Drunk Driving

[Hilarity_N.Suze]

Here are my thoughts. A recent statistic I saw for our area is that in fatal auto accidents a little more than one-third were caused by drunk drivers. This is down from a much bigger percentage a few years ago.

So, a little less than two-thirds of them are caused by plain and simple bad driving.

Why do we work hard to get the drunk drivers off the road and leave the bad drivers? Obviously by getting some drunks off the road we get rid of some bad drivers, but how about the rest of them? They are obviously almost twice as lethal as the drunks.

[Hilarity_N.Suze]

@The_Niply_Elder

I’d like to play devil’s advocate here.

We’ve all seen the Mythbusters episodes where they drink until slightly under .08 BAC then drive in a controlled circuit with cones. This type of experiment yields false results (at least misleading) because of several key reasons. One, the test track is nowhere near representative of real streets and roads (geometrically speaking). Second, they try to drive as fast as possible around the track, whereas a drunk driver who is tipsy will probably be extra careful, be mindful of the speeds, etc. In order not to give reson to a cop to pull him over. Finally this type of test only makes matters worse, because by manipulating the test conditions to force a contrast between drunk driving and non drunk driving, then extrapolating those differences to the actual known accidents/deaths on real roads, the real proportion of drunk drivers on the road is underestimated. So if it is underestimated, that means that maybe there is a way, a method to drive drunk safely. Question to throw out there: can drunk driving practice in a closed course be beneficial to the driving population a large? Should it be required training for those over 21?

I was in one of these tests (not for Mythbuster). We did the course, had a beer or two, played some Pong, got tested (and not told what the results were) did the course again, came back into the lounge, drank some more, did the course again. There were slight changes in the course but it had the same elements. We were rated on things like going between cones, stopping at a stop sign, a panic stop, and various other things (not going over the center line, stuff like that). There were a certain number of points and there was a certain speed you were supposed to maintain–too fast and you lost points, too slow and you lost points. We were also rated on whether we signaled our turns and on general steadiness (i.e., you didn’t drift across the center line but you did drift within the lane).

The test track was, in fact, not remotely like real-life driving in that there were no other cars to worry about. There were no pedestrians who might step off the curb and fall down in front of you. There were no dogs chasing balls into the street. There were no confusing intersections where you weren’t sure which lane you were supposed to be in to get where you wanted to go. Instead there were numbers and at each number you turned or went straight.

Two things of note. (1) None of us had any idea how impaired we were, based on blood alcohol level. We all underestimated. (2) Some of us drove better impaired than others did sober.

[guizot]

@groman

…lots of other known risk factors such as car type, age, gender, time of day, weather, etc.

He says they did:
[QUOTE=Phillips]
We corrected for a large number of things including the age of the car, including the speed, including hour of day, day of week, month of year. Quite a lot of things. Drowsiness of the driver. When you hold those factors constant, it’s still true that buzzed drivers are associated with significantly more dangerous car crashes than sober drivers.
[/quote]
Obviously, though, they only looked at crashes.

[srzss05]

@samclem

You disappear for five years, then open a thread in General Questions asking for opinions.

Moving this one to IMHO, from General Questions.

samclem, Moderator

To be fair, it was started in GD and moved to GQ by marley.

[Norse]

@Hilarity_N.Suze

A recent statistic I saw for our area is that in fatal auto accidents a little more than one-third were caused by drunk drivers. […] So, a little less than two-thirds of them are caused by plain and simple bad driving.

Why do we work hard to get the drunk drivers off the road and leave the bad drivers? Obviously by getting some drunks off the road we get rid of some bad drivers, but how about the rest of them? They are obviously almost twice as lethal as the drunks.

You’re missing a critical data point: How big a fraction of all of the drivers are driving drunk? If % (of total) drunk drivers < % drivers involved in accidents being drunk, then drunk drivers pose a bigger risk than sober drivers, regardless of badness and carelessness. And without being able to produce a cite right now, I believe I’ve seen some numbers supporting that hypothesis

<rant>
What the heck is it with (US) Americans and DUI? After about a year here (and roughly the same amount of time living in the US), I have a distinct impression that you guys consider it a human right to be allowed to drive with a BAC of at least .05%.
</rant>

[ryan]

I work in bars as a bouncer 3 or more nights a week. I see someone every night who is over the legal limit get in their car and drive away. Some have gotten caught, some have had accidents and one person I know hit and killed a pedestrian when leaving a different bar.

