If you look at the actual data I put in post#35, the actual fatal incidents of drunk driving have gone down by over half between 1982 and 2009. It would also be helpful if actually listed what country you are comparing the United States to. There are some countries much worse about drunk driving than the United States.
Americans have become much less tolerant of drunk driving than they were back in the seventies.
[QUOTE=thelurkinghorror;14479182And to the OP, yes, 0.08% is not noticeably drunk, and many may drive even if they don’t know they are that far along. Also, you can often get arrested for “impaired driving” even if BAC is under the limit.[/QUOTE]
You are driving drunk in British Columbia with a BAC of .05%.
I have personally been involved in a very similar program and I have administered tens of thousands of dollars in rides without a single payment issue. The main issue I have seen is that drunk people–who could probably drive around a race course without tapping a single cone–are gaudauful at keeping track of their damn cell phones!
I hear stories like yours from time-to-time and they generally sound dubious. You didn’t feel like arguing, but did you call the cab company? Simply saying no one would have believed your story doesn’t make your story more believable.
Maybe your cab driver ripped you off, but that does not make cab drivers crooked and it does not justify driving drunk when you have a perfectly viable alternative. I could easily document a hundred cases where a passenger jumps and runs without paying the cabbie, but I have yet to see a case where someone was charged twice and the situation wasn’t immediately remedied, and the conditions that led to the overcharge turned out to be purely coincidental.
Those data don’t address my comment. Clothahump’s data in post #31, OTOH, do:
If more than 32% of US drivers at any moment are drunk, then DUI isn’t a significant traffic risk
If less than 32% of US drivers at any moment are drunk, then DUI poses a significant increase for causing a traffic-related death.
Even if I were to allow (hypothetically) for a quite appalling degree of acceptance of driving while slightly under the influence, I don’t believe that roughly one third of US drivers drive around with measurable amounts of alcohol in their blood .
I’m comparing the US to Northern Europe, because that’s where I’m living and know most about people’s attitudes towards drunk driving. And although “there are some countries much worse about drunk driving than the United States”, there are probably more countries where drunk driving is less accepted. Just look at the BAC limits around the world.
Y’know, that only tells me how bad it must have been back then. I’m referring to tolerance of DUI on this message board in the 2010s, and personal experience in the US in the 1990. In the 70s my understanding of traffic safety was on the “don’t play in the streets, and look to both sides before crossing” level.
Should have been “…in the 1990s”
One problem is the statistics are slanted. If a person is drunk and sitting at a stoplight, and a sober person rear ends them, guess who the accident is blamed on.
DUI laws have been getting more and more draconian over the last decades, yet highway death rates have plateaued. The highway death rate is about 1 death per 100,000,000 miles traveled and has been for a while now. One could argue that all these additional prosecutions and penalties haven’t bought us any more safety.
We can be sure, however, that they have created a huge DUI industry that rakes in millions of dollars for the cops, the courts and the lawyers.
As to the op, it’s extremely frequent. Just ask law enforcement. They know exactly where to cast their nets to bring in a nice catch and are always on the lookout especially during the evening and on weekends. In my experience most, I say most, of the offenders are going to be on the youthful side of 40. The younger the more inclined to feel lucky. Nasty problem, drunk driving. I say we need more local pubs within crawling distance! And prolly some more of those Breathalyzer type gimmicks for ignitions.
If you had bothered to read my link the data was in there. I don’t include links for my health.
Scandinavia has quite harsh penalties for DUI. Of course, it can be difficult to determine how they are actually enforced. Scandinavia and Germany have lower traffic fatalities rates in general than the United States. France is similar on traffic fatalities to the United States. I did see some merit in the Norwegian penalty of 3 weeks of hard labor for a DUI. That would be a deterrent even for a billionaire. My attitude is: If you can’t afford cab fare, then drink at home.
http://www.who.int/roadsafety/projects/manuals/alcohol/en/
http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/drinking-and-driving-the-laws-in/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_law_by_country#Europe
It was bad back in the sixties. If you look at the WHO link, then the DUI levels were like we have in third world countries today. People didn’t even wear seat-belts. In terms of deaths per passenger mile, fatalities have dropped by a factor of ten.
