3 ms·

https://www.slatervecchio.com/bc-drunk-driving-laws-saves-lives/ https://www.slatervecchio.com/bc-drunk-driving-laws-saves-li... TLDR: British Columbia impleme

https://www.slatervecchio.com/bc-drunk-driving-laws-saves-lives/ https://www.slatervecchio.com/bc-drunk-driving-laws-saves-li... TLDR: British Columbia implemented the toughest anti-drunk-driving laws in Canada. Automobile accident rates dropped 20%. Pretty damn effective.

naasking 5y ago
Correlation is not causation. I'm sure those new laws saw a lot of press and surrounding commentary around the dangers of drunk driving as well.
- jchw 5y ago
  My opinion: what would be nice is a robust set of studies that you can do a sort of meta analysis of. Ideally it would include measures that _decrease_ drunk driving offenses too, although I admit that it is unlikely to find a good example of that in today's world. I do think that one study that shows a robust correlation is a good start, though. That would be the starting point for trying to decide what the optimal tradeoff is. The thing is though, I think it's a matter of diminishing returns. I bet if you made the penalty for drunk driving death it would reduce drunk driving further, but I don't think many would agree that is a measured and reasonable response to the offense.
- moistly 5y ago
  Good christ that tired old chestnut needs to be retired: it adds nothing of value to any conversation. Here, take a look at the pretty pictures and tell me again that the results of the new laws are just a result of news media hype: a decade later and DD fatalities still down more than 50%. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/driving-and-transportation/driving/roadsafetybc/data/december-2019-alcohol-related-fatalities.pdf https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/driving-and-transportation... TLDR: lowering the acceptable BAC level and putting some teeth behind the law radically and permanently changed the DD accident rates in BC. Gosh, such a surprise, that.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > Good christ that tired old chestnut needs to be retired People so consistently ignore it or get it wrong that people have to bring it out time and again. For example: > a decade later and DD fatalities still down more than 50%. We're trying to distinguish between the effect of the law and the effect of hearing about the dangers. If the law is still actively being publicized, presumably so are the dangers, so that doesn't work. If nobody has heard a word about the law in ten years but people remember hearing about the law ten years ago then they also remember being warned about the dangers ten years ago. Maybe once people change their behavior it sticks. If people don't remember things they heard ten years ago then they don't remember that the law exists either and it can't be deterring anything. If you really want to do the experiment, repeal the law but keep publicizing the dangers and see if the rate goes back up.
    - moistly 5y ago
      Really? You’re proposing that before the law was implemented in 2010, people were not hearing about the dangers? That the previous 30-odd years of MADD were not seen nor heard by the citizens of British Columbia? That the behaviour of BC drivers in 2020 is due to the burst of media activity in 2010? cORrELatioN DoES NOt IMpLY cAUSATion!!ELeVeNtyOnE! Pull the other one, it has bells on.
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        > You’re proposing that before the law was implemented in 2010, people were not hearing about the dangers? That the previous 30-odd years of MADD were not seen nor heard by the citizens of British Columbia? Something explains why the law was passed in 2010 and not 30-odd years before. How do you know the same thing that caused legislative action isn't the same thing that caused the behavior change?
        moistly 5y ago
        This is the dumbest possible conversation and I’m out.

naasking 5y ago

Correlation is not causation. I'm sure those new laws saw a lot of press and surrounding commentary around the dangers of drunk driving as well.

jchw 5y ago
My opinion: what would be nice is a robust set of studies that you can do a sort of meta analysis of. Ideally it would include measures that _decrease_ drunk driving offenses too, although I admit that it is unlikely to find a good example of that in today's world. I do think that one study that shows a robust correlation is a good start, though. That would be the starting point for trying to decide what the optimal tradeoff is. The thing is though, I think it's a matter of diminishing returns. I bet if you made the penalty for drunk driving death it would reduce drunk driving further, but I don't think many would agree that is a measured and reasonable response to the offense.
moistly 5y ago
Good christ that tired old chestnut needs to be retired: it adds nothing of value to any conversation. Here, take a look at the pretty pictures and tell me again that the results of the new laws are just a result of news media hype: a decade later and DD fatalities still down more than 50%. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/driving-and-transportation/driving/roadsafetybc/data/december-2019-alcohol-related-fatalities.pdf https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/driving-and-transportation... TLDR: lowering the acceptable BAC level and putting some teeth behind the law radically and permanently changed the DD accident rates in BC. Gosh, such a surprise, that.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > Good christ that tired old chestnut needs to be retired People so consistently ignore it or get it wrong that people have to bring it out time and again. For example: > a decade later and DD fatalities still down more than 50%. We're trying to distinguish between the effect of the law and the effect of hearing about the dangers. If the law is still actively being publicized, presumably so are the dangers, so that doesn't work. If nobody has heard a word about the law in ten years but people remember hearing about the law ten years ago then they also remember being warned about the dangers ten years ago. Maybe once people change their behavior it sticks. If people don't remember things they heard ten years ago then they don't remember that the law exists either and it can't be deterring anything. If you really want to do the experiment, repeal the law but keep publicizing the dangers and see if the rate goes back up.
  - moistly 5y ago
    Really? You’re proposing that before the law was implemented in 2010, people were not hearing about the dangers? That the previous 30-odd years of MADD were not seen nor heard by the citizens of British Columbia? That the behaviour of BC drivers in 2020 is due to the burst of media activity in 2010? cORrELatioN DoES NOt IMpLY cAUSATion!!ELeVeNtyOnE! Pull the other one, it has bells on.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      > You’re proposing that before the law was implemented in 2010, people were not hearing about the dangers? That the previous 30-odd years of MADD were not seen nor heard by the citizens of British Columbia? Something explains why the law was passed in 2010 and not 30-odd years before. How do you know the same thing that caused legislative action isn't the same thing that caused the behavior change?
      - moistly 5y ago
        This is the dumbest possible conversation and I’m out.