- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why is drinking and driving so accepted?
Posted on 2/1/16 at 11:51 am to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 2/1/16 at 11:51 am to NYNolaguy1
Did you read what you posted? Seems to me the less you drink, the less you are likely to cause a fatal crash, which is exactly what I was talking about.
1
Posted on 2/1/16 at 11:51 am to Pavoloco83
quote:Why do you assume minis are for drinking and driving? Never heard of that.
mini-bottles which are obviously for drinking and driving
This post was edited on 2/1/16 at 11:56 am
Posted on 2/1/16 at 11:56 am to kywildcatfanone
quote:
Did you read what you posted? Seems to me the less you drink, the less you are likely to cause a fatal crash, which is exactly what I was talking about.
Sure did.
Maybe you missed the part on the graph where there's a minimal difference in risk to the public for .1 BAC vs .08?
Want to know the real difference? Arrests made. You've now made criminals out of thin air.
So, if there's virtually no change in risk to the public for .08 vs .1, how do you justify the need to make new criminals at no appreciable benefit to the public?
Btw- the difference between .08 and .05 BAC is identical. There literally is no public benefit. That won't stop the MADD mothers from collecting their pound of flesh from the newly minted criminals though.
This post was edited on 2/1/16 at 11:59 am
Posted on 2/1/16 at 12:11 pm to mikelbr
Numbers from 2010:
People arrested for DUI - 1.4 million
People who self reported driving under the influence during the year - 112 million
Total traffic fatalities in 2010 - 32,885
Fatalities caused by sober drivers - 20,838 (63%)
Traffic fatalities caused by drunk drivers - 10,228 (31%)
Fatalities cause by driver with a BAC of .08-.14 - 3,083 (9%)
Fatalities cause by driver with a BAC of .15 or more - 7,145 (22%)
Based on these numbers:
A) Sober drivers kill more people than drunk drivers
B) 48% of adult drivers drove under the influence in 2010
C) Of the number of drivers charged with a DUI, .7% caused a fatality (10,228/1,400,000)*
D) Of the number of drivers who self reported drinking under the influence, .009% caused a traffic fatality (10,228/112,000,000)*
*C and D assume one fatality per driver. Based on other figures, the number is closer to 2 per driver, which would reduce the number of impaired drivers by half.
Drunk driving is not accepted, but it is rampant. But to admit to that, you must also admit that the numbers show that it is not as deadly as it is portrayed. It also bears out that .08 is entirely too low, given the number of fatal accidents that are caused by people at that level.
LINK
LINK
People arrested for DUI - 1.4 million
People who self reported driving under the influence during the year - 112 million
Total traffic fatalities in 2010 - 32,885
Fatalities caused by sober drivers - 20,838 (63%)
Traffic fatalities caused by drunk drivers - 10,228 (31%)
Fatalities cause by driver with a BAC of .08-.14 - 3,083 (9%)
Fatalities cause by driver with a BAC of .15 or more - 7,145 (22%)
Based on these numbers:
A) Sober drivers kill more people than drunk drivers
B) 48% of adult drivers drove under the influence in 2010
C) Of the number of drivers charged with a DUI, .7% caused a fatality (10,228/1,400,000)*
D) Of the number of drivers who self reported drinking under the influence, .009% caused a traffic fatality (10,228/112,000,000)*
*C and D assume one fatality per driver. Based on other figures, the number is closer to 2 per driver, which would reduce the number of impaired drivers by half.
Drunk driving is not accepted, but it is rampant. But to admit to that, you must also admit that the numbers show that it is not as deadly as it is portrayed. It also bears out that .08 is entirely too low, given the number of fatal accidents that are caused by people at that level.
LINK
LINK
Posted on 2/1/16 at 12:22 pm to GRTiger
quote:
Sober drivers kill more people than drunk drivers
This is a stupid point.
Posted on 2/1/16 at 12:22 pm to PearlJam
quote:
Why do you assume minis are for drinking and driving? Never heard of that.
what else would they be for?
Posted on 2/1/16 at 12:22 pm to NYNolaguy1
My point initially was not drinking and driving at all. Do I think that the guy who had one beer at a restaurant is as dangerous as a guy who had a 6 pack? No, but my point is don't drink and drive period.
Drink all you want, just don't drive. I don't know anything about how MADD operates, but I assume along the way some mothers lost their children to drivers who were impaired. That would be my position too.
Many impaired drivers don't think they are impaired. Hence my statement earlier that I think penalties need to be a deterrent, which they obviously aren't today.
Drink all you want, just don't drive. I don't know anything about how MADD operates, but I assume along the way some mothers lost their children to drivers who were impaired. That would be my position too.
Many impaired drivers don't think they are impaired. Hence my statement earlier that I think penalties need to be a deterrent, which they obviously aren't today.
Posted on 2/1/16 at 12:27 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
My point initially was not drinking and driving at all. Do I think that the guy who had one beer at a restaurant is as dangerous as a guy who had a 6 pack? No
OK.
quote:
but my point is don't drink and drive period.