[guizot]

@Hilarity_N.Suze

Why do we work hard to get the drunk drivers off the road and leave the bad drivers? Obviously by getting some drunks off the road we get rid of some bad drivers, but how about the rest of them? They are obviously almost twice as lethal as the drunks.

The “rest” of them is everyone else–because there is no single factor to determine what makes a “bad” driver. (Of course the DMV will eventually take away the license of someone who has enough points.) However, when someone ingests a chemical that impairs their motor-physical and perceptual skills, then you can at least clearly identify the problem, and you can (in theory, at least) remove it. Accidents are always going to happen to even good drivers, and you’d have to empty the roads completely to prevent that. A similar approach is outlawing cell phone use, because–like alcohol–it’s something that can be clearly identified as a high risk and more or less easily be cited. But you can’t just give a citation to someone for “not paying attention.”

[Lanzy]

I’ve driven home after having one too many, never had an accident or gotten a ticket. I do have to actually concentrate while driving. I don’t get falling down drunk, but would hope I would not attempt driving if I did.

[Hilarity_N.Suze]

@guizot

The “rest” of them is everyone else–because there is no single factor to determine what makes a “bad” driver. (Of course the DMV will eventually take away the license of someone who has enough points.) However, when someone ingests a chemical that impairs their motor-physical and perceptual skills, then you can at least clearly identify the problem, and you can (in theory, at least) remove it. Accidents are always going to happen to even good drivers, and you’d have to empty the roads completely to prevent that. A similar approach is outlawing cell phone use, because–like alcohol–it’s something that can be clearly identified as a high risk and more or less easily be cited. But you can’t just give a citation to someone for “not paying attention.”

Wrong. Accidents CAN happen to good drivers, but they don’t “always” and in fact, hardly ever. There’s some statistic, which I can’t find right now, that in most multicar accidents, something like 92% of them, the driver of every car contributed in some way. If you drive defensively and drive well your chances of being in an accident are almost zero. I have avoided and averted accidents while driving and even while talking on a cell phone (which, when I first started using one, it seemed like driving while talking on it was even worse than driving drunk, but I learned how to do it). The thing to remember is that when you’re driving it’s always the most important thing you’re doing.

[guizot]

@Hilarity_N.Suze

There’s some statistic, which I can’t find right now, that in most multicar accidents, something like 92% of them, the driver of every car contributed in some way.

Of course. But it wasn’t in any one, single way that they contributed, that can be proscribed across the board. That’s the point.

[Clothahump]

Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 48 minutes.1 The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $51 billion.2

Thankfully, there are effective measures that can help prevent injuries and deaths from alcohol-impaired driving.

How big is the problem?

In 2009, 10,839 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (32%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.1
Of the 1,314 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2009, 181 (14%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.1
Of the 181 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2009, about half (92) were riding in the vehicle with the with the alcohol-impaired driver.1
In 2009, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.3 That's less than one percent of the 147 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year.4
Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are often used in combination with alcohol.5

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
IMNSHO, the frequency is: way too damn much.

Back in the days when I was a deputy sheriff, I nailed at least two drunk drivers a week.

[studmuffin]

Judging by TVs World’s Greatest Cop Car Chases you yankees are just a bunch of rooting-tooting car wrecking, pickup driving, red light jumping, baseball cap wearing hill-billy pissheads.

[Snickers]

@Norse

<rant>
What the heck is it with (US) Americans and DUI? After about a year here (and roughly the same amount of time living in the US), I have a distinct impression that you guys consider it a human right to be allowed to drive with a BAC of at least .05%.
</rant>

Part of the problem is that our DUI enforcement is laughable. While the penalties can be stiff, IMO they’re not severe enough to pose a real deterrent. And in some parts of the country, the penalties might not ever be applied in the first place. I was raised in a small town in rural western Wisconsin, and you’d better believe that there was an unacknowledged policy of looking the other way, especially for young adults and teenagers.

