Habitual Drunk Drivers

[bing_oh]

I'd love to see that data.

MADD quotes this CDC study when it estimates that the average DUI offender drives intoxicated 80 times before being arrested.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6039a4.htm

http://www.madd.org/statistics/

I'm sure if you don't like MADD's estimate, you can crunch the numbers yourself. I'm not going to...I don't like statistics.

[Rupert]

MADD quotes this CDC study when it estimates that the average DUI offender drives intoxicated 80 times before being arrested.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6039a4.htm

http://www.madd.org/statistics/

I'm sure if you don't like MADD's estimate, you can crunch the numbers yourself. I'm not going to...I don't like statistics.

I'm more of a DAMM man, myself.

No, really, that claim isn't supported at all by the study they site. Maybe they used the cited stats in junction with some other uncited, unknown, obviously unsupported and unsupportable stats to calculate something, etc., but it's a bit more than suspect to cite that CDC study.

The stat I am actually more interested in would be the one to back up, "it's a myth than habitual offenders automatically = high BAC's." The study you did cite mentions that one of its weak points is that there is no BAC number associated with their self-reported drunk-driving number, but they do say, "4.5% of the adult population who reported binge drinking at least four times per month accounted for 55% of all alcohol-impaired driving episodes," which at least gestures to most drunk drivers having a high BAC. The numbers that would really be the best evidence, though, would be the BACs for all the DUIs issued. Couple that with the number of DUIs a certain person has had, and there are a number of possible statistical relationships that may or may not pop out.

[bing_oh]

I'm more of a DAMM man, myself.

No, really, that claim isn't supported at all by the study they site. Maybe they used the cited stats in junction with some other uncited, unknown, obviously unsupported and unsupportable stats to calculate something, etc., but it's a bit more than suspect to cite that CDC study.

Actually, if you were a "numbers person," figuring the stats wouldn't be that difficult. All you'd need is total driving population, number of DUI arrests, and the CDC stats (which are probably the weakest of the three numbers, as they're self-reported stats and rely upon someone's personal option whether they're intoxicated, and are therefore probably low). The first two numbers would be relatively easy to get...hell, you can now look at individual test results online for any Intoxilyzer-8000 in Ohio.

The stat I am actually more interested in would be the one to back up, "it's a myth than habitual offenders automatically = high BAC's." The study you did cite mentions that one of its weak points is that there is no BAC number associated with their self-reported drunk-driving number, but they do say, "4.5% of the adult population who reported binge drinking at least four times per month accounted for 55% of all alcohol-impaired driving episodes," which at least gestures to most drunk drivers having a high BAC. The numbers that would really be the best evidence, though, would be the BACs for all the DUIs issued. Couple that with the number of DUIs a certain person has had, and there are a number of possible statistical relationships that may or may not pop out.

You'll never get those numbers for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that habitual offenders have been through the system before and are more likely to refuse testing. I can tell you from personal experience that habitual offenders don't automatically = high BAC's. I have had habitual offenders test comparatively low as well as be super-high. I've also have first-time arrestees blow some amazingly high BAC numbers.

[GoCougs]

It's a myth than habitual offenders automatically = high BAC's. Yes, there are the cases of the hardcore alcoholic who blows up the breath testing machine with a mega-BAC, but that's not always the case.

And, in reference to "habitual offenders," you should probably consider the fact that most first time DUI's are not necessarily first time offenders. Generally, a first-offense DUI offender has driven intoxicated multiple times before he is caught. In short, chances are very high that they have "gotten away with it" many times before they are finally arrested. The people with multiple DUI's on their records are beyond "habitual offenders."

I disagree - just by definition of being drunks they're not stopping at 3-4 drinks and more often than not they are drunk.

[GoCougs]

Lowering BAC, like unwarranted prosecution, is a reaction to the larger DUI problem - lawmakers/citizens see the problem but have little they can do to make an effect and hence the reaction is an overreaction.

[bing_oh]

I disagree - just by definition of being drunks they're not stopping at 3-4 drinks and more often than not they are drunk.

Who said that 3-4 drinks would get them to the legal limit?

[Rupert]

Actually, if you were a "numbers person," figuring the stats wouldn't be that difficult. All you'd need is total driving population, number of DUI arrests, and the CDC stats (which are probably the weakest of the three numbers, as they're self-reported stats and rely upon someone's personal option whether they're intoxicated, and are therefore probably low). The first two numbers would be relatively easy to get...hell, you can now look at individual test results online for any Intoxilyzer-8000 in Ohio.

