So I'm going to Prison for 2 years

[CallMeIshmael]

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.

[traz]

I really wish this thread had turned out to be about how OP is dealing with his time before he gets shipped to prison...as opposed to a retarded, overdone debate on drunk driving

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I really wish this thread had turned out to be about how OP is dealing with his time before he gets shipped to prison...as opposed to a retarded, overdone debate on drunk driving

[/ QUOTE ]



this thread has really gotten spectacularly awful.
Please ban everyone who has posted in it or even read it or even saw the subject-line. They are all ruined for life.

[MuresanForMVP]

CMI, good post, appreciate the effort. Those were definitely some hefty articles you linked though, but they seem to indicate a slight decrease in the number of drunk accidents and fatalities (yayyy) vs. a ridiculous increase in the number of arrests (NOOOO). This "by any means necessary" anti-drunk driving legislation is going way overboard, and goes against so many fundamental principles of our criminal justice system. With regards to sentencing and decreasing crime, it's easy to be hard, but it's hard to be smart. These new laws just see like a short-sighted effort to arbitrarily reduce drunk-driving numbers, the hell with the other consequences, both social and criminal.


In all reality, what do you think would happen if we raised the legal limit to either .10 or .12? I'm convinced that we would see a very limited change in the number of accidents and deaths, but a huge change in the number of arrests. Could you find any statistics that factored in BAC with number of crashes and deaths? I.E. x% of alcohol-related deaths involved a driver with a BAC between y and z?

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
In all reality, what do you think would happen if we raised the legal limit to either .10 or .12? I'm convinced that we would see a very limited change in the number of accidents and deaths, but a huge change in the number of arrests.

[/ QUOTE ]

People get arrested all the time for driving somewhere between .02 and .08. It's not always "DUI" but it happens very frequently, and a cop's testimony in court that you failed sobriety tests is basically a slam dunk for the prosecution in the very small fraction of these cases that ever make it to trial.

But do you really think letting more drunk drivers go free is worth an increased number of accidents and fatalities? It's obvious from the responses in this thread and from the actions of people we all know that drunk driving is usually only viewed as a strict "no-no" by people who have already gotten caught once, and sometimes not even by those people. Raising the legal BAC would certainly have the effect of making people feel even more invulnerable getting into a car after several drinks, and that is just not something we need in this country, where we already "have one of the worst DUI driving accident rates in the developed world while having lower to mid-range rates of alcohol consumption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_d...United_States)

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In all reality, what do you think would happen if we raised the legal limit to either .10 or .12? I'm convinced that we would see a very limited change in the number of accidents and deaths, but a huge change in the number of arrests.

[/ QUOTE ]

People get arrested all the time for driving somewhere between .02 and .08. It's not always "DUI" but it happens very frequently, and a cop's testimony in court that you failed sobriety tests is basically a slam dunk for the prosecution in the very small fraction of these cases that ever make it to trial.

But do you really think letting more drunk drivers go free is worth an increased number of accidents and fatalities? It's obvious from the responses in this thread and from the actions of people we all know that drunk driving is usually only viewed as a strict "no-no" by people who have already gotten caught once, and sometimes not even by those people. Raising the legal BAC would certainly have the effect of making people feel even more invulnerable getting into a car after several drinks, and that is just not something we need in this country, where we already "have one of the worst DUI driving accident rates in the developed world while having lower to mid-range rates of alcohol consumption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_d...United_States)

[/ QUOTE ]


Fine,you're right, we dont need more drunk drivers on the roads. Why dont we just get to the root of the problem and bring back prohibition? That way we can eliminate drunk driving, liver disease, along with all the crimes (ie assaults shootings,stabbings,vandalism,etc) that occur under the effects of alcohol. After all, it would be for our protection would it not?


There are other things governments can do, aside from simply making the laws more draconian, that can reduce alcohol-related accidents and deaths. Like making mass-transit (cabs,etc) easily accessible and cheap. I already linked a politics thread about that, I guess its safe to assume nobody read it.

