A bit dated but here's a prime example of why older drivers should be routinely tested.

Judge: Market crash driver too ill for prison (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/20/market.accident.ap/index.html)

POSTED: 6:47 p.m. EST, November 20, 2006

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- An 89-year-old man whose car hurtled through a farmers market, killing 10 people, was let off on probation Monday by a judge who said he believed the defendant deserved to go prison but was too ill.

George Russell Weller was convicted Oct. 20 of 10 counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence in a case that renewed debate over whether elderly people should lose their driver's licenses.

Weller, confined to a sickbed, was not in court for his sentencing.

Superior Court Judge Michael Johnson said he agreed completely with the jury and called Weller's actions callous and showing "an enormous indifference to human life."

[More... (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/20/market.accident.ap/index.html)]

I'll present a counter argument which relates to the situation in my family. My parents are both over 80 and my father is in a wheelchair and my mother has had both hips replaced. They currently both drive and there is really no easy substitute for them in public transport or walking, especially if carrying shopping. If they were banned from driving then they would probably have to move house, possibly into a care home, or become dependent on myself or another relative. Their current home is properly adapted for a wheelchair so anything new would be less suitable and less healthy. They would probably have to give up their hobbies and voluntary work. I don't want to be the person to tell them one day that they shouldn't drive, even though I do keep an eye on their driving and I know it could become an issue.

Prematurely taking the car away from an elderly person can take years off their life, just as much as letting them drive too long can put road users at risk.

The driving tests should be geared to balance the needs of older drivers against the safety of everyone else. As difficult as it is to give up the mobility that driving affords it is also difficult to lose a friend or a family member to someone who is unable to effectively control their vehicle.

I don't want to be the person to tell them one day that they shouldn't drive, even though I do keep an eye on their driving and I know it could become an issue.
I hear ya. I keep an eye on my folks as well. My dad is fine but I'm beginning to worry about my mom. I've considered going back to work and hiring her a full time driver but somehow I think I'd have a hard time selling her on the idea. :)

If they were banned from driving then they would probably have to move house, possibly into a care home, or become dependent on myself or another relative.

So...

Not only are they endangering other people on the road.

They are too selfish to pay another person, other people, to help them out. Sounds like the perfect entrepreneurial opportunity. Having outreach programs where unemployed people, maybe even immigrants, help fetch groceries and such for old people.

There should be a law against selfish old people like this, who have no regard but for their own money and whims.

I don't want to be the person to tell them one day that they shouldn't drive
Friends(and family) don't let friends(or family) drive old.

The judge noted that Weller had enough control of his vehicle to avoid cars and trucks within the farmers market.

"Mr. Weller chose to steer into the people, plowing into the crowd and literally launching bodies into the air as his car sped 2 1/2 blocks," the judge said. The judge also called Weller's apologies hollow.Age had nothing to do it. He was just a homicidal lunatic.

As to elderly drivers, I agree, they should be retested regularly after age 55. But that would not have prevented this crime.

Why just elderly drivers? I would think that some form of regular retesting for all drivers would be appropriate.

Why just elderly drivers? I would think that some form of regular retesting for all drivers would be appropriate.
That's fine by me. I suspect that the elderly are singled out because there is a strong correlation between age and the loss of cognitive/physical capability.

Why just elderly drivers? I would think that some form of regular retesting for all drivers would be appropriate.

Absolutely, and old drivers should just be randomly stopped.

Given the equivalent of a field sobriety test, including any physical requirements, and reaction time. And if they fail the test they should have to spend the night in jail, have their car impounded, and their license revoked.

If an old driver can not drive better than a drunk driver, they should be hit with the same penalties. More actually, a drunk driver can still be sober, that old person is not getting any younger.

Eldery should definately be tested (not just written but actual test) at increasing frequencies as they age.

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- An 89-year-old man whose car hurtled through a farmers market, killing 10 people, was let off on probation Monday by a judge who said he believed the defendant deserved to go prison but was too ill.
What, CA doesn't have prison hospitals? Do we release every killer who gets ill?

http://www.camemorial.org/htm/cromwell.htm

Our little Hiway 12 was renamed the Rick Cromwell Hiway.

Officer Rick Cromwell in 1998 pulled over an elderly driver who was pulling out of a local shopping market parking lot for driving badly.

6 Months later, the same driver pulled out of the same parking lot, on the same stretch of road and killed Officer Cromwell.

Old people should not be driving.



All we need to do is find little blond haired girls hit by old drivers, instead of fat motorcycle cops, and we could easily take this liberty away as well.

Do it for the children!

If an old driver can not drive better than a drunk driver, they should be hit with the same penalties. More actually, a drunk driver can still be sober, that old person is not getting any younger.So if you kill someone by accidentally giving them an overdose of some drug, you should get the same penalty as someone who did it intentionally? And the penalty should be the same if you did it intentionally, but with the patient's consent because he wanted to die?

There's more to punishment than the harm caused. There are questions of intent and public policy. The same action, with the same consequence, can either receive no punishment or the ultimate punishment depending on the circumstances.

Drunk drivers make a <i>choice</i> to drive drunk. Old people can't make the choice to drive young. We should monitor them to make sure they're driving safely, but they should never be criminally punished just for being old.http://www.camemorial.org/htm/cromwell.htm

Our little Hiway 12 was renamed the Rick Cromwell Hiway.

Officer Rick Cromwell in 1998 pulled over an elderly driver who was pulling out of a local shopping market parking lot for driving badly.

6 Months later, the same driver pulled out of the same parking lot, on the same stretch of road and killed Officer Cromwell.

Old people should not be driving.Better conclusion: motorcyclists should not be driving.

Drunk drivers make a <i>choice</i> to drive drunk. Old people can't make the choice to drive young.
Exactly my point. Drunk drivers are less of a risk to me and my safety because at least they are going to be sober most of the time.

Old drivers are MORE of a risk to me and my blond haired blue eyed little girls. Therefore they should be, at least the one's who fail an old person driver test at a random checkpoint, treated more rigorously than drunk drivers.

We should monitor them to make sure they're driving safely, but they should never be criminally punished just for being old.
They should be criminally punished for DRIVING while old, not for being old. This isn't Logan's Run, yet.

Better conclusion: motorcyclists should not be driving.
Or not be a fat donut-eating motorcycle cop.

Interesting test I thought.. since I hadn't taken it in nearly 25 years - I thought I did fairly well with 85%

Driving Test (http://www.gmacinsurance.com/SafeDriving/2006/test.asp)

They are too selfish to pay another person, other people, to help them out. Sounds like the perfect entrepreneurial opportunity. Having outreach programs where unemployed people, maybe even immigrants, help fetch groceries and such for old people.


I don't think you understand. The capability to go out and do the normal things in life is one of things that keeps them living. They enjoy their capability, especially my father since he is in a wheelchair. If my father had gone into a care home a decade ago I think he would be dead by now. It is not a matter of money. It is a matter life and quality of life.

y parents are still both safe drivers though, by my reckoning, so you needn't call for them to be off the roads just yet.

If an old driver can not drive better than a drunk driver, they should be hit with the same penalties. More actually, a drunk driver can still be sober, that old person is not getting any younger.

Complete and utter BS... Let me guess. You're young and you drink, right?

I love your oxymoron... a drunk driver can still be sober... ROFL... a drunk driver is... wait for it... DRUNK!!! Maybe you meant, a drunk driver can still get sober... *shrug*.

You have the insurance companies on your side though. The auto insurance for old people is higher than young people, right? What's that you say? Insurance for old people is lower?! Imagine that!

Certainly there are old people that shouldn't be driving. Mandatory driving tests are a good thing.

y personal experience is that older drivers are more careful, considerate, and are better drivers.

The insurance industry seems to agree.

http://www.insurance.com/Article.aspx/Teens_or_Seniors_-_Who_are_Our_Worst_Drivers/artid/129

Some quotes.

And while we grumble and grouse about our “white-haired” drivers who seem, as Shakespeare puts it, to be in mere oblivion, the truth is that we have little to complain about from them. Looking at the numbers, it’s the beauty of youth we have to fear.

