Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Okie Corral (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=29)
-   -   NTSB recommends lowering drunk driving to 0.05% (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1486967)

Altaris 05-14-2013 11:26

NTSB recommends lowering drunk driving to 0.05%
 
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/nts...hol/index.html

Dennis in MA 05-14-2013 11:39

Quote:

Under current law, a 180-pound male typically will hit the 0.08 threshold after four drinks over an hour
Geez. I must be paranoid. After 2, I don't even like bein a passenger. FOUR DRINKS?!

I was all sorts of "C'mon. Is this a need?" to "Holy crap - get that enacted" pretty quick. Four drinks in an hour? Just wow.

Pawcatch@aol.co 05-14-2013 11:42

They might as well just ban restaurants from serving alcohol.

I'm convinced that is what groups like MADD really want now.When a founding member of MADD has stated that they have gone too far,you know something is wrong.

All roads might as well be federal now since states have less say in maintaining their traffic laws.

I really wish their was a state who just said,"the hell with federal dollars."

sheriff733 05-14-2013 11:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pawcatch@aol.co (Post 20291485)
They might as well just ban restaurants from serving alcohol.

I'm convinced that is what groups like MADD really want now.When a founding member of MADD has stated that they have gone too far,you know something is wrong.

All roads night as well be federal now since states have less say in maintaining their traffic laws.

I really wish their was a state who just said,"the hell with federal dollars."

Yep, I really think the goal is to shut down bars and ban restaurants from serving alcohol.

DanaT 05-14-2013 12:04

One of the flaws is causation:

"In the early 1980s, when grass-roots safety groups brought attention to drunk driving, many states required a 0.15 BAC rate to demonstrated intoxication.

But over the next 24 years, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other groups pushed states to adopt the 0.08 BAC standard, the last state falling in line in 2004.

The number of alcohol-related highway fatalities, meanwhile, dropped from 20,000 in 1980 to 9,878 in 2011, the NTSB said."

What they are assuming is that "alcohol-related highway fatalities" dropped by half only due to lowering the limit. I highly doubt this is the only reason.

We could say, that during the same time the federal maximum speed limit was rasied from 55 to 65 and later repealed. Therefore, was can make the statement that higher speed limits reduce the number of alcohol-related highway fatalities.

I would submit that looking at overall traffic fatalities in 1980 there 22.485 deaths per 100,000. In 2011, there 10.38

Lets compare the numbers:

Alcohol
9,878/20000 = 49.39%
10.38/22.485 = 46.2%

Isnt strange, if the cause of reduction in deaths alcohol-related highway fatalities is attributed to lowering the acceptable limit and strict enforcement of the limit, that overall traffic fatalities dropped by almost the same amount (if you evaluate all years, I doubt there is a statistically significant difference)?

Basic data analysis shows that it is highly likely something other than reduced BAC and enforcement has caused the reduction.

JohnnyReb 05-14-2013 12:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis in MA (Post 20291479)
Geez. I must be paranoid. After 2, I don't even like bein a passenger. FOUR DRINKS?!

I was all sorts of "C'mon. Is this a need?" to "Holy crap - get that enacted" pretty quick. Four drinks in an hour? Just wow.

5 beers in 3 hours puts be at .081. 4 beers in 1 hour puts me at .086.

They are making it sound like it takes a lot to get at .08, but its really not that much.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Dennis in MA 05-14-2013 12:13

Interesting stats, Dana. But lower is lower, right? What if the things are concurrent. I get your point that we can't know just from the stats. More research needed. My anecdotal, SWAG thought is that 1.4, 0.08, .05 - it's all about GETTING CAUGHT not about killing someone.

