6 ms·

Agreed on the whole driving bit - but commensurately, whenever I'm in the US, I am astonished by how casually people drink and drive. Don't think it's a stoner

Agreed on the whole driving bit - but commensurately, whenever I'm in the US, I am astonished by how casually people drink and drive. Don't think it's a stoner problem, more an inconsiderate dickhead/cultural problem.

misiti3780 12y ago
people smoke and drive here too though
Someone1234 12y ago
I agree. People are far too blasé about drinking and driving in the US. It also seems like the punishment is often fairly light for the first few offenses (e.g. a small ticket, no penalty points, or similar). People from the US I've spoken to often claim this is because in some areas not having a car is pretty unworkable due to a lack of public transport or alternatives. So if driving was revoked then people could get "stranded" at home (e.g. the nearer store is a 10 minute drive away on roads with no sidewalk). I think if they're unwilling to revoke people's driving, then waste a bunch of their time. People car much more about their time than their money, just force people to take a full day weekend class even on the first offense and make it three weeks worth or more on the second attempt (you can fine them also).
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  I think car-centric town and transport planning actually has a hell of a lot to answer for. Most drink driving accidents in the UK are rural. Not so many in human-scale/public transport provisioned cities - and the UK has a much bigger drinking problem than the U.S. Also, in the US, buses equate to poverty in the minds of many, and that attitude is going to be hard to shift, so... roll on driverless cars? I don't think punishment will put people off to any great degree. I mean - how many people do you know who have not once lamented the shit they got up to while drink? Rather the problem with impaired judgment...
  - digi_owl 12y ago
    Given that one silicon valley bus route pretty much act as a homeless shelter, not surprising.
- ssharp 12y ago
  If you get a DUI, even for the first time, you're going to spend at least a night in jail and rack up several thousand dollars in fines and attorney fees. I don't think first time DUI's are a felony in most of the U.S., but you're going to get points on your license and it's going to cost you long-term with insurance as well. The penalties aren't damning, but I'm not sure I'd call them "light" either. Many states also having shaming laws in place where you have to get a different colored license plate on your car if you've gotten a DUI. You're right in that in that for most of the US, not having a vehicle is crippling. Many first-time DUI offenders have their licenses suspended but are allowed work privileges to avoid them losing their job. Also, in my state, first-time offenders are often sentenced to either spend three days in jail or take a weekend class, so at least in Ohio, they're doing exactly what you're mentioning. The only serious issue I see with making DUI laws somewhat more strict is knowing whether or not you're too impaired to drive. Groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving have successfully lobbied to effectively force States to reduce the blood/alcohol threshold that's often used to distinguish impairment. I really have no idea how many drinks I can have within a given time frame and still know I'm legally not considered drunk. I've heard enough instances where people test right at, or slightly below, the threshold and get arrested and they say they felt their driving wasn't impaired at all. So I am left with no choice other than to arrange other transportation, or drink what I feel is a limited enough to make me not impaired.
  - bri3d 12y ago
    DUI plates are an interesting idea, but they're only used in Ohio and Minnesota - I had no idea they existed until I read your post!
- yellowapple 12y ago
  > e.g. a small ticket, no penalty points, or similar This might not be the case in other states, but in California and (I believe) Nevada, even first-time offenses are at least a night in jail and significant penalty points. License revocation is also not unheard of. Classes are pretty common. Source: former California Highway Patrol employee. I processed a lot of arrest reports for drunk drivers.
thejosh 12y ago
Same as in Australia. People go out of their way to report booze buses, and complain about police pulling them over when they are speeding / drunk.
- cylinder 12y ago
  At least you have DUI road checkpoints (even in daytime) and stricter licensing regimes.
Zelphyr 12y ago
We're just bad drivers in general, regardless of our level of intoxication. Texting. Dancing (I see this frequently). The number of elderly people who drive who shouldn't be is mind boggling. I'm of a mind that its actually way too easy to obtain a drivers license in this country. For example; my mother took my uncle to get his drivers license renewed. Why she did is beyond me because he has early stage dementia. He couldn't understand the written test so the lady at the DMV just had my mom fill it out for him! Not even our own government cares whether we're qualified to drive!
- DanBC 12y ago
  > The number of elderly people who drive who shouldn't be is mind boggling. Is this supported by any research? Road traffic accident statistics show too many young people. So, older people might be safer drivers. Of course, there are a few people with dementia or visual impairment who shouldn't be driving but it's interesting that it's ok to suggest that older people are risky drivers when that doesn't appear to be true.
  - Retric 12y ago
    Older drivers (85+) are generally extremely risky per mile. "On the per-mile basis, the death rate of target drivers aged 85 and older is nearly triple that of drivers aged 16 to 17" https://aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/OlderDriverRisk.pdf https://aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/OlderDriverRis... They drive fewer miles, but even still their far more risky than teenagers. "The per-driver death rate of target drivers aged 85 and older is nearly double that of target drivers aged 16 to 17 (Rate Ratio [RR] 1.93, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.66–2.24) and is over six times that of drivers aged 50 to 59 (RR 6.25, CI 5.48–7.14)." Also of note, new drivers of any age are generally more risky than experienced ones of that same age. So, a large chunk of the teenage hit would happen even if you banned people <20 from driving.
