Discussion in 'Off-topic Zone' started by BringBackThatOleTimeBoys, Dec 9, 2012.
Definitely a factor but bet there is more.
Where is this stat from?
I heard it before the internet - probably was in Reader's Digest.
It did not take much Googling to find some interesting links
Anyway, they're coming pretty close to perfecting self-driving cars, so in about 20 years no more DUI problems.
I'm not looking to argue, I just wanted to see what kind of data would support the idea.
I can't see comparing a group of multiple countries to one, especially when that one has a population that is almost half of all of those nations combined.
Great if it happens, but it could go the way of the flying car predictions. And in the meantime, a drunk kills an American every hour.
So far, it looks like Europe in general deals with it better. Officers are allowed to do breathlyzer checks there.
Actually it doesn't. Taking a nation by nation approach to what steps they take doesn't at all suggest drunk driving is a greater problem for the U.S. than for Europe.
In fact if you look at your own Bloomberg linked article, you'll see the numbers aren't even close.
They're hoping to drop from 41000.+ to 25000 in four years.
These articles you're citing are generally comparing nations with less than 10,000,000 people to one with 300,000,000. It doesn't really work.
10,000/year--that's really not alot considering other causes of death.
Major cardiovascular diseases 780,624
Accidental poisoning 31,758
This link shows a wild jump for the U.S. in 2009.
That seems a pretty incredible jump on things, but who am I to argue?
"10,000 deaths not considered significant."
I didn't say it was not significant. Just not as prolific as your making it out to be.
In New Mexico, you can be stopped and sighted for DWI. You can go to court and actually win the case but your license is still suspended for a year. The body that oversees the license is a MADD board. This is the kind of thing that I believe serves to hurt the process. A person can be found innocent and they will still lose their license. You automatically have to get a device installed in your vehicle or simply wait the year. I don't understand how on earth this is legal but that's how it is here.
The state and the city get paid from the licensed installers of breathalizers and then they also get paid for the reporting functions.
It's all about money.
A lot of the statistics sighted are skewed. Breathalyzers do not really measure BAC all that accurately. Blood test do. The problem is that a breathalyzer does not account for the time frame of drinking. For example, if you were to sit down and open a beer right now. Take a drink of that beer and drive down the road and