Age and experience do matter
And while older drivers do have problems that can sometimes effect their ability to be the drivers they once were, studies show that older drivers tend to be aware of their limitations and restrict their driving as their abilities diminish. As a result, car accidents involving seniors are generally not serious. The spike in per mile fatality with older drivers is due to their increased fragility. (A driver over 65 is twice as likely to die from the same accident as a driver over 55, and a driver above 75 has four times the risk.)

Less than one percent of people over 65 die as a result of motor vehicle accidents. On the other hand, car crashes are the major cause of death for the age group 16-19. As the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety puts it “Teenage drivers represent a major hazard.”

Better conclusion: motorcyclists should not be driving.
We'd be giving up an excellent source of healthy organ donors.

Complete and utter BS... Let me guess. You're young and you drink, right?


Fy'yr is at least a decade older than I am ;)

You all miss the point. That punishing people for a state of being before they have done anything harmful as a result of that state of being is wrong across the board. Be it for being old, having a drink, or their prescription medication effecting them more than usual that day, or for being a teenager.

I'll present a counter argument which relates to the situation in my family. My parents are both over 80 and my father is in a wheelchair and my mother has had both hips replaced. They currently both drive and there is really no easy substitute for them in public transport or walking, especially if carrying shopping. If they were banned from driving then they would probably have to move house, possibly into a care home, or become dependent on myself or another relative. Their current home is properly adapted for a wheelchair so anything new would be less suitable and less healthy. They would probably have to give up their hobbies and voluntary work. I don't want to be the person to tell them one day that they shouldn't drive, even though I do keep an eye on their driving and I know it could become an issue.

Prematurely taking the car away from an elderly person can take years off their life, just as much as letting them drive too long can put road users at risk.

It's one of the things that we end up having to do for our elderly parents. I wish there were better resources out there for the elderly for transportation. Fortunately my sister was still living in town so we were able to share the burden. She drove them to doctor's appt. I took them shopping.

I hope you don't have a difficult time getting them to give up driving. I was really fortunate. My Dad drove over the curb a few times and realized he couldn't drive well any longer, it scared my Mom enough that she didn't push him to keep driving. Some kids have to take their parent's keys away!

What my parents did was limit their driving to just certain places they were familiar with and they avoided the freeway and only drove during good conditions. They did like most elderly drivers do and were extremely cautious. I think a lot of my Dad's decision to stop driving was because of that accident at the Farmer's market. He knew something like that could happen to him.

I suspect that we all agree that drunk drivers has been increasingly targeted by laws and enforcement. The social norms around drinking and driving have also changed. It is less acceptable now than it used to be.

Has this had an impact?

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

It certainly has!!

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, alcohol-related crashes accounted for 60% of fatalities in 1982. That's 26,173 deaths.

There has been a steady decrease over the years. Alcohol-related crashes accounted for 39% of fatalities in 2004. That's 16,694 deaths.

While 39% is outrageously high, it's also a major improvement. Some folks, like Aidon, may rail against infringement of personal freedoms, but public safety is an overriding consideration. If you support leaving drunk drivers alone until they actually hurt or kill someone, you end up with the fractured motto "Give me liberty and give me death."

Wow, that's a drastic improvement.

Wait a minute... we don't like motorcycle drivers either?

Wait a minute... we don't like motorcycle drivers either?
If Tuda had his way we'd all be packed in bubble-wrap.

I suspect that we all agree that drunk drivers has been increasingly targeted by laws and enforcement. The social norms around drinking and driving have also changed. It is less acceptable now than it used to be.

Has this had an impact?

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

It certainly has!!

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, alcohol-related crashes accounted for 60% of fatalities in 1982. That's 26,173 deaths.

There has been a steady decrease over the years. Alcohol-related crashes accounted for 39% of fatalities in 2004. That's 16,694 deaths.

While 39% is outrageously high, it's also a major improvement. Some folks, like Aidon, may rail against infringement of personal freedoms, but public safety is an overriding consideration. If you support leaving drunk drivers alone until they actually hurt or kill someone, you end up with the fractured motto "Give me liberty and give me death."

Public safety is not always an overriding consideration.

Public safety would have all of us living in padded rooms with our lives heavily regimented by the state to ensure nothing we do could endanger ourselves or others...

26k deaths, while a large number, is almost insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

In the year 2000 there were 2.4 million deaths in the United States. 16653 were "alcohol related" vehicular crash deaths. 2400000 and 16653. .6% of the deaths in the US. For this we've begun criminalizing people who haven't done anything wrong in and of itself.

This is a dangerous mindset. It is the same mindset which suggests banning guns because they can be used to hurt someone. It is the mindset which will open the door to criminalize pre-marital or extra-marital sex, because you might spread a disease. It is the identical mindset which suggests banning violent videogames, because someone using the game might go nuts and kill people.

I fear the ideology behind laws making it a crime to drive with a BAL over .0x% far more than I fear being killed by a drunk driver. Statistically the odds of me being killed by a drunk driver are miniscule.

The odds of the government making more and more things illegal because they have the potential for lethality is huge.

If Tuda had his way we'd all be packed in bubble-wrap.
Ah, I see.

Motor-cycle drivers are virtually no risk to anyone else. Their biggest risk is some asshole in a mini-van cutting them off or pulling out in front of them.

There has been a steady decrease over the years. Alcohol-related crashes accounted for 39% of fatalities in 2004. That's 16,694 deaths.

All this does is highlight the idiocy of targetting drunk drivers: the majority of car accident fatalities are not caused by drunk drivers. (And the number listed as being caused by drunk drivers are greatly exaggerated; read up on the methodology).

According to your numbers, over 26,000 people were killed in 2004 because of non-alcohol related causes. Since a good driver avoids accidents, these accidents were all caused by bad drivers. Therefore, bad drievrs are a much greater risk than drunk drivers. You are 56% more likely to be killed by a bad driver, than by a drunk driver.

We should be taking bad drivers off the road. Not old drivers or drunk drivers. Harder tests, more frequent re-testing, and if you cause an accident your license is gone for life. All without an unjustified loss of civil liberties.

My parents are still both safe drivers though, by my reckoning, so you needn't call for them to be off the roads just yet.

Let's give 'em a test, shall we.

That's linked site is just throwing numbers out there in hopes you buy there crap.

I bet 99% of the drunk drivers that CAUSED an accident AND killed someone had underware on at the time. Think of it... 99%.

Complete and utter BS... Let me guess. You're young and you drink, right?


Funny.


I love your oxymoron... a drunk driver can still be sober... ROFL... a drunk driver is... wait for it... DRUNK!!! Maybe you meant, a drunk driver can still get sober... *shrug*.
You have never heard someone called a drunk driver when they are sober?

For example:
y uncle Fred drinks, and then drives home from the bar.
He drives drunk.
He is a very good driver.
He is a very good drunk.
He is a very good drunk driver.
He has never had any accidents, while either sober or drunk.

He is a drunk driver, just like a Nascar driver can be a Nascar driver, even when the Nascar driver is not driving in a Nascar race.

Get it?
btw, I don't really have an uncle Fred, I made him up.

Dang - I was gonna send him a coin operated alcohol breath tester.

You all miss the point. That punishing people for a state of being before they have done anything harmful as a result of that state of being is wrong across the board. Be it for being old, having a drink, or their prescription medication effecting them more than usual that day, or for being a teenager.

Thank you.

You take the fun out of the whole thing when you spoil the trick like that though.

Exactly my point. Drunk drivers are less of a risk to me and my safety because at least they are going to be sober most of the time.Drunk drivers are never sober. That's why they're drunk drivers.

And you're still failing to grasp the notion that criminal punishment is not just related to the harm involved, but also the mental state of the individual and public policy concerns.

Just because X causes more harm than Y doesn't necessarily mean that X is going to be punished criminally more harshly than Y.Old drivers are MORE of a risk to me and my blond haired blue eyed little girls.The statistics don't agree with you. Even though old people drive old all the time, and drunkards only drive drunk part of the day.

Well if your statistics included 'old RELATED' accidents, you would have a point.

But they don't.

So you don't.

Questions about that linked article.

Is the 12% that involve pedestriand or 'pedalcyclists' 12% of the 39% or 12% of all fatalities?

