I just don’t understand drinking and driving

@firefly,

Let's not forget that while they're in prison, they're not out driving drunk.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019841/Meet-man-eyebrows-convictions-drunken-driving.html

0 Replies

@BillRM,

An Assessment of Maryland’s Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Laws (PDF)

Quote:

Driving while intoxicated (DWI) and driving under the influence (DUI) laws and their enforcement play a critical role in a State’s strategy to reduce this problem. Past research has shown associations between the adoption of key DUI laws and reductions in drinking driver fatal crashes.

...

Due to limitations in the crash data files, we were only able to test three DUI laws for their associations with changes in alcohol-related crashes: .08 BAC per se law, the graduated driver licensing (GDL) law upgrade, and an upgrade to primary enforcement of Maryland’s seatbelt law. Concerning drinking drivers involved in crashes of all severities, statistical tests indicated a
5.1% decrease associated with the implementation date of the .08 BAC law, which was significant (t=2.84; p=.005). The primary seatbelt law was non-significant (p=.85). For the drinking drivers involved in injury crashes, our analyses indicated a 5.9% decrease associated with the implementation date of the .08 BAC law, which was also significant (t=2.37; p=.020). We found no effect of the three DUI laws on DUI arrests, convictions or conviction rate.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

An that relate to the relationship tp the average length of DUI manslaughter sentences in what way or in what manner in reducing such deaths?

In fact it does not even relate to the punishment for DUI driving it just is claiming a 5 percent relationship since reducing the DUI limit to .08 from .1.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Why are you so hung up on the sentences rather than the crime?

Some drunk drivers kill themselves as well as other people--so the sentencing issue is completely irrelevant in those cases, but you're still dealing with the criminally irresponsible and dangerous behavior of driving drunk.

1 Reply

@firefly,

We have a larger percent of out total population in prison by far then any other advance country and even most their world countries at great cost to the society in every way and people like you pressing for longer and longer and longer sentences for all crimes.

Hell we have more young black males behind bars then in colleges and if the tend continual likely that this will apply to young white males also.

If pass time that we stop this trend from going forward.

Hell our so call justice system is so overloaded that it is a let's make a deal system where most people are pressure reach a plea deal of one kind or another and there is less and less room for commonsense to be apply instead of the letter of the laws.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Absolutely nothing you are saying addresses the problem of drunk driving--nothing.

Let me repeat what I said to you before...

It seems important to you that people, including yourself, be able to drive drunk. You decry past decreases in the legal BAC level, and you want it raised again, beyond .08, so more people could be legally driving in an even more impaired state than current law permits. You think drunk driving is no worse than driving while extremely tired or very emotionally upset, ignoring the fact that people shouldn't drive in those states either if they impair judgment or concentration, or reaction time, or any of the abilities required for responsible driving.

Why it is important to you to be able to drive drunk, and beyond the current legal limit of .08, is anyone's guess. Drinking is obviously important to you, despite your many attempts to deny that, because you are arguing against attempts to restrict drinking on the part of those who drive cars. You've even voiced your concerns about lost revenues to bars and restaurants if people have to watch their drinking before they get into a car. You want the legal limit raised to that which is most often found in deadly crashes, something that would make it acceptable for people to consume even more alcohol than they do now before they get behind the wheel, and increase the probability that even more deadly crashes, as well as more crashes that result in non-fatal injuries, would occur. Why is it so important to you that people be allowed to drive drunk--very drunk--and way beyond the .08 limit where impairments can already be clearly demonstrated? Is foregoing binge drinking before driving that big a hardship for you?

If Thom Swift hadn't been drunk when he got behind the wheel of his car that night, he wouldn't have to worry about the length of a possible sentence, and you wouldn't have to worry about the cost of incarcerating him, and Barry Lancaster would likely still be alive. The problem is drinking and driving.

If drinking is so important to you, go right ahead and drink, but don't get behind the wheel of your car after you do that. But, if you do choose to drink and drive, and you kill someone, don't whine about the length of your sentence, or your "usefulness to society" or how much it will cost to keep you behind bars, or any of the other crap you keep coming up with--none of those things will obliterate your responsibility for taking a human life, which is why they are all very much beside the point. Cars are lethal weapons and they have to be operated responsibly, by responsible drivers, and when drivers fail to act responsibly, the law will hold them responsible for their actions.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Try reading the data I supplied:

Quote:

In 2003, Maryland drivers with:

•BACs of .10 and above were involved in an estimated 41,300 crashes that killed 140 and injured 12,600
•BACs between .08-.09 were involved in an estimated 700 crashes that killed 43 and injured 600
•Positive BACs below .08 were involved in an estimated 1,400 crashes that killed 104 and injured 1,200

Alcohol was a factor in 31% of Maryland crash costs during 2003. Alcohol-related crashes in Maryland cost the public an estimated $2.9 billion in 2005, including $1.2 billion in monetary costs and almost $1.7 billion in quality of life losses (Blincoe et al., 2002; Zaloshnja, Spicer, Romano, & Miller, 2001). Alcohol-related crashes are deadlier and more serious than other crashes. People other than the drinking driver paid $1.9 billion of the alcohol-related crash bill.

