Habitual Drunk Drivers

[Tave]

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.

It doesn't show that at all. It shows that the number of impaired drivers increased from 1993 to a peak in 2006.

[bing_oh]

It doesn't show that at all. It shows that the number of impaired drivers increased from 1993 to a peak in 2006.

"In 2010, 1.8% of respondents reported at least one episode of alcohol-impaired driving in the past 30 days. These four million adults reported an estimated 112,116,000 episodes of alcohol-impaired driving in the United States for the year. This is the lowest percentage of drinking drivers and lowest number of episodes reported since 1993, the first year for which published national BRFSS estimates are available."

"Since the peak in 2006, alcohol-impaired driving episodes have declined 30%, from 161 million to 112 million (Figure 1)."

So, it went up to a peak in 2006, then dropped to the lowest numbers since 1993. That's not mentioning that, during that time, the per se limit nationwide was decreased from .10% to .08%.

[Tave]

"In 2010, 1.8% of respondents reported at least one episode of alcohol-impaired driving in the past 30 days. These four million adults reported an estimated 112,116,000 episodes of alcohol-impaired driving in the United States for the year. This is the lowest percentage of drinking drivers and lowest number of episodes reported since 1993, the first year for which published national BRFSS estimates are available."

"Since the peak in 2006, alcohol-impaired driving episodes have declined 30%, from 161 million to 112 million (Figure 1)."

So, it went up to a peak in 2006, then dropped to the lowest numbers since 1993. That's not mentioning that, during that time, the per se limit nationwide was decreased from .10% to .08%.

No, the national .08 limit was adopted in 2000, with a compliance mandate of 2004, and the state limits were getting lowered throughout the 1990s, all the while the number of drunk driving instances were increasing. Again, that study doesn't say what you claimed it does.

[Rupert]

Can we get a graph of average national limit vs. instances of alcohol impaired driving? Also vs. DUIs issued normalized by dollars spent on DUI enforcement?

[AutobahnSHO]

I thought rootbeer was made from anise?

maybe secondary ingredient

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_beer

FYI
-rootbeer ties with ginger ale as the oldest soft drink
-most Europeans and Asians hate it (a Korean college roommate said it tastes like medicine)
-according to Wikipedia it is produced in all 50states
-yours truly will one day have a rootbeer cellar
-rootbeer rocks

[Rupert]

You can age root beer?

[Tave]

You can age root beer?

If it has tits, I can milk it.

[Rupert]

If it has roots, you can root cellar it?

[280Z Turbo]

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

You can drink and still be OK to drive.

[280Z Turbo]

maybe secondary ingredient

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_beer

FYI
-rootbeer ties with ginger ale as the oldest soft drink
-most Europeans and Asians hate it (a Korean college roommate said it tastes like medicine)
-according to Wikipedia it is produced in all 50states
-yours truly will one day have a rootbeer cellar
-rootbeer rocks

Imitation is the sincerest form of jealousy.

[Rupert]

You can drink and still be OK to drive.

I'd say we can drink some and still be OK. SHO, though...

Imitation is the sincerest form form of jealousy.

[bing_oh]

No, the national .08 limit was adopted in 2000, with a compliance mandate of 2004, and the state limits were getting lowered throughout the 1990s, all the while the number of drunk driving instances were increasing. Again, that study doesn't say what you claimed it does.

Let's do some more numbers...

Here's a BJS study published in 1998.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ac.pdf

"In 1996, local law enforcement agencies nationwide made an estimated 1,467,300 arrests for driving under the influence (DUI). Arrests for DUI peaked in 1983 when there were 1.9 million arrests. Compared to 1983, the per capita rate of arrest for DUI in 1996 was 34% lower."

So, your 1996 numbers were 34% lower than the 1983 numbers.

In 2012, the Uniform Crime Reporting stats show 1,282,957 arrests nationwide for DUI. That's another decrease from the 1996 numbers (that were already lower than the 1983 numbers, let's not forget).
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/29tabledatadecpdf

Now, let's look at state per se BAC laws. As of 2001, 25 states (plus DC and Puerto Rico) had established .08 as per se illegal...Oregon and Utah were the first, establishing .08 in 1983. The remaining states still had per se limits set at .10. as of 2001. Delaware was the last state to enact a .08 limit in 2004.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/alcohol-laws/08history/1_introduction.htm

So, that establishes your timeline for the lowering of per se BAC levels across the country, as well as showing a decline in DUI arrests since 1983...all despite those lowered BAC limits. Dispute it all you like, but the numbers disagree with your assertion that lower per se BAC limits are "making criminals out of an extremely large portion of the populous."

[Rupert]

There might be a correlation, but that's a different thing than "the numbers disagree", etc.

[bing_oh]

There might be a correlation, but that's a different thing than "the numbers disagree", etc.

Tave said that he believes that lower per se BAC limits lead to more DUI arrests. The statistical numbers for the last 30 years contradict that.

[Rupert]

No, some numbers, I haven't seen much in the way of statistical numbers. R-squareds, p-values, distributions... Nor has anyone apparently explored the presumably many other possible reasons DUIs might decline in spite of lower BACs leading to relatively more arrests.

I don't even care about this specific argument, I'm pointing out that this stuff isn't simple and that no one apparently has a handle on it.

