GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-14-2013, 13:17   #26
Pawcatch@aol.co
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: West Georgia
Posts: 1,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
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.
I mentioned MADD because they were the most vocal supporters of lowering the BAC level back in the day.
They have also supported ridiculous zoning laws that have closed down liquor stores.
If they come out against this,then I will recant.
However,I'm not holding my breath on that.

Last edited by Pawcatch@aol.co; 05-14-2013 at 13:21..
Pawcatch@aol.co is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 13:26   #27
czsmithGT
Senior Member
 
czsmithGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis in MA View Post
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. :(
These numbers show the alcohol related fatalities in 2011 were 38% of those in 1982. But the non-alcohol related fatalities in 2011 were 126% of those in 1982.

So from just these two data points we could assume something about alcohol and driving has resulted in reduced fatalities. But no where can these statistics be used to say a further reduction in the "legal limit" would have any effect. Better enforcement, more awareness, a decline in people who risk driving with BAC > 0.08, other things all could explain the decline.
czsmithGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 13:26   #28
NeverMore1701
Platinum Membership
Fear no evil.
 
NeverMore1701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Amarillo, Tx
Posts: 27,552
.....
__________________
And if we should die tonight
We should all die together
Raise a glass of wine
For the last time
NeverMore1701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 13:27   #29
NeverMore1701
Platinum Membership
Fear no evil.
 
NeverMore1701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Amarillo, Tx
Posts: 27,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrys View Post
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?
Yeah, because folks who have a couple of drinks at Chili's and drive home unimpaired are just the worst, right?
__________________
And if we should die tonight
We should all die together
Raise a glass of wine
For the last time
NeverMore1701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 13:29   #30
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverMore1701 View Post
Yeah, because folks who have a couple of drinks at Chili's and drive home unimpaired are just the worst, right?
Are they unimpaired?

What is your data?
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 13:32   #31
Dennis in MA
Get off my lawn
 
Dennis in MA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Taunton, MA
Posts: 52,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by czsmithGT View Post
These numbers show the alcohol related fatalities in 2011 were 38% of those in 1982. But the non-alcohol related fatalities in 2011 were 126% of those in 1982. (The rest of the lines match up - I think it was a technical glitch by the website creator.)

So from just these two data points we could assume something about alcohol and driving has resulted in reduced fatalities. But no where can these statistics be used to say a further reduction in the "legal limit" would have any effect. Better enforcement, more awareness, a decline in people who risk driving with BAC > 0.08, other things all could explain the decline.
I don't htink so. I think the # "38" is the error. It should be 31. It's 31% of all deaths were DD deaths. And 60% were in 1982.

No question we can't say lowering the BAC limit does it. But they HAVE gone down as a % of the whole, which is what Dana was arguing against.

I'll guess again - it's not the safer cars or lower limits. It's people FEARING getting caught. 10K deaths, 1.4Million arrests for DD in 2011. One in 200 people or so got bagged for DUI. People fear that.
__________________
The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd.

Last edited by Dennis in MA; 05-14-2013 at 13:33..
Dennis in MA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 13:34   #32
JohnBT
NRA Patron
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Posts: 6,255
I'm much more afraid of drivers using phones for voice or texting.

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

I don't have to, but a drink before a meal doesn't appear to any effect when I get behind the wheel an hour or even 90 minutes later. I did this at lunch Sunday before I started my 137-mile interstate drive from the nursing home back to Richmond. Heck, I did it every Friday for 4.5 years until my father died in 2011. One drink, lunch, some coffee, read the Washington Post and talk to the staff until I'm ready to roll.

The VA State Police card/chart I have shows that at 190 I can drink 4 drinks in 2 hours and still be barely under .08. I think I'm unsafe to drive after 4 in 2 hours and never do it. It's hard to dodge the cell phone users at 70 mph if you're not at the top of your game.
JohnBT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 13:37   #33
Altaris
Senior Member
 
Altaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 11,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
Are they unimpaired?