The average alcohol-related fatality in Maryland cost $5.3 million:

•$2.0 million in monetary costs
•$3.3 million in quality of life losses

The estimated cost per injured survivor of an alcohol-related crash averaged $153,000:

•$77,000 in monetary costs
•$76,000 in quality of life losses

Crash costs in the Maryland averaged:

•$10.70 per mile driven at BACs of .10 and above
•$4.60 per mile driven at BACs between .08-.09
•$0.20 per mile driven at BACs of .00

The societal costs of alcohol-related crashes in the Maryland averaged $1.20 per drink consumed (Williams, Stinson, Nephew, Nguyen, & DuFour, 2000). People other than the drinking driver paid $.80 per drink. Alcohol-related crashes accounted for an estimated 18% of the Maryland’s auto insurance payments. Reducing alcohol-related crashes by 10% would save $70 million in claims payments and loss adjustment expenses.

Society has a definite interest in curbing drunk driving.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

It seems important to you that people, including yourself, be able to drive drunk

.

Never drove drunk in my life under either the old standard of .1 or the current .08 standard however under a .05 standard perhaps in my younger days that had occur a few times.

Now I am sure you would wish to keep redefining the standard for BAC maximum level to the point that no one will dare to use mouthwash that contain alcohol before driving.

Laws and the punishment relating to breaking them should make sense and we are going farther and farther away from that ideal in all aspects of the so call criminal justice system.

Oh footnote even under the .1 standard most people would not consider a person they are interacting with drunk at that level.

Most news stories that deal with a drunk driver doing harm the statement is normally the person is two to three times over the legal limit to drive or more IE around 1.6 or more.

3 Replies

@izzythepush,

Yea.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Most news stories that deal with a drunk driver doing harm the statement is normally the person is two to three times over the legal limit to drive or more IE around 1.6 or more.

That's because you are ignoring the data Drew Dad posted. It's not as though no harm is being done by people driving with a .08 BAC.

You are also ignoring the fact that if there is a mean BAC level of .16 in fatal car crashes, a substantial number of cases fall below that BAC and still account for deaths. And fatalities should not be the only measure--people are also severely and permanently injured by drunk drivers.

Quote:

Laws and the punishment relating to breaking them should make sense

And that's why the state of Washington is now discussing increasing penalties for DUI vehicular homicide, because the current penalties, generally two and half to three year sentences, seem inadequate. DUI fatalities in Washington are 6 percentage points above the national average and 37% of all traffic fatalities in Washington involved drunk drivers, according to 2010 traffic data.

The prosecutor in this case in Washington state feels the penalties should be increased to be more reflective of the crime.

Quote:

Guilty plea in Kirkland DUI-road rage crash
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
By LEVI PULKKINEN,
February 2, 2012

A 56-year-old man who was driving drunk and angry when he crashed into an oncoming car in Kirkland has pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide.

Drunk behind the wheel on July 24, Patrick Stevan Rexroat was chasing another car when he lost control and crashed, killing an driver not involved in the road rage incident.

Rexroat, a Snohomish resident, told a responding State Patrol trooper he’d been cut off on Interstate 405 and decided to chase the offending vehicle onto the Northeast 85th Street exit in Kirkland.

Rexroat then lost control of his Hyundai Santa Fe SUV and slammed into an oncoming car, killing Stephen Lacey, a husband and father of two who worked as a Google engineer. Lacey was on his way home from Costco when Rexroat collided with his car.

Rexroat pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide and reckless driving charges Thursday. King County prosecutors expect to request the maximum term – four years in prison – when Rexroat is sentenced on March 9 at the King County Courthouse.

Charging Rexroat shortly after the crash, Deputy Prosecutor Jennifer Lyn Miller told the court the man began beating on his chest following the crash. A witness told investigators Rexroat, when told the other driver was dead, responded by saying “eh.”

Miller described Rexroat as showing a “flagrant disregard for the value of human life.”

A blood draw later showed Rexroat’s blood alcohol level of .29, more than three times the legal limit, according to charging documents.

"The tragic death of Steve Lacey was not an accident," King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg said in a statement. "It was the predictable result of aggressive driving under extreme intoxication."

Satterberg also lamented the sentencing range set by state lawmakers, and asserted that vehicular homicide should be punished to the same extend as manslaughter, which carries a maximum sentence of 8 ½ years in prison.

"Three years for taking another life in such a manner seriously undervalues that life, and underestimates the extreme danger of those who drink, drive and kill," Satterberg said. "It is difficult to explain to a family who has lost a loved one in this random and senseless way that the perpetrator will face such a short punishment," he added in the statement issued shortly after the crash.