And does one drunk killing 10 people count as 1 or 10?

Well if your statistics included 'old RELATED' accidents, you would have a point.

But they don't.

So you don't.Fifty-nine percent (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/AlcoholTSF05.pdf) of fatal alcohol-related crashes involve <b>drivers</b> with 0.08 BAC or higher. Sixty-six percent involve drivers with any level of alcohol.

If you showed me statistics that old people are even remotely as dangerous, you would have a point. But you didn't. So you don't.

Let me show you the real statistics (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/OlderPopulationTSF05.pdf): people over age 65 (78% of whom are licensed) make up 12% of the population, and account for 7% of all people injured in traffic accidents.

The crash <i>fatality</i> rate for those aged 65+ (expressed in traffic deaths per 100,000 population) is ~25, a few points less than the 21-34 group. The fatality rate for ages 16-20 is much higher.

You are wrong all around.

You mean that you are not going to do it for the children?

Woe be to us when we start punishing people for what they might do rather than what they actually do.

*Edit: fixed for smartasses

Do you mean, like, Woe?

Or do you mean, like, Whoa, man?


Not to be confused with Mike Myers' spoken word 'Wo man' thing in Axe Murderer. That is something different.

Surely you are smart enough to figure it out from context....

Whoa be to us when we start punishing people for what they might do rather than what they actually do.We have been doing it for as long as we can member. There are countless examples of crimes where we punish activity that might cause harm, even though it actually hasn't.

In many cases it's better for society to punish certain dangerous activities before they cause harm, rather than when they cause it. If you have a problem with this concept, you have a problem with the way society works in general.

aybe you should run off and live in the wild, with Fyyr and his libertarian followers.

Surely you are smart enough to figure it out from context....
Ya, but I am smartass enough to not resist the opportunity for some pun.

It seems to me the smartass thing to do would be to jump on the opportunity for a pun. :P

All the ivory tower, highbrow talk of liberties being taken away from drunk drivers is a stinking, steaming pile of manure. I can't believe that someone can think that tens of thousands of deaths a year is minimal!! Where the hell is your perspective?? Seems that a few thousand American deaths in Iraq should be only one-twentieth as important, right?

There are people dying by the tens of thousands a year because of drunk drivers!! When sons, wives, daughters and husbands are lying dead because we didn't want to infringe on the liberties of a drunk driver by taking him off the road before he killed someone, your idealistic drivel is hollow and moronic. What about the victims right to LIFE, ffs? If I have to choose between the freedom of choice of a drunk driver, to the loss of life of an innocent victim, it's not a tough decision. The drunk driver CHOSE to drink and drive. Currently, he suffers a fine, a suspended license, and perhaps worse for being over the legal limit. If he's not taken off the street, others will die without choice.

Tens of thousands? Not that I wish even one death. But I'm not seeing any figures in the tens of thousands. I saw 16K+ and 11K so far this year.

All the ivory tower, highbrow talk of liberties being taken away from drunk drivers is a stinking, steaming pile of manure....
...The drunk driver CHOSE to drink and drive. Currently, he suffers a fine, a suspended license, and perhaps worse for being over the legal limit. If he's not taken off the street, others will die without choice.

You are making a big jump there.

It almost sounds like you are saying that drunk drivers are 'destined' to kill. Or even more absurd, that they all have killed.

There is only an increased risk that those in this group will cause harm.

If you consider that there is only an increased risk from this group, and the behavior is punished before harm is done.

Then it makes perfect sense, that if other groups of people increase risk on society, THEY too should be punished before harm is actually done.

If I could show that being Black increases your risk for committing murder, rape or burglary above the average; this pre-crime punishment should be applied to them. No?

Especially, if the increased risk of being Black and committing a crime is greater than the percentage chance of increase of a drunk driver killing someone.

When you start to lump individuals together in groups, and then assign them an increase risk, and then punish the individuals for that group's average risk; where and with what do you draw the line. Certainly not with logic.

People should be punished if they break the law. If the law states that you are impaired at a blood alcohol level of 0.08, then punishment is due.

What is it about drinking and driving that's so special?

any traffic rules are meant to protect the safety of citizens. You don't hear folks saying "People shouldn't be punished for speeding, unless they hit someone or something... or running a red light, or driving the wrong way on a highway, or driving without lights etc. etc."

Can you imagine the death and destruction on the highways if there were no enforceable traffic laws until you actually hurt or killed someone?? Get real!!

There is only an increased risk that those in this group will cause harm.On the order of 200x.Then it makes perfect sense, that if other groups of people increase risk on society, THEY too should be punished before harm is actually done.

If I could show that being Black increases your risk for committing murder, rape or burglary above the average; this pre-crime punishment should be applied to them. No?No. You cannot change your race. You <i>can</i> choose not to drink. Not to mention, the public policy concerns against drunk driving (which you conveniently ignore in every single thread on the issue) are not present.When you start to lump individuals together in groups, and then assign them an increase risk, and then punish the individuals for that group's average risk; where and with what do you draw the line. Certainly not with logic.You look at the actual increased risk, the type of harm, the type of classification (mutable or immutable), the accuracy of the enforcement process and probability of bias, the extent of punishment, and the amount of liberty being restricted.

Put these factors for drunk driving together, and you get a no brainer for lumping people together.

Put these factors for your hypothetical "blacks murder and rape," and you get a no brainer for <b>NOT</b> lumping people together.

In between is a wide spectrum.

All the ivory tower, highbrow talk of liberties being taken away from drunk drivers is a stinking, steaming pile of manure. I can't believe that someone can think that tens of thousands of deaths a year is minimal!! Where the hell is your perspective?? Seems that a few thousand American deaths in Iraq should be only one-twentieth as important, right?

Exactly. And those thousands of deaths on 9/11 are nowhere near significant enough of a number to warrant the encroachment upon civil liberties that their deaths brought about via the patriot act, or enough to justify the NSA spying on US citizens or enough to justify stripping US citizens of any other constitutional right. If there was a choice tomorrow, save 20,000 American lives, but I have to remove one of our constitutional amendments. Sorry, but those 20k will have to martyr themselves for American liberty, for the same reason you propose we limit liberty. The freedoms and rights of the many far outweigh the risks to the lives of the few.

There are people dying by the tens of thousands a year because of drunk drivers!! When sons, wives, daughters and husbands are lying dead because we didn't want to infringe on the liberties of a drunk driver by taking him off the road before he killed someone, your idealistic drivel is hollow and moronic.

When you can prove to me that driving with a BAL over .01 will guarantee the driver will have a major accident injurying or killing other people in the process, then I might listen to your sensationalistic frothing. But you can't...because it doesn't. Because the majority of people who drive while above the limit from time to time drive just fine. Because I can assure you, there are more than 20,000 instances of someone driving while over the legal limit in America every day, let alone every year.

What about the victims right to LIFE, ffs? If I have to choose between the freedom of choice of a drunk driver, to the loss of life of an innocent victim, it's not a tough decision.

By that reasoning we should best start locking up anyone who's ever yelled at another person...because you have a right to life and that person might snap and kill you. How can you not see how ridiculous and specious your argument is. It is wrong to punish someone before they've done anything wrong.

The drunk driver CHOSE to drink and drive. Currently, he suffers a fine, a suspended license, and perhaps worse for being over the legal limit. If he's not taken off the street, others will die without choice.

No, if he's not taken off the street other may die without choice. And that is a very slim "may" I might add. Again, by your reasoning the Columbine shooters CHOSE to listen to goth music and wear black trenchcoats...so anyone else who CHOSES to listen to goth music and wear black trenchcoats should suffer a fine and perhaps worse because they MIGHT go insane and shoot up their highschool.

People should be punished if they break the law. If the law states that you are impaired at a blood alcohol level of 0.08, then punishment is due.

The law is a bad law and should be revoked. That is the point.

What is it about drinking and driving that's so special?

any traffic rules are meant to protect the safety of citizens. You don't hear folks saying "People shouldn't be punished for speeding, unless they hit someone or something... or running a red light, or driving the wrong way on a highway, or driving without lights etc. etc."

