3 ms·

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

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.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    I'm honestly not sure why this is considered acceptable. officers should not get to stop me and shine a light around in my car unless they have at least some reason to suspect that I am breaking the law. the fact that I'm leaving downtown on a holiday isn't enough.
    - TallGuyShort 7y ago
      Especially considering how often DUI's are repeat offenders, there are plenty of chances to permanently revoke someone's driving privileges with due process. One recent "crackdown" in the law called for mandatory jail time only after the 4th offense. That's a ridiculous number of chances to give someone for something so selfish and reckless.
      - frosted-flakes 7y ago
        Not in Ontario, where RIDE checks take place. Canada has quite strict impaired driving laws. Quoting Wikipedia[1], The minimum sentences are: For a first offence, a $1000 fine and a 12-month driving prohibition, For a second offence, 30 days of jail and a 24-month driving prohibition, and For a third or subsequent offence, 120 days of jail and a 36-month driving prohibition. If no one is hurt or killed, and the prosecutor is proceeding by summary conviction, the maximum sentence is 18 months of jail. If no one is hurt or killed, and the prosecutor is proceeding by indictment, the maximum sentence is 5 years of jail. If another person suffers bodily harm because of the offence, the maximum sentence is 10 years in jail. If another person is killed because of the offence, the maximum sentence is a life sentence. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impaired_driving_in_Canada#Sentencing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impaired_driving_in_Canada#S...

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.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  I'm honestly not sure why this is considered acceptable. officers should not get to stop me and shine a light around in my car unless they have at least some reason to suspect that I am breaking the law. the fact that I'm leaving downtown on a holiday isn't enough.
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    Especially considering how often DUI's are repeat offenders, there are plenty of chances to permanently revoke someone's driving privileges with due process. One recent "crackdown" in the law called for mandatory jail time only after the 4th offense. That's a ridiculous number of chances to give someone for something so selfish and reckless.
    - frosted-flakes 7y ago
      Not in Ontario, where RIDE checks take place. Canada has quite strict impaired driving laws. Quoting Wikipedia[1], The minimum sentences are: For a first offence, a $1000 fine and a 12-month driving prohibition, For a second offence, 30 days of jail and a 24-month driving prohibition, and For a third or subsequent offence, 120 days of jail and a 36-month driving prohibition. If no one is hurt or killed, and the prosecutor is proceeding by summary conviction, the maximum sentence is 18 months of jail. If no one is hurt or killed, and the prosecutor is proceeding by indictment, the maximum sentence is 5 years of jail. If another person suffers bodily harm because of the offence, the maximum sentence is 10 years in jail. If another person is killed because of the offence, the maximum sentence is a life sentence. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impaired_driving_in_Canada#Sentencing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impaired_driving_in_Canada#S...