What is your data?
If I go have a glass or two of wine/beer with my steak dinner, I am not a threat to anyone on my way home. I am far less of a threat than any of the Texting idiots, sleepy drivers, and other distracted drivers.

I am stuck in bed right now with a hurt back and neck thanks to a texter.
__________________
To Alcohol !
The cause of, and solution to, all of lifes problems
-Homer Simpson-
Altaris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 13:41   #34
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,827
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis in MA View Post

This data shows in 1999 that BAC over .08 was responsible for 20.3% of them. In 2009 the drivers involved in fatalities was 22.2%.

That means that even with the enforcement/laws that the percent of wrecks went up 2%. (I would say +/- is probably statisically insignificant if variability year to year was known).
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 13:44   #35
czsmithGT
Senior Member
 
czsmithGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis in MA View Post
I don't htink so. I think the # "38" is the error. It should be 31. It's 31% of all deaths were DD deaths. And 60% were in 1982.

No question we can't say lowering the BAC limit does it. But they HAVE gone down as a % of the whole, which is what Dana was arguing against.

I'll guess again - it's not the safer cars or lower limits. It's people FEARING getting caught. 10K deaths, 1.4Million arrests for DD in 2011. One in 200 people or so got bagged for DUI. People fear that.
yes that is right 31%
czsmithGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 13:45   #36
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,827
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis in MA View Post
Interesting stats ARE compiled.

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

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

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-dr...tatistics.html
Compare the two sets of data.

They have significantly different numbers for 1999 and 2009.

Link 1 is 20.3% and 22.3% respectively.

Link 2 is 40% and 38% respectively.

I would tend to believe census data over "alcoholalert" data. Data sources can be important
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 14:01   #37
mixflip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,673
I guess if your life has not been affected by a drunk driver you will be upset at such a proposal.

In my town, an entire family burned to death when their van was hit by an 18 year old drunk driver.

A few months later another 18 year old drunk driver drove his car straight into the patio of a breakfast restaurant and sent a family of four to the ICU. They were pinned under the car and the kid tried to walk away but got tackled by witnesses. The victims had broken backs, broken hips and collapsed lungs.

I was there when my co-worker got the news that his wife and son and niece were all killed by a drunk driver. It was a gut wrenching experience to witness. The mans spirit was broken beyond words.

I am not a drinker so I could care less if it was banned 100%. I drank like a fish when I was young and dumb. I was a drunk driver many times and never got caught. I guess I just out grew that phase of life. Im am probably one of those odd balls that can have a good time without the need to drink.

I say drink all you want but just dont drink and drive. If you play, be prepared to pay.

Last edited by mixflip; 05-14-2013 at 14:03..
mixflip is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 14:09   #38
Pawcatch@aol.co
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: West Georgia
Posts: 1,188
My cousin was killed by a drunk driver in Jacksonville who's BAC was 0.192.
I still recognize the difference between driving drunk and having drink with your meal.
Pawcatch@aol.co is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 14:09   #39
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,827
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixflip View Post
I guess if your life has not been affected by a drunk driver you will be upset at such a proposal.
I guess if your family has not been affected by a shooter you will be upset at additional gun control laws.

See how well that works?
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.

Last edited by DanaT; 05-14-2013 at 14:10..
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 14:10   #40
ShallNotBeInfringed
NRA Business Al
 
ShallNotBeInfringed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NRA Benefactor Life Member Nebraska
Posts: 1,238
Concealed Carry holders have a zero tolerance. (all states?)

