7 ms·

30 years ago, Quebec was the province where "nobody cared how drunk you were as long as you stayed on your side of the road." It looks like that caught up to th

30 years ago, Quebec was the province where "nobody cared how drunk you were as long as you stayed on your side of the road." It looks like that caught up to them, and is causing enough problems to warrant this new law.

perl4ever 7y ago
I saw someone on the interstate bouncing from one lane marking to the other. I thought "maybe they're drunk...or maybe they're just testing the automatic lane-keeping feature on their new car".
arcticbull 7y ago
True, but also, the dangers are somewhat overstated. A BAC of 0.10 (3-4 drinks in an hour for the average American, so, a lot) [1] makes you 7X more likely to be involved in a fatal accident. Sounds like a lot, right? The risk of being involved in a fatal accident is baseline 10.7 per 100,000 per year. That 0.01% per year. So, if you spent the entire year with a BAC of 0.1, commuting normally, you'd have a 0.07% per year risk of dying. That's still three 9's of, uh, up-time. Should you do it? No. Knocking back a couple beers and driving isn't the equivalent of walking off a sheer rock face though. The only thing that's caught up with Quebec is their puritanical tendencies, see: the CAQ being elected. [1] https://www.alcohol.org/bac-calculator/ https://www.alcohol.org/bac-calculator/ [2] https://www.verywellmind.com/drunk-driving-the-dangers-63002 https://www.verywellmind.com/drunk-driving-the-dangers-63002 [3] https://www.cars.com/articles/are-the-odds-ever-in-your-favor-car-crashes-versus-other-fatalities-1420682154567/ https://www.cars.com/articles/are-the-odds-ever-in-your-favo...
- fredophile 7y ago
  Your second link mentions that alcohol is a factor in 1/3 of fatal traffic accidents and that traffic accidents are the leading killer of adults under 25. I think dropping the leading killer of young adults would be worthwhile. Your third link says accidents will be the cause of death for 1 in 77 people and compared it to 1 in 276 people dying of skin cancer. Does this mean I shouldn't bother wearing sunscreen?
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    > Your second link mentions that alcohol is a factor in 1/3 of fatal traffic accidents and that traffic accidents are the leading killer of adults under 25. I think dropping the leading killer of young adults would be worthwhile. I'm with you 100%, and again, I don't recommend anyone ever drive drunk. It's hardly the responsible thing to do. I was pointing out that it isn't as most people assume, that if you have 2 drinks you're going to die in a multi-car pile-up. I also suspect those under-25s had more than 3-4 drinks, and also that they likely drove extra recklessly as under-25s tend to do — hence their insurance premiums and inability to rent cars. We should always evaluate the proportionality of our responses especially as humans are notoriously bad at managing low risk of a strongly negative outcome. > Your third link says accidents will be the cause of death for 1 in 77 people and compared it to 1 in 276 people dying of skin cancer. Does this mean I shouldn't bother wearing sunscreen? Not wearing sunscreen may well help you avoid skin cancer and have other ancillary benefits to both you and reefs. [1] tldr: vitamin D supplements don't work and sunscreen blocks your ability to synthesize vitamin D and nitrogen oxides (which lower blood pressure). re: cancer risk of sun exposure: the most common cancers due to sun exposure are basal-cell carcinomas and squamous-cell carcinomas, which are almost never fatal. People who work outdoors are half a likely to develop melanoma, and similarly for tanned people. “The risk factor for melanoma appears to be intermittent sunshine and sunburn, especially when you’re young,” says Weller. “But there’s evidence that long-term sun exposure associates with less melanoma.” but I digress, you don’t have a mandatory sunscreen application machine stapled to all the doors of your house by law if you fail to put it on twice haha [1] https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure...
  - raverbashing 7y ago
    > I think dropping the leading killer of young adults would be worthwhile. That's statistical feel-good thinking Young adults don't usually die of natural causes Impaired driving, while it is certainly a concern, gets too much "think of the children/puritanical" influence. How many people are impaired by lack of sleep? By texting? By lack of or confusing road signs? And while all of those are addressed more or less, none of them are tackled as punitively as DUI. (And of course different BACs have very different effects, or even the same BAC can affect people differently)
- belltaco 7y ago
  What about non-fatal but serious accidents? Edit: According to a comment below, for every 100 fatal accidents caused by drunk driving, additionally there are approximately 220 serious injuries and 1,800 minor injuries.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    Yep, that's absolutely fair, and I don't have data on it. I also picked a specific BAC value only slightly above the legal limit. The more you drink the worse it gets, naturally. Without data, I'd speculate that the incidence of non-fatal and fatal accidents increases commensurately as you are of course generally less able to control your vehicle.
- jshaqaw 7y ago
  If it was your loved one the victim of the 7x you would not think this was puritanical. The drunk driver has innocent victims beyond him or herself.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    Sure but that’s not a rational way of approaching it. The question is wholistic, what is the total harm to society in criminalizing this behavior and enforcing it to such an extent? Humans are dreadful at dealing with things that are unlikely to happen but carry substantial consequence. Case in point, according to Schneier, many more people died because they chose to drive instead of fly after 9/11 (and the increased airport security theater) than died in the actual incident. [1] You could make the same case, what if it was my family in the towers? My heart goes out of course to those people but the decision made as a result was not the right one for society. [1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreasing_toler.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreas...
    - tehwebguy 7y ago
      This isn’t about calculating the average life expectancy of everyone based on outside factors. It’s about the individual decision to drive drunk and the risk that this individual decision creates each time.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        It’s never so clean and isolated when dealing with humans. Life would be much easier if it were.

