4 ms·

Kudos for stating a taboo or at least unpopular opinion in a reasoned manner. I do think that drunk driving should be a crime, because on balance I expect maki

Kudos for stating a taboo or at least unpopular opinion in a reasoned manner. I do think that drunk driving should be a crime, because on balance I expect making it so does more good than harm. There are certainly people who choose not to drive when intoxicated for no other reason than fear of being caught and punished. That said, I agree with aspects of your point: it should certainly be a greater crime to be swerving around the road while intoxicated than to simply blow slightly over the limit on a breathalyzer with no other symptoms, and while it could already be charged as multiple offenses, I'm not sure that that's often done in practice. Also, I tend to lean against "zero tolerance" laws, where any BAC whatsoever is a crime. Heck, you could even argue that a particularly good driver and/or someone with a high alcohol tolerance may be safer even when impaired than some drivers are unimpaired; perhaps then the oldschool impairment tests - walk in a line, touch your nose, etc., are fairer than the theoretically more impartial breathalyzer. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but it seems like a reasonable argument at least.

titanomachy 11y ago
Your comment made me think of cops pulling over a driver and sticking them in a VR driving sim for a few minutes to test their response time and motor control. Implausible, sure, and we'll probably have autonomous cars before it can become a reality... but it would be interesting to test for actual driving impairment rather than a proxy like a breathalyzer (or even walking in a straight line). It would also give police an opportunity to remove other dangerous drivers from the road, e.g. certain elderly or sleep-deprived drivers.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  This wouldn't work. Motor control isn't the only (or most significant) problem with drunk driving. It's the combination with impaired judgement/attentiveness that can be so deadly. If you're in a VR driving sim with a cop standing next to you, you're going to pay attention and (virtually) drive, constantly paying attention to the speedometer and road signs. Rather than flipping through stations while turning around to tell a joke to the people in the back seat. Or just zoning out on a routine drive and not realizing you're 40 over. It's why people often say "I'm a better driver when I'm drunk" -- not true for sloppy drunk, but probably true for slightly drunk because the fear of DUI causes them to intently focus when otherwise they would be on auto-pilot not devoting their full attention to the operation of a deadly machine.
  - plonh 11y ago
    People think they drive better when slightly drunk because they have impaired senses and do not notice potentially hazardous conditions that they luckily avoid.
    - nmrm2 11y ago
      tl;dr: Inattentive driving kills. Alcohol can cause inattentiveness. So can texting. If someone constantly texts while driving except for when they're 0.081, then they're probably a safer driver drunk than sober. Which is to say, they shouldn't be allowed to drive in either condition. 1. Regarding the last sentence of my prior post, I think you're also underestimating the extreme danger associated with inattentiveness while sober driving and/or how common distracted sober driving is. I 100% believe an very attentive person at .081 is less dangerous than an idiot texting and messing with the radio while driving. Which is to say, both are extremely dangerous. See e.g. http://distracteddriveraccidents.com/texting-driving-dangerous-drunk-driving/ http://distracteddriveraccidents.com/texting-driving-dangero... 2. You / the grandparent are under-estimating the impact that attentiveness has in drunk driving accidents, and also underestimating the ability of drunk people to be attentive on demand. The VR test is not a good test of impairment because the drunk driver will be artificially attentive during the administration of the test. Driving drunk is dangerous even before motor control is significantly impaired. And the reason for that is mostly psychological -- a bit reduced reaction time, okay, but the reduced attentiveness and judgement are really far more dangerous. The guy flying down the road 40 over "just wasn't paying attention". It's not that he would have noticed but didn't because "delayed reaction time". He never would have noticed because he was drunk and didn't have the good sense to pay attention while driving. The problem with the VR test is that, when put on the spot, a drunk person can focus for a short or intermediate period of time. So that VR test isn't an accurate reflection of the actual typical behavior of an impaired driver. Under-estimating the only-on-demand abilities of drunk people would be a deadly mistake when designing measurements of impairment. Measuring ability, not behavior, is not enough. Drinking changes behavior in ways that are dangerous while driving for for which a drunk person can often compensate (e.g. when confronted with a potential DUI, but often not when driving home on a routine route).
  - 11y ago
- tempestn 11y ago
  Ha, thinking about my comment after the fact last night, I went there too, and I agree. (Especially given other responses here stating that even minor impairment shows up as reduced performance in simulators; that suggests this could actually work.)
melling 11y ago
Well, common sense tells you that operating a 2 ton vehicle while even slightly impaired can lead to disasterous consequences. 10,000 people killed annually is more than the number of soldiers killed in the entire war Iraq and Afghanistan over a decade.