    - digikata 12y ago
      I'm not sure about your takeaway from that link. In the Summary: "For example, the results of this study suggest that if a randomly-selected driver in his or thirties and a randomly-selected driver aged 85 or older were to drive equal numbers of miles, the older driver would be over 1500% more likely than the younger driver to be responsible for and die as a result of a crash, and about 220% more likely than the younger driver to kill an occupant of another vehicle or a non-motorist. However, drivers in their thirties drive approximately 217% more miles on average than drivers aged 85 and older do. Without statistical adjustment for what occurs naturally, a randomly-selected driver aged 85 or older is about 720% more likely than a randomly selected driver aged 30 to 39 to die in a crash, but only about 0.8% more likely to kill an occupant of another vehicle or a non-motorist, over the course of a year." I haven't gone back to review what the author means exactly by "statistical adjustment for what occurs naturally"
fossuser 12y ago
I think there are a couple of things with this. The legal limit in most of the US (0.08 BAC) is actually pretty high, so you can legally drink and drive. For example at that level a 220lb man can have four (American 1.5oz) shots and hit the road immediately at ~0.7. So most drinking and driving you might have seen probably isn't (at least legally). The second main reason is probably because there is no good mass transit. Most other countries either have the local pub you can walk to or some subway you can take - there's no 20min drive to meet somewhere.
- slouch 12y ago
  > For example at that level a 220lb man can have four (American 1.5oz) shots and hit the road immediately at ~0.7. If you were to test his blood. Breathalyzers work differently and this guy would not pass one.
  - exprL 12y ago
    Can you get hit with a DUI without a blood test result in the U.S.? Breathalysers pretty much only give largely inaccurate results when you still have alcohol residue in your throat or mouth. If you rinse out or wait a moment, they'll probably fall in line with blood tests.
    - mod 12y ago
      I believe you get taken to the station and then given a blood test. Where I live, refusing either results in a guilty verdict.
- TylerE 12y ago
  The legal limit is only when arresting the driver is mandatory. If, in the judgement of the officer, you are impared, he can arrest you at 0.00.
- mariodiana 12y ago
  A BAC of 0.08 is not high at all. "Consider the 2000 federal law that pressured states to lower their BAC standards to 0.08 from 0.10. At the time, the average BAC in alcohol-related fatal accidents was 0.17, and two-thirds of such accidents involved drivers with BACs of 0.14 or higher." http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-...
ufmace 12y ago
I'm American, and I think it's neither. It's more that in almost all of the country, the alternatives to drinking and driving work so badly that it's a better option, even with the risks. I think we're positively pathological about it in a way - we're all about punishment and stricter penalties, but nobody cares about making the alternatives suck less. I drink pretty frequently, and I go to a lot of effort to never drive drunk. I don't think I've ever met a designated driver in person, but I've met a lot of people who talk about how they drink and drive home drunk anyways. Public transit is mostly nonexistent and unreliable, and most of what there is doesn't run at night. Taxi service is also either nonexistent or may take the better part of an hour outside of major city centers. Walking is also a practical impossibility outside of major city centers. Meanwhile, there are so many people driving a little drunk that you're probably safe enough as long as you aren't the one obviously swerving all over the road. If we actually care about the issue, why don't we make better alternatives instead of creating a situation where it's painful to not drive drunk, and then act all outraged when people do it.
- mod 12y ago
  As an American, I don't drive drunk, and I don't find it painful. Drink somewhere close to home, call a cab. If I can get drunk at a bar, which will costs me $50+, I can certainly afford a $5-10 cab ride. That said, I've heard that in Japan, it's the bar's responsibility to get you home safely. They take it very seriously, but you pay extra at the club to account for it.
  - forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
    Most of America doesn't have cab service available though, however things like Uber and Lyft are changing that.
    - mod 12y ago
      I've never lived anywhere without cab service. I'm currently in a town with 35k residents and we have a few cab companies, though we do have a big tourist draw. That said, I hadn't considered that possibility. In that case I'd be making plans to be picked up, or I'd be staying in.
mariodiana 12y ago
Can I just ask what you mean by "drink and drive": specifically, drink how much?
CalRobert 12y ago
One of the interesting thing about moving from the US to Ireland was that it went from being acceptable to have a couple of beers and then drive, to people maybe having one mid-strength Guinness, if that (some reasonable exception for parties where you were hanging out for several hours). I find I prefer it here. Also, it's worth noting the limit for your first two years of having a licence is 0.02%, and they require 12 hours of behind the wheel training (when I got my Californian licence there was no requirement, as I was 18). Ireland has some of the more dangerous roads in Europe, and yet it's still about half as dangerous as the US, depending on your preferred metric.
- CalRobert 12y ago
  Caveat - I live in Dublin. I understand people are a little more accepting of a couple drinks in the country.