You don't go to jail for speeding, and even so, most people would agree that speeding laws are somewhat ridiculous and are primarily used as a revenue generator for the municipality; however, you are correct...there are laws already in place for the safety of citizens while driving...so why do we need a law which permits the arrest of someone even if they haven't broken any other driving law. If they aren't speeding. If they are using their flashers properly. If they are staying within their lane and keeping assured safe distances, etc. etc. etc, then explain to me why they need to be arrested simply because they have a BAL over 0.0x%? Obviously they are following the laws put down to determine safety. Definitionally they are driving in a safe manner.

Can you imagine the death and destruction on the highways if there were no enforceable traffic laws until you actually hurt or killed someone?? Get real!!

Like the Autobahn in certain areas? Such horror!

On the order of 200x.
I know plenty of people who drive drunk(at or above .08%), and none, NONE, of them have ever been in a drunk driving accident.

I doubt your number. Maybe 200%.

Besides, if my sober risk is .02% and goes to .04% chance while drunk that is a 200%. Which is still not a likely indicator of me actually causing an accident.

No. You cannot change your race. You <i>can</i> choose not to drink. Not to mention, the public policy concerns against drunk driving (which you conveniently ignore in every single thread on the issue) are not present.
I ignore it because I don't think a state of permanent risk is somehow mitigated to be less than transitory risk. It is stupid idea, that somehow the permanence of your risk to hurt me lessens the ramifications or consequences.

That is no better than the idea that if a driver were impaired, that that should be a mitigating factor for a lesser punishment, because of impairment, in the case of actual harm or damage.

You look at the actual increased risk, the type of harm, the type of classification (mutable or immutable), the accuracy of the enforcement process and probability of bias, the extent of punishment, and the amount of liberty being restricted.
If harm is done, harm is done. And the punishment should be the same.

Put these factors for drunk driving together, and you get a no brainer for lumping people together.
I get a no brainer for lumping other people together, that is what I get. You incrementally remove freedoms, and that is what you will end up with.

Put these factors for your hypothetical "blacks murder and rape," and you get a no brainer for <b>NOT</b> lumping people together.
They make up the majority for our prison population. And they don't represent that percentage in general population size.

If we can punish drivers before they commit a crime, and that makes perfect preventative sense to you, and you can rationalize it, then why don't we just lock up young Black males BEFORE they commit any of their crimes. And just prevent them from committing crime in the first place, and spare their potential victims all the suffering, pain, and loss.

In between is a wide spectrum.
A spectrum is a linear notion.

I know plenty of people who drive drunk(at or above .08%), and none, NONE, of them have ever been in a drunk driving accident.

I doubt your number. Maybe 200%.No, a drunk driver with 0.15 BAC has a 200x relative risk (http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrinkingAndDriving.html) of causing a fatal accident, compared to non-drunk driver. That's 20,000%, not 200%.

Just because you know a few drunkards who haven't yet killed anyone yet doesn't mean that the state of being drunk isn't dangerous. Your sample size is far too small.If harm is done, harm is done. And the punishment should be the same.This is contrary to the very foundation of our criminal justice system.If we can punish drivers before they commit a crime, and that makes perfect preventative sense to you, and you can rationalize it, then why don't we just lock up young Black males BEFORE they commit any of their crimes.For the reasons I stated, and you ignored. The main ones here are: (1) race is immutable, drunkenness isn't; (2) the relative risk from drunkenness is far higher than the relative risk from race; (3) the causality between drunkenness and injury is direct, whereas the causality between race and injury is indirect; and (4) the liberty removed by being imprisoned is far greater than being restricted to drive while in a voluntary state of drunkenness.

You can continue to ignore reality and spout your libertarian ideology, just don't except many of us to listen unless you can confront the issues instead of just dodging them with clever little one-liners.

however, you are correct...there are laws already in place for the safety of citizens while driving...so why do we need a law which permits the arrest of someone even if they haven't broken any other driving law.

You could say that about any driving law. It's a non-argument.

A car cannot travel on the road if it is not fit to do so. This applies to the condition of the car and the condition of the driver. It is all part of the same application of the driving license. Whoever is empowered with road safety should be able to take cars off the road if a vehicle is unsafe and that includes unsafe drivers who are intoxicated, deprived of sleep, suffering a severe injury, or otherwise unsafe. It is not about how you drive in that condition, you should simply refuse to set off in that condition.

The police do not wait for an unroadworthy vehicle to be in an accident before taking it off the road. The same applies to unroadworthy drivers.

No, a drunk driver with 0.15 BAC has a 200x relative risk (http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrinkingAndDriving.html) of causing a fatal accident, compared to non-drunk driver. That's 20,000%, not 200%.

Oh, btw, from that very same site Only 12.8% of all drivers involved in fatal accidents are known to have been legally intoxicated (http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/20060928114925.html) That means only 5195 fatalities using 2005 raw numbers.

There were 198,900,000 drivers in the US in 2004 (most recent data I could find). 5195 is 0.0026 of a percent of 198,900,000. That's what 200% relative risk gives you. Three thousandths of a percent change to kill a driver (that percentage only decreases to 0.0017 percent if you calculate using the entire population of the US as potential fatality victims). You stand a significantly higher chance of dying by accident in your home than being killed by a drunk driver (20,000 accidental home deaths per year).


And as we've discussed in some of the various pharmaceutical threads, relative risk is fairly meaningless.

Just because you know a few drunkards who haven't yet killed anyone yet doesn't mean that the state of being drunk isn't dangerous. Your sample size is far too small.This is contrary to the very foundation of our criminal justice system.For the reasons I stated, and you ignored. The main ones here are: (1) race is immutable, drunkenness isn't; (2) the relative risk from drunkenness is far higher than the relative risk from race; (3) the causality between drunkenness and injury is direct, whereas the causality between race and injury is indirect; and (4) the liberty removed by being imprisoned is far greater than being restricted to drive while in a voluntary state of drunkenness.

The causality between inebriation and fatality is de minimis. Roughly 96% of all drivers are age 21 and older, that's 186,966,000 In 2003 (most recent data I could quickly find) some 2.9% of of all drivers age 21+ reported being arrested for a DUI involving alcohol only (as opposed to illicit drugs or a combination thereof). That is 5,422,014 DUI's per year. 5195 fatalities caused by drivers who were legally drunk...that's 0.09 percent. And that's being overly harsh because it doesn't take into account the number of fatalities caused by underage drunk driving, which is probably not insignificant.

So...if you drive legally drunk, statistically speaking you have less than a 1/10th of a percent chance of causing a fatality (I have no data regarding the odds of that fatality being yourself versus another person); further, we all know that far more people drive while over the legal limit than are actually caught (some figures state 5% of drivers report driving while they suspect they were legally drunk...).

We've created a law because there is a 0.09% chance of killing someone. That is the far cry from the notion of impending doom everytime someone who has a drink drives home.

You can continue to ignore reality and spout your libertarian ideology, just don't except many of us to listen unless you can confront the issues instead of just dodging them with clever little one-liners.

There is your reality, bub. 0.09% of legally intoxicated drivers (conservatively...more likely 0.045%

We've created a law because there is a 0.09% chance of killing someone. That is the far cry from the notion of impending doom everytime someone who has a drink drives home.

Let's take that figure, regardless of how you got there. If you have a 0.09% chance of killing someone when you drive home drunk one night then that will become a very big chance when taken over a lifetime. Assume that someone drives home drunk once a week for 20 years. Do the maths and see.

I don't expect myself to kill someone when driving during my lifetime, do you?

But if there were 59K fatal accedents in 2005, and only 5,195 were from drunk drivers, aren't you more likely to get killed by a sober driver? And I doubt the sober drivers planned on killing anyone in there 20 years of driving.

edit: isn't this similar to the deaths to pit bulls argument? That basically it's just a high profile case thing?

The difference is the deaths (and non-death accidents) caused by drunken drivers were entirely preventable.

We've created a law because there is a 0.09% chance of killing someone.You make a number of unfounded assumptions, but let's assume, for the sake of argument, that your figure is correct.

That means a drunk driver who drives each day will have 28% chance of <i>killing</i> an innocent person each year. (.9991^365 = 0.720) Over 60 years, he has a 99.9999997% chance of killing someone, basically a proven killer.

