This year, only 10,839 people will die in drunk-driving crashes.
An average drunk driver has driven drunk 87 out of 88 times before their first arrest, that's a 99% success rate of getting away without killing anyone or getting pulled over.
Drunk driving costs each adult in this country almost $500 per year.
Car Insurance costs each adult in this country almost $1,000 a year.
One in three people will be involved in an alcohol-related crash in their lifetime.
One in three 8th graders drinks alcohol.
One in five teenagers binge drinks, and only 1 in 100 parents can detect it when it happens.

its beyond me why we don't mandate breathalyzers in every car. Its really an incredibly small inconvenience cost wise and time wise. Hell it could in the end be cost negative for some people (teenagers especially) via lower insurance premiums.

And there is no way its a violation of privacy or freedom or some BS like that... (For example there are speed limits on virtually every road limiting your "freedom" to drive as fast as you please. Is that a violation of rights)

do you even know what 10,839 people divided by 304,000,000 people equals?

you're honestly going to attempt to suggest a more aggressive solution to an almost non-existent problem?

you have a 0.0036% chance of being killed by a drunk driver this year, if i used the excel dealy properly, and MADD statistics are actually accurate.

and in the last year, i've seen at least 2 fatal DUIs having been committed by police officers. wtf?

"One in three people will be involved in an alcohol-related crash in their lifetime." LOL...

Especially if you look at something like drunk driving in terms of "life-years" or some such probably non-existent statistic it probably is a pretty big deal, as people who die in a drunk driving accident are very often young and perfectly healthy otherwise. I would say 11k seems like a lot to me personally, especially if it could be cut in half I bet with a pretty easy solution.

I'm one of the most pro lower the drinking age people you will find, but drunk driving is just stupid...

and I really dislike MADD because I think they took a serious problem of drunk driving and decided to tackle a completely different issue of underage drinking. They went about the problem 100% in the wrong way in my opinion...

actually, it's a 1/3 of previous statistics that i've seen. last i checked the US DOT site, it averaged around 30k fatalities per year from DUIs, sober people still killed more than drunk people though, think it was like 60% sober vs 40% drunk.

i think they have a valid point when it comes to people driving around drunk, i just question how much i should have to pay for not killing anyone. and i definitely question the legality of whether a home owner should be able to lose their property simply because i consumed alcohol at their place of residence.

Join DDAMM - Drunk Drivers against Mad Mothers

you are not making sense..

which one of us? he writes with his penis, i spam when i'm drunk.

Bobby--drunk driving (or alleged drunk driving) is a cottage industry. You have lawyers that make thousands per case. It's about image and money.

Ask yourself why do they have checkpoints? Most state laws require between 12-16 officers present at a checkpoint, but often only nab 2-3 drunk drivers and 1-2 impaired drivers. That many officers on the road on a routine night typically gets almost 1.5-2x as many arrests. This one is about image.

My issue with drunk driving laws is that MADD pushed for the .08 limit because that's where studies show alcohol definitely impairs someone's motor capabilities (also known as 'per se' drunk driving). However, many states actually enforce .02/.04-.08 as 'impaired driving' because MADD decided they would go for zero tolerance and drivers get the same stigma as a drunk driver even though they often have only had two beers. If you're tired, on cold medications or you just finished working out, your response time is typically on par or worse than an impaired driver.

So it's all screwed up and it's mostly about money and image.

+1

-2

fluff.

technically, asking why do they have checkpoints is the wrong question, the question is how do drunk drivers succeed in passing the checkpoints 87 out of 88 times.

... they don't. That's not what was said.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

that's exactly what was said. drunk drivers succeed in driving drunk 87 out of 88 times before their first arrest.

http://www.madd.org/statistics/

Yes, they succeed in driving without arrest. However, that's very different from your suggestion that "drunk drivers succeed in passing the checkpoints 87 out of 88 times". It's not like such checkpoints are always on the road... or in enough places when they are on the road that drivers will inevitably pass them.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

dude, the stat is bogus, period. what's it matter if i abused their fictious stat?

What makes you say that? I mean, apart from the fact that the study appears to be limited to Rockville, MD and took place in 1995, that is.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

they're only collecting info from busted drivers.

should a person be penalized because they might've adversely effected the life and liberty of another person, or should a person be penalized because they actually did effect the life and liberty of another person?