misiti3780 12y ago

people smoke and drive here too though

Someone1234 12y ago

I agree. People are far too blasé about drinking and driving in the US. It also seems like the punishment is often fairly light for the first few offenses (e.g. a small ticket, no penalty points, or similar). People from the US I've spoken to often claim this is because in some areas not having a car is pretty unworkable due to a lack of public transport or alternatives. So if driving was revoked then people could get "stranded" at home (e.g. the nearer store is a 10 minute drive away on roads with no sidewalk). I think if they're unwilling to revoke people's driving, then waste a bunch of their time. People car much more about their time than their money, just force people to take a full day weekend class even on the first offense and make it three weeks worth or more on the second attempt (you can fine them also).

madaxe_again 12y ago
I think car-centric town and transport planning actually has a hell of a lot to answer for. Most drink driving accidents in the UK are rural. Not so many in human-scale/public transport provisioned cities - and the UK has a much bigger drinking problem than the U.S. Also, in the US, buses equate to poverty in the minds of many, and that attitude is going to be hard to shift, so... roll on driverless cars? I don't think punishment will put people off to any great degree. I mean - how many people do you know who have not once lamented the shit they got up to while drink? Rather the problem with impaired judgment...
- digi_owl 12y ago
  Given that one silicon valley bus route pretty much act as a homeless shelter, not surprising.
ssharp 12y ago
If you get a DUI, even for the first time, you're going to spend at least a night in jail and rack up several thousand dollars in fines and attorney fees. I don't think first time DUI's are a felony in most of the U.S., but you're going to get points on your license and it's going to cost you long-term with insurance as well. The penalties aren't damning, but I'm not sure I'd call them "light" either. Many states also having shaming laws in place where you have to get a different colored license plate on your car if you've gotten a DUI. You're right in that in that for most of the US, not having a vehicle is crippling. Many first-time DUI offenders have their licenses suspended but are allowed work privileges to avoid them losing their job. Also, in my state, first-time offenders are often sentenced to either spend three days in jail or take a weekend class, so at least in Ohio, they're doing exactly what you're mentioning. The only serious issue I see with making DUI laws somewhat more strict is knowing whether or not you're too impaired to drive. Groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving have successfully lobbied to effectively force States to reduce the blood/alcohol threshold that's often used to distinguish impairment. I really have no idea how many drinks I can have within a given time frame and still know I'm legally not considered drunk. I've heard enough instances where people test right at, or slightly below, the threshold and get arrested and they say they felt their driving wasn't impaired at all. So I am left with no choice other than to arrange other transportation, or drink what I feel is a limited enough to make me not impaired.
- bri3d 12y ago
  DUI plates are an interesting idea, but they're only used in Ohio and Minnesota - I had no idea they existed until I read your post!
yellowapple 12y ago
> e.g. a small ticket, no penalty points, or similar This might not be the case in other states, but in California and (I believe) Nevada, even first-time offenses are at least a night in jail and significant penalty points. License revocation is also not unheard of. Classes are pretty common. Source: former California Highway Patrol employee. I processed a lot of arrest reports for drunk drivers.

