Drunk Driving

In My Humble Opinion
101

I have been thinking some more about the penalties for drunk driving. The problem, as I see it, is that drunks are so unlikely to actually be apprehended. The penalties, no matter how harsh, are little deterrent.

There is quite a bit of literature on how likely drunk drivers are to be apprehended. As near as I can tell most of the literature is was from back in the 1990s, and sometimes the 1980s. The common statistic was that a drunk would drive 27,000 miles each DUI. I did my own calculations and came up with 15,000 miles. I then assumed that the average trip home by a drunk is around 15 miles (The actual NHTSA number is 16 miles). That works out to 1000 trips for each DUI. This is consistent with the literature that suggests numbers from 200 to 2000 trips.

If a drunk can drive home every Friday night for 10 years without getting a DUI, then most penalties will be a limited deterrent. It would also explain why my suggestion that drunks should call a cab is ineffective. The drunk would end up spending $50,000 for cab fare for each DUI. Many might conclude that risking a DUI is actually a good bet.

Since there are about 1.4 million DUIs in the United States every year, then the implication is that the actual incidencts of drunken driving is 1.4 billion. That works out to seven incidents of drunk driving for every driver in the United States. Most drivers will have zero incidents. A few drivers will have hundreds of incidents. A lot of people will have one or two incidents a month.

The problem is not that our DUI penalties are not harsh enough, but the chances of apprehension are so low. If we could increase the apprehension rate is something like what you might get for going 20 miles per hour over the speed limit, then that might be more effective in decreasing DUI than increasing the penalties. In any case, about the only option we have left for increasing the penalties is making prison mandatory for first offense. Even if you consider that fair, it is an extremely expensive option.

We need some technology that would increase the chances of an apprehension that is on the order of magnitude of say speeding at 20 miles an hour over the speed limit. I cannot think of any technology that could detect ethanol directly under those conditions; at least not with the windows rolled up. The best idea I have had so far is for an AI technology that would analyze the driving and detect any variations between a sober driver and a drunk driver. Maybe there will be some micro-tremors in the hands of an operator, under the influence of alcohol, which would not be apparent in a sober driver. It does not need to be foolproof. Just good enough to pull the driver over for a sobriety test.

The other alternative is simply to do nothing. This might be a more practical alternative. I expect robocars to become common within 20 years. This could render the issue of drunk driving moot. In a blog I follow, there is some discussion about whether children born today will actually have to learn how to drive a car manually.

102

The technology exists already: Sobriety checkpoints where every driver - regardless of probable cause - is required to take a breathalyzer test. It’s done routinely in my part of the world. How politically acceptable that would be in your part of the world, however is a completely different question on which I won’t even try to speculate.

103

I’ve been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint before, but I don’t remember what tests, if any, they performed. I wasn’t the driver so it didn’t make as big an impact on me that I would remember. I think that was in Georgia, so they do them there, at least.

“Drunk Driving” (kind of) Anecdote: We have a friend in Boston (we’re 45minutes west of Boston, in the 'burbs) and we went out to hang with her last summer one evening and went to a few different bars and had a few drinks at each. By the time we got back to her place we were definitely over the limit. We stayed at her house for several hours until I felt I was safe to drive, and we drove home. Once I got in the car, I felt a little weird. I probably should have said “let’s go back inside” but instead we drove home. I felt extremely paranoid and every time we had to stop for a light I totally over-analyzed my stopping skill/technique. I felt like everyone was watching me. We made it home fine but it was very uncomfortable and I said I wouldn’t do that again.

This last weekend we went to visit her again, and again went out drinking. I think I had 4 drinks from about 11pm-1:30am. When we got back to her house we pulled out the sofa bed to spend the night. Unfortunately there was a snag in the plan–my night meds, which help me sleep, were at home. As a result, I was unable to fall asleep at all. At 7:30am our friend got up (she was going to NJ to visit her mom and wanted to leave early) and the noise woke up my husband. When I told him I hadn’t slept, he asked if I wanted to just go home. I said yes. He hadn’t been drinking since about 9pm (he slept on the couch while we went out to the bar, because he spent the day drinking and watching football without us) so he could have driven, but he was still very sleepy from just having woken up. I felt fine, and it had been 6 hours since my last drink (and the 4 drinks I had were spaced out enough that I never really felt drunk. Hell, I barely felt a buzz, really. I think they were mixing weak drinks, if you want my real opinion.) so I was certain I was fine to drive. I also wasn’t tired (the whole problem!) so I drove us home. There were no problems, no nervousness, no close encounters, nothing. It was just a regular drive.

