4 ms·

Once again, the actions of a few are hurting everyone else. Why not target the few? There's a solid connection between DUI enforcement and reduction in deaths.

Once again, the actions of a few are hurting everyone else. Why not target the few? There's a solid connection between DUI enforcement and reduction in deaths. We've all heard of crashes involving someone with multiple DUI arrests. These offenders need identifying, help, supervision, and maybe removing their driving privileges. https://www.safehome.org/resources/dui-statistics/ https://www.safehome.org/resources/dui-statistics/

londons_explore 4y ago
An obvious middle ground is that anyone convicted of DUI must [for some long period of time] have an alcohol detection system installed in any car they wish to drive. Perhaps then mandate that cars be compatible with some standard for such systems to try to bring the cost of them down - the actual alcohol sensor is mere cents, but integrating it into todays cars aftermarket is often very costly.
- vuln 4y ago
  The high cost, installation/electrical issues (while in use and after it is uninstalled.), annd inconvenience is part of the intended punishment. I’ve seen people do interesting things to avoid getting interlocks installed. In that state if you owned a business an interlock must be installed in all company vehicles. People will sign over vehicles to family members. Some buy a beater car to have the interlock installed on and only start the car a couple times a month to log the minimum amount of starts required for compliance which is checked monthly for an additional fee.
  - dTal 4y ago
    Wait, minimum number of starts? So if you're convicted of a DUI you're legally required to drive? That's perverse.
    - landemva 4y ago
      If people don't like it, they can choose to instead do the jail time.
      - vuln 4y ago
        Not really. In most cases the actual jail time is suspended. Jail costs the city/town. Getting you back in the road insures more tax revenue and your fines will most likely get paid which is additional revenue to the city.
        landemva 4y ago
        > the actual jail time is suspended. As you said, the sentence is suspended - because the person agrees to the option of staying out of jail with conditions which the person agrees to comply with. If the person doesn't want that option then they do the jail time.
        vuln 4y ago
        I get what you’re saying. From what I have seen (obviously laws vary by location) it’s jail time (typically 365 days suspended) AND interlock. Not a choice between the two.
    - londons_explore 4y ago
      I assume the logic is that you need to demonstrate you have driven X thousand times, never with alcohol on your breath, before you can say your DUI problem has been solved. I guess you are free to not drive in a month, but then the tester will need to stay attached to your car longer till you have demonstrated you are rehabilitated.
    - vuln 4y ago
      Well if you just let the car sit there all month then there is no reason you need to take it into the shop to be “calibrated” which costs 45-55$ per month. Oh and by the way the interlock calibration installation / removal / calibration business is privately owned and only open Monday through Friday 9-11am 2-4pm by appointment only.
      - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
        Pretty much every post-conviction thing court mandates people pay for is a blatant cash grab from people nobody will stand up for. Interlocks are no different.
    - Tangurena2 4y ago
      People like to claim to courts that they NEED a car and MUST have a car. This way they can keep some sort of restricted driving license that lets them drive to/from work, school or grocery stores. Actually not driving would show your claims (under penalty of perjury) to be lies. Courts do not like that at all.
landemva 4y ago
> Why not target the few? They should charge people with attempted homicide with a deadly weapon while under the influence. Like the side object detection and backup cameras, mandatory electronics are great for component manufacturers. For consumers it increases initial costs and reduces resale value after some years due to difficulty of affordably fixing old electronics. Much of this is financial punishment on the poor and working class.
mschuster91 4y ago
Alternatively, instead of using repression mechanisms, the government could take care in setting up proper public transport so that people don't feel the need to drive drunk. Here in Germany, in almost all urban and urban-surrounding places you're not stuck to expensive taxis to get home after a bar night, you simply hop into a bus. In rural areas, the situation looks different, and correspondingly the DUI rates are higher there.
anemoiac 4y ago
Your link doesn't seem to establish a connection between DUI enforcement and reduction in deaths FYI (unless I somehow missed it...). Driving deaths from DUI may have decreased while states were enforcing DUI laws, but the causality isn't all that clear. Meanwhile, distracted driving has exploded since the arrival of the smartphone and made it even harder to understand the dynamics behind road safety. That said, I once read that the most important enforcement factors, with regard to actually reducing DUIs, were 1) increasing the likelihood of being caught and 2) minimizing the time between being caught and experiencing consequences. Notably, severity of punishment wasn't a significant factor. I know that states will differ in enforcement approaches, but the US states I've lived in haven't seemed at all interested in adopting a data-driven perspective - what I've seen has been a very low likelihood of DUI detection coupled with prosecution that can take a year or more for a routine DUI (let's not forget needlessly harsh punishments that are more likely to destroy one's family or finances than decrease the likelihood of future DUI...). The contentious nature of this topic seems to make it hard to find rational discussions online. I've found plenty of emotional anecdotes, but few evidence-based suggestions mentioned (aside from the obvious but unrealistic suggestion to make cars unnecessary...). I'm no expert, but the "traditional American" perspective - 'Drunk drivers are horrible people who will go to hell when they die. Let's just charge all of them with attempted murder and lock them up for good. [commented on reddit via phone app from driver's seat of car in left lane on I-95]' (my characterization) - seems completely useless, in terms of actual harm-reduction. What does seem clear is that drunk driving is caused by poor judgment and/or inadequate risk-assessment (its correlation with # miles driven could be a third factor worth mentioning). If we observe the two largest demographic groups among drunk drivers, young men and chronic alcoholics, it's clear that they share these characteristics - young men because their frontal cortex hasn't matured enough to reliably assess risk in general and chronic alcoholics because their constant drinking necessarily impedes good decision-making. If we're not developing solutions that target those particular deficiencies (i.e. not a small chance at having a harsh, but essentially abstract punishment a year or more in the future), I don't think we'll see real progress on this front. In any case, I certainly don't think bringing enhanced surveillance into privately-owned vehicles is the solution.

