 100 times as dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![OpalCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8edcca/32.png) [@OpalCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OpalCat)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/87 "2011-11-27T07:18:10Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > The important thing to understand is that a police officer can arrest anyone at anytime for any charge at all. The important to remember is that arrest doesn’t mean conviction and that police officers are often ignorant of the law they are supposed to enforce. The problem isn’t with the law, but with the people enforcing them. The fact that you got arrested, doesn’t mean you violated the law. > > The laws will vary from state to state, but the doctrine of **actual physical control** will be important. > > [http://www.lawadvicenow.com/law/criminal-law/can-you-get-a-dui-while-parked/](http://www.lawadvicenow.com/law/criminal-law/can-you-get-a-dui-while-parked/) > > If you weren’t in the drivers seat with the car in drive, then there is an excellent chance you will either have the charge dismissed or plea down to drunk and disorderly. Of course, if you admit to the officer that you were driving or were planning on driving, then you are SOL. Sadly - my friend was convicted ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/88 "2011-11-27T14:44:12Z")
> [@OpalCat](#): > > Sadly - my friend was convicted I have been reading up on DUI law and the facts, as you stated them, should have been a routine dismissal with an attorney. At worse, it should be reduced to drunk and disorderly. If your friend never got in the drivers seat, then it will be hard to prove actual physical control. I suspect this anecdote is missing significant information. > [@](#): > > I’m totally with you on this one. A friend of mine got a DUI because he was at a party and he went out to his car to get something. He wasn’t getting in the car, wasn’t going to drive, etc. He was just getting something out of his car, but he had been drinking and a cop saw him and gave him a DUI. That’s fucked up. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/89 "2011-11-27T15:27:30Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > If you had presented some data that drivers below .08 were enormously more common than higher BAL, you might have a point, but since you don’t actually present any data, you are just blowing smoke. Unbelievable. Read your own cite that I referenced. Besides, there’s common sense. When I’ve gone out on the road, I counted on the fact that “drivers below .08 were enormously more common than higher BAL”. > [@](#): > > If you looked at my post above, then there is some question whether such arrests are actually legal. A few multimillion dollar class action suits might stop them. Good Luck with that. I"m up here in Canada. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/90 "2011-11-27T18:23:06Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Unbelievable. > Read your own cite that I referenced. I went back to my cite and the only relevant reference is: > [@](#): > > In 2007, 55681 drivers were involved in fatal motor vehicle traffic crashes. Of these drivers 22 percent (12,068) were found to be driving with a BAC of .08 or higher. Drivers in rural areas accounted for 55 percent of the alcohol-impaired drivers versus 43 percent in urban areas. 37% of all traffic fatalities were alcohol related in 2007, which implies that 15% (2389/15387) of alcohol related fatalities involve BAL below .08% or 6% (2389/41059) of all traffic fatalties. Since only .7% of mileage is driven by drunk drivers, that sure implies that \<.08 drivers are a lot more dangerous than sober drivers. In fact the lower bound would be 8.3 times as dangerous as a sober driver. This means that my earlier guess of ten times as dangerous was actually in the right ball park. To put this number in perspective, A motorcyclist is usually be 20 to 30 times as likely to killed on a passenger mile basis as someone in a car or truck. The difference is that the motorcyclist is assuming most of the risk himself, while the ‘safe’ \<.08 driver is shifting much of the risk to other people. > [@](#): > > Besides, there’s common sense. When I’ve gone out on the road, I counted on the fact that “drivers below .08 were enormously more common than higher BAL”. Apparently your ‘common sense’ is not a reliable guideline. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/91 "2011-11-27T20:03:47Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I went back to my cite and the only relevant reference is: > > 37% of all traffic fatalities were alcohol related in 2007, which implies that 15% (2389/15387) of alcohol related fatalities involve BAL below .08% or 6% (2389/41059) of all traffic fatalties. Since only .7% of mileage is driven by drunk drivers, that sure implies that \<.08 drivers are a lot more dangerous than sober drivers. In fact the lower bound would be 8.3 times as dangerous as a sober driver. This means that my earlier guess of ten times as dangerous was actually in the right ball park. > > To put this number in perspective, A motorcyclist is usually be 20 to 30 times as likely to killed on a passenger mile basis as someone in a car or truck. The difference is that the motorcyclist is assuming most of the risk himself, while the ‘safe’ \<.08 driver is shifting much of the risk to other people. > > Apparently your ‘common sense’ is not a reliable guideline. The relevent reference I’m responding to is page 5 figure 5 that you specifically pointed to and which I specifically pointed out that you misinterpreted to come up with the ridiculous statement the .08 BAC is almost as fatal as .17 BAC. The fact that .08 BAC is more dangerous than .00 BAC is not in dispute. I do dispute any suggestion that any study can determine the ratio of drunk drivers at any level of BAC in the general population to sober drivers, unless these random copstops test each and every driver. Based on figure 5, page 5 it is remotely possible (though very highly unlikely) that .08 BAC drivers are safer than sober drivers. I don’t think you can PROVE otherwise statistically. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/92 "2011-11-27T20:11:28Z")
The fact that there is any cut-off at all means that the laws try to build in some consideration of degree of impairment. Otherwise, they could just make it illegal to have any alcohol at all in one’s system. The level of .08% BAC is more or less arbitrary, and I’m sure the fact that someone has a very high level gets considered by the DA in court. They probably consider other things, too–the penalties for drunk driving probably can very a lot, from jail to community service, to a fine with probation, etc. Someone with a .08 or .09 probably might even be able to plea bargain down to a lessor charge, if s/he has an aggressive lawyer, and if the circumstances indicated an otherwise responsible driver (no prior record, etc.). The way things play out are not any more draconian than other violations, like assault. The law can’t really say something like: “One year of jail for hitting a person hard, but only six months for hitting a person softly.” That puts the idea of wiggle room into people’s minds, which is easy to happen with booze, when people often don’t realize how much they’ve had to drink, or how much it’s actually affecting them. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/93 "2011-11-28T02:11:05Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > The fact that .08 BAC is more dangerous than .00 BAC is not in dispute. I do dispute any suggestion that any study can determine the ratio of drunk drivers at any level of BAC in the general population to sober drivers, unless these random copstops test each and every driver. I’m still researching the topic, but it quite possible they are testing each and every driver. Has as a police officer ever pointed a flashlight in your face? They might not be comparing your photo to your face, but checking you for ethanol on your breath. [http://www.mutineermagazine.com/img/blog/pas.jpg](http://www.mutineermagazine.com/img/blog/pas.jpg) The passive sensor isn’t good enough for court, but plenty good enough for statistical data gathering including a rough idea of your BAC. I’m skimming **Alcohol and Highway Safety 2006: A Review of the State of Knowledge** , so I may know more later. [http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/Research+&+Evaluation/Impaired+driving+(alcohol-related)+reports](http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/Research+&+Evaluation/Impaired+driving+(alcohol-related)+reports) I’m actually surprised at how high the fatality rates are at low BALs. I suspect that there may be a psychological component. People with a high BAL will adjust their driving habits to be more cautious. People with only one or two drinks in them don’t feel impaired and may be less cautious. When you are driving it is actually a good thing to be a little scared. I was surprised that the NHTSA had data about how many miles were driven by alcohol impaired drivers for the USA and actually had numbers for each state. Florida was only 1 out of 100 miles compared to 140 miles for the whole country, but I blame the tourists. ---
**Author:** ![OpalCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8edcca/32.png) [@OpalCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OpalCat)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/94 "2011-11-28T04:10:08Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I have been reading up on DUI law and the facts, as you stated them, should have been a routine dismissal with an attorney. At worse, it should be reduced to drunk and disorderly. If your friend never got in the drivers seat, then it will be hard to prove actual physical control. I suspect this anecdote is missing significant information. All I have to go on is what he told me. ---
**Author:** ![Stan\_Shmenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Stan\_Shmenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stan_Shmenge)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/95 "2011-11-28T06:09:39Z")
[Yeah, it’s all about public safety.](http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/troopers_charge_sandy_creek_ma.html) :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/96 "2011-11-28T19:12:44Z")