Satterberg was supporting a House bill, No. 1646, that would have made vehicular homicide by DUI equivalent to manslaughter – a charge less than murder given to people negligent for the death of another.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Guilty-plea-in-Kirkland-DUI-road-rage-crash-2966809.php#ixzz1ldYOFl1Y

Why shouldn't vehicular homicide by DUI be equivalent to manslaughter?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Never drove drunk in my life under either the old standard of .1 or the current .08 standard however under a .05 standard perhaps in my younger days that had occur a few times.

Anecdotal, and I might add, irrelevant.

BillRM wrote:

Now I am sure you would wish to keep redefining the standard for BAC maximum level to the point that no one will dare to use mouthwash that contain alcohol before driving.

Strawman

BillRM wrote:

Laws and the punishment relating to breaking them should make sense and we are going farther and farther away from that ideal in all aspects of the so call criminal justice system.

Your point? Everyone has a different tolerance for risk. Everyone has to live somewhere. Too bad for you if you choose to live somewhere where the generally accepted tolerance for risk is lower than you would like. You can always move.

BillRM wrote:

Oh footnote even under the .1 standard most people would not consider a person they are interacting with drunk at that level.

Well, gee, that invalidates everything, then!

Except, wait a minute! We have actual, experimental, empirical data that tells us that .08 BAC actually does impair one's ability to drive.

I guess this is just another of your red herrings, then.

BillRM wrote:

Most news stories that deal with a drunk driver doing harm the statement is normally the person is two to three times over the legal limit to drive or more IE around 1.6 or more.

Another meaningless statement/red herring. Should we base our laws on what "most news stories deal with?"

Can you say "selection bias?"

Someone wake me up when Bill has something interesting and/or relevant to say.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

And in case you missed it:

Quote:

We found no effect of the three DUI laws on DUI arrests, convictions or conviction rate

In other words, changing from .1 BAC to .08 BAC did not have the result you keep harping about. It reduced the rate of accidents, but it did not increase revenue to the state at the expense of hapless drunks.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Someone wake me up when Bill has something interesting and/or relevant to say.

You'll be able to enjoy a long snooze. Laughing

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

That's because you are ignoring the data Drew Dad posted. It's not as though no harm is being done by people driving with a .08 BAC.

An once more such BAC levels have the effect of driving without sleep or driving when emotional upset or ..........

If you are not going to have a driving with too like sleep crime or driving after having a fight with you mate crime or driving during a period of grief crime there is little sense in having a DUI crime for a BAC that reduce your skills by roughly the same amount as the above conditions.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

http://www.we-find-wildness.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/boring.gif

http://us.cdn4.123rf.com/168nwm/ofrika/ofrika0705/ofrika070500033/922294-sleepy-student-snoring-on-a-chair-while-doing-an-exam.jpg

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

An once more such BAC levels have the effect of driving without sleep or driving when emotional upset or ..........

So what? That doesn't change the fact that .08 BAC has a measurable, negative effect on driving ability.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Cute indeed and a clear indication that you had run out of arguments.....

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Cute indeed and a clear indication that you had run out of arguments.....

Well one can only make valid points to a brick wall for so long before the futility of it wears one down.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

So what? That doesn't change the fact that .08 BAC has a measurable, negative effect on driving ability

Once more why make it a crime to drive after reaching a .08 BAC when it is not a crime to drive after being up for 20 hours or being highly emotionally upset that had similar affects on driving skills?

Why pick one condition out of a large universe of conditions that decrease driving skills to the same level as a BAC of .08 to turn into a crime to drive under?

Do you have any logic here other then repeating what we all agree on that a .08 does decrease driving skills?

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Why pick one condition out of a large universe of conditions that decrease driving skills to the same level as a BAC of .08 to turn into a crime to drive under?

That is truly one of the stupidest lines of reasoning I have heard in a very long time,

The effects of tiredness and emotional states are not equivalent to alcohol in terms of their impact on the central nervous system. You seem ignorant of the human body's physiological and neurological responses to alcohol, and, no matter how many times the information has been posted, it doesn't sink in with you.

That the other things you mention may also contribute to poor driving, and to accidents, is really beside the point. People should not drive when their abilities are impaired by any factors.

But, if someone causes a vehicular homicide because they fell asleep at the wheel, or because they were in such a blind rage that they drove recklessly and caused a death, I want those people held responsible as well for causing the death of someone when they were in no condition to be operating a motor vehicle, and the crime should be considered a manslaughter.

Whatever other factors contribute to poor driving, adding a BAC level of .08+ to those other factors will only make the situation worse by impairing the driver even more.

In about 1 out of every 3 automobile fatalities in the U.S., alcohol is involved. The more drunk drivers we get off the road, and keep from getting on the road, the safer everyone will be.

Take a look at the title of this thread. You really don't understand drinking and driving.

1 Reply

I just don’t understand drinking and driving

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know