I'm not for drunk driving but I think a bigger problem is stupid driving. I'm also willing to bet that stupid drivers are more likely to drive drunk and their skills surely don't get any better after a few drinks.

you are kidding me right? i absoluetly hate drunk drivers, as my wife was in the hospital for quite some time because of one (she was nearly killed) but putting a interlock in every single car?

do you even know how a interlock works?

i had a friend that was stupid enough to get a DWI (she blew a 0.23 the stupid fluff) she was mandated to get an interlock, and this is the fluff she has to go through

you cant drink the night before, you can not eat large amounts of bread before attempting the test, or any product containing a high amount of yeast

you blow to start the car, you get 2 chances, the first being a warning, second shutting the car down until you pay a technician to come out and reset it ($100).

once you get the car started you have to blow in it again after 7 minutes, WHILE YOU ARE DRIVING.

after 30 minutes you again have to blow WHILE YOU ARE DRIVING

after 90 minutes, you have to pull over, turn the car off, and restart the process. Road trips would be complete fluff.




your idea sir, is a fluffing horrible one.

hrmm I did research on interlock devices a year or two ago when I was curious why you didn't even hear people call for them for everyone. From what i found out it was b/c the cost (~1200) seemed prohibitive, but otoh most people thought that if these devices would start being mass produced and/or built into the car from the get go that price could easily be halved or more quite quickly. I didn't hear anything along the lines of "can not eat large amounts of bread" or anything like that. To be honest, I'm not sure I believe you. I hadn't realized you have to blow again while driving etc, either and I wouldn't want that (and again I'm not sure you have your facts straight that seems a little crazy?). To be clear what I was calling for is something where you just blow before you start your car, with unlimited chances.


Also a .23 is crazy high man. thats not driving drunk, thats driving closed to passed out...

well, considering i have had to drive her car before and go through all that bullfluff myself, i have my facts straight for the model that she has. i can ask her for the company that provided it so you can do further research if you wish?

ya it appears "rolling tests" are a common feature from reading on wiki. That doesn't exactly seem safe to me. I'm still confused why you took my abstract idea of a breathalyzer to start a car, and seemed to assign all the details of the specific model your friend has (not to mention seem to get really upset?) to deal with to my relatively naive, highly unspecific suggestion lol...

well, as much as i hate drunk drivers, i think that interlocks are horrible as well.

not that i have a better solution, but interlocks are annoying and at times can be dangerous.

I seem to agree with you there(that interlocks as they are currently designed/implemented have their problems) thanks to the points you alerted me too. Rolling retests and incredibly low thresholds (.02 I read on wiki which ya you can get from just mouthwash and I guess lots of bread lol?) seem to be definite problems.

So I haven't done a ton of research, but would having a one time test to start the car, and all you have to do is blow below a .08 unreasonable? Or would that be too ineffective since all it takes is one person willing to blow for you, and if the people you are drinking with will let you drink and drive then they will probably let you circumvent this feature anyways? The obvious solution is to retest while driving - but that is clearly inherently risky.

One time at .08 to start certainly passes the reasonableness test for me. It also would be pretty effective I bet, I mean at least its my impression a lot of people drive "tipsy" and would be horrified to have a friend blow for them to, as they think they are driving fine. It appears as well that technology is possible to develop things that recognize your breath (or apparently saliva not breath) like a fingerprint so your friend can't do it for you...

y'all's preponderance for posing possible solutions for something that seems improbable just plain amazes me.

you have a 0.0036% chance of being killed by a drunk driver this year. what are you going to do to protect yourself from it happening to you?

http://www.dadss.org/

cool story. ever seen 40 year old virgin? you think that fluff wouldnt happen ALL the time if every vehicle were equipped with one?

people who drive drunk do it because they think they can drive fine while drunk, not because they cant find someone more sober to drive.

You can't fix stupid.

And over 75 years that becomes almost a .3% chance of dying to a drunk driver... That is extremely high probability of dying due to someone else's stupidity. That is why I try to avoid driving at bar time and after prime drinking times (e.g. New Years, Super Bowl parties).

LOL, what's that you're saying?
you have a 99.7% chance of not being killed by a drunk driver over 75 years?
if you live that long, you probably stand a good chance of killing somebody simply because your old tired body can't react to anything, assuming you still have good enough eyesight to actually see something to react to.

