MVP,
ah
all,
since people on both sides in this thread seem to like to refer to "studies" they've seen showing that 0.1->0.08 has no effect on accident rates or that 0.08 is the point when we get OMG DRUNK, without doing a whole lot of linking, I found a few myself.
The 4 I found are all scholary, so they probably did a better job wrt to methods than most of the things you'd find on the web, but are also kinda dense.
These are the main conclusions of each:
http://66.102.1.104/scholar?num=50&h...lar.google.com/
[ QUOTE ]
Our main results show how lowering illegal BAC limits to 0.5 mg/ml has been an effective policy to save lives in particular road user groups in Europe. From these groups we can emphasize the case of males, to whom it has been especially effective in urban areas, and the case of all drivers between 20 and 49 years old. However, 0.5 mg/ml illegal BAC limitsare not found statistically significant for the whole population unless it is accompanied by specific enforcement activities as random checks on the road. Moreover, I find an important time lag longer than two years in the effectiveness of the policy.
[/ QUOTE ]
http://66.102.1.104/scholar?num=50&h...lar.google.com/
[ QUOTE ]
In January 1998 the legal BAC-limit in Austria was lowered from .08% to .05%. Injuries due todrunk driving decreased during the first year by approximately 10%. During the first months thedecrease was more significant than later in the year. However, a moderate increase in injuries due todrunk driving had to be stated in the year following. Already in 1992 the BAC-limit for the specificgroup of novice drivers had been lowered from .08% to .01%. An accident analysis after five yearsof observation indicated a reduction of drunk driving injuries in the group of novice drivers by30.9% in contrast to a reduction of only 5.9% in the group of experienced drivers.The accident reduction may be explained not only as a consequence of the legal alterations but alsoas a consequence of intensive support in the media, persistent police enforcement and theintroduction of mandatory psychological driver improvement courses for drunk drivers. A recentevaluation study proves an almost 50% lower recidivism rate of drunk drivers who participated in apsychological driver improvement course compared to a control group without a course
[/ QUOTE ]
http://66.102.1.104/scholar?num=50&h...lar.google.com/
[ QUOTE ]
the year 1990 the lower BAC limit was reduced from 0.05 to 0.02percent. Some years later, in 1994, the upper BAC limit was also reduced from 0.15 to 0.10percent. In addition, the maximum penalty for aggravated drunken driving was increased andthe police got more far-reaching possibilities of control. This study examines the effects ofthe most recent drunken driving legislation on fatal road-traffic accidents and road-trafficaccidents with severe personal injury. The assessment of the effect is carried out by ARIMAanalysis on monthly data for 1986 to 1997. The models include alcohol sales (measure ofalcohol consumption) and delivery of petrol to retailers (measure of traffic density) as well asthe two legislative reforms implemented in 1990 and 1994. The analysis showed a significantreduction of fatal road-traffic accidents depending on the 1990 and 1994 legislation. Theresults concerning road-traffic accidents with severe personal injury are more unstable, butthe results points in the same direction
[/ QUOTE ]
http://66.102.1.104/scholar?num=50&h...lar.google.com/
[ QUOTE ]
To determine whether the 0.08% law produced a decrease in alcohol-related crashes, we examinedseveral indicators. Alcohol involvement in all crashes in North Carolina between 1991 and 1995, as well asfatal and serious injury crashes only were examined. In addition, surrogate measures of alcohol-relatedcrashes (nighttime crashes; nighttime fatal and serious injury crashes) were also examined. All thesemeasures have been declining, almost continuously, in North Carolina since the early 1980s. To control forthe effects of this general trend, as well as seasonal fluctuations, we carried out structural time seriesanalyses examining monthly crash statistics. In each case we looked for evidence of either an immediatedecrease in the rate or a change in the general trend of alcohol-related crashes following implementation ofthe lower BAC limit. There was no significant change in the rate, nor in the trend, coinciding withintroduction of the lower BAC limit, for any of the measures examined
[/ QUOTE ]
However, as I mentioned above the following may be an issue
[ QUOTE ]
To see whether the BAC levels of persons had been reduced by the 0.08% law, even if not broughtbelow the 0.10% threshold of the previous limit, we examined the mean monthly BACs of fatally injureddrivers whose BAC was above 0.10%. Again there was no evidence of an effect of the new BAC limit. Themonthly average BACs remained essentially unchanged from 1990 through 1995, with an overall mean of0.21%
[/ QUOTE ]
(this obv doesnt prove the claim the the entire population hasnt changed, since this only looks at a specific subset, but it is in line with the counter hypothesis that non-results are the product of unchanged beahaviour)
Up until now, I didnt really have an opinion either way, re: the difference between 0.1 and 0.08. After skimming those articles, I would say Im leaning strongly towards the 0.08 side.
disclaimer: I have only skimeed the articles (there is like 100 pages there, and Im sure as hell not reading all of it), so if some quote is taken out of context (which I dont think will happen) it was an accident.