So the closest I’ve ever come to drunk driving was that first night I told about, driving home from Boston. I don’t think I was drunk, or even over the limit, but I felt impaired even if it was only because of my own anxiety. I don’t know if my nervous driving would have caught the attention of a cop or not, or if I’d have blown over a 0.0 on a breathalyzer. I just know I don’t want to do that again. The second time I’d had plenty of time to sober up and it was fine. It convinced me that in the future we’ll always plan on staying over at her apartment if we go out drinking in Boston, and I will bring my medication with me next time, so I can actually sleep.

104

You don’t understand the qualitative implications of my argument. In order to get a get huge improvement in the actual apprehension rate of drunk drivers, we would have to have most of the police force involved in sobriety checkpoints, closing down major roads every night in order to achieve this. Also keep in mind that sobriety checkpoints are only effective for short periods of time and the location are quickly twittered around and the drunks will avoid them. Since most traffic fatalities are not from drunk drivers, having the police preemptively concentrate on DUI would be counterproductive. Police should also try to deter other forms of criminal activity and you should not be using all of you police resources just on DUI. Sobriety checkpoints are relatively inefficient, because you have to test hundreds of drivers to find one drunk.

It isn’t obvious that other countries are much more effective than the United States, in preventing drunk driving. The United States has a DUI fatality at the rate of 38%. WHO reports, no country with a DUI fatality rate of below 20%. It isn’t obvious how much of a difference is actually law enforcement, and how much is actually cultural. Utah already has a very low DUI fatality rate and this is probably because of Mormon culture.

105

I think the problem with your anecdote is that cautious people like yourself are already deterred by current DUI laws. The current problem is people who are not inclined to fully assess the consequences of their actions. I.E fools. That is why we have such a huge problem with underage DUI.

106

I think they are incredibly effective, so effective in fact, that they don’t even have to have the checkpoint, just the threat of a checkpoint.

That is they are effective in deterring drunk driving, not necessarily catching drunk drivers.

Part of it might be public transportation. I would guess, but don’t know, that Boston, NYC, DC have lower rates of drunk drivers than places like here where there is essentially no public transportation.

Personally what I would like to see, and I think it might work. A way to get you and your car home. A lot of people drive drunk so that their car will be at home in the morning, even if they are offered a ride.

Old dudes on SS or folks on assistance. Team them up, one will drive you and your car home, one will follow. Charge a reasonable cheap rate, and don’t count the income against their assistance or SS. The government throws money at stuff all the time, you could even fund it with a 25 cent tax on bar drinks.

Just a thought…

107

That’s sweet that you think that still works. The checkpoint locations are passed around on twitter and the drunks just avoid them.

The new tactic is saturation patrols, but since they are concentrated in a small area they just move the drinking to a different area.

The trouble in Orlando is that buses don’t run late enough. The bus closest to my house only runs to 7:30. I only know of one bus that runs after midnight.

What I would like to do is relax the zoning rules so we could have more local taverns where you could walk home. When I lived on the South side of St. Louis there was a tavern within a few blocks of my flat.

108

Some searches and or seizures only require a “reasonable suspicion” of misconduct. RANDOM pull overs are UNconstitutional, however, as noted, contolled checkpoints are permitted.

The same with driver’s license checkpoints, they are permitted by the 4th AM, but RANDOMLY pulling over a motorist to check for a DL when no PC or RS exists to doubt they have one is UNconstitutional.

No, “implied consent” laws only apply after a legal stop has been made and either PC or a RS exists the person is drunk/high. An officer simply can’t pull a person over with no reason just to give a breathtest.