As many of us Concealed Carry, anything except soda pop is off limits anyway. Moot point for many of us.
__________________
19 21 Cutaways 19 19C 20 20SF 21 21C 23 23C 32 32C 22LR 460 Glock Armorer
Nebraska Concealed Carry Instructor, 32 years CC Experience1981-2013 Retired FFL1991-2001
NRA Benefactor Life NRA CRSO NRA instructor RSOi CPi PPITHi PPOTHi RTBAVi
ShallNotBeInfringed is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 14:12   #41
AngelDeville
NoHablaMexican
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: ABQ
Posts: 459
I propose we limit fuel tanks to 7 gallons, that way drunks can't drive as far.
AngelDeville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 14:17   #42
FCastle88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixflip View Post
I guess if your life has not been affected by a drunk driver you will be upset at such a proposal.

In my town, an entire family burned to death when their van was hit by an 18 year old drunk driver.

A few months later another 18 year old drunk driver drove his car straight into the patio of a breakfast restaurant and sent a family of four to the ICU. They were pinned under the car and the kid tried to walk away but got tackled by witnesses. The victims had broken backs, broken hips and collapsed lungs.

I was there when my co-worker got the news that his wife and son and niece were all killed by a drunk driver. It was a gut wrenching experience to witness. The mans spirit was broken beyond words.

I am not a drinker so I could care less if it was banned 100%. I drank like a fish when I was young and dumb. I was a drunk driver many times and never got caught. I guess I just out grew that phase of life. Im am probably one of those odd balls that can have a good time without the need to drink.

I say drink all you want but just dont drink and drive. If you play, be prepared to pay.
Did these drunk drivers have an BAC under 0.08? If not what does this have to do with lowering it? Why does some idiots getting wasted and injuring/killing someone mean that someone who has a couple beers with dinner should be made a criminal?

Last edited by FCastle88; 05-14-2013 at 14:25..
FCastle88 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 14:20   #43
badge315
Senior Member
 
badge315's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Middleburg, FL
Posts: 3,700
The only statistic that has any relevance in this debate is how many accidents and/or fatalities occurred where the at-fault driver had alcohol in his system but was still below the current legal limit of .08 BAC. Without that number, calls to lower the legal BAC limit are based on nothing more than speculative guesswork.
__________________
"I am the sum of all evil...yet many still seek me out; a green jewel they must possess. But see how I destroy their lives."

- The Loc-Nar

Last edited by badge315; 05-14-2013 at 14:21..
badge315 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 14:20   #44
ShallNotBeInfringed
NRA Business Al
 
ShallNotBeInfringed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NRA Benefactor Life Member Nebraska
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixflip View Post
I guess if your life has not been affected by a drunk driver you will be upset at such a proposal.

In my town, an entire family burned to death when their van was hit by an 18 year old drunk driver.

A few months later another 18 year old drunk driver drove his car straight into the patio of a breakfast restaurant and sent a family of four to the ICU. They were pinned under the car and the kid tried to walk away but got tackled by witnesses. The victims had broken backs, broken hips and collapsed lungs.

I was there when my co-worker got the news that his wife and son and niece were all killed by a drunk driver. It was a gut wrenching experience to witness. The mans spirit was broken beyond words.

I am not a drinker so I could care less if it was banned 100%. I drank like a fish when I was young and dumb. I was a drunk driver many times and never got caught. I guess I just out grew that phase of life. Im am probably one of those odd balls that can have a good time without the need to drink.

I say drink all you want but just dont drink and drive. If you play, be prepared to pay.
Lots of us were young once. lol

I drove home really drunk once, in a cab I leased (cab driver). So drunk, I could not hardly walk. I was on an interstate highway in a construction zone. This was a construction zone for years. This night, was the first day, all the traffic was on the newly finished side, and the other lanes were closed.

Being drunk, I could not believe what I was seeing, so I stopped the cab, got out, and was walking all over the place, to see if I was seeing things, or the construction had really switched sides. It was 3am over the Missouri river in Omaha. I was 100 feet in the air, too drunk to walk, and climbing over who knows what, inspecting the bridge, while my cab was blocking a lane of traffic. Looked around about ten minutes, and determined, yep, the lanes were completed, and the traffic was now on the other side.

Drove on home. That was 1974. Drinking age was 18 then.

