11 ms·

Unfortunate how many humans we have driving cars at various levels of impairment. It's killing so many people. Drunk driving in suburban areas is rampant and f

by codemac 12y ago

Unfortunate how many humans we have driving cars at various levels of impairment. It's killing so many people. Drunk driving in suburban areas is rampant and feels almost inherent without real public transportation options at last call. I think most of Seattle's public transit options stop right around midnight.

mrgriscom 12y ago
I don't see where in the article it says anyone involved was drinking.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- paulrademacher 12y ago
  > On Monday, a judge set bail at $100,000 for Robert Malsch, accused of drinking and of driving more than 100 mph before rear-ending a car and killing the driver inside.
- sp332 12y ago
  Odd, the photo caption doesn't match the article text. "Robert Malsch, accused of drinking and of driving more than 100 mph" vs "He faces vehicular homicide and felony hit and run charges."
  - johnward 12y ago
    It says he was accused in one part and then later they make it sound like it was some sort of road rage / anger thing.
chez17 12y ago
It's funny you mention suburban drivers. I have lived and have friends who lived in both suburban and rural areas and I found that without exception rural drivers are far, far, more likely to drive drunk.
- sp332 12y ago
  Since codemac mentioned public transportation, I think it was a comparison to urban, not rural areas.
- johnward 12y ago
  There aren't really alternative other options (aside from a DD and or just being responsible). Most rural people can't even get a cab.
jstalin 12y ago
Not to minimize drunk driving deaths, but it's hardly "rampant." About 10,000 people are killed each year in drunk driving accidents in the US. 30,000 a year die from falls. http://responsibility.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics http://responsibility.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatali... http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
- revelation 12y ago
  Well yes, millions of people die every year from causes we could pretty much summarize as old age. None of this has any meaning if you don't differentiate by age. Thankfully, the CDC has done that, and here it is in an easy graphic: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2012-a.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_deat... Unintentional injury dominates deaths in ages 1-44, and indeed the biggest killer of people ages 5-24 is traffic: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_injury_deaths_highlighting_unintentional_injury_2012-a.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_inju...
  - ptaipale 12y ago
    Still, I think it is a valid point that drink driving is seen as a moral problem and therefore its practical impact as a cause of accidents and deaths is perceived as larger than it actually is. Yes, it's horrible when a drink driver kills a child, etc, but the risk of that happening per DUI incident is not actually very high. I'm not from the US, but over here (Finland), drink drivers are generally most dangerous to themselves. Of course there are some innocent people who are killed and injured by drink drivers, and these cases are particular tragedies, but most deaths resulting from drink driving are either people who kill themselves by stupidity, or at least consent to be in a vehicle where the driver is DUI. Another thing I could bring up from analysis of traffic deaths is the large number of suicides we have -- about 20 % of traffic deaths; this is becoming a burden on truck drivers because they carry a lot of the emotional burden when someone decide to smash their car at high speed to an oncoming truck. And yet another astonishing factor is deaths of "natural causes" (heart attack, stroke etc) while driving. These make up something around 10-15 % of traffic deaths here.
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
Cars are pretty safe, but I'm always a little shocked that we don't have governors built into cars with sane limits. How is it even possible to do 100mph and why should that speed be allowed? Cars should top off at 75. Not to mention, why are cars dumb machines? If someone is going crazy fast in an area where there is no safe way to decelerate, then the car should not allow that speed to be reached. Freeway speeds should not be allowed when you're not on the freeway. The self-driving car isn't the solution here. Its too sci-fi, too out there, and no one can make it work with snow and rain right now. We middle a practical middle-ware nanny and we need one quick. We need a new Ralph Nader focused on intelligent safety systems and advocating for them to be law. We'll never stop drunks, but we might be able to stop drunks from performing fatal strikes. Its great that they caught the drunk, but that doesn't bring Mike back to life. Personally, I dont think we're getting to these self-driving cars without these kinds of baby steps. Best to start advocating them now, which will give us public support when fully automated cars are truly here.
- sean-duffy 12y ago
  You've answered your own question. Cars are dumb machines because we don't yet have the technology to judge what is "crazy fast" and make decision about where it should be allowed. Other than the obvious reasons of racing and car enthusiasts, there are legitimate reasons for a car to do 100mph. Often in emergency situations, you need to speed up rather than slow down to prevent an accident. If we start placing limits on people's cars, there will almost certainly be accidents caused by that, because the last thing you want in a situation where you need to react quickly is the car not doing what you want it to.
  - VLM 12y ago
    WRT "Cars are dumb machines" I find it fascinating in this discussion that its assumed we can trivially deploy an AI smart enough to out drive a human, but nobody wants to talk about humans being so dumb they get drunk then go driving after decades of incessant propaganda and punishment. I don't think a species that can't stop drunks from driving stands a chance at creating an AI that can outdrive humans.
RIMR 12y ago
If you live in Seattle proper, there are busses that run all night. Most of them will get you within a 20-minute walk of wherever you want to go. Still, with Uber, Lyft, Sidecar, and 5+ cab companies at your disposal there is no excuse for being drunk behind the wheel. Before I moved here I was a pretty obsessively responsible driver. Now that I live here, I have to keep my irresponsible drinking in check because I never have a driving obligation to convince me to stay sober...
- spike021 12y ago
  My thought is that if you have the money to spend on multiple drinks, then you should be able to spend at least one drink's cost on Uber, Lyft, etc.
  - astrodust 12y ago
    Either a drink is super expensive where you are, or Uber is very cheap. Hanging out at a place within walking distance of home really is the best bet. Sadly a lot of American cities don't seem to have bars anywhere near where people live, unlike European ones where you can throw a rock from your window and hit a pub.
    - spike021 12y ago
      Last week I took Uber late at night one mile in a downtown area near where I live. It cost about $6 USD. Usually a beer is about $5-8 in that area. But I agree, it depends quite a bit on distance between where you are and your destination.
      - darklajid 12y ago
        One mile? I'd argue you can walk that even (or especially? I tend to like that) if you're drunk. The GP probably talked about a somewhat bigger trip, maybe (sorry, miles isn't something that feels natural) on the order of 10-15+ km. Now, driving drunk is absolutely no excuse. But I do agree that the price of getting home by Cab-Or-Replacement-Service is probably not in the 'one more drink' range. A bus ticket though..?
bztzt 12y ago
There used to be a bus route that went from Seattle to Bellevue at 2:15 and 3:30 am, but it got shut down as part of recent budget cuts. :(
- techsupporter 12y ago
  Ah, the 280. If Bellevue had wanted to keep that route, it could have done exactly what Seattle did: pay for the route. The other owls (82, 83, and 84 within Seattle) were also slated to be cut and Seattle ponied up $500,000 from its coffers to keep them going. Seattle proposed to split the cost with Bellevue and Bellevue declined. On the other hand, I can kind of see why. According to Metro's statistics, almost all riders on the 280 were using it as a mobile shelter instead of transportation to a specific point. (Judgment on whether that is good or bad is left as an exercise; I personally had no problem with it.)