More important, IMO, is the quite high risk of getting caught. It hardly matters how harsh the penalty is if the risk of being caught is essentially nil.
Here, just by driving a car you run a significant risk of being pulled over for a routine breathalyzer test. They just pull over as many cars they can handle and have every driver tested. Especially around Christmastime when people generally drink more.
Shit like this pisses me off. There is no ‘little bit’ versus ‘lot bit’ drunk when driving. Don’t do it. If you do, you’re a jerk. And you should be arrested and your license taken away forever and ever.
Or maybe these prosecutions keep people off the road when they are drunk or after they’ve already been caught driving drunk? Thought of that? By the use of your word ‘draconian’, I can only assume you drive under the influence.
That probably varies hugely from one jurisdiction to another, with varying resources. I’ve been pulled over for burned out lamps, old tags, etc., but after 15 years on the road throughout California I’ve never been pulled over for a breathalyzer test. I’m not sure, but I think it was the CDC who did a self-reporting survey recently where those arrested for drunk driving admitted to driving dangerously intoxicated many times before they got arrested. I think probably a lot of people are driving around legally drunk without getting stopped for testing.
Plus, you’re driving an unfamiliar vehicle. I think I would do way better driving my own vehicle vs. a vehicle provided by a group intending to show how bad drunk driving is.
Drunk driving is bad, btw.
That’s not true everywhere (anywhere?). DUI is always illegal, but so is careless/reckless driving. Just because someone is wasted but wide awake waiting for the red light to change doesn’t mean they’re a sitting duck without recourse for some other maniac to smash into them. They’ll still probably get their DUI ticket when the cops show up, but the person who caused the accident will be held accountable for what they did as well. If that’s not the case, let me know where so I can avoid going there.
As for the OP: Drunk driving is a very bad idea indicative of poor/impaired judgment. It is also a reality everyone faces whenever they come near a road. Even if you’re sober, you need to drive like everyone else is trying to kill you.
Yes, but this kind of attitude prevents a fair scientific study from taking place. There are those of us who are interested in true unbiased data. And for the record, there is indeed a difference in impairment between a bit and a lot of drinking. :rolleyes:
I think what we’re getting at is that the accident will count toward “alcohol-related” accident statistics, regardless of culpability, just to inflate the numbers and cajole people with big numbers, yet the methodology of how the results of the study were obtained are not published.
Ah. Noted.
I’ve had a couple (2) drinks with dinner and then driven home before, but it’s generally 2 drinks over 2 hours or so, and I am extra careful when driving home, just in case. I don’t know what my BAC is because I haven’t tested it, so I don’t know if it has ever been above the legal limit or not.
I have never been in a car accident where I was the driver, however. Nor come close. The only two car accidents I’ve ever been in at all were one when I was a kid and my mom was driving and we were rear-ended by a guy who didn’t stop for a school bus, and one where my first husband was driving and we were stopped at a red light and the guy in front of us backed up to let someone into traffic, backing right into our car and buckling the hood.
I would not drive if I felt even the slightest buzz. It isn’t worth it.
You mean third world countries like South Africa, El Salvador or Bulgaria ?
I actually remember reading about draconian penalties for drunk driving in third world countries back in the 60s, and thinking how backwards and freedom limited these third world countries were and considered myself lucky to have the police bend over backwards to avoid charging me with dui in Ontario and Britain on at least 6 different occasions when I was stopped for cause.
But I was young then and didn’t know any better.
I am going to guess that that list is 90% bullshit, or else just refers to back to when El Salvador was a military dictatorship, and not the democracy it is today. And Bulgaria has not executed anyone since 1989, abolishing it fully in 1998. I’ve seen some of these factoids being used to scare people straight by police/DUI schools, and it makes me rolleyes.