Funny aside - there's a sign nearby that talks about 90% of all forest fires are started by people. I told my kids, "Good luck ever making that a smaller #." If we cut man-made FF in half, you are still talking 82%. Cut it by 3/4, still 69%. Until 90% of man-made FF are eliminated, it won't look like meaningful headway. It's a bad way to present the #. Dramatic drops just don't show up. Both girls caught on pretty quick. I was proud of that. That and we ran over a squirrel with a Zippo on the way home - so now we're working AGAINST the statistic. Every forest fire I can avoid is a plus.

syntaxerrorsix 05-14-2013 12:14

More money.

Pawcatch@aol.co 05-14-2013 12:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyReb (Post 20291546)
5 beers in 3 hours puts be at .081. 4 beers in 1 hour puts me at .086.

They are making it sound like it takes a lot to get at .08, but its really not that much.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Yes,I knew a guy who blew .081. after a couple of tallboys with his steak dinner.

This is clearly to discourage restaurants from serving alcohol and to strengthen the nanny state.
MADD won't be happy until the only restaurants left are Cracker Barrels.

meathead19 05-14-2013 12:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix (Post 20291573)
More money.

We have a winner!

But out of prizes. Sorry.

HKLovingIT 05-14-2013 12:23

I guess they are still butt hurt prohibition got overturned.

DanaT 05-14-2013 12:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis in MA (Post 20291569)
Interesting stats, Dana. But lower is lower, right? What if the things are concurrent.

You still have to be able to reject the null hypothesis. That is the problem with most of these studies.

I would actually bet that most of the reduction in deaths has resulted from safer cars. Wrecks that used to kill people dont any more.

But again, I can show that concurrently with raising speed limits deaths have went down so can it be said that raising speed limits will result in fewer deaths.

Its showing causation that is hard.

Many of these "stats" make the giant leap that X is caused by Y and you are to just believe it. X may be caused by B but since the author doesnt like Y and Y changed during the time period, authors assign Y as the cause.

Hummer 05-14-2013 12:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pawcatch@aol.co (Post 20291584)
Yes,I knew a guy who blew .081. after a couple of tallboys with his steak dinner.

This is clearly to discourage restaurants from serving alcohol and to strengthen the nanny state.
MADD won't be happy until alcohol is banned completely and men are required to wear burkas in public.

Fixed it for ya!

Quote:

Originally Posted by HKLovingIT (Post 20291602)
I guess they are still butt hurt prohibition got overturned.

The nanny state will be the death of free America.

Goldendog Redux 05-14-2013 12:39

Lowering the legal limit will water down the actual penalties if convicted. Why not just recommend 0.000%?

The is a slight difference between someone who blows .05 and .20 so the penalties should be different. Or should they?

ilgunguygt 05-14-2013 12:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaT (Post 20291607)
You still have to be able to reject the null hypothesis. That is the problem with most of these studies.

I would actually bet that most of the reduction in deaths has resulted from safer cars. Wrecks that used to kill people dont any more.

But again, I can show that concurrently with raising speed limits deaths have went down so can it be said that raising speed limits will result in fewer deaths.

Its showing causation that is hard.

Many of these "stats" make the giant leap that X is caused by Y and you are to just believe it. X may be caused by B but since the author doesnt like Y and Y changed during the time period, authors assign Y as the cause.

That's exactly what I was going to post. The % of alcohol related deaths remains the same or similar, the overall deaths go down. Obviously it wasn't due to alcohol laws.

220-9er 05-14-2013 12:42

Safer cars and better/quicker trauma care has probably caused much of the drop in the fatality rate.
A better measure would be the overall accident rate.

Dennis in MA 05-14-2013 12:46

What is the DD Accident rate vs. previous time? What is the overall accident rate vs. previous time? THAT would be a better indicator, yes? Deaths is so specific.

I still say we have less DD deaths b/c people are scared crapless to drive even mildly buzzed. IT's not killing people, it's getting caught and losing (or loosing, in GNG) your license. But without proper stats, I'm blowin out dabutthole.