109

Having worked in law enforcement (not as a peace officer), you would be amazed at the number of cars on the road with “defective taillights” or burned-out license plate lights, or even a splotch of mud on your license plate or a license plate frame that extends a millimeter too low. According to my compatriots in that profession, the total approaches 100 percent. What that amounts to is that a police officer can pull you over quite legally for any reason at any time.

110

Stopping a motor vehicle is a Seizure under the 4th AM, and must conform to such. As long as a “violation of law” has occured by mindset of PC or RS, the seizure is legal.

Other stops can also confrom to the 4th even though no offense was committed.

A police officer’s “subjective intention” to pull over a motorist to fish is legal as long as it is not due to race, color etc.

111

If people can drink and drive that much without incident, that sort of begs the question of if driving drunk is even really an issue. How many trips can a person take before they have a non-drinking related accident?

112

I wonder what the relationship (if any) between BAC and excessive speed. My assumption is that people who are really hammered drive faster, although I can’t come up with a good physiological/psychological reason why…
On the few occasions when I have driven after 1-3 too many I am cautious and paranoid (but also impaired obviously). On the once occasion that I was truly wasted, I flew home way over the limit. I had the biggest bout of anxiety and self-condemnation the next day…

I would guess that most fatal DUIs are people driving clearly over the speed limit and substantially drunk, not marginally over the BAC minimum.

113

I have heard (no cite) that DUIs drive below the speed limit, because the are overcorrecting for their speed. Most of these people know they are at a risk of being pulled over, but can rationalize their need to drive. The speeding yahoos like Ryan Dunn are likely a completely different breed. These are likely the people who are completely plowed and still driving. They could have a higher fatality rate (conflicting info?) due to carelessness, while a decrease reaction time is a risk factor in all cases.

It can be time consuming and difficult to constantly check your speed when drunk, so many will let it get out of hand.

114

Since you are quoting something I posted, It is obvious you haven’t read the other posts in this thread and don’t seem to understand basic math. On a per mile basis, a drunken driver is about 50 times as likely to be involved in a fatal accident as a sober driver. In spite of tiny percentage of mileage driven drunk every year they are still responsible for 38% of the traffic fatalities in the United States.

115

Not only do I understand math, I don’t need to read any other posts because any thought you might have come up with, I’ve probably already thought of it.

I “get” that drunk drivers cause more accidents than non-drunk drivers. But from the drinker’s perspective, the chances of something bad happening, whether it is a DUI or an accident, tend to be remote. So most would choose to risk driving over paying for a cab or not drinking.

It’s a combination of impared reaction time and tunnel vision. As you drink more, you don’t see things as quickly and are slower to react - an upcoming turn, a changing stoplight, the speedometer passing 80, a deer or small child running out in front of your car. There is also the reduced inhibitions. As in, alchohol quiets that little voice in your head that says “I wouldn’t do that shit”. Shit like drive your Porsche 100 MPH down a dark country road.

116

I think I will stick with math idiot as an explanation. I actually consider 12 to 13 thousand dead people a year as a pretty serious issue. If drunks were just assuming the risk themselves, then that is one thing, but it is also risk they impose on others without their consent is quite another.

Riding a motorcycle is pretty risky behavior, but the risk is assumed by the driver rather than imposed on others.

117

This what the researcher who did the study I mentioned in post #10 said in an interview about the results:
[QUOTE=David Phillips]
Well, we found for example that buzzed drivers…drove cars faster than sober drivers, significantly faster, and they drove cars in which people were more likely to be not strapped in compared with sober drivers. And they were more likely to be driving the striking vehicle rather than the struck vehicle. All of these things are associated with accidents of greater severity. We also found that in general the higher the blood alcohol content, the faster the driver, the less likely the passengers are to be strapped in, and the more likely the driver is to be driving the striking vehicle. This is called epidemiology, it’s called dose responsive relationship. The higher the dose, the higher the response. In this case, the higher the blood alcohol content, the worse the severity.
[/quote]
He uses the term “buzzed” (instead of “drunk”) because the study was looking at people who had any BAC at all–even below the legal limit.