You'll never get those numbers for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that habitual offenders have been through the system before and are more likely to refuse testing. I can tell you from personal experience that habitual offenders don't automatically = high BAC's. I have had habitual offenders test comparatively low as well as be super-high. I've also have first-time arrestees blow some amazingly high BAC numbers.

LOL, yeah, put it on me to prove your claim, good job. 1) MADD is a terrible source for anything but whiny won't somebody please think of the children! BS; 2) therefore, their stats are automatically suspect; 3) that they cited a source that didn't remotely back up their stat is actually enough to discount that stat without even being from MADD; and 4) no, I'm not going to do your legwork for you and track down a good source for all these statistics.

Your experience is great, I'm sure, but it's a tiny biased sample of the DUI population as a whole. Maybe the required statistics don't exist, but that's not a reason to believe whole hog whatever you want to believe.

Also, just as a point of debate, I'm not convinced that self-reporting based on someone's opinion of their intoxication level would yield a low number. Lots of people overestimate how drunk they are. They generally aren't the people who get DUIs, I should think. I would guess that these people are outweighed by the people who underestimate their intoxication, but I would also guess that it's a closer balance than one would initially think.

[bing_oh]

LOL, yeah, put it on me to prove your claim, good job. 1) MADD is a terrible source for anything but whiny won't somebody please think of the children! BS; 2) therefore, their stats are automatically suspect; 3) that they cited a source that didn't remotely back up their stat is actually enough to discount that stat without even being from MADD; and 4) no, I'm not going to do your legwork for you and track down a good source for all these statistics.

Your experience is great, I'm sure, but it's a tiny biased sample of the DUI population as a whole. Maybe the required statistics don't exist, but that's not a reason to believe whole hog whatever you want to believe.

Also, just as a point of debate, I'm not convinced that self-reporting based on someone's opinion of their intoxication level would yield a low number. Lots of people overestimate how drunk they are. They generally aren't the people who get DUIs, I should think. I would guess that these people are outweighed by the people who underestimate their intoxication, but I would also guess that it's a closer balance than one would initially think.

I didn't ask you to "prove my claim." I said that getting those percentages from the provided source wouldn't be particularly difficult if you wanted to re-crunch the numbers. You're the one who doubts it, so you can disprove it. I gave you a source (whether you think it's a "terrible source" or not really doesn't mean dick to me...I don't remember the part where I not only have to provide a source, but one that you liked), along with a reference to the source's original numbers from the CDC.

As for my "tiny, biased sample" of personal experience, once again I really don't care what you think of it. I know what I see, I know what other people of similar experiences see, and even without some kind of statistical sample that is "acceptable" to you, I'm smart enough to consider those experiences and draw what I consider is a legitimate conclusion from them. I'm sure you call me personally biased, along with a reference to some kind in institutional bias or another, and the only real appropriate response I can think of would be .

[Rupert]

If you want people to believe it, you have to prove it to their satisfaction. Sometimes that's impossible because sometimes nothing will convince someone they're wrong. However, believe it or not, I'm not all that invested in my opinion on this specific issue. It's just that the source you gave was so beyond the pale ridiculous... It's like if someone tried to disprove evolution by citing the Creation Museum for a bunch of biologists.

You do have bias, many kinds, and so do I and everyone. That's my point. You might be right, but you (and I and everyone) can't even judge your own experience objectively, let alone the separate small sample size and sampling biases.

[bing_oh]

If you want people to believe it, you have to prove it to their satisfaction. Sometimes that's impossible because sometimes nothing will convince someone they're wrong. However, believe it or not, I'm not all that invested in my opinion on this specific issue. It's just that the source you gave was so beyond the pale ridiculous... It's like if someone tried to disprove evolution by citing the Creation Museum for a bunch of biologists.

You do have bias, many kinds, and so do I and everyone. That's my point. You might be right, but you (and I and everyone) can't even judge your own experience objectively, let alone the separate small sample size and sampling biases.

Wait...you actually think I'm trying to convince anyone of anything around here? Seriously, I can't think of a single time I've ever seen someone change their mind about something on this board since I've been here...changing someone's mind on 'Spin is like talking the Pope into converting to scientology.

[GoCougs]

Who said that 3-4 drinks would get them to the legal limit?

It come for some but I was more thinking of MaxPower's under limit example.

[bing_oh]

It come for some but I was more thinking of MaxPower's under limit example.

Charging someone who is under the legal limit is relatively rare. It generally involves someone who shows signs of significant impairment despite being under the limit. Many times, it's a medication + alcohol issue.

[12,000 RPM]

Nah, that's social engineering and otherwise implicit calls for the increase in state power, which is never a good thing.