Also, to get at one of your earlier points, seems to me that if we are going to say that lower BAC limit leads to fewer DUI arrests, then we can say that there weren't relatively very many DUIs in the 0.08 - 0.10 BAC range, and that once again gestures at most DUI arrests being significantly over the limit.

[bing_oh]

No, some numbers, I haven't seen much in the way of statistical numbers. R-squareds, p-values, distributions... Nor has anyone apparently explored the presumably many other possible reasons DUIs might decline in spite of lower BACs leading to relatively more arrests.

I don't even care about this specific argument, I'm pointing out that this stuff isn't simple and that no one apparently has a handle on it.

Also, to get at one of your earlier points, seems to me that if we are going to say that lower BAC limit leads to fewer DUI arrests, then we can say that there weren't relatively very many DUIs in the 0.08 - 0.10 BAC range, and that once again gestures at most DUI arrests being significantly over the limit.

You're expanding my argument well beyond its intended scope. My argument was simple...that there is no statistical evidence that supports the idea that lowering the per se BAC limit from .10 to .08 has historically increased the number of arrests. I never said (nor will I ever say) that lowering the per se limit somehow automatically decreases DUI's...if that were true, then politicians should just make the per se limit .000 and make DUI magically disappear. The factors contributing to the decrease in DUI's are numerous. Does enforcement (including a lowering of per se limits) factor into this? Absolutely. As does social change, media attention, education, and a myriad of other factors. The lowering of per se limits is more a reflection of a change in social attitudes regarding the dangers of DUI and a decreasing acceptance of that particular behavior.

[Rupert]

If there are so many factors, then why wouldn't a relative increase due to lower BAC limit get drowned out? There isn't really much statistical evidence to support much of anything WRT this topic, it would seem. Too many complicating factors and contradictory effects.

You did imply that you thought lower BAC limit = fewer DUIs, BTW.

[Soup DeVille]

I think harder overall penalties and an increasing social stigma about being a drunk driver are likely major contributing causes to the overall decline.

One might even make the argument that the lower BAC limit made asking for a ride more acceptable.

[AutobahnSHO]

You can drink and still be OK to drive.

That's pure crap. It's exactly what 100% of drunk drivers are thinking.

SOME people might be able to drink "a little" and be "okay" "sometimes"- how much do you want the guy in the lane next to you to have drunk before driving??? There are a billion variables, and people are particularly good at making bad decisions.

[AutobahnSHO]

You can age root beer?

Doubt it makes any difference- I just want to be able to pick and choose any flavor/brand I want.

[bing_oh]

If there are so many factors, then why wouldn't a relative increase due to lower BAC limit get drowned out? There isn't really much statistical evidence to support much of anything WRT this topic, it would seem. Too many complicating factors and contradictory effects.

You did imply that you thought lower BAC limit = fewer DUIs, BTW.

Enforcement (including changes in the law regarding per se levels) will have an effect on DUI's. Yes, I said that. I never said or implied that it was the sole factor nor that the changing of the law itself automatically caused fewer DUI's. As with any social change (including changes in the laws of society), it takes time to effect behavioral changes in response.

[Soup DeVille]

That's pure crap. It's exactly what 100% of drunk drivers are thinking.

SOME people might be able to drink "a little" and be "okay" "sometimes"- how much do you want the guy in the lane next to you to have drunk before driving??? There are a billion variables, and people are particularly good at making bad decisions.

It's not crap; its legal fact.

(Hint, that's why there's a limit which in fact allows some amount of drinking and driving)

Anyways, I'm sure youre fine. I've never had a sugar buzz bad enough to keep my from driving.

[FoMoJo]

That's pure crap. It's exactly what 100% of drunk drivers are thinking.

SOME people might be able to drink "a little" and be "okay" "sometimes"- how much do you want the guy in the lane next to you to have drunk before driving??? There are a billion variables, and people are particularly good at making bad decisions.

I limit myself to one beer with my meal if I'm on the road.  I really don't think that amount would make any difference to the majority of people.

[AutobahnSHO]

I limit myself to one beer with my meal if I'm on the road.  I really don't think that amount would make any difference to the majority of people.

Agree, unless the beer is after the meal, right before driving, or if it turns into another, and another, and another

[Rupert]

That's pure crap. It's exactly what 100% of drunk drivers are thinking.

SOME people might be able to drink "a little" and be "okay" "sometimes"- how much do you want the guy in the lane next to you to have drunk before driving??? There are a billion variables, and people are particularly good at making bad decisions.

You're out of your element.

[Rupert]

Agree, unless the beer is after the meal, right before driving, or if it turns into another, and another, and another

Most people don't just drink a beer and then suddenly OMG LETS FUCKIN PARTY GIMME SOME MORE until they can't see straight.

[Soup DeVille]

Agree, unless the beer is after the meal, right before driving, or if it turns into another, and another, and another

You're one of those dudes that still thinks "Reefer Madness" was a legit public service announcement, aren't you?

[280Z Turbo]

You're one of those dudes that still thinks "Reefer Madness" was a legit public service announcement, aren't you?

It seems that Mormon harassment is a favorite CarSPIN pastime. Good, harmless fun.

[Soup DeVille]

It seems that Mormon harassment is a favorite CarSPIN pastime. Good, harmless fun.

Not mormons per se (you won't for instance see me piling on about soaking and whatnot), just Will: whom I think has a good enough sense of humour to know that anything I say is just harmless fun.

[bing_oh]

You're out of your element.

Would I be "out of my element" if I agreed with him?