Well, laws for these things are starting to change. Same with alcohol driving laws. It took years before people realized the effects that it has on driving and other people.

Impaired drivers place others at risk. To get a measure of how much worse they are at driving, we can use the increased incidence of accidents, even when they are single car accidents.

Assuming the sample sizes are large enough, the two approaches are equally valid; they simply measure different things. For example, your preferred approach ignores the cost of the extra vigilance other drivers must demonstrate to avoid being killed by drunk drivers.

From a public policy point of view, drunk drivers getting into wrecks where they kill only themselves still has a large cost, in terms of emergency responders, road closures, etc.

These are non-paternalistic reasons.

Well, that was my first post in this thread, so it's unlikely that it represented a switching back and forth. Both statistics are relevant, of course, and fatal accidents are hardly the only ones that matter.

Really, though, I think my original post was mistakenly absorbed into your discussion with niftymatt. I applaud your desire to make the statistics used in public policy discussions more transparent.

(Unrelated to my earlier post, but related to your reply, much of the drunk driving propaganda is designed to convince people that driving impaired will put themselves at risk.)

Some of these other behaviors have also been criminalized (driving while texting, speeding, reckless driving etc. -- these decisions are more state dependent, and vary quite a bit in severity), and drivers engaging in them are punished even without causing wrecks.

Propaganda as in facts and figures?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re...ol_levels_.png

I don't get it, why would anyone make this up? Where are the figures that disprove all the evidence that shows that when you drink you are more likely to crash, more likely to maim and kill?


To those who make the points about texting, speeding etc. I totally agree it's pretty much the same thing and should be enforced hard. But it's hardly a solid defence for doing something just as negligent.

Seriously, if you plan on going out to drink, just leave the car at home. That way, zero chance you'll get into trouble. It's just an eextra $20 taxi fare. Don't ruin your future trying to stinge on that.

I don't get the people who act like driving drunk is some sort of moral crime. No. Driving recklessly is the moral crime, and the majority of drunk drivers do not drive recklessly.

Your sir are stupid.

ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO

The problem with this is that if you're riding a bike on the sidewalk there is gonna be some point where you have to cross the street.

I've ridden a bike while being completely wasted and it is not fun. But that being said, if I got "pulled over" and got a DUI I'd think it was the biggest joke ever.

Public intoxication? Sure. DUI? Hell no.

That's probably true — driving matters a lot here, so there is more resistance to restricting it.

I'm putting my own arguments a little more strongly than I actually believe. Though in theory I think we should never punish the mere act of of driving drunk, limiting criminal sanctions to accidents that actually happen rather than those we're merely worried might happen, in practice I admit it may be better to ban the dangerous conduct, too. But 0.08% is silly, as there is very little impairment of experienced drivers at that level. (Inexperienced drivers lose what competence they have much earlier, so different laws for teenage drivers — and yes, the drinking age should be lowered drastically or eliminated entirely — would be sensible.) If it were returned to where it was when I was growing up — 0.15% in my state — that might be acceptable, though 0.20% would be better: it would pick up the hard-core drunk drivers, the ones who make driving truly dangerous for others, while allowing reasonable conduct by others.

This was similar to the thrust of my original point, but your approach to the argument is flawed as it is vulnerable to the (correct, for some BACs) counter that driving drunk is inherently reckless.

But yes, the shift from "it's conduct that we should deter" to "it's evil" has been strange and disturbing to watch over the years.


Edit: Before anyone accuses me of inconsistency, I don't think it's clear that reckless driving should be a crime either, as a theoretical matter, but I'll concede that such laws are practical. (I certainly will not concede that any particular speed is inherently reckless.)

I don't think anyone disputes that driving while intoxicated is more dangerous than driving while sober. (Actually, one or two people earlier in the thread may have disputed that, for themselves; it's pretty clear they were trolling.)

That's fine because if you are walking on the sidewalk, then at some point you will also have to cross the street. Like I said, unless you are totally wasted to the point where you shouldn't even walk home, you can probably bike without an issue. I also think public intoxication and drinking in public are ridiculous laws. As long as you aren't causing a disturbance, I see no reason why you can't drink or be drunk in public.

Well, maybe propaganda is a poor choice of word since it has such a negative connotation these days. I couldn't think of a neutral word which meant the same thing (communication with the purpose of changing attitudes and behaviors).

