Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

NTSB recommends lowering drunk driving to 0.05%

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Altaris, May 14, 2013.

  1. Dennis in MA

    Dennis in MA Get off my lawn

    Aug 16, 2001
    Taunton, MA
    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.

  2. 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."
    Last edited: May 14, 2013
  3. sheriff733

    sheriff733 NRA LIFE MEMBER

    Nov 4, 2007
    Yep, I really think the goal is to shut down bars and ban restaurants from serving alcohol.
  4. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    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    We could say, that during the same time the federal maximum speed limit was rasied from 55 to 65 and later repealed.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:

    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.
    Last edited: May 14, 2013
  5. JohnnyReb

    JohnnyReb Lifetime Member

    Sep 20, 2004
    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
  6. Dennis in MA

    Dennis in MA Get off my lawn

    Aug 16, 2001
    Taunton, MA
    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.
  7. syntaxerrorsix

    syntaxerrorsix Anti-Federalist CLM

    Oct 3, 2000
    Lakeland, FL.
  8. 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.
  9. We have a winner!

    But out of prizes. Sorry.
  10. HKLovingIT

    HKLovingIT Resident Evil

    Aug 20, 2010
    Out On The Tiles
    I guess they are still butt hurt prohibition got overturned.
  11. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    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.
  12. Hummer

    Hummer Big Member

    Mar 16, 2003
    Western Colorado
    Fixed it for ya!

    The nanny state will be the death of free America.
  13. Goldendog Redux

    Goldendog Redux Shut your mouth

    Aug 22, 2003
    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?
  14. ilgunguygt

    ilgunguygt Enslaved in IL

    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.
  15. 220-9er


    Sep 4, 2002
    North of Atl
    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.
  16. Dennis in MA

    Dennis in MA Get off my lawn

    Aug 16, 2001
    Taunton, MA
    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.
  17. Dalton Wayne

    Dalton Wayne Epic mustache Millennium Member

    Apr 5, 1999
    Central Florida
    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
  18. BIGBEAR92314


    Jan 20, 2013
    Big Bear City,Ca
    .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
    Last edited: May 14, 2013
  19. Dennis in MA

    Dennis in MA Get off my lawn

    Aug 16, 2001
    Taunton, MA
    Interesting stats ARE compiled.

    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:

    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. :(
    Last edited: May 14, 2013