5 ms·

Crack down harder on DUI. DUI kills more innocents than guns.

by umvi 7y ago

noir_lord 7y ago
It’s policed heavily in the UK and there is a fuck tonne of social pressure as well. It’s pretty effective all said and done.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  It probably helps that mass transit is much more prevalent. In New York state for example, where the population is heavily weighted towards New York City where mass transit is more accessible, the % of traffic fatalities related to alcohol drops to about 5%, not far out of line for all of UK. (Though urban areas like London in the UK might be even lower
s1artibartfast 7y ago
I'm skeptical that harsher DUI penalties are the appropriate solution. Most states already have significant DUI penalties, and think that increasing them is largely a PR move. Drunk drivers are involved in about 20% of fatal accidents, leaving 80% to other causes[1]. About 30% of fatal accidents involve speeding [2]. Perhaps we should consider similar penalties for speeding as for DUI. Drunk drivers do kill more "innocents" than guns, but also keep in mind that very few gun deaths are innocents. 97% of gun deaths are homicide or suicide [3] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812630 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/2017-DCA15SS002-BMG-statement-o.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/2017-DCA15SS002-B... https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/12/11/18135976/gun-deaths-us-2017-suicide https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/12/11/18135976/gun-d...
- petschge 7y ago
  The deterrence effect is a function of both the severity of the punishment and its certainty. And while the punishment for driving drunk is already substantial (maybe even too high), the risk of getting caught is not that large. An effective (but maybe not efficient) crack-down would therefore aim to increase the risk of getting caught and punished.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    do you have any ideas for cracking down on drunk driving that wouldn't inconvenience and intimidate law-abiding citizens? the only methods I can think of are checkpoints and large-scale surveillance, both of which I would oppose.
    - petschge 7y ago
      I don't. Which is why I called a non-efficient solution. A theoretical solution would be to require ignition interlocks on all new vehicles. Not that I am advocating for that. A more realistic solution should focus more on officers observing and punishing bad driving, including all the effects of driving drunk or with cellphone in hand.
      - leetcrew 7y ago
        I could certainly support cops focusing more on reckless driving (tailgating, weaving, no-signal lane changes). if a cop sees a driver doing something unsafe with their own two eyes, I have no problem with them making a stop. I bet they would actually end up catching a decent number of drunk drivers this way.
      - reshie 7y ago
        they already have breathalyzer starters for cars for repeat offenders.
    - frosted-flakes 7y ago
      Checkpoints are very common where I live (they're called RIDE checks, which I suppose is acronym for something). They're more common around public holidays, but can happen at any time. They're not an inconvenience at all, and I'm not opposed to them in any way. It takes 20 seconds to go through them, and all the officer does is ask you if you've had anything to drink or have used any "wacky tobaccy"[1] recently, shine a flashlight into the car to check for open drinks (and presumably, use his nose too), then let you go. But then again, I'm a white male, and certain minorities might have worse experiences. [1] That's a new one that I heard just a few days ago.
- randyrand 7y ago
  I think he mainly implied more enforcement. either more cops at night, or an AI/radar camera to alert cops when it sees a car driving erratically.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  The link you cited from nhtsa.dot.gov actually said it was 29% of fatalities, and that was only for BAC of 0.08 or higher. I'm not sure it's tracked anywhere, but I'd be surprised if there weren't a lot more where the BAC didn't rise to that level, but was still a factor. I agree that steeper penalties may not help though.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    Thanks for pointing that out. I'm not sure how to reconcile the 29% listed in the intro and table 4, with the 20% listed in table 2 and table 3. Table 4 shows BAC >0.01 if you are interested.
- jaas 7y ago
  I have a relative who has been repeatedly arrested for drunk driving. He had already severely injured someone and will kill someone sooner or later. The courts do nothing, he walks free with his driver's license every time. Even walked after assaulting an officer during one of the arrests. They will not put him in prison or take his license away. This is in a midwestern U.S. state. The laws may or may not be strong in theory, but even if they are strong they are not applied consistently. The courts are failing to protect the public from people who present a clear danger to the public. This person, for example, is white. I am 100% sure that if he was not white he would be dealt with more harshly (and more appropriately, in this case).