> [@Stan\_Shmenge](#): > > [Yeah, it’s all about public safety.](http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/troopers_charge_sandy_creek_ma.html) :rolleyes: Bad example for your point. He was also charging with “aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle”, which means he was driving with a suspended license, which means it was a good safety stop. I checked some more and the charge was **AUO 2nd**. > [@](#): > > AUO 2nd > > Aggravated Unlicensed Operation in the Second Degree, or AUO 2nd, is an example of a more complicated AUO case. Still a misdemeanor, it is more serious than an AUO 3rd, and typically involves an **alcohol-related suspension or multiple suspensions**. The sentence can be up to 180 days in jail, or probation, and/or a fine of at least $500 (the statute does not list a maximum, but for AUO 1st the maximum is $5000). In some cases we may be able to get your charge reduced to a non-criminal violation, but often the best we can do is a reduction to AUO 3rd with no jail time. We charge at least $1500 to negotiate an AUO 2nd, with additional fees if motions, hearings or trial become necessary. [http://www.redlichlaw.com/traffic/auo.html](http://www.redlichlaw.com/traffic/auo.html) Thank you for posting something that helps me make my point. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/97 "2011-11-28T23:05:00Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I’m actually surprised at how high the fatality rates are at low BALs. I suspect that there may be a psychological component. People with a high BAL will adjust their driving habits to be more cautious. People with only one or two drinks in them don’t feel impaired and may be less cautious. When you are driving it is actually a good thing to be a little scared. That seems to agree with the study I mentioned above: [QUOTE=The relationship between serious injury and blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in fatal motor vehicle accidents (2011)] Accident severity increases significantly even when the driver is merely ‘buzzed’, a finding that persists after standardization for various confounding factors. Three mechanisms mediate between buzzed driving and high accident severity: compared to sober drivers, buzzed drivers are significantly more likely to speed, to be improperly seatbelted and to drive the striking vehicle. [/quote] ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/98 "2011-11-29T00:08:52Z")
> [@Stan\_Shmenge](#): > > No, penalties graduated with level of impairment would have the exact opposite effect. As of now, once you have had a couple of beers, you might as well go for broke, because no matter how impaired you become, the penalty is identical. Under a graduated penalty system, every additional drink would risk escalation of the penalty. > > /reading comprehension FTW. Not here. Over 0.18% gets you penalties similar to someone who got there 2nd DUI, and things such as a BAC Interlock become likely/certain. (If you’re talking about a specific place only, apologies. I tried to follow the threat upstream and didn’t get anywhere) ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/99 "2011-11-29T06:57:23Z")
Here is some technology that should thrill some posters in this OP. > [@](#): > > Researchers in Massachusetts are working on creating technology that would keep a car from starting if the driver is drunk. > > The Driver Alcohol Detection Systems for Safety would keep impaired drivers off the road by detecting their blood alcohol content through two potential methods. It could analyze the driver’s breath or the driver’s skin through touch-based sensors on places like the steering wheel or door locks. If it detected blood alcohol content above the legal limit of .08, the vehicle would simply not start. > > The concept is similar to the alcohol ignition interlock systems that are often court-ordered for convicted drunk drivers, however it would be sleeker and less obtrusive, the AP said. [http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2376920,00.asp](http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2376920,00.asp) ---
**Author:** ![EvilTOJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EvilTOJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EvilTOJ)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379/100 "2011-11-29T13:50:42Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > [URL=“[Drunk driving statistics](http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html)”] > > This tends to suggest the deceases in drunk driving are the major cause for the decrease in traffic fatalities. The number of **non** Alcohol related fatalities actually increased by 3,292 from 1982 to 2009. The only other reason that occurs to me that there was a major change in the accounting between 1982 to 2009. It was a lot harder to text on those brick phones back in the 80’s. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drunk-driving/603379.md?page=6)