So the punishment should be the same for both groups?
quote:
I don't know anything about how MADD operates, but I assume along the way some mothers lost their children to drivers who were impaired. That would be my position too.
You're right. You don't know anything about how they operate. The irrational emotional appeal of their message is all you care about.
Posted on 2/1/16 at 12:29 pm to Artie Rome
quote:
This is a stupid point.
No it's not. It illustrates the inherent risk of driving in order to establish context for the figures that followed regarding the number of fatalities caused by impaired drivers compared to the number of drivers who drive drunk.
It was not stated to imply that drunk driving is safer than sober driving. That would be stupid. It would also be stupid to read my post and I assume that's what I was saying.
Posted on 2/1/16 at 12:30 pm to GRTiger
quote:
you must also admit that the numbers show that it is not as deadly as it is portrayed
quote:
Traffic fatalities caused by drunk drivers - 10,228
Seems pretty deadly to me.
Posted on 2/1/16 at 12:32 pm to GRTiger
quote:
It illustrates the inherent risk of driving in order to establish context for the figures that followed regarding the number of fatalities caused by impaired drivers compared to the number of drivers who drive drunk.
To illustrate that point, you also need data to show what percentage of drivers on the road at any given time are impaired.
Posted on 2/1/16 at 12:32 pm to BabyTac
quote:
Why is drinking and driving so accepted?
Because it is such a great song!!!
Black Flag
You gotta love baby Henry Rollins.
This post was edited on 2/1/16 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 2/1/16 at 12:33 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
So the punishment should be the same for both groups?
If you kill or injure someone in an accident yes. I'm fine with a stair step approach to those who are only caught drinking while driving, but I want it severe enough of a punishment to be a deterrent.
quote:
You're right. You don't know anything about how they operate. The irrational emotional appeal of their message is all you care about.
If it's irrational to not want my family to be the road with impaired drivers, then, yes, you are right.
Why is it so important to drink and drive? If you ever have a family member injured or killed by someone who was impaired or distracted you will understand.
Posted on 2/1/16 at 12:36 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
If you ever have a family member injured or killed by someone who was impaired or distracted you will understand.
So you admit your reasoning is not logical but emotional.
Should we ban cell phones as well?
Posted on 2/1/16 at 12:36 pm to Artie Rome
Not when you consider 112,000,000 people admitted to driving drunk at least once during the year. That was half the adult population in 2010.
I am not trying to defend the habitually impaired driver or the ones that put down a case of beer at the bar and speed through town. The laws are set up such that the majority of people arrested for DUI are not likely to cause any harm.
I also don't drink and drive nor do I find it acceptable behavior. There are a lot of behaviors that I find unacceptable but disagree that it should ruin someone's life. I also understand the thought process of "just don't do it" is made of rainbows and unicorns when talking about a country with 250 million adults and an above average level of freedom.
I am not trying to defend the habitually impaired driver or the ones that put down a case of beer at the bar and speed through town. The laws are set up such that the majority of people arrested for DUI are not likely to cause any harm.
I also don't drink and drive nor do I find it acceptable behavior. There are a lot of behaviors that I find unacceptable but disagree that it should ruin someone's life. I also understand the thought process of "just don't do it" is made of rainbows and unicorns when talking about a country with 250 million adults and an above average level of freedom.
Posted on 2/1/16 at 12:41 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
If you ever have a family member injured or killed by someone who was impaired or distracted you will understand.
I wonder how many people would admit to using a cell phone while driving? Far more than drinking, I'm sure.
Posted on 2/1/16 at 12:42 pm to fr33manator
quote:
So you admit your reasoning is not logical but emotional.
Should we ban cell phones as well?
No, it's logical. I don't work off of emotion.
I mentioned in my original post that distracted driving is just as big an issue. That should be prosecuted severely as well.
I see it every day.
Posted on 2/1/16 at 12:43 pm to GRTiger
quote:
Not when you consider 112,000,000 people admitted to driving drunk at least once during the year.
I completely understand your position, and largely agree. My point is that the 112 million people that admitted to drinking and driving were not impaired every time they drove. The telling statistic would be how many instances of driving sober resulted in an injury or death compared to how many instances of driving impaired resulted in injury or death. And there is no way to get that data reliably.
quote:
I also understand the thought process of "just don't do it" is made of rainbows and unicorns when talking about a country with 250 million adults and an above average level of freedom.
Agree 100%. Especially when you consider alcoholics.
Posted on 2/1/16 at 12:45 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
If you kill or injure someone in an accident yes.
Which is why I alluded to you wanting prohibition. That's the end result of your statement. Stick liability for drinking regardless of the extent to which it contributes to an accident (or whether it does at all). That's prohibition.
Posted on 2/1/16 at 12:45 pm to LSUBoo
quote:
I wonder how many people would admit to using a cell phone while driving? Far more than drinking, I'm sure.
Doesn't make it any less dangerous.
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News