So yes, Aidon, we <i>do</i> need a law to keep the drunks off the road. They're a proven hazard, and a leading cause of homicide.

The difference is the deaths (and non-death accidents) caused by drunken drivers were entirely preventable.And, there's no legitimate interest in driving drunk. At least ladders and stairs have a useful, necessary purpose, although they are a prime cause of accidents.

Let's take that figure, regardless of how you got there. If you have a 0.09% chance of killing someone when you drive home drunk one night then that will become a very big chance when taken over a lifetime. Assume that someone drives home drunk once a week for 20 years. Do the maths and see.

I don't expect myself to kill someone when driving during my lifetime, do you?

ost people don't drive home drunk once a week for 20 years.

Just like most people don't drive home drunk every night for three years.

y point is, we've begun arresting people by the millions for a "crime" that statistically isn't even a blip. It seems to me, as I've mentioned before, that we should be worried less about if someone was drinking and more about if someone is driving recklessly.

The difference is the deaths (and non-death accidents) caused by drunken drivers were entirely preventable.

No, you're making a logically fallacious assumption.

Just because you were legally drunk when you caused an accident doesn't mean you caused the accident because you were drunk.

Just because I fell down and broke my leg after a black cat walked past me doesn't mean the black cat made me fall down and break my leg.

You make a number of unfounded assumptions, but let's assume, for the sake of argument, that your figure is correct.

That means a drunk driver who drives each day will have 28% chance of <i>killing</i> an innocent person each year. (.9991^365 = 0.720) Over 60 years, he has a 99.9999997% chance of killing someone, basically a proven killer.

So yes, Aidon, we <i>do</i> need a law to keep the drunks off the road. They're a proven hazard, and a leading cause of homicide.

If you get legally drunk every day, you aren't going to make it sixty years.

Of course, sixty years from the legal drinking age of 21 is well...beyond what the actuarial tables say we're going to live ;)

We don't need a law to keep drunks off the road. We have laws to punish reckless driving already. If you're driving is reckless, and you're drunk, make it a more serious offense. But noone should ever be arrested solely because they are legally drunk. Hell now days you don't even have to be driving. If you're drunk trying to sleep it off in your car, you'll get arrested and tried for DUI.

And no, 5195 deaths per year is nowhere near the leading cause of "homicide". Hell, once again, sober drivers cause far more fatal accidents every year. Of course the use of the term homocide is purposefully prejudicial.

Just because you were legally drunk when you caused an accident doesn't mean you caused the accident because you were drunk.So how do you explain the 200x relative risk? Coincidence?My point is, we've begun arresting people by the millions for a "crime" that statistically isn't even a blip.If 16K needless deaths per year isn't even a "blip" to you, I'd hate to see your idea of a crisis.

If you're in the 1-44 age group, unintentional injuries are the #1 cause of death. About half of those are from traffic accidents, and 40% of those are alcohol-related. That's not even a "blip"?

And, there's no legitimate interest in driving drunk. At least ladders and stairs have a useful, necessary purpose, although they are a prime cause of accidents.

Therein lies your problem. You work under some misguided ideal where we need to show a useful necessary purpose for something to remain legal. Whereas it is the Government who must show a significant and legitimate reason to proscribe an activity.

And, no, 5k deaths per year is not sufficient cause for the broad incursion on civil liberties which MADD, in the maddness, has wrought.

So how do you explain the 200x relative risk? Coincidence?If 16K needless deaths per year isn't even a "blip" to you, I'd hate to see your idea of a crisis.

If you're in the 1-44 age group, unintentional injuries are the #1 cause of death. About half of those are from traffic accidents, and 40% of those are alcohol-related. That's not even a "blip"?

I just showed you, from the same site you cited for that 200x relative risk figure you're in love with, that your 40% figure is wrong, in that it is "alcohol related" and that only 12% of traffic accident deaths occurred when the driver was the one legally drunk. 12% of the annual traffic accident fatalities was about 5k deaths.

But to answer your question, 16k deaths per year itself is a blip statistically speaking.

Oh, and btw, the leading causes of death in America are heart disease and cancer stroke and chronic lower respitory diseases. 44 is the just the age where more people were dying from disease than accidental injury.

You stand a 1 in 100 chance over your lifetime to die in a traffic accident. So a 1% chance. That means your odds of being killed in an accident where a drunk driver was at fault is 0.12% (Sorry, my original calculations were three hundreths of a percent off ;)).

only 12% of traffic accident deaths occurred when the driver was the one legally drunk.The official NHTSA statistics for 2005 (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/AlcoholTSF05.pdf) show that 59% of "alcohol-related" crashes are caused by <b>drivers with &gt; 0.08 BAC</b>, and another 7% are caused by drivers with a lower BAC. That's <b>66% total</b> (9,483 deaths), not the 12% crap you keep spouting.

Or do you know better than the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the arm of the Department of Transportation specifically created to study and alleviate traffic injuries and deaths?You stand a 1 in 100 chance over your lifetime to die in a traffic accident. So a 1% chance. That means your odds of being killed in an accident where a drunk driver was at fault is 0.12%The National Safety Council (http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm) puts the lifetime odds of dying a motor vehicle accident as 1 in 84, or 1.2%. If drunks are responsible for 66% of that figure, then the lifetime chance is 0.8%.

If I told you to step in front of a gun, which has a 1 in 125 chance of going off and killing you, just because I feel like putting you in front of that gun, what would you response be?

Also, unlike a death from cancer or heart disease that is often a natural end to a long life, a death from a drunk driver is sudden, needless, and inflicted on young and innocent people.

That's plenty reason to stop you drunks from getting on the road. You're doing nothing useful. You don't even have a <i>right</i> to be on that road, it's just a privilege granted by the government. Stop abusing that privilege.

Wow. Someone sounds more bitter than the bitter druid.

The official NHTSA statistics for 2005 (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/AlcoholTSF05.pdf) show that 59% of "alcohol-related" crashes are caused by <b>drivers with &gt; 0.08 BAC</b>, and another 7% are caused by drivers with a lower BAC. That's <b>66% total</b> (9,483 deaths), not the 12% crap you keep spouting.

Tuda, Tuda, Tuda...I figured you were actually analytical and intelligent, not some frothing at the mouth spouter of facts without actually looking at what you are typing.

First of all. That other 7% is of "All other drivers", not "Drivers with a lower BAC". It makes no statement about their BAC or Alcohol consumption whatsoever.

Secondly, that is a list of fatalities, not people involved. What that table you are referencing is saying is that "Of all of the alcohol "related" fatalities in 2005, almost 60% of those who died were drivers with a BAC of 0.08 g/dL or higher. Nothing in that table makes any comment whatsoever about causation. What it says, actually, is that only 41% "alcohol related" fatalities was someone other than a driver who was legally drunk.

Now, even making a rather huge presumptive leap that those 8,515 drivers who were legally drunk when they died caused their own death due to inebriation, that leaves a mighty 6024 fatalities from "alcohol related" traffic accidents who were non-drivers (though still possibly the tortfeasor, as it were). Do we want to remove the nonoccupants who were legally inebriated from that total, since, were we to keep huge presumptive leaps balanced, we would have to assume that all of the drunk pedestrians and pedalcyclists caused their own deaths...

Of course, all of the above obviously ignores the roughly 2200 fatalities included in the orginal total "alcohol related" fatalities number which did not involve anyone who had a BAC of 0.08 or higher.

I trust you see my point here? No matter how you slice it, even using conservative figures and making some presumptions that hurt my case, as it were, we're talking about hundreths of a percent chances, Miniscule numbers when taken in context and not inflated and lied about for political ends. Even if you presume that drunk drivers were the immediate and proximal cause of all of those other 6024 deaths in 2005.

So..lets see here, 6024 (the number of fatalities in "alcohol related" crashes where someone had a BAC above the legal limit, other than drunk drivers themselves) of 43295 (16,885 / 0.39 = 43295 total motor vehicle accidents) is...14% for 2005. Again, we have to use 2004 for number of registered drivers, because 2005 data isn't available yet, but using 2004 only hurts my case, because there are surely more drivers in '05 than '04 thus making this 6024 a higher percentage than it should be. Regardless:

198,900,000 licensed drivers in the US according to the NHTSA (same source you just cited, Tuda). That 6024 isa 0.003% of the total drivers in the US...of course that 6024 included people who weren't drivers..so we really should use the population of the United States...which the Census Bureau estimated at 296,410,404 for 2005. So...6024 / 296,410,404 = 0.002%


Or do you know better than the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the arm of the Department of Transportation specifically created to study and alleviate traffic injuries and deaths?