perl4ever 7y ago

I saw someone on the interstate bouncing from one lane marking to the other. I thought "maybe they're drunk...or maybe they're just testing the automatic lane-keeping feature on their new car".

arcticbull 7y ago

True, but also, the dangers are somewhat overstated. A BAC of 0.10 (3-4 drinks in an hour for the average American, so, a lot) [1] makes you 7X more likely to be involved in a fatal accident. Sounds like a lot, right? The risk of being involved in a fatal accident is baseline 10.7 per 100,000 per year. That 0.01% per year. So, if you spent the entire year with a BAC of 0.1, commuting normally, you'd have a 0.07% per year risk of dying. That's still three 9's of, uh, up-time. Should you do it? No. Knocking back a couple beers and driving isn't the equivalent of walking off a sheer rock face though. The only thing that's caught up with Quebec is their puritanical tendencies, see: the CAQ being elected. [1] https://www.alcohol.org/bac-calculator/ https://www.alcohol.org/bac-calculator/ [2] https://www.verywellmind.com/drunk-driving-the-dangers-63002 https://www.verywellmind.com/drunk-driving-the-dangers-63002 [3] https://www.cars.com/articles/are-the-odds-ever-in-your-favor-car-crashes-versus-other-fatalities-1420682154567/ https://www.cars.com/articles/are-the-odds-ever-in-your-favo...

fredophile 7y ago
Your second link mentions that alcohol is a factor in 1/3 of fatal traffic accidents and that traffic accidents are the leading killer of adults under 25. I think dropping the leading killer of young adults would be worthwhile. Your third link says accidents will be the cause of death for 1 in 77 people and compared it to 1 in 276 people dying of skin cancer. Does this mean I shouldn't bother wearing sunscreen?
- arcticbull 7y ago
  > Your second link mentions that alcohol is a factor in 1/3 of fatal traffic accidents and that traffic accidents are the leading killer of adults under 25. I think dropping the leading killer of young adults would be worthwhile. I'm with you 100%, and again, I don't recommend anyone ever drive drunk. It's hardly the responsible thing to do. I was pointing out that it isn't as most people assume, that if you have 2 drinks you're going to die in a multi-car pile-up. I also suspect those under-25s had more than 3-4 drinks, and also that they likely drove extra recklessly as under-25s tend to do — hence their insurance premiums and inability to rent cars. We should always evaluate the proportionality of our responses especially as humans are notoriously bad at managing low risk of a strongly negative outcome. > Your third link says accidents will be the cause of death for 1 in 77 people and compared it to 1 in 276 people dying of skin cancer. Does this mean I shouldn't bother wearing sunscreen? Not wearing sunscreen may well help you avoid skin cancer and have other ancillary benefits to both you and reefs. [1] tldr: vitamin D supplements don't work and sunscreen blocks your ability to synthesize vitamin D and nitrogen oxides (which lower blood pressure). re: cancer risk of sun exposure: the most common cancers due to sun exposure are basal-cell carcinomas and squamous-cell carcinomas, which are almost never fatal. People who work outdoors are half a likely to develop melanoma, and similarly for tanned people. “The risk factor for melanoma appears to be intermittent sunshine and sunburn, especially when you’re young,” says Weller. “But there’s evidence that long-term sun exposure associates with less melanoma.” but I digress, you don’t have a mandatory sunscreen application machine stapled to all the doors of your house by law if you fail to put it on twice haha [1] https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure...
- raverbashing 7y ago
  > I think dropping the leading killer of young adults would be worthwhile. That's statistical feel-good thinking Young adults don't usually die of natural causes Impaired driving, while it is certainly a concern, gets too much "think of the children/puritanical" influence. How many people are impaired by lack of sleep? By texting? By lack of or confusing road signs? And while all of those are addressed more or less, none of them are tackled as punitively as DUI. (And of course different BACs have very different effects, or even the same BAC can affect people differently)
belltaco 7y ago
What about non-fatal but serious accidents? Edit: According to a comment below, for every 100 fatal accidents caused by drunk driving, additionally there are approximately 220 serious injuries and 1,800 minor injuries.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  Yep, that's absolutely fair, and I don't have data on it. I also picked a specific BAC value only slightly above the legal limit. The more you drink the worse it gets, naturally. Without data, I'd speculate that the incidence of non-fatal and fatal accidents increases commensurately as you are of course generally less able to control your vehicle.
jshaqaw 7y ago
If it was your loved one the victim of the 7x you would not think this was puritanical. The drunk driver has innocent victims beyond him or herself.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  Sure but that’s not a rational way of approaching it. The question is wholistic, what is the total harm to society in criminalizing this behavior and enforcing it to such an extent? Humans are dreadful at dealing with things that are unlikely to happen but carry substantial consequence. Case in point, according to Schneier, many more people died because they chose to drive instead of fly after 9/11 (and the increased airport security theater) than died in the actual incident. [1] You could make the same case, what if it was my family in the towers? My heart goes out of course to those people but the decision made as a result was not the right one for society. [1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreasing_toler.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreas...
  - tehwebguy 7y ago
    This isn’t about calculating the average life expectancy of everyone based on outside factors. It’s about the individual decision to drive drunk and the risk that this individual decision creates each time.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      It’s never so clean and isolated when dealing with humans. Life would be much easier if it were.