3 ms·

> Drivers under the influence isn't necessarily reckless, but is banned due to a strong association with reckless action I’m trying to understand this. It is w

> Drivers under the influence isn't necessarily reckless, but is banned due to a strong association with reckless action I’m trying to understand this. It is well documented that consuming alcohol impairs thinking, reaction time, motor function, etc. How is the decision to drive a multi-thousand pound vehicle in the proximity of other humans while in that state not itself reckless? You seem to be arguing that the problem primarily exists when some percentage of impaired drivers start to drive recklessly. But given the baseline impairment, how is the act of driving not inherently reckless? Drunk driving crashes don’t just happen because someone decided to go crazy and drive 130mph or something similar. They also happen because the impaired person fails at basic aspects of driving like staying in their lane, stopping in time, seeing pedestrians, etc. > The crime of DUI is not contingent on the actual facts, risk, and danger presented in a given situation. DUI is a crime based on the fact that people driving under the influence are significantly more likely to harm others, and the baseline risk is high enough to make driving in such a state unacceptable. Even with laws in place banning it, alcohol is a leading cause of vehicle related deaths and there are quite a few of them every year. It seem problematic to argue that these laws aren’t based on actual facts and real danger when both are well documented. > The association with realized harm is probabilistic in nature The same could be said about almost every kind of harm you can think of. It’s unclear what someone is supposed to take from this statement.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
My point is that the law doesn't actually look at situational risk or recklessness. It is a rough heuristic to approximate it. Im not even necessarily arguing against it, but highlighting the common conflation between harm, actual risk, and heuristically approximated risk. A cop or the law makes no pretension of trying to evaluate if a driver actually put someone at risk in a given scenario. A judge doesn't care if you were alone on the road or how far you were going. A judge doesn't even care if the car is on or moving. >alcohol is a leading cause of vehicle related deaths and there are quite a few of them every year. It seem problematic to argue that these laws aren’t based on actual facts and real danger when both are well documented. I would say there is little systemic logic to the rate and severity of penalties. In 33% of pedestrian fatalities, the pedestrian was drunk. In 16%, the driver was drunk.[1] Similarly, the common DUI threshold is 0.08 BAC. Being awake for 17 hours (working late) is similar to having a BAC of 0.05%. [2] Being awake for 24 hours (working a double shift) is similar to having a BAC of 0.10% Simply talking on a phone while driving has been shown to be similar to a BAC of 0.08%. Texting while driving is equivalent to a BAC of 0.19%! [3] The fine for texting while driving starts $20, but the total cost can be over $162 due to court costs. >The same could be said about almost every kind of harm you can think of. It’s unclear what someone is supposed to take from this statement. Im just making the point that we we criminalize isnt as clear cut as one might think, and people often conflate actual harm, actual risk, and heuristically approximated risk. More generally, I think the intersection with probability and criminal justice is fascinating, particularly the criminalizing risk factors. e.g. if we took a similar approach, what percent confidence would we need that someone will commit murder to preemptively lock them up based on risk. https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/GHSA-Pedestrian-Spotlight-FINAL-rev2.pdf https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/GHSA-Pedest... https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/work-hour-training-for-nurses/longhours/mod3/08.html https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/work-hour-training-for-nurses/long... https://facilities.uw.edu/blog/posts/2016/07/26/texting-and-driving#:~:text=Texting%20while%20driving%20is%20like,blood%20alcohol%20content%20while%20driving https://facilities.uw.edu/blog/posts/2016/07/26/texting-and-...

s1artibartfast 2y ago

My point is that the law doesn't actually look at situational risk or recklessness. It is a rough heuristic to approximate it. Im not even necessarily arguing against it, but highlighting the common conflation between harm, actual risk, and heuristically approximated risk. A cop or the law makes no pretension of trying to evaluate if a driver actually put someone at risk in a given scenario. A judge doesn't care if you were alone on the road or how far you were going. A judge doesn't even care if the car is on or moving. >alcohol is a leading cause of vehicle related deaths and there are quite a few of them every year. It seem problematic to argue that these laws aren’t based on actual facts and real danger when both are well documented. I would say there is little systemic logic to the rate and severity of penalties. In 33% of pedestrian fatalities, the pedestrian was drunk. In 16%, the driver was drunk.[1] Similarly, the common DUI threshold is 0.08 BAC. Being awake for 17 hours (working late) is similar to having a BAC of 0.05%. [2] Being awake for 24 hours (working a double shift) is similar to having a BAC of 0.10% Simply talking on a phone while driving has been shown to be similar to a BAC of 0.08%. Texting while driving is equivalent to a BAC of 0.19%! [3] The fine for texting while driving starts $20, but the total cost can be over $162 due to court costs. >The same could be said about almost every kind of harm you can think of. It’s unclear what someone is supposed to take from this statement. Im just making the point that we we criminalize isnt as clear cut as one might think, and people often conflate actual harm, actual risk, and heuristically approximated risk. More generally, I think the intersection with probability and criminal justice is fascinating, particularly the criminalizing risk factors. e.g. if we took a similar approach, what percent confidence would we need that someone will commit murder to preemptively lock them up based on risk. https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/GHSA-Pedestrian-Spotlight-FINAL-rev2.pdf https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/GHSA-Pedest... https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/work-hour-training-for-nurses/longhours/mod3/08.html https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/work-hour-training-for-nurses/long... https://facilities.uw.edu/blog/posts/2016/07/26/texting-and-driving#:~:text=Texting%20while%20driving%20is%20like,blood%20alcohol%20content%20while%20driving https://facilities.uw.edu/blog/posts/2016/07/26/texting-and-...