The study from that link[0] that the CA government used to justify this law is BS. Huge garden of forking paths issue. I mean this doesn't exactly inspire confi

The study from that link[0] that the CA government used to justify this law is BS. Huge garden of forking paths issue. I mean this doesn't exactly inspire confidence: > After following the iterative identification, estimation, and diagnosis model-building strategy of Box and Jenkins (1976), the following model was obtained: [Followed by a very complex equation with no justification for its structural form]. If I can iteratively generate a model that uses arbitrary combinations of arbitrary variables until I get to statistical significance, I can prove anything. That, plus the 23% decrease of nighttime vehicle deaths they attribute to this law is simply implausibly large. Per NHTSA, alcohol was involved in 40% of fatal accidents in 1990. Meaning it somehow stopped on the order of half of alcohol-related auto deaths in Oregon. That's magical thinking for an intervention like this. 0: https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking/approved-regulations/rbs-training-program-act/mandated-server-training-and-alcohol-involved-traffic-crashes/ https://www.abc.ca.gov/law-and-policy/regulations-rulemaking...