No, but evidently I am better at reading data than you are...

The National Safety Council (http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm) puts the lifetime odds of dying a motor vehicle accident as 1 in 84, or 1.2%. If drunks are responsible for 66% of that figure, then the lifetime chance is 0.8%

I don't even know where to start here...well, yes, actually, I do. 66%? Where the **** did you pull that number from? That isn't even accurate by the inaccurate numbers you were citing before.

So, using the NSC's methodology: (total pop.) / (no. of fatalities other than a legally intoxicated driver (since the discussion is about the risk drunk driving poses to others, not the risks posed to oneself, since that shouldn't be legislated) in any motor vehicle accident in which a driver or non-occupant was legally intoxicated) =

296,410,404 / 6024 = 49204.

According to C-3PO, that's significantly higher than the odds of successfully navigating an astroid field (3,720 to 1)

Now, lets further follow the NSC's methodology and divide 49204 by the average life expectancy of 2003 (which is the most recent data avalable according to the 2006 CDC's HUS report), or 49204 \ 77.6 = 634.

So there is a 1 in 634 chance of being killed in an "alcohol related" traffic accident where a driver or non-occupant is legally intoxicated if you aren't a legally intoxicated driver (but still including if you happen to be a legally intoxicated someone pedestrian or cyclist who happened to stumble your stupid ass out into traffic, mind you). According to the NSC's methodolgy that means your lifetime chance is 0.15%.

Isn't it amazing how my figures all seem to end up in the same ballpark, measureable in hundredths of a percent? Its almost as if they are sound figures based on numbers instead of ridiculous rhetoric spewed forth by frothing mouthed hysterical banshees from MADD, one of the most dangerous organizations in America.

Granted, even so, the data collected is collected or published in such a way as to prevent us from knowing how many of the accidents those fatalities were from were actually caused by an intoxicated driver, instead of simply involving one (if some jackass rear ends a drunk driver at a red light, and didn't have his seatbelt on and was launched into his own windshield and died...I'm sorry, but no matter how you twist it, it isn't the drunk driver's fault).


If I told you to step in front of a gun, which has a 1 in 125 chance of going off and killing you, just because I feel like putting you in front of that gun, what would you response be?

y response would be "don't ****ing outlaw guns". It would also be that the odds of being killed by a drunk driver are much higher than that.

Also, unlike a death from cancer or heart disease that is often a natural end to a long life, a death from a drunk driver is sudden, needless, and inflicted on young and innocent people.

Keep the bull**** rhetoric out of it. Many deaths in America are sudden and needless, deaths which are by definition tragic. I wish they wouldn't happen. But I am unwilling to further empower the State to revoke our liberties to eliminate minor risks, and I'm sorry, despite all the inflated and invented numbers you want to spew, I've shown how the risks truly are de minimus. The "young and innocent" is simply blatant bombastity along the lines of "Do it for the children", which to many Americans' minds has simply become a fascist catchphrase for enacting a totalitarian state in the interest of safety.

That's plenty reason to stop you drunks from getting on the road. You're doing nothing useful. You don't even have a <i>right</i> to be on that road, it's just a privilege granted by the government. Stop abusing that privilege.

There is no reason for the law. Its having no appreciable effect and has, instead, eroded American rights and opened the door to making an activity illegal simply because it poses any sort of accidental risk of being dangerous to others. The law could be just as effective in stopping accidents caused by drivers who are too inebriated to drive safely...by targeting drivers who are driving unsafely, instead of enacting arbitrary numeric standards which have been stiffened for the dual purposes of making money for local and county governments and to appease the rampantly illogical madness which afflicts MADD.

Aidon, you're cherry-picking and twisting statistics like a Christian zealot deciding which parts of the bible to follow.

First, you keep using pointless statistics like the number of registered drivers (irrelevant, since each drives a different amount) or the total population (irrelevant altogether). Of course you keep getting the figure you want, because you keep rearranging a bunch of meaningless statistics.

Second, you're making unfounded assumptions about causation. A drunk pedestrian can kill others: If you're staggering out of your bar at 2 A.M. and I have to swerve to avoid you stumbling across the street, I can hit someone else.

And if you make it to your SUV and start weaving all over the place trying to decide which of the two highways is the real one, you can cause other people to swerve to avoid hitting you, again causing an accident.

There are many "causes" to an accident and it's impossible to decisively say in any particular case whether it would not have happened but for you being a irresponsible drunkard. All we can do is look at the total statistics, find correlations, and when we see massive increases in relative risk where alcohol is involved, make the only logical conclusion.The law could be just as effective in stopping accidents caused by drivers who are too inebriated to drive safely...by targeting drivers who are driving unsafely, instead of enacting arbitrary numeric standards which have been stiffened for the dual purposes of making money for local and county governments andThe average drunk driver isn't stopped until their BAC is around 0.17, and they're obviously weaving all over the place. So practically, the implementation of the existing law is just as you say it should be.

And to cover your anticipated rebuttal about cops using it as a pretext to stop you, guess what, if they want to stop you illegally, they can always find some other excuse. For example, they can justify a stop for reckless driving under the same circumstances that they can justify a DUI stop.

Aidon, you're cherry-picking and twisting statistics like a Christian zealot deciding which parts of the bible to follow.

First, you keep using pointless statistics like the number of registered drivers (irrelevant, since each drives a different amount) or the total population (irrelevant altogether). Of course you keep getting the figure you want, because you keep rearranging a bunch of meaningless statistics.

Woah woah woah now Buckaroo...you are seriously going to try to suggest I'm the one cherry-picking and twisting and using pointless statistics when the only numbers you put out are so blatantly worthless to the discussion at hand as to be entirely laughable? "39% of the fatalities in the US had someone involved at somepoint who had consumed alcohol, so because of that, we should assume that drunk drivers caused 39% of all fatalities in the US!" And the ever ubiquitous "Alcohol increases your relative risk of killing someone 200 times" which not a single person has ever been able to provide for how that rather pointless number was calculated (pointless because we are all aware of how little "relative risk" is relevant from our discussions about pharmeceuticals) I thought you were more intelligent than that Tudamorf, I really did.

I cherry picked nothing. I used the data you provided...and showed actual numbers that had bearing on the issue. Fatalities of people who were not driving drunk when involved in an accident where someone was either driving legally intoxicated or a pedestrian or cyclist was legally intoxicated. I even used figures which presumed that the accidents were actually the fault of an intoxicated driver (which simply isn't a true presumption, because not all of them were...but I wanted to premptively combat the idiotic suggestions you're making now). You can claim I've abused the numbers all you want, but as it stands right now...the numbers I'm suggesting from the data you've cited are clearly a more accurate representation of the dangers of driving while beyond the legal limit. As for registered drivers or the US population...that's how you determine risk Tudamorf. What other population number should I be using? Tell me.



Second, you're making unfounded assumptions about causation. A drunk pedestrian can kill others: If you're staggering out of your bar at 2 A.M. and I have to swerve to avoid you stumbling across the street, I can hit someone else.

Ok, Tuda...reading comprehension is your friend. As I've said, a few times now, I specifically left causation out of it and presumed that every person who was not a legally intoxicated did not cause the accident which killed them...a false presumption which only skewed the numbers in your favor. Yes, of course drunk pedestrians can kill others...had I included that in my calculations, guess what, the risk of being killed by a legally intoxicated driver would have been even lower, because inebriated pedestrians and pedal cyclists comprised something like 1000 of the 6000 non intoxicated driver deaths.

Next you'll be wanted to make it illegal to walk home drunk also, I'm sure ::eye::

And if you make it to your SUV and start weaving all over the place trying to decide which of the two highways is the real one, you can cause other people to swerve to avoid hitting you, again causing an accident.

I honestly have no idea what your point here is, with relation to my post. Have you been smoking the weedus wackondius?