There are LOTS of .3% risks of being killed by other people. Given 20 sources of .3% risk that is about a 6% chance of being killed by someone else. Extremely high if you ask me. If you don't mind dying early to a drunk that is fine, but I want to die because of things I do not - not what other people do.

yes, well, that's probably not a realistic attitude, since you feel that you have a choice about how you are destined to die. do you have it all planned out?
have you made a will?
did you get that life insurance stuff?

i tell you that it's not probable that you will be killed by a drunk driver, and you demand the right to choose your own death, wtf?

Ummm... not what I said. Troll fail.

What is the probability of dying via plane crash?

Medical malpractice?

Sober driving?

Gunshot?

Being old?

No one here gets out alive, yall...

Detmer, you can't just add the statistic together 75 times and come up with a number for 75 years, that's not how statistics work and also completely ignores the birth rate.

So you're saying that since you're going to die eventually that you shouldn't take efforts to ensure a full life? I don't see why you are willing to settle for less in life...

I know how statistics work. .000036*75 = .0027 whereas 1-(1-.000036)^75 = .00269 so I can see how your meaningless rhetoric would get easily confused with my reasoned thought. Also, birth rate has nothing to do with this...

As an aside, no one dies from being old. People just tend to have more health complications when they are older.

Worry not what others do ...

rather where you are going in your own life.

This is the way to happiness.

You are confusing a total number with a probability. Your methods of multuplying provide a gross number of DD fatalaties over 75 years, not your chance of being one of them. The original number is also faulty because it fails to take into account the number of dead who are the actual drunk driver or his/her passengers. And the birth rate matters because the population is steadily increasing while the drunk driving deaths are trending downward, so your probability of this type of death decreases accordingly with each passing year.

My point about everyone dying is that life is an inherently risky activity. Should we outlaw football because it has a chance of lowering someone's lifespan/quality of life? Horseback riding? Boating? Skydiving? Hot air ballooning? Jogging on the side of the road? Riding bikes on the side of the road? Eating anything at all? Where do you draw the line? Yes, when family members are killed because of a drunk driver, that is awful. I know. Read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...cles/A20764-2004Oct9.html The house those people were on their way to was MY HOUSE. That was my aunt and two of my cousins. The laws on the books are fine. There is no need to do anything else about drunk driving. Why? Because people who are going to do it are going to find a way no matter what we do. The word is out, and the societal consciousness has changed. Anything more is beating a dead horse.

Sorry for your loss.

And I could not agree with you more. All one has to do is look at the failed war on drugs or the failed prohibition of alcohol to come to this conclusion.

Wrong. Dibs gave an individual's annual likelihood of dying from a drunken driver. We have no reason to assume that probability will change at any point with the information he provided.



All of those things you listed are individuals choosing to partake in activities. Drunken driving is like if some people who are hot air ballooning are trying to crash into other hot air balloons. The point it is to stop people from doing something illegal because it is increasing the danger of someone else performing the activity. It is the same reason reckless driving is a crime.



I am sorry for your loss. I don't give up so easily and I don't believe that things can't be improved further.

Dibs gave THIS YEAR's likelihood, based on this year's population and the most recent available fatality statistics involving drunk drivers. It is a moving target.

People on a plane didn't choose to get in the one the pilot would crash. Skydivers don't intentionally choose faulty chutes. Charred folk didn't intentionally choose a house that would catch fire. There are not, nor should we try to enact, regulatory solutions for everything.

But we have no information to assume anything other than that rate as permanent. In your earlier post you suggested everything that can be done has been done - so really there is no reason to think that the percentage should change.



Well we do have regulations for these things and they are necessary. Pilots are not allowed to drink prior to flying is one prime example. We can not stop all bad things from ever happening however there are a lot of problems that can be mitigated and prevented through basic precautionary steps.

drink driving is one of the most irresponsible and stupid thing a person can do.

the limit here is 0.05 with 0.00 "no tolerance" for younger drivers (L/P plates, which in NSW means first 3 yrs of licence basically), which i think is perfectly acceptable.

Also the punishments are automatic licence suspension for 3 months even for small amounts over the limit.

I think the harsher the better. Anything that can change the culture that it is ok to drink and drive.

AS shocking as this might be to the idiots out there.. IF YOU CHANGE LAWS, A SOCIETIES CULTURAL ACCEPTANCE OF ACTIONS WILL CHANGE.

Hell i think drink driving is a perfect example here in Australia. 30 years ago we had absurdly liberal drink driving laws, now we have extremely strict laws. You will struggle to find a person my age who believes drink driving is anything but reprehensible and irresponsible.. However in the 50+ demographic, it is a common belief that there is no harm in getting behind a moving missile half pissed...