Dalton Wayne 05-14-2013 12:48

I don't drink, but I had 1 beer a year ago, just one 12 oz bottle, and It got me drunk as hell, maybe it's because I don't ever drink that one beer will light me up

BIGBEAR92314 05-14-2013 12:59

.05% would effectively be 0 drinks allowed. My commercial DL only allows for .04% and according to this table provided by the CA DMV one beer may put me above the driving skill impaired limit
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps4ea0aa46.jpg

Dennis in MA 05-14-2013 13:03

Interesting stats ARE compiled.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1113.pdf

Accounting for population, there were about 44% more accidents in 1990 vs. 2009. So overall accidents per capita are down. (2600/100K vs. 1800/100K)


BUT. . . this site shows different stats than Dana has:

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-dr...tatistics.html

Only 38% of deaths are alcohol vs. 60% in 1982.

Somewhere, the #'s are fudging. (The NHTSA alcohol-related accidents # includes drunken passengers, drunken VICTIMS of accidents and drunken pedestrians hit by sober drivers.)

This is an interesting mental exercise. I'd like to know the # of drunk driving accidents per year 1990-2009. They track deaths, not accidents. :(

Glock30Eric 05-14-2013 13:08

Just ban everything to make it easier for all of us. Ban drinking water. Ban breathing the air. Ban looking at a piece on the earth. E V E R Y T H I N G!

CAcop 05-14-2013 13:09

I like how people here are talking about MADD being behind this when it is the NTSB.

My dad was a defense attorney when they set the 0.1 limit back in the day. They brought him to a test track. No driving simulators in those days. They gave him straight up grain alcohol rather than "Here drink this beer." Then they had him drive.

BIGBEAR92314 05-14-2013 13:11

[QUOTE=Dennis

This is an interesting mental exercise. I'd like to know the # of drunk driving accidents per year 1990-2009. They track deaths, not accidents. :([/QUOTE]

http://www.duipictures.com/statisti.htm
Recent Alcohol-Involvement

Over 50% of all fatal highway crashes involving two or more cars are alcohol related.
Over 65% of all fatal single car crashes are alcohol related.
Over 36% percent of all adult pedestrian accidents are alcohol related.
80% of all fatal alcohol related auto crashes occur between 8 pm and 8 am.
36% of all adult pedestrian accidents involve an intoxicated pedestrian.
Injury Crashes / Collisions

Every year, 708,000 persons are injured in alcohol related crashes; 74, 000 of those people suffer serious injuries.
About 2,000 people are hurt each day in alcohol related accidents.
Two million alcohol impaired driving collisions occur each year.
Arrest / Characteristics of Alcohol Impaired Drivers
Of every 200 to 2,000 alcohol impaired drivers on the road, only one is arrested. Therefore, the probability of getting caught is slim. Of those who are caught, very few receive a serious penalty.
The average alcohol impaired driver arrested on the highway has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .20%, double the level for presumed intoxication in most states; that is 14 drinks of 86% proof liquor (or 14 beers) in 4 hours for a 180 lb. man.
Between 7 pm and 3 am on weekends, 10% of all drivers are legally impaired, in some parts of the country.Most Americans drink alcohol. Over 80% admit to driving after drinking.
Relatively few problem drinkers, about 7% of the driving population, account for over 66% of all alcohol related fatal accidents.
When drinkers are at the presumed level of intoxication, the risk of causing an accident is six times greater than for non-drinking drivers.

soutthpaw 05-14-2013 13:11

Just come to CO and drive stoned instead. So far they have come up with no accurate or agreed upon assessment on when u r too high to drive. I guess that makes u flying low instead:D

Carrys 05-14-2013 13:11

I find it interesting those people who just have to drink and drive.

Their excuses for doing so are down right juvenile at best. Oh.....let me do as I want to do. Let me do what makes me happy. Screw everyone else, especially those I may hurt in doing so.




Besides, I'm such a grand driver I would never be responsible for hurting anyone. Shucks, I haven't been responsible for anything since the 70's......ya know?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 23:05.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.