londons_explore 4y ago

An obvious middle ground is that anyone convicted of DUI must [for some long period of time] have an alcohol detection system installed in any car they wish to drive. Perhaps then mandate that cars be compatible with some standard for such systems to try to bring the cost of them down - the actual alcohol sensor is mere cents, but integrating it into todays cars aftermarket is often very costly.

vuln 4y ago
The high cost, installation/electrical issues (while in use and after it is uninstalled.), annd inconvenience is part of the intended punishment. I’ve seen people do interesting things to avoid getting interlocks installed. In that state if you owned a business an interlock must be installed in all company vehicles. People will sign over vehicles to family members. Some buy a beater car to have the interlock installed on and only start the car a couple times a month to log the minimum amount of starts required for compliance which is checked monthly for an additional fee.
- dTal 4y ago
  Wait, minimum number of starts? So if you're convicted of a DUI you're legally required to drive? That's perverse.
  - landemva 4y ago
    If people don't like it, they can choose to instead do the jail time.
    - vuln 4y ago
      Not really. In most cases the actual jail time is suspended. Jail costs the city/town. Getting you back in the road insures more tax revenue and your fines will most likely get paid which is additional revenue to the city.
      - landemva 4y ago
        > the actual jail time is suspended. As you said, the sentence is suspended - because the person agrees to the option of staying out of jail with conditions which the person agrees to comply with. If the person doesn't want that option then they do the jail time.
        vuln 4y ago
        I get what you’re saying. From what I have seen (obviously laws vary by location) it’s jail time (typically 365 days suspended) AND interlock. Not a choice between the two.
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    I assume the logic is that you need to demonstrate you have driven X thousand times, never with alcohol on your breath, before you can say your DUI problem has been solved. I guess you are free to not drive in a month, but then the tester will need to stay attached to your car longer till you have demonstrated you are rehabilitated.
  - vuln 4y ago
    Well if you just let the car sit there all month then there is no reason you need to take it into the shop to be “calibrated” which costs 45-55$ per month. Oh and by the way the interlock calibration installation / removal / calibration business is privately owned and only open Monday through Friday 9-11am 2-4pm by appointment only.
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      Pretty much every post-conviction thing court mandates people pay for is a blatant cash grab from people nobody will stand up for. Interlocks are no different.
  - Tangurena2 4y ago
    People like to claim to courts that they NEED a car and MUST have a car. This way they can keep some sort of restricted driving license that lets them drive to/from work, school or grocery stores. Actually not driving would show your claims (under penalty of perjury) to be lies. Courts do not like that at all.

landemva 4y ago

> Why not target the few? They should charge people with attempted homicide with a deadly weapon while under the influence. Like the side object detection and backup cameras, mandatory electronics are great for component manufacturers. For consumers it increases initial costs and reduces resale value after some years due to difficulty of affordably fixing old electronics. Much of this is financial punishment on the poor and working class.

mschuster91 4y ago

Alternatively, instead of using repression mechanisms, the government could take care in setting up proper public transport so that people don't feel the need to drive drunk. Here in Germany, in almost all urban and urban-surrounding places you're not stuck to expensive taxis to get home after a bar night, you simply hop into a bus. In rural areas, the situation looks different, and correspondingly the DUI rates are higher there.

anemoiac 4y ago

Your link doesn't seem to establish a connection between DUI enforcement and reduction in deaths FYI (unless I somehow missed it...). Driving deaths from DUI may have decreased while states were enforcing DUI laws, but the causality isn't all that clear. Meanwhile, distracted driving has exploded since the arrival of the smartphone and made it even harder to understand the dynamics behind road safety. That said, I once read that the most important enforcement factors, with regard to actually reducing DUIs, were 1) increasing the likelihood of being caught and 2) minimizing the time between being caught and experiencing consequences. Notably, severity of punishment wasn't a significant factor. I know that states will differ in enforcement approaches, but the US states I've lived in haven't seemed at all interested in adopting a data-driven perspective - what I've seen has been a very low likelihood of DUI detection coupled with prosecution that can take a year or more for a routine DUI (let's not forget needlessly harsh punishments that are more likely to destroy one's family or finances than decrease the likelihood of future DUI...). The contentious nature of this topic seems to make it hard to find rational discussions online. I've found plenty of emotional anecdotes, but few evidence-based suggestions mentioned (aside from the obvious but unrealistic suggestion to make cars unnecessary...). I'm no expert, but the "traditional American" perspective - 'Drunk drivers are horrible people who will go to hell when they die. Let's just charge all of them with attempted murder and lock them up for good. [commented on reddit via phone app from driver's seat of car in left lane on I-95]' (my characterization) - seems completely useless, in terms of actual harm-reduction. What does seem clear is that drunk driving is caused by poor judgment and/or inadequate risk-assessment (its correlation with # miles driven could be a third factor worth mentioning). If we observe the two largest demographic groups among drunk drivers, young men and chronic alcoholics, it's clear that they share these characteristics - young men because their frontal cortex hasn't matured enough to reliably assess risk in general and chronic alcoholics because their constant drinking necessarily impedes good decision-making. If we're not developing solutions that target those particular deficiencies (i.e. not a small chance at having a harsh, but essentially abstract punishment a year or more in the future), I don't think we'll see real progress on this front. In any case, I certainly don't think bringing enhanced surveillance into privately-owned vehicles is the solution.