Good point: the word's meaning has changed dramatically, and there really isn't a good substitute that doesn't carry heavy negative connotations to most people under fifty.

/digression

The case can be made that one is in a relative sense a better driver intoxicated due to the heightened emphasis on safety. This being of course for someone who admittedly is not the "safest" driver under normal conditions.

Of course in an absolute sense, they CAN be a better driver sober, but I think what some people (possibly myself) were getting at is that in practice, they are not actually being a safer driver when sober.

so i'm sure if merely drunk driving were decriminalized, this almost manifest absurdity would continue.

things that have worked well for me so far if driving after going out:
-Avoid empty stomach drinking, eat something small before going out, like toast, some cheese/crackers ect.
-No shots. 2 drinks the first hour but only 1 each hour after that, try to stop drinking about 30 mins prior to leaving/bar closing. Social smoking made it a lot easier for me to limit alcohol intake since it gives me something else to do in between drinks.
-If possible park away from where most of the bar patrons park, a block or two away in residential is better than bar parking lots or structure. Likewise avoid the roads most used by patrons when heading home.
-Keep water bottle in car along with single serving bag of roasted peanuts, if I think I'm close to bac limit i'll take a couple minutes to down the water and eat some peanuts before heading home... one of those things that could make a difference if it's really close when pulled over.
-Be honest with cops, if you've had a few drinks don't antagonize them and say "I've only had one beer officer" you're not fooling them and this just gives them a reason to **** with you since you lied to them. Better to say you had 3 or 4 beers over a few hours and were being cautious of how much you had since you drove.
-Some nights the plan goes to hell, you run into people who want to buy a round shots and then another one and so on, good times but suck it up and take a cab.

I don't go out as often lately but for a good 6 years i went out at least once a week drinking and often twice and typically drove, pulled over twice leaving bars, no dui's to date.

This is called a confession. It will be used against you if the case goes to trial.

Potatoes are the giant killer here and provide the best fortification of all for drinking.

Great advice (well not so much the smoking but everything else).

BAD ADVICE. DO NOT WANT.

This is a tough situation (esp if the cop can smell it on you), but I think the best play would be to say something like "Officer, I respect that you're out here trying to keep unsafe drivers off the road. Maybe we can discuss the reason you pulled me over?" This shows the cop that you respect him (or her), but it also doesn't admit a damn thing.

Never be an ******* to a cop, but if you admit to drinking it can and WILL be used against you in court. If the cop is a jerk (or if you are in fact DUI), all you're doing is giving him evidence to make a case against you. Further, if the cop is not a jerk, you're probably not really helping yourself out. Although there is a gray zone here. I once got pulled over for 48 in a 35 after about 6 drinks in three hours. Not following my own advice, I admitted drinking and got a gaze test given to me. Cop ended up letting me go without any speeding ticket (which he had me dead to rights on) and told me to have a safe night.

This is a risky line, although sometimes it might be correct. Many cops will only use free info as a means to expedite giving you tickets, blood tests, DUIs etc.

i find in general that advice about dealing with police on 2p2 varies wildly, and i think it has to do with what kind of person you are. there are certain people who cops will like, and there are certain people who cops will not like, and if you fall into the second group, the 'i've had 3 or 4' line might backfire.

I live in Oregon where random road blocks stops are illegal. How prevalent are these DUI checkpoints? What % chance do you have of getting stopped each time you go out?

I've never called a cab. Definitely should have but never have. I've done stupid things when I was younger and got lucky (and I don't mean lucky to not get caught I mean lucky to not kill myself or someone else). It's hard to not feel invincible when drinking.

Within the last several years I have always had my wife to drive me home so it has never been a concern in many years.

One thing that I think is awesome is renting a limo for the night. My little brother's bachelor party we got a limo for 14 people for 6 hours (picked us up at 1 house and dropped us off at same house) for like $600. And we could bring our own bottles and coolers into the limo. Bringing our own liquor into the limo meant we need only nurse a single drink at whatever club we hopped to, and we didn't have to worry about parking or driving or how we were going to get home. For $50 a person it was WELL worth it for the peace of mind. Now obviously people don't go out in groups large enough to make this economical but I thought I would add the comment.

7 be before I go out..but I voted that being the highest I could