thejosh 12y ago

Same as in Australia. People go out of their way to report booze buses, and complain about police pulling them over when they are speeding / drunk.

cylinder 12y ago
At least you have DUI road checkpoints (even in daytime) and stricter licensing regimes.

Zelphyr 12y ago

We're just bad drivers in general, regardless of our level of intoxication. Texting. Dancing (I see this frequently). The number of elderly people who drive who shouldn't be is mind boggling. I'm of a mind that its actually way too easy to obtain a drivers license in this country. For example; my mother took my uncle to get his drivers license renewed. Why she did is beyond me because he has early stage dementia. He couldn't understand the written test so the lady at the DMV just had my mom fill it out for him! Not even our own government cares whether we're qualified to drive!

DanBC 12y ago
> The number of elderly people who drive who shouldn't be is mind boggling. Is this supported by any research? Road traffic accident statistics show too many young people. So, older people might be safer drivers. Of course, there are a few people with dementia or visual impairment who shouldn't be driving but it's interesting that it's ok to suggest that older people are risky drivers when that doesn't appear to be true.
- Retric 12y ago
  Older drivers (85+) are generally extremely risky per mile. "On the per-mile basis, the death rate of target drivers aged 85 and older is nearly triple that of drivers aged 16 to 17" https://aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/OlderDriverRisk.pdf https://aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/OlderDriverRis... They drive fewer miles, but even still their far more risky than teenagers. "The per-driver death rate of target drivers aged 85 and older is nearly double that of target drivers aged 16 to 17 (Rate Ratio [RR] 1.93, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.66–2.24) and is over six times that of drivers aged 50 to 59 (RR 6.25, CI 5.48–7.14)." Also of note, new drivers of any age are generally more risky than experienced ones of that same age. So, a large chunk of the teenage hit would happen even if you banned people <20 from driving.
  - digikata 12y ago
    I'm not sure about your takeaway from that link. In the Summary: "For example, the results of this study suggest that if a randomly-selected driver in his or thirties and a randomly-selected driver aged 85 or older were to drive equal numbers of miles, the older driver would be over 1500% more likely than the younger driver to be responsible for and die as a result of a crash, and about 220% more likely than the younger driver to kill an occupant of another vehicle or a non-motorist. However, drivers in their thirties drive approximately 217% more miles on average than drivers aged 85 and older do. Without statistical adjustment for what occurs naturally, a randomly-selected driver aged 85 or older is about 720% more likely than a randomly selected driver aged 30 to 39 to die in a crash, but only about 0.8% more likely to kill an occupant of another vehicle or a non-motorist, over the course of a year." I haven't gone back to review what the author means exactly by "statistical adjustment for what occurs naturally"

fossuser 12y ago

I think there are a couple of things with this. The legal limit in most of the US (0.08 BAC) is actually pretty high, so you can legally drink and drive. For example at that level a 220lb man can have four (American 1.5oz) shots and hit the road immediately at ~0.7. So most drinking and driving you might have seen probably isn't (at least legally). The second main reason is probably because there is no good mass transit. Most other countries either have the local pub you can walk to or some subway you can take - there's no 20min drive to meet somewhere.