Someone with 4 DUIs gets there because punishments are laughably weak.

Cool, I guess the move is to make DUIs a capital offense. 0% recidivism rate, and self-righteous teatotalers get their fill of infidel bloodlust. Real win win

[Soup DeVille]

I believe it's "teetotaler."

Lets stop maligning tea. It's taken enough abuse recently anyways.

[MaxPower]

Charging someone who is under the legal limit is relatively rare. It generally involves someone who shows signs of significant impairment despite being under the limit. Many times, it's a medication + alcohol issue.

We look at fst results and admissions they make about how drunk they are. Here the law is either over a .08 or impairment to any extent, however slight. Many officers ask people if they feel the effect of the alcohol they drank...when they say yes then the test result really doesn't matter anymore.

[Rupert]

Wait...you actually think I'm trying to convince anyone of anything around here? Seriously, I can't think of a single time I've ever seen someone change their mind about something on this board since I've been here...changing someone's mind on 'Spin is like talking the Pope into converting to scientology.

Then you're just here to jerk yourself off, or what?

[bing_oh]

We look at fst results and admissions they make about how drunk they are. Here the law is either over a .08 or impairment to any extent, however slight. Many officers ask people if they feel the effect of the alcohol they drank...when they say yes then the test result really doesn't matter anymore.

There's wording for both here as well. Generally, the "under the influence" section is most commonly used for those who refuse BAC tests, though medication-related DUI's happen as well. It's unlikely that our local prosecutor would take an under the influence DUI on a low test without other factors unless the SFST's are abysmal (and maybe not even then).

[bing_oh]

Then you're just here to jerk yourself off, or what?

Message boards wouldn't be the first place I'd go on the internet to jerk myself off...

[Tave]

The standard here for non-BAC cases is "appreciable impairment," I don't think "feel the effect" would quite get you there and seems like a bullshit line of thinking as well.

We have structured sentencing for DUIs and (almost?) every county has a no-drop policy. It's far harder to negotiate a plea on a DUI than it is for someone caught with a kilo of cocaine. Whether that makes our streets any safer is anyone's guess, but one thing we can say for certain is it creates an enormous amount of litigation.

I tend to think continually lowering the BAC limit and prosecuting borderline cases does nothing but make criminals out of an extremely large portion of the general populace.

[MaxPower]

The standard here for non-BAC cases is "appreciable impairment," I don't think "feel the effect" would quite get you there and seems like a bullshit line of thinking as well.

We have structured sentencing for DUIs and (almost?) every county has a no-drop policy. It's far harder to negotiate a plea on a DUI than it is for someone caught with a kilo of cocaine. Whether that makes our streets any safer is anyone's guess, but one thing we can say for certain is it creates an enormous amount of litigation.

I tend to think continually lowering the BAC limit and prosecuting borderline cases does nothing but make criminals out of an extremely large portion of the general populace.

yeah, our case law says impairment to any extent, however slight.  It's a really really low threshold.  Sounds like the threshold is higher where you work.

[AutobahnSHO]

I tend to think continually lowering the BAC limit and prosecuting borderline cases does nothing but make criminals out of an extremely large portion of the general populace.

People shouldn't drink and drive. It's not that hard.

[Rupert]

People shouldn't drink and drive. It's not that hard.

Yes yes, very easy when the hardest thing you drink is root beer with a little extra root.

[FoMoJo]

People shouldn't drink and drive. It's not that hard.

Tell that to someone who's drunk.

[AutobahnSHO]

Tell that to someone who's drunk.

Don't drink if you don't know how you're getting home. Or if you drove there.

[AutobahnSHO]

Yes yes, very easy when the hardest thing you drink is root beer with a little extra root.

*ahem*   The root sassafras was found to be a carcinogen, all rootbeer is made with fake flavors. 

[bing_oh]

I tend to think continually lowering the BAC limit and prosecuting borderline cases does nothing but make criminals out of an extremely large portion of the general populace.

Your beliefs don't seem to correspond with the statistics. If you refer back to the CDC study I linked, you'll find that, statistically, the number of intoxicated drivers is actually declining despite the lowering of per se limits across the country. The study shows the lowest numbers since 1993 when the records started being compiled.

[Rupert]

Not trying to prove anything, my ass.

[Rupert]

Don't drink if you don't know how you're getting home. Or if you drove there.

Ha!

[Soup DeVille]

*ahem*   The root sassafras was found to be a carcinogen, all rootbeer is made with fake flavors. 

I thought rootbeer was made from anise?

[bing_oh]

Not trying to prove anything, my ass.

Not trying to prove anything...I just happen to always be right.