titanomachy 11y ago

Your comment made me think of cops pulling over a driver and sticking them in a VR driving sim for a few minutes to test their response time and motor control. Implausible, sure, and we'll probably have autonomous cars before it can become a reality... but it would be interesting to test for actual driving impairment rather than a proxy like a breathalyzer (or even walking in a straight line). It would also give police an opportunity to remove other dangerous drivers from the road, e.g. certain elderly or sleep-deprived drivers.

nmrm2 11y ago
This wouldn't work. Motor control isn't the only (or most significant) problem with drunk driving. It's the combination with impaired judgement/attentiveness that can be so deadly. If you're in a VR driving sim with a cop standing next to you, you're going to pay attention and (virtually) drive, constantly paying attention to the speedometer and road signs. Rather than flipping through stations while turning around to tell a joke to the people in the back seat. Or just zoning out on a routine drive and not realizing you're 40 over. It's why people often say "I'm a better driver when I'm drunk" -- not true for sloppy drunk, but probably true for slightly drunk because the fear of DUI causes them to intently focus when otherwise they would be on auto-pilot not devoting their full attention to the operation of a deadly machine.
- plonh 11y ago
  People think they drive better when slightly drunk because they have impaired senses and do not notice potentially hazardous conditions that they luckily avoid.
  - nmrm2 11y ago
    tl;dr: Inattentive driving kills. Alcohol can cause inattentiveness. So can texting. If someone constantly texts while driving except for when they're 0.081, then they're probably a safer driver drunk than sober. Which is to say, they shouldn't be allowed to drive in either condition. 1. Regarding the last sentence of my prior post, I think you're also underestimating the extreme danger associated with inattentiveness while sober driving and/or how common distracted sober driving is. I 100% believe an very attentive person at .081 is less dangerous than an idiot texting and messing with the radio while driving. Which is to say, both are extremely dangerous. See e.g. http://distracteddriveraccidents.com/texting-driving-dangerous-drunk-driving/ http://distracteddriveraccidents.com/texting-driving-dangero... 2. You / the grandparent are under-estimating the impact that attentiveness has in drunk driving accidents, and also underestimating the ability of drunk people to be attentive on demand. The VR test is not a good test of impairment because the drunk driver will be artificially attentive during the administration of the test. Driving drunk is dangerous even before motor control is significantly impaired. And the reason for that is mostly psychological -- a bit reduced reaction time, okay, but the reduced attentiveness and judgement are really far more dangerous. The guy flying down the road 40 over "just wasn't paying attention". It's not that he would have noticed but didn't because "delayed reaction time". He never would have noticed because he was drunk and didn't have the good sense to pay attention while driving. The problem with the VR test is that, when put on the spot, a drunk person can focus for a short or intermediate period of time. So that VR test isn't an accurate reflection of the actual typical behavior of an impaired driver. Under-estimating the only-on-demand abilities of drunk people would be a deadly mistake when designing measurements of impairment. Measuring ability, not behavior, is not enough. Drinking changes behavior in ways that are dangerous while driving for for which a drunk person can often compensate (e.g. when confronted with a potential DUI, but often not when driving home on a routine route).
- 11y ago
tempestn 11y ago
Ha, thinking about my comment after the fact last night, I went there too, and I agree. (Especially given other responses here stating that even minor impairment shows up as reduced performance in simulators; that suggests this could actually work.)

melling 11y ago

Well, common sense tells you that operating a 2 ton vehicle while even slightly impaired can lead to disasterous consequences. 10,000 people killed annually is more than the number of soldiers killed in the entire war Iraq and Afghanistan over a decade.