3 ms·

The article says that they’ve already done the research to test effectiveness and that it did meaningfully impact the statistic. Of course, that assumes the pas

The article says that they’ve already done the research to test effectiveness and that it did meaningfully impact the statistic. Of course, that assumes the past research was accurate, but the buck has to stop somewhere.

junofan 4y ago
You can look at the studies they rely on here: https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking/approved-regulations/#rbs https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking... The first appears to be a tortured statistical analysis of a preexisting trend. The second is a qualitative assessment. The third appears to be a CDC panic piece. That’s my assessment, at least.
joewadcan 4y ago
In California you have do an economic impact summary for most bills over $50M in impact. They did one for this[1]. Summary below: Costs for the typical business: initially $2,121 with $1,060 ongoing for compliance Net benefits to state: Positive $3.5B (I'm guessing that includes some savings for less calls to police, less hospital stays, less violence, etc). I doubt any of this is ever checked forward in time, but I'm glad they at least stated assumptions. [1] https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking/approved-regulations/rbs-training-program-act/economic-and-fiscal-impact-statement/ https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking...
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  > $3.5 Billion annually This number really needs to be scrutinized and should be public how it is calculated and what assumptions were used to compute it. I've worked in several giant corporations which function like a small government – given the right political posture and networking, you can get pretty much any program approved. Numbers get skewed to support a number of incentives. I've also worked in the government sector and have witnessed how $MM projects are managed, costed and approved. None of it inspires any confidence. Does anyone have details of how this $3.5B ROI? Really, this is the meat of their argument and the people that voted for it. Often things like opportunity costs are ignored because they're difficult to calculate.
1123581321 4y ago
I appreciate the prompt but I read the article. The program hasn’t been pilot tested. The article referred to some studies and a meta study that CA is using to justify rolling out the entire program. The studies, in very brief summary, don’t actually find that these programs are effective, just that interventions are effective and education could theoretically lead to interventions. The studies also don’t show that these programs are bad, and in that middle state it’s better to do a real world test than to pass the bill or regulation using theoretical assumptions used to check off net impact calculations. Obviously this is tilting at windmills, given the state and the anti-drunk-driving optics in play.

junofan 4y ago

You can look at the studies they rely on here: https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking/approved-regulations/#rbs https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking... The first appears to be a tortured statistical analysis of a preexisting trend. The second is a qualitative assessment. The third appears to be a CDC panic piece. That’s my assessment, at least.

joewadcan 4y ago

In California you have do an economic impact summary for most bills over $50M in impact. They did one for this[1]. Summary below: Costs for the typical business: initially $2,121 with $1,060 ongoing for compliance Net benefits to state: Positive $3.5B (I'm guessing that includes some savings for less calls to police, less hospital stays, less violence, etc). I doubt any of this is ever checked forward in time, but I'm glad they at least stated assumptions. [1] https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking/approved-regulations/rbs-training-program-act/economic-and-fiscal-impact-statement/ https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking...

systemvoltage 4y ago
> $3.5 Billion annually This number really needs to be scrutinized and should be public how it is calculated and what assumptions were used to compute it. I've worked in several giant corporations which function like a small government – given the right political posture and networking, you can get pretty much any program approved. Numbers get skewed to support a number of incentives. I've also worked in the government sector and have witnessed how $MM projects are managed, costed and approved. None of it inspires any confidence. Does anyone have details of how this $3.5B ROI? Really, this is the meat of their argument and the people that voted for it. Often things like opportunity costs are ignored because they're difficult to calculate.

1123581321 4y ago

I appreciate the prompt but I read the article. The program hasn’t been pilot tested. The article referred to some studies and a meta study that CA is using to justify rolling out the entire program. The studies, in very brief summary, don’t actually find that these programs are effective, just that interventions are effective and education could theoretically lead to interventions. The studies also don’t show that these programs are bad, and in that middle state it’s better to do a real world test than to pass the bill or regulation using theoretical assumptions used to check off net impact calculations. Obviously this is tilting at windmills, given the state and the anti-drunk-driving optics in play.