Crack down harder on DUI. DUI kills more innocents than guns.

by umvi 7y ago

Crack down harder on DUI. DUI kills more innocents than guns.

It’s policed heavily in the UK and there is a fuck tonne of social pressure as well. It’s pretty effective all said and done.

ineedasername 7y ago
It probably helps that mass transit is much more prevalent. In New York state for example, where the population is heavily weighted towards New York City where mass transit is more accessible, the % of traffic fatalities related to alcohol drops to about 5%, not far out of line for all of UK. (Though urban areas like London in the UK might be even lower

s1artibartfast 7y ago

I'm skeptical that harsher DUI penalties are the appropriate solution. Most states already have significant DUI penalties, and think that increasing them is largely a PR move. Drunk drivers are involved in about 20% of fatal accidents, leaving 80% to other causes[1]. About 30% of fatal accidents involve speeding [2]. Perhaps we should consider similar penalties for speeding as for DUI. Drunk drivers do kill more "innocents" than guns, but also keep in mind that very few gun deaths are innocents. 97% of gun deaths are homicide or suicide [3] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812630 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/2017-DCA15SS002-BMG-statement-o.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/2017-DCA15SS002-B... https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/12/11/18135976/gun-deaths-us-2017-suicide https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/12/11/18135976/gun-d...

petschge 7y ago
The deterrence effect is a function of both the severity of the punishment and its certainty. And while the punishment for driving drunk is already substantial (maybe even too high), the risk of getting caught is not that large. An effective (but maybe not efficient) crack-down would therefore aim to increase the risk of getting caught and punished.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  do you have any ideas for cracking down on drunk driving that wouldn't inconvenience and intimidate law-abiding citizens? the only methods I can think of are checkpoints and large-scale surveillance, both of which I would oppose.
  - petschge 7y ago
    I don't. Which is why I called a non-efficient solution. A theoretical solution would be to require ignition interlocks on all new vehicles. Not that I am advocating for that. A more realistic solution should focus more on officers observing and punishing bad driving, including all the effects of driving drunk or with cellphone in hand.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      I could certainly support cops focusing more on reckless driving (tailgating, weaving, no-signal lane changes). if a cop sees a driver doing something unsafe with their own two eyes, I have no problem with them making a stop. I bet they would actually end up catching a decent number of drunk drivers this way.
    - reshie 7y ago
      they already have breathalyzer starters for cars for repeat offenders.
  - frosted-flakes 7y ago
    Checkpoints are very common where I live (they're called RIDE checks, which I suppose is acronym for something). They're more common around public holidays, but can happen at any time. They're not an inconvenience at all, and I'm not opposed to them in any way. It takes 20 seconds to go through them, and all the officer does is ask you if you've had anything to drink or have used any "wacky tobaccy"[1] recently, shine a flashlight into the car to check for open drinks (and presumably, use his nose too), then let you go. But then again, I'm a white male, and certain minorities might have worse experiences. [1] That's a new one that I heard just a few days ago.
randyrand 7y ago
I think he mainly implied more enforcement. either more cops at night, or an AI/radar camera to alert cops when it sees a car driving erratically.
ineedasername 7y ago
The link you cited from nhtsa.dot.gov actually said it was 29% of fatalities, and that was only for BAC of 0.08 or higher. I'm not sure it's tracked anywhere, but I'd be surprised if there weren't a lot more where the BAC didn't rise to that level, but was still a factor. I agree that steeper penalties may not help though.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  Thanks for pointing that out. I'm not sure how to reconcile the 29% listed in the intro and table 4, with the 20% listed in table 2 and table 3. Table 4 shows BAC >0.01 if you are interested.
jaas 7y ago
I have a relative who has been repeatedly arrested for drunk driving. He had already severely injured someone and will kill someone sooner or later. The courts do nothing, he walks free with his driver's license every time. Even walked after assaulting an officer during one of the arrests. They will not put him in prison or take his license away. This is in a midwestern U.S. state. The laws may or may not be strong in theory, but even if they are strong they are not applied consistently. The courts are failing to protect the public from people who present a clear danger to the public. This person, for example, is white. I am 100% sure that if he was not white he would be dealt with more harshly (and more appropriately, in this case).