5 ms·

Alcohol abuse is both common and tremendously destructive, though. Drunk driving accidents in the US alone killed more than 10,000 people in 2019[0]. We might

Alcohol abuse is both common and tremendously destructive, though. Drunk driving accidents in the US alone killed more than 10,000 people in 2019[0]. We might be at something of a local maximum in terms of policy -- I don't know, I'm not a policy expert -- but I'd want to see some evidence before calling it "solved". [0]-https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving

giantg2 4y ago
An obvious possible step is to put BAC interlock devices on all new and existing vehicles. That's not going to have a lot of public support, but I would bet it reduces that number.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  The more you take human discretion out of the equation the more you are going to have to confront the massive variability between people and that is a very, very, very, uncomfortable topic for (in my estimation) an overwhelming majority of the people who want automated enforcement such as ignition interlocks and whatnot.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    I don't think there's much variability to people in this instance. It would be more likely questions about reliability of the device to not render false positives. It's not truly automated enforcement, at least the way I see it (not using the reporting ones, just don't let the vehicle work). If it was, it would report attempts to drive while intoxicated and send a summons. There are certainly issues to be worked out with that approach (I don't necessarily support it), but I bring it up as an example that there are still improvements that could be made (that the example of alcohol being a well regulated drug with little societal harm is not true). It looks like they will do something similar for new cars in the coming years. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/infrastructure-bill-would-mandate-alcohol-monitoring-in-cars-congress-biden/65-ab85122d-c5c6-42ce-8b12-fcb5a24c0278 https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/infrastructure-bil...
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      >I don't think there's much variability to people in this instance The BAC limit is like the speed limit. Start rigidly enforcing it or preventing people from violating it and you're gonna find out that a whole lot of people have been violating it left and right (probably most of them unknowingly) and were mostly not causing problems because they were tasteful about the details and generally not going overboard. Society at present does not seem well prepared to handle the debate that necessarily would follow in the wake of that.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        Sure, there's even research showing that the same BAC level effects people differently, like up to 10% of people being able to safely operate a vehicle over .08 (eg their BAC of .1 is comparable to a BAC of .08 in the other 90% of people). But that's not how the laws are made. The laws are made to cover the vast majority and are set at .08. It's not just because they weren't going overboard, but because they simply weren't caught. That can include for speeding, lack of turn signal, etc. So there's no real variability to the people themselves, legally. Many have simply been lucky. The ones who have been violating it unknowingly have been posing a threat to society by not understanding how intoxicated they are, assuming we as a society believe that anything over .08 is dangerous per out laws. Of course there will be debate. But that debate will be about false positives and edge cases. It's not going to be "but I want to continue drunk driving like I already am".
        danaris 4y ago
        As I understand it, there's also a small percentage of people who naturally blow some level of alcohol even when there's none in their bloodstream (due to a genetic condition or something to do with their microbiome—it's been several years since I read about this). Mandating something like this would cause severe issues for people like them, where not only can they not help it, but it's not actually giving an accurate measurement of what it's supposed to be indicating.
        4y ago

giantg2 4y ago

An obvious possible step is to put BAC interlock devices on all new and existing vehicles. That's not going to have a lot of public support, but I would bet it reduces that number.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
The more you take human discretion out of the equation the more you are going to have to confront the massive variability between people and that is a very, very, very, uncomfortable topic for (in my estimation) an overwhelming majority of the people who want automated enforcement such as ignition interlocks and whatnot.
- giantg2 4y ago
  I don't think there's much variability to people in this instance. It would be more likely questions about reliability of the device to not render false positives. It's not truly automated enforcement, at least the way I see it (not using the reporting ones, just don't let the vehicle work). If it was, it would report attempts to drive while intoxicated and send a summons. There are certainly issues to be worked out with that approach (I don't necessarily support it), but I bring it up as an example that there are still improvements that could be made (that the example of alcohol being a well regulated drug with little societal harm is not true). It looks like they will do something similar for new cars in the coming years. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/infrastructure-bill-would-mandate-alcohol-monitoring-in-cars-congress-biden/65-ab85122d-c5c6-42ce-8b12-fcb5a24c0278 https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/infrastructure-bil...
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    >I don't think there's much variability to people in this instance The BAC limit is like the speed limit. Start rigidly enforcing it or preventing people from violating it and you're gonna find out that a whole lot of people have been violating it left and right (probably most of them unknowingly) and were mostly not causing problems because they were tasteful about the details and generally not going overboard. Society at present does not seem well prepared to handle the debate that necessarily would follow in the wake of that.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      Sure, there's even research showing that the same BAC level effects people differently, like up to 10% of people being able to safely operate a vehicle over .08 (eg their BAC of .1 is comparable to a BAC of .08 in the other 90% of people). But that's not how the laws are made. The laws are made to cover the vast majority and are set at .08. It's not just because they weren't going overboard, but because they simply weren't caught. That can include for speeding, lack of turn signal, etc. So there's no real variability to the people themselves, legally. Many have simply been lucky. The ones who have been violating it unknowingly have been posing a threat to society by not understanding how intoxicated they are, assuming we as a society believe that anything over .08 is dangerous per out laws. Of course there will be debate. But that debate will be about false positives and edge cases. It's not going to be "but I want to continue drunk driving like I already am".
      - danaris 4y ago
        As I understand it, there's also a small percentage of people who naturally blow some level of alcohol even when there's none in their bloodstream (due to a genetic condition or something to do with their microbiome—it's been several years since I read about this). Mandating something like this would cause severe issues for people like them, where not only can they not help it, but it's not actually giving an accurate measurement of what it's supposed to be indicating.
        4y ago