I’m no saint. I’ve absolutely driven when I shouldn’t have, and have driven when I had no business driving home. I’ve been lucky - I neither have gotten caught nor gotten into any accidents. And I need to change my behaviour, as it’s absolutely not acceptable what I’ve done. I’ve played the odds, and the reason I’ve played them is because I don’t respect the penalties of a DUI enough. I don’t know that I’m different from many Americans.

[bubba_jr]

@Snickers

I don’t respect the penalties of a DUI enough. I don’t know that I’m different from many Americans.

Probably not, I didn’t either. Quite a lot of “look the other way”. 65 in a 35 shit faced coming from the bar at 3am, finally realized there was a cop behind me, slowed down, got home, got out of my car.

Cop pulled up next to me, told me I was doing 65 in a 35, told me to slow down next time. Told me I had a left brake light out, “left?” “right (as in correct)”. “right?” “no… left”. “left?” “right (as in correct)” “right?” “no.. left”. That went on until he told me to go to bed.

Invincible, not quite, 2 months later, I got nailed. I know I deserved it. I didn’t hit anybody, nobody got hurt, no vehicles were injured.

What a pain in the ass, an EXPENSIVE pain in the ass, and this was almost 15 years ago.

First, I got to go to jail, which wasn’t bad since I knew the sergeant on duty. He gave me a newspaper to read, let me keep my glasses and let me smoke in my cell. He called the magistrate and told him to get there quick, a few hours, he drove me home. $25 to the magistrate.

$95 to get my car out of car jail.

Court, day off of work. There went a sick day.

Lawyer, $600 just to make sure I got the standard “penalty” and wasn’t made the example.

More court, postponed, postponed, court day!!! 3 more work days lost.

$540 in probation fees.

$632 for 17 weeks of drunk driving school(that was actually kind of fun)

$400 in court fees

$335 to get my license back after 104 days.
That’s the money part, every rode your bike to work at 4am in an ice storm? That is the definition of sucking!!!

Bumming rides off of people sucks, that cost a bit more money in bribes, gas money and what not trying to get where I needed to go.

Do I still drink, yep. Do I drive drunk, probably have.. on the edge of the limit. Beers and time are closely monitored now so that I don’t have that problem again, second offense here now, they can take your car.

It sucks, don’t do it. Its a huge hit on the wallet, and you feel like such a douche bumming a ride.

[JoelUpchurch]

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

When you look at the data one thing sticks out:
Year Total Fatalities Alcohol Related
1982 43,945 26,173
2009 33,808 12,744
Diff 8,137 13,429

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.

I can see a major decrease in the tolerance of the general public for drunken driving. When I started driving, it was legal for 18 year olds to drink.

[Jaledin]

Anecdotal, but over the years, lots of people drive drunk, including me on occasion back in the day.

That’'s why defensive driving is a good skill – always assume the other guy/“gall” is off their gourd and I don’t see what the problem is. If some tailgating mofo rear ends some asshole drunk or swerves over the center line, I’m inclined to say it’s mutual culpability.

[Annie-Xmas]

I don’t care if you drink yourself into the gutter. Been there, done that many a time.

But if you drink and drive, you might as well get a gun and start shooting.

[Brandus]

An unfortunate side effect of having a car culture.

It’s really quite absurd that we trust the average citizen to commandeer 2,000 pound vehicles whizzing by eachother at 50 miles per hour. We might as well pass out guns at sporting events.

[2gigch1]

@Brandus

We might as well pass out guns at sporting events.

I’ve always thought football games would be a lot more interesting if each team got a sniper with 2 bullets.

[Sparky812]

@bubba_jr

Do I still drink, yep. Do I drive drunk, probably have.. on the edge of the limit. Beers and time are closely monitored now so that I don’t have that problem again, second offense here now, they can take your car.

It sucks, don’t do it. Its a huge hit on the wallet, and you feel like such a douche bumming a ride.

And err.. you could seriously injure or kill some someone.