slouch 12y ago
> For example at that level a 220lb man can have four (American 1.5oz) shots and hit the road immediately at ~0.7. If you were to test his blood. Breathalyzers work differently and this guy would not pass one.
- exprL 12y ago
  Can you get hit with a DUI without a blood test result in the U.S.? Breathalysers pretty much only give largely inaccurate results when you still have alcohol residue in your throat or mouth. If you rinse out or wait a moment, they'll probably fall in line with blood tests.
  - mod 12y ago
    I believe you get taken to the station and then given a blood test. Where I live, refusing either results in a guilty verdict.
TylerE 12y ago
The legal limit is only when arresting the driver is mandatory. If, in the judgement of the officer, you are impared, he can arrest you at 0.00.
mariodiana 12y ago
A BAC of 0.08 is not high at all. "Consider the 2000 federal law that pressured states to lower their BAC standards to 0.08 from 0.10. At the time, the average BAC in alcohol-related fatal accidents was 0.17, and two-thirds of such accidents involved drivers with BACs of 0.14 or higher." http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-...

ufmace 12y ago

I'm American, and I think it's neither. It's more that in almost all of the country, the alternatives to drinking and driving work so badly that it's a better option, even with the risks. I think we're positively pathological about it in a way - we're all about punishment and stricter penalties, but nobody cares about making the alternatives suck less. I drink pretty frequently, and I go to a lot of effort to never drive drunk. I don't think I've ever met a designated driver in person, but I've met a lot of people who talk about how they drink and drive home drunk anyways. Public transit is mostly nonexistent and unreliable, and most of what there is doesn't run at night. Taxi service is also either nonexistent or may take the better part of an hour outside of major city centers. Walking is also a practical impossibility outside of major city centers. Meanwhile, there are so many people driving a little drunk that you're probably safe enough as long as you aren't the one obviously swerving all over the road. If we actually care about the issue, why don't we make better alternatives instead of creating a situation where it's painful to not drive drunk, and then act all outraged when people do it.

mod 12y ago
As an American, I don't drive drunk, and I don't find it painful. Drink somewhere close to home, call a cab. If I can get drunk at a bar, which will costs me $50+, I can certainly afford a $5-10 cab ride. That said, I've heard that in Japan, it's the bar's responsibility to get you home safely. They take it very seriously, but you pay extra at the club to account for it.
- forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
  Most of America doesn't have cab service available though, however things like Uber and Lyft are changing that.
  - mod 12y ago
    I've never lived anywhere without cab service. I'm currently in a town with 35k residents and we have a few cab companies, though we do have a big tourist draw. That said, I hadn't considered that possibility. In that case I'd be making plans to be picked up, or I'd be staying in.

mariodiana 12y ago

Can I just ask what you mean by "drink and drive": specifically, drink how much?

CalRobert 12y ago

One of the interesting thing about moving from the US to Ireland was that it went from being acceptable to have a couple of beers and then drive, to people maybe having one mid-strength Guinness, if that (some reasonable exception for parties where you were hanging out for several hours). I find I prefer it here. Also, it's worth noting the limit for your first two years of having a licence is 0.02%, and they require 12 hours of behind the wheel training (when I got my Californian licence there was no requirement, as I was 18). Ireland has some of the more dangerous roads in Europe, and yet it's still about half as dangerous as the US, depending on your preferred metric.

CalRobert 12y ago
Caveat - I live in Dublin. I understand people are a little more accepting of a couple drinks in the country.