I’ve got a 31% chance of becoming a traffic fatality when driving drunk, and a 69% chance when driving sober! I’d better go get a drink before I hit the road.
12 Likes
You get that you can’t just lump all the other causes together and then say that aggregate group of causes has a higher percentage than the single cause of DUI, right?
10 Likes
I wonder if Ted Kennedy’s little incident was one of the factors that helped change the public’s perception of the problem.
3 Likes
Honestly, I’m starting to wonder how someone with that dubious an understanding of statistics even became a mad scientist in the first place.
13 Likes
To be fair, if mad scientists paid attention to the statistics then they’d start noticing that their plans couldn’t possibly work in real life. And then you’re just left with the inevitable…
5 Likes
Oh, I thought those were just bad scientists.
1 Like
It’s both! @onemadscientist just hasn’t figured out how to use the Google machine yet.
(More detailed and recent stats available in the NHTSA reports I linked to above).
5 Likes
I hope those limits are set using the 85th percentile rule, and are not artificially low to generate ticket revenue.
Really, this article should properly be titled
“Get drunk, drive, die”
Because millions of Americans occasionally consume one or two drinks, get in their cars, and drive home without any measurable impairment and while endangering absolutely no one.
Most DUI fatalities are caused by repeat offenders who drive while massively impaired and who should of course get the book thrown at them.
But the current trend to reduce BAC limits is an attempt to enforce a zero tolerance policy which punishes millions of innocent, safe drivers while doing nothing more to get the really bad drunks off the road.
3 Likes
The problem is that alcohol muddles your ability to determine whether you’re too drunk to drive.
I’d be happy with a zero-BAC rule for driving; but then, I don’t drink, and I see alcohol as a dangerous drug that probably wouldn’t be approved if it had to go through a formal FDA process like any other drug has to.
It’s just too bad that it’s so integrated into our social consciousness, and so easy to make, that we’ll probably never be able to get rid of it.
1 Like
Interestingly, in Indiana it reverts to SLOW DOWN if you’re 10+, not 5+, over the speed limit. Guess they know the locals there!
1 Like
You’ve been having trouble following the stats for the Republican primary process, haven’t you? A list of anything more than 2 means the “majority” can be less than 50% and still be the leader.
5 Likes
You might not want to go to the Czech Republic then. They have a REAL (not imagined) 0% tolerance for drunk driving. One drink with dinner before getting behind the wheel? That’s a crime there.
1 Like
Yep. Bad, bad law. I’ll take them off my vacation list.
1 Like
Wow. Just wow. I’m glad you’re not the pleasure czar.
2 Likes
I’d like to know what part of that sentence description of alcohol you find inaccurate.
2 Likes
d[quote=“Brainspore, post:41, topic:77956”]
Drunk driving is the single biggest risk factor for a traffic fatality and is 100% preventable.
[/quote] That is simply not true. Distracted driving is the the biggest risk factor, then speeding. Both of which I might add are easily preventable as a DUI is. I am not throwing all the other causes together to come up with the larger percentage either.
The bottom line is DUI is not as deadly as other moving violations, the others are as voluntary, and even more flagrant since the drivers are not impaired by alcohol, AND, DUI has the most severe penalty. DUI should not have the most severe penalty if you are looking for a deterrent that will save the most lives- period!!!
See the top chart. From link below for more accurate and “recent” data compiled from the numbers published by NHTSA. In some states it may be #1, but a whole “NATIONALLY” it is not. Brainspore = Brainsize?? This is a simple concept. …2002 really…that’s the year you post?? Better be careful, because according to statistics from 1949 you are more likely to get the measles than get killed by a drunk driver. Also take note in the link where it states: “A simple mistake causes the most driving fatalities across the country”…and it is NOT DUI!
Then read point #2 from Lollipops second link posted,
There will always be those who believe DUI is the worst moving violation because someone told them so.
If drinking and driving is not 100% preventable, what sorcery is forcing people to drink and drive? Please explain this magic!
1 Like
When used by responsible adults, the dangers of alcohol are near zero.
Same thing applies to guns, marijuana, and human sex organs.
You know, even Stalin wasn’t totalitarian enough to ban vodka.
1 Like
DUI is NOT the single biggest risk factor as you mentioned, but it is preventable the same as speeding and distracted driving. The public has been snowed into believing it is by the media. The penalty is much much worse for DUI, whereas for the higher percentage killer you just get a ticket if caught. If you want to save the most lives putting all the resources into DUI is not the right place. Having a beer commercial say “don’t drink and drive”, but then advertise 200HP cars, zero to sixty in 6 seconds, show “professional drivers on a closed course” driving erratically doesn’t make sense, as it are these violations that kill more people than DUI’s. Is it starting to make sense now? [quote=“lolipop_jones, post:60, topic:77956”]
When used by responsible adults, the dangers of alcohol are near zero.
[/quote]
Agree entirely.
