3 ms·

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 aga

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.
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        Do you actually think that correlation proves causation? Wet streets cause rain?
- cycomanic 5y ago
  If you are saying it is due to increased publicity you will not have a problem finding an example where an anti drink driving campaign has a similar effect. Also the way you use correlation isn't causation is disengenous. By your usage apples falling down is correlation not causation. The whole point about that statement is that we should not infer causation if we don't have a good understanding of why the causal relationship exists. In this case we do.

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.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      Do you actually think that correlation proves causation? Wet streets cause rain?
cycomanic 5y ago
If you are saying it is due to increased publicity you will not have a problem finding an example where an anti drink driving campaign has a similar effect. Also the way you use correlation isn't causation is disengenous. By your usage apples falling down is correlation not causation. The whole point about that statement is that we should not infer causation if we don't have a good understanding of why the causal relationship exists. In this case we do.