Now I don't drink. Go for years at a time never touching the stuff. My wife has never drank. In fact, she is too sober!
__________________
19 21 Cutaways 19 19C 20 20SF 21 21C 23 23C 32 32C 22LR 460 Glock Armorer
Nebraska Concealed Carry Instructor, 32 years CC Experience1981-2013 Retired FFL1991-2001
NRA Benefactor Life NRA CRSO NRA instructor RSOi CPi PPITHi PPOTHi RTBAVi
ShallNotBeInfringed is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 14:22   #45
badge315
Senior Member
 
badge315's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Middleburg, FL
Posts: 3,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShallNotBeInfringed View Post
Concealed Carry holders have a zero tolerance. (all states?)

As many of us Concealed Carry, anything except soda pop is off limits anyway. Moot point for many of us.
Not in Florida. You can be three sheets to the wind and still legally carry. You just can't handle or use your gun except in necessary self-defense.
__________________
"I am the sum of all evil...yet many still seek me out; a green jewel they must possess. But see how I destroy their lives."

- The Loc-Nar
badge315 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 14:23   #46
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,827
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
Are they unimpaired?

What is your data?
If SAFETY were the real issue we wouldnt be worried about "impaired" but an absolute minimum ability.

It is very easy now to measure reaction time and concentration time using a simulator.

There are people who function at a higher absolute level with 2 beers in them than 95 Y.O. Grandma does on her best day. There are people driving around on prescription drugs that are dangerous.

I would say if someone can meet the minimum abilities with 200 beers in them, let them drive. If grandma cant meet the minimum abilities with no beers in her, she shouldn't be driving.
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 14:23   #47
knotquiteawake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rowlett, TX (Dallas or there abouts
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShallNotBeInfringed View Post
Concealed Carry holders have a zero tolerance. (all states?)

As many of us Concealed Carry, anything except soda pop is off limits anyway. Moot point for many of us.
Not totally true.
In TX at least the law states you cannot be "impaired". There is no "legal limit" only the broad category of "impaired". I have no problem having a single beer or glass of wine with dinner, carrying or not.

As far as lowering the legal limit I don't see how this helps reduce drunk driving. If you are driving impaired it will be apparent, this will be the reason you are pulled over in the first place. The blood or breath test seems to simply seal the deal. If the officer thinks you are impaired you will take a ride whether you blow a .08 or a .05 or even a .03. The only thing I see the .05 doing is possibly increasing conviction rates and also for raking in the money at those illegal DUI checkpoints.
knotquiteawake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 14:24   #48
mixflip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
I guess if your family has not been affected by a shooter you will be upset at additional gun control laws.

See how well that works?
Ah I see so alcohol is a constitutional unalienable right? I see how well that works alright.

Im confused...do you support drunk driving? I am not saying ban alcohol. I am saying ban drunk driving. If you are drunk/buzzed. Dont get behind the wheel. Plain and simple.

You do know that you can get charged with DUI even if your BAC is below the legal limit right? Its called driving impaired. The BAC is just the nail in the coffin so to speak.

Last edited by mixflip; 05-14-2013 at 14:32..
mixflip is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 14:24   #49
FCastle88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShallNotBeInfringed View Post
Concealed Carry holders have a zero tolerance. (all states?)

As many of us Concealed Carry, anything except soda pop is off limits anyway. Moot point for many of us.
Not in all states, in PA for example you can't carry while intoxicated, but they usually use the same level of intoxication as they do for driving. Carrying while having a beer or two with dinner is legal. Pretty sure at least a couple other states have an BAC limit of 0.04 or so while carrying. If someone can't be trusted with a gun after one or two beers, maybe they shouldn't have a gun at all.
FCastle88 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 14:28   #50
randrew379
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 276
.08% is already too low. .10% was probably about right.

As for MADD(and MDA, etc.), no one can deny that it is time for common-sense regulation of mothers.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
randrew379 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:22.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,075
350 Members
725 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42