There are many "causes" to an accident and it's impossible to decisively say in any particular case whether it would not have happened but for you being a irresponsible drunkard. All we can do is look at the total statistics, find correlations, and when we see massive increases in relative risk where alcohol is involved, make the only logical conclusion.

Hey, numble****...newflash. You aren't making any logical conclusions.

Do you know how to read? To paraphrase Chris Tucker, "Do you understand the words that are coming out of my fingers?". The numbers you spew forth have zero ****ing relation to people driving under the influence. Not one ****ing correlation. They simply tally motor vehicle accident fatalities where alcohol was present at any recordable level, in anyone who was involved. Using the very same numbers provided by the very same people you cited...I showed you the numbers which came close to mattering. People who died in motor vehicle accidents where a driver or a non-occupant was at 0.08 BAC 0or higher, other than the drivers who actually were at 0.08% or higher, and further I then made presumptions in causation which benefitted your claim that intoxicated drivers pose a broad and serious risk to the population.

I don't know how much more ****ing clearly I can state the obvious Tudamorf. Read **** more closely. Your numbers are so ridiculously pointless that they cannot be taken seriously.

The average drunk driver isn't stopped until their BAC is around 0.17, and they're obviously weaving all over the place. So practically, the implementation of the existing law is just as you say it should be.

If the average drunk driver isn't stopped until their BAC is around 0.17...maybe, just maybe that's because 0.17 is where the average person becomes too inebriated to drive safely? Instead of ****ing 0.08, you ****ing retard. You've simply comfirmed my notion that the BAC numbers you asshats keep pulling out of your collective asses have zero ****ing bearing whatsoever on actual safety.

This just reinforces the notion that we should be worrying about reckless drivers...not drivers who blow 0.08 or over.

And to cover your anticipated rebuttal about cops using it as a pretext to stop you, guess what, if they want to stop you illegally, they can always find some other excuse. For example, they can justify a stop for reckless driving under the same circumstances that they can justify a DUI stop.

It is more than that. What of the person who is stopped at a red light waiting for it to turn green when he's rear ended by some idiot. Clearly its not the first persons fault...assured cleared distance and all of that. However, that first person has had two or three drinks at dinner and isn't sure if he'd blow above the limit or not...so he doesn't wait for the police and has to eat any damages himself, because he's afraid he'll be cited for the accident and go to jail, even though he's done nothing wrong.

What of ridiculous notion of setting up roadblocks (which the police used to have a specific reason to do, other than as a fishing net, before the big hubub over DUI's) to test every person's BAC who goes through there..the moment you blow a 0.081, your car is now for all intents and purposes going to be searched, even though they have no reasonable cause because you'd you'd done nothing wrong.

What of the completely idiotic presumption that because you're drunk in your car with your keys, you were going to be driving drunk, and so you're arrested, even though you weren't actually driving your car?

What of the most ridiculous notion of all, that just because you're BAC is above some ridiculously low BAC that you're suddenly no longer competant to drive, regardless of your actual ability to drive safely?

And the ever ubiquitous "Alcohol increases your relative risk of killing someone 200 times" which not a single person has ever been able to provide for how that rather pointless number was calculated (pointless because we are all aware of how little "relative risk" is relevant from our discussions about pharmeceuticals)Sure they have. Here's a summary table, and the article linked provides references to the studies:

http://alcoholstudies.rutgers.edu/onlinefacts/dwi.html<b>TABLE 1.&nbsp; RELATIVE RISK FOR FATAL CRASH*&nbsp;</b> <br /><b>AND BIOBEHAVIORAL EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL**</b></p><table width="78%" border="1"><tr><td width="18%" class="style108"><div align="center"><strong><u>%BAC </u></strong></div></td><td width="36%" class="style108"><div align="center"><strong><u>~Relative Risk Males/Females <br />Ages 21-34 </u></strong></div></td><td width="46%" class="style108"><div align="center"><strong><u>Biobehavioral Effects </u></strong></div></td></tr><tr><td class="style108"><div align="center">.020-.049%</div></td><td class="style108"><div align="center">2 &frac12; - 3x </div></td><td class="style108"><div align="center">Impaired on some lab tests. Start of increased risk for fatal crash </div></td></tr><tr><td class="style108"><div align="center">.050-.079%</div></td><td class="style108"><div align="center">6-8x</div></td><td class="style108"><div align="center">0.04% and higher defines intoxication in many European countries and for commercial vehicle operators in the US</div></td></tr><tr><td class="style108"><div align="center">.080-.099% </div></td><td class="style108"><div align="center">11-17x&nbsp;</div></td><td class="style108"><div align="center">0.08% defines intoxicated driving in the majority of the states in the US</div></td></tr><tr><td class="style108"><div align="center">.100-.149%</div></td><td class="style108"><div align="center">28-49x </div></td><td class="style108"><div align="center">At&nbsp; 0.10%, most drinkers show impairment in SFSTs and would be by law, intoxicated in about 15 states </div></td></tr><tr><td class="style108"><div align="center">.150+%</div></td><td class="style108"><div align="center">>343x </div></td><td class="style108"><div align="center">Most people appear visibly intoxicated at 0.15% without special tests </div></td></tr><tr><td class="style108"><div align="center">.30%</div></td><td class="style108">&nbsp;</td><td class="style108"><div align="center">Most people lose consciousness above this level </div></td></tr><tr><td class="style108"><div align="center">.35%</div></td><td class="style108">&nbsp;</td><td class="style108"><div align="center">Realm of surgical anesthesia </div></td></tr><tr><td class="style108"><div align="center">.40%</div></td><td class="style108">&nbsp;</td><td class="style108"><div align="center">Lethal concentration for about half the population </div></td></tr></table>The studies consistently prove that alcohol is a massive impairment to driving and a prime cause of accidents.

If you put aside your ego for just one moment, you'd realize the same thing: you're impaired when you're drunk, and it's a bad idea at that time to operate a 2 ton vehicle moving at high speed.If the average drunk driver isn't stopped until their BAC is around 0.17...maybe, just maybe that's because 0.17 is where the average person becomes too inebriated to drive safely?Well, if you agree with the concept and we're just debating the BAC value, you've already made huge progress."39% of the fatalities in the US had someone involved at somepoint who had consumed alcohol, so because of that, we should assume that drunk drivers caused 39% of all fatalities in the US!"Given the relative risk figures, we should assume that alcohol was a causative factor in the overwhelming majority of that 39%.

Causation also isn't black and white. For example, even if you're drunk and you were rear ended, it's possible you could have avoided the accident had you been sober and alert by driving out the way. Thus, even though the other driver was <i>more</i> at fault, your drunkenness could have easily been a factor.Next you'll be wanted to make it illegal to walk home drunk also, I'm sure ::eye::In California, it <i>is</i> illegal to walk home drunk.

In Europe about 25% of all road deaths can be directly attributed to drunk drivers. Considering how many miles are driven sober compared to those driven drunk it is a staggering statistic.

As for registered drivers or the US population...that's how you determine risk Tudamorf. What other population number should I be using? Tell me.They're meaningless numbers. Some people drive 100,000 miles per year, some 0 per year. And not all of the population is equally exposed to drunk drivers. You're trying to make square figures fit into an analytical puzzle with round holes.

An empirical approach is far better. We know how many people are killed per year where alcohol was involved (~16K). We know that in the overwhelming majority -- except for the ~2K that involved only passengers -- alcohol was likely a causative factor in the death. We know that traffic deaths are the leading cause of death in the 1-44 age group, far more than other causes that we consider very serious, such as HIV, homicide, cancer, and suicide.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots and conclude that drunk driving is a serious problem in our country.

Just because each individual American doesn't have an enormous (e.g., 50%) risk of dying to a drunk driver doesn't mean drunk driving isn't a major killer or a serious problem. Even a 0.001% risk is completely unacceptable when we're talking about an easily preventable cause, and victims who could otherwise lead long, healthy lives.

What will take to change your mind and drop the idiotic libertarian act? One of your loved ones needlessly dying to a drunk?

Hmmmm... if it is ok for people to drive when they've been drinking, would you feel safe on a jet with a pilot that tossed down a few before the flight?