[tuq]

Sheesh, this must be what a politics thread is like. I feel dirty and felt a rush of blood to the head when I was contributing to it.

I know I've made my case ad nauseum and have others. Now we're beating a dead horse and nobody seems to have convinced anyone of anything so we should move on (although at least CMI came in with some last minute actual research). I'm not surprised to hear The View is a culprit though, since that show sucks balls.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Sheesh, this must be what a politics thread is like. I feel dirty and felt a rush of blood to the head when I was contributing to it.

I know I've made my case ad nauseum and have others. Now we're beating a dead horse and nobody seems to have convinced anyone of anything so we should move on (although at least CMI came in with some last minute actual research). I'm not surprised to hear The View is a culprit though, since that show sucks balls.

[/ QUOTE ]


Tuq, I agree,and I apologize to any and all that I made personal attacks against or insulted in the course of the thread. It ain't no thang ya know? I'm ready to let this die, as the opposite ends of the spectrum will never convince one another it appears. It reminds me of the gun control debates pvn, boro, et al would have with MiDge.


Pirate,when I said you weren't using your brain I was trying to imply that you were using your heart, and emotion moreso than reason.I wasn't trying to imply you were stupid, so plz dont take it like that.

Truce? But one final thing before I go. It appears that many here have a fundamental lack of certain bedrock criminological principles. Laws are in place NOT just to punish offenders, that is but a means to an end. The end is to reduce crime. So if a law is shown to not be effective at significantly reducing the targeted crime the result shouldn't be to simply make it tougher in hopes that it does it's job. The result should be to find different ways of combating said crime. The theory is that if punishment is swift and certain then it should be sufficient to curtail the negative behavior. But if it doesn't it's time for the laws to become smarter, not just harsher.

Good day,
MuresanForDUI

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
There are other things governments can do, aside from simply making the laws more draconian, that can reduce alcohol-related accidents and deaths. Like making mass-transit (cabs,etc) easily accessible and cheap. I already linked a politics thread about that, I guess its safe to assume nobody read it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I absolutely agree that this would be a hugely beneficial thing to do. In Japan teenagers can buy alcohol very easily and the reason people don't care is that those teenagers won't be driving home--they'll be taking the subway or walking. Unfortunately the geography and infrastructure of the United States makes it impossible to have such an effective public transportation system here.

As to your other paragraph, come on man you know better than to invoke such a slippery slope argument. FWIW I'm in favor of legalization of weed, but I would also be in favor of comparably harsh driving while high laws.

Bottom line is driving is an inherently very dangerous activity, and somehow most people don't realize that (or at least act as if they don't). They have to be kept in line because they will do genuinely retarded [censored] while driving, and I'm in favor of that because it protects me.

[swingbomb]

ug.
-a large portion of vehicular accidents are caused by drunk drivers
-this endangers the public
-when the public is in danger...it is expected for laws to be made which protect the public
-a limit for acceptable BAC is set at what is shown to be an effective measurement of alcohol impairement in THE AVERAGE PERSON
-all of this taken together means the safest possible roads for everyone (WHILE TRYING TO INFRINGE THE LEAST ON INDIVIDUALS RIGHTS TO HAVE A DRINK AT DINNER AND STILL DRIVE HOME).

god is it seriously that hard to get. [censored] sake.
"my friends got a dui but man he was sober as [censored] guy can drink like 28 beers a night and hed had maybe like 4 a little earlier [censored] cops!"

it's just idiotic. and i don't even have some moral upset about drunk driving. it's not the be all end all evil. but it endangers ppl so we have to do something about it. something has been done which is tested to be in the best interest of everyone.

as for the punishment being too harsh. 2.5 years is excessive. but this guys crime was also excessive. i'd like to hear a little more about the treatment/punishment he received after each dui...unless he's already talked about it earlier?

also...i read earlier someones friend had an "anti-dui" kit in their car. with gum and eye drops at the ready or something. anyone with this kit is a jack-off.