by codemac 12y ago

mrgriscom 12y ago

I don't see where in the article it says anyone involved was drinking.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
paulrademacher 12y ago
> On Monday, a judge set bail at $100,000 for Robert Malsch, accused of drinking and of driving more than 100 mph before rear-ending a car and killing the driver inside.
sp332 12y ago
Odd, the photo caption doesn't match the article text. "Robert Malsch, accused of drinking and of driving more than 100 mph" vs "He faces vehicular homicide and felony hit and run charges."
- johnward 12y ago
  It says he was accused in one part and then later they make it sound like it was some sort of road rage / anger thing.

chez17 12y ago

It's funny you mention suburban drivers. I have lived and have friends who lived in both suburban and rural areas and I found that without exception rural drivers are far, far, more likely to drive drunk.

sp332 12y ago
Since codemac mentioned public transportation, I think it was a comparison to urban, not rural areas.
johnward 12y ago
There aren't really alternative other options (aside from a DD and or just being responsible). Most rural people can't even get a cab.

jstalin 12y ago

Not to minimize drunk driving deaths, but it's hardly "rampant." About 10,000 people are killed each year in drunk driving accidents in the US. 30,000 a year die from falls. http://responsibility.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics http://responsibility.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatali... http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

revelation 12y ago
Well yes, millions of people die every year from causes we could pretty much summarize as old age. None of this has any meaning if you don't differentiate by age. Thankfully, the CDC has done that, and here it is in an easy graphic: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2012-a.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_deat... Unintentional injury dominates deaths in ages 1-44, and indeed the biggest killer of people ages 5-24 is traffic: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_injury_deaths_highlighting_unintentional_injury_2012-a.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_inju...
- ptaipale 12y ago
  Still, I think it is a valid point that drink driving is seen as a moral problem and therefore its practical impact as a cause of accidents and deaths is perceived as larger than it actually is. Yes, it's horrible when a drink driver kills a child, etc, but the risk of that happening per DUI incident is not actually very high. I'm not from the US, but over here (Finland), drink drivers are generally most dangerous to themselves. Of course there are some innocent people who are killed and injured by drink drivers, and these cases are particular tragedies, but most deaths resulting from drink driving are either people who kill themselves by stupidity, or at least consent to be in a vehicle where the driver is DUI. Another thing I could bring up from analysis of traffic deaths is the large number of suicides we have -- about 20 % of traffic deaths; this is becoming a burden on truck drivers because they carry a lot of the emotional burden when someone decide to smash their car at high speed to an oncoming truck. And yet another astonishing factor is deaths of "natural causes" (heart attack, stroke etc) while driving. These make up something around 10-15 % of traffic deaths here.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago

Cars are pretty safe, but I'm always a little shocked that we don't have governors built into cars with sane limits. How is it even possible to do 100mph and why should that speed be allowed? Cars should top off at 75. Not to mention, why are cars dumb machines? If someone is going crazy fast in an area where there is no safe way to decelerate, then the car should not allow that speed to be reached. Freeway speeds should not be allowed when you're not on the freeway. The self-driving car isn't the solution here. Its too sci-fi, too out there, and no one can make it work with snow and rain right now. We middle a practical middle-ware nanny and we need one quick. We need a new Ralph Nader focused on intelligent safety systems and advocating for them to be law. We'll never stop drunks, but we might be able to stop drunks from performing fatal strikes. Its great that they caught the drunk, but that doesn't bring Mike back to life. Personally, I dont think we're getting to these self-driving cars without these kinds of baby steps. Best to start advocating them now, which will give us public support when fully automated cars are truly here.

sean-duffy 12y ago
You've answered your own question. Cars are dumb machines because we don't yet have the technology to judge what is "crazy fast" and make decision about where it should be allowed. Other than the obvious reasons of racing and car enthusiasts, there are legitimate reasons for a car to do 100mph. Often in emergency situations, you need to speed up rather than slow down to prevent an accident. If we start placing limits on people's cars, there will almost certainly be accidents caused by that, because the last thing you want in a situation where you need to react quickly is the car not doing what you want it to.
- VLM 12y ago
  WRT "Cars are dumb machines" I find it fascinating in this discussion that its assumed we can trivially deploy an AI smart enough to out drive a human, but nobody wants to talk about humans being so dumb they get drunk then go driving after decades of incessant propaganda and punishment. I don't think a species that can't stop drunks from driving stands a chance at creating an AI that can outdrive humans.

RIMR 12y ago

If you live in Seattle proper, there are busses that run all night. Most of them will get you within a 20-minute walk of wherever you want to go. Still, with Uber, Lyft, Sidecar, and 5+ cab companies at your disposal there is no excuse for being drunk behind the wheel. Before I moved here I was a pretty obsessively responsible driver. Now that I live here, I have to keep my irresponsible drinking in check because I never have a driving obligation to convince me to stay sober...

spike021 12y ago
My thought is that if you have the money to spend on multiple drinks, then you should be able to spend at least one drink's cost on Uber, Lyft, etc.
- astrodust 12y ago
  Either a drink is super expensive where you are, or Uber is very cheap. Hanging out at a place within walking distance of home really is the best bet. Sadly a lot of American cities don't seem to have bars anywhere near where people live, unlike European ones where you can throw a rock from your window and hit a pub.
  - spike021 12y ago
    Last week I took Uber late at night one mile in a downtown area near where I live. It cost about $6 USD. Usually a beer is about $5-8 in that area. But I agree, it depends quite a bit on distance between where you are and your destination.
    - darklajid 12y ago
      One mile? I'd argue you can walk that even (or especially? I tend to like that) if you're drunk. The GP probably talked about a somewhat bigger trip, maybe (sorry, miles isn't something that feels natural) on the order of 10-15+ km. Now, driving drunk is absolutely no excuse. But I do agree that the price of getting home by Cab-Or-Replacement-Service is probably not in the 'one more drink' range. A bus ticket though..?

bztzt 12y ago

There used to be a bus route that went from Seattle to Bellevue at 2:15 and 3:30 am, but it got shut down as part of recent budget cuts. :(

techsupporter 12y ago
Ah, the 280. If Bellevue had wanted to keep that route, it could have done exactly what Seattle did: pay for the route. The other owls (82, 83, and 84 within Seattle) were also slated to be cut and Seattle ponied up $500,000 from its coffers to keep them going. Seattle proposed to split the cost with Bellevue and Bellevue declined. On the other hand, I can kind of see why. According to Metro's statistics, almost all riders on the 280 were using it as a mobile shelter instead of transportation to a specific point. (Judgment on whether that is good or bad is left as an exercise; I personally had no problem with it.)