That depends if the autopilot is working or not Pan.

if the Autopilot is A-OK, sure thing, its safer than the pilot anyways.

if not, then no, because flying a commercial jet is about 40 billion times more difficult than driving a car.

Sure they have. Here's a summary table, and the article linked provides references to the studies:

http://alcoholstudies.rutgers.edu/onlinefacts/dwi.htmlThe studies consistently prove that alcohol is a massive impairment to driving and a prime cause of accidents.

This is the first time you've shown any such statistics. I've only had time to briefly persue the first bit of that site, but allow me to quote two things which have popped out, thusfar:

Even though driving ability is significantly impaired at low BACs, the ability to detect impairment due to intoxication without special tests or knowledge does not reliably occur until BACs are very high (e.g., .15% or more).

If it requires "special tests or knowledge" to tell if someone is impaired, perhaps they aren't truly that significantly impaired...because obviously they aren't obviously impaired, indicating they are driving safely.

Although some studies suggest that there is a relationship between level of intoxication and crash responsibility, some drivers, intoxicated or sober, are involved in crashes due to the mistakes of others, through no fault of their own. emphasis added

Some studies. Which means there are at least equal and most likely more studies which cannot find any such correlation...because that's how such things are worded. This seems more likely, in fact, by the fact that all of the statistics put forth by people insisting DUI laws are necessary deal with "alcohol related" and never touch upon causation and only deal with who was actually intoxicated upon deeper inspection. Because you folks are trying to pull the wool over everyone elses eyes.



If you put aside your ego for just one moment, you'd realize the same thing: you're impaired when you're drunk, and it's a bad idea at that time to operate a 2 ton vehicle moving at high speed.

I'm much much much more impaired when I'm driving to work or driving home from work with my mind on various things going on during my day. I have no doubt of this whatsoever. And the same almost certainly goes for other people. When I've had a few drinks, I focus on driving because I realize its more important that I do so.

Well, if you agree with the concept and we're just debating the BAC value, you've already made huge progress.

I don't agree with the concept, I was simply pointing out how ridiculous the MADD approach is...I agree with the concept that if at .17% BAC most people start driving erratically, than you'll probably need to start taking them off the road at around that level..when they are driving erratically.

Given the relative risk figures, we should assume that alcohol was a causative factor in the overwhelming majority of that 39%

Why would you ever make that presumption? Even it were, though, why would you presume that it was driver intoxication which was the overhwhelming majority of that 39%? Further yet, considering that 59% of all of those fatalities were inebriated drivers, rather than "innocent bystanders", why are you trying to incorporate them into your figures? If you're too drunk to keep yourself from driving into a tree...cest la vie my friend, better luck in your next life. Further, how do you correllate the fact that 20% of all alcohol related fatalities were pedestrians and pedacyclists who were legally intoxicated? The fact is, of that 39% of all fatalities being "alcohol related" only about 20% of that 39% were people other than intoxicated people who died and since we're making this presumption that if you were legally intoxicated you caused the accident...then the drunks are killing themselves and barely a risk to anyone else.

Causation also isn't black and white. For example, even if you're drunk and you were rear ended, it's possible you could have avoided the accident had you been sober and alert by driving out the way.

No, Tudamorf, it is black and white in many, if not most, states in that instance. In Ohio, for instance, by law no driver can be cited for being rear ended (barring cutting a person off in a lane change) because by law a driver has a responsibility to maintain an assured cleared distance. It doesn't matter the circumstance. If I'm stopped at a red light and someone rear ends me and pushes me into the car in front of me...I am legally responsible for hitting the person in front of me because I did not maintain an assured clear distance.

You should never have to give up your legal rights out of fear of being arrested when you didn't actually do anything wrong.

Thus, even though the other driver was <i>more</i> at fault, your drunkenness could have easily been a factor.In California, it <i>is</i> illegal to walk home drunk.

...do the cops pull you over and breathalyze pedestrians? If so, that is just one more of the thousands of reasons I have for staying the **** away from your totalitarian nazi nanny state. Sometimes I almost wish the GOP would take over in Cali for a few years just so you dumbass ****tards would stop screwing everyone else up with your massive representation in the HoRs and your economic clout forcing california standards on everyone else in the nation.

Ohio has public intoxication laws also...but you have to be obviously drunk for them to arrest you, let alone actually have the charge stick. The Ohio Supreme Court has made it clear that the 0.08% limit is not a legal definition of intoxication in Ohio but only the standard for when you can be arrested for driving.

If it requires "special tests or knowledge" to tell if someone is impaired, perhaps they aren't truly that significantly impaired...because obviously they aren't obviously impaired, indicating they are driving safely.It says EVEN THOUGH they are significantly impaired at low BACs, it takes specialized tests to determine it. Just because a lay person can't obviously detect something doesn't mean everything is OK.Some studies. Which means there are at least equal and most likely more studies which cannot find any such correlation"Some" studies means just that. Some studies. It can mean all of the studies, half the studies, or a minority of the studies.I'm much much much more impaired when I'm driving to work or driving home from work with my mind on various things going on during my day. I have no doubt of this whatsoever. And the same almost certainly goes for other people. When I've had a few drinks, I focus on driving because I realize its more important that I do so.The more obvious conclusion here is that you should be paying more attention while sober. That's why, for example, we "Nazi-nanny" Californians recently enacted a ban on hand held cell phones while driving.

Your argument that "I drive more carefully when impaired, because I try harder" is a laughable defense of drunk driving.I agree with the concept that if at .17% BAC most people start driving erratically, than you'll probably need to start taking them off the road at around that level..when they are driving erratically.No, a BAC of 0.17 is when an average cop can <b>PERCEIVE</b> that a drunk driver is impaired. There's a big difference between not being <i>visibly</i> impaired and not being impaired, as the studies shows.Why would you ever make that presumption? Even it were, though, why would you presume that it was driver intoxication which was the overhwhelming majority of that 39%?Because there's no other logical common denominator which would explain the dramatically skewed statistics -- other than alcohol, that is. If drunks are getting into accidents hundreds of times more often than non-drunks, any rational person can see the alcohol is the culprit.In Ohio, for instance, by law no driver can be cited for being rear ended (barring cutting a person off in a lane change) because by law a driver has a responsibility to maintain an assured cleared distance.I'm not talking about legal causation here, which is often a value judgment about who should bear the most responsibility for injury. I'm talking about "but for" causation.

Let's say you drive past an intersection with a green light, but without driving defensively and looking both ways, and a drunk driver crosses the red and slams into you. There's no question that, in legal terms, the drunk driver "caused" the accident. But had you been paying attention, you might have seen the drunk driver racing out of control and prevented it altogether.

It's the same with alcohol. It impairs judgment, and causes people to be more accident-prone. It's a factor in the accidents, even if it's not the prime factor.Sometimes I almost wish the GOP would take over in Cali for a few years just so you dumbass ****tards would stop screwing everyone else up with your massive representation in the HoRs and your economic clout forcing california standards on everyone else in the nation.<i>Someone</i> has to lead the country forward, and historically, we've been the ones in many areas.

It says EVEN THOUGH they are significantly impaired at low BACs, it takes specialized tests to determine it. Just because a lay person can't obviously detect something doesn't mean everything is OK.

I find it amusing that you take amorphous "tests" at face value, Mr. "I don't believe in it if its not observable.

Impairment before its noticable isn't truly impairment, almost by definition.


"Some" studies means just that. Some studies. It can mean all of the studies, half the studies, or a minority of the studies.

Actually, no, you're just wrong. "Some" studies means some studies, in the minority. If the majority of studies suggest something you say "Most" studies or "The majority of studies". The word is used carefully for a specific definition.


Blah blah blah blah blah blah, more of Tudamorf's idiocy

Look, its obvious that your belief transcends logic and is fanatical. You're a ****ing zealot. Go hate yourself.

I can only show you the blatantly obvious so many times. If you're too ****ing stupid to clear your own eyes and realize that you've swallowed a big gooey salty load from a bunch of bored soccer mom's who needed a cause in their early 40's to fill their time now that their kids didn't spend all their time at home, then there isn't much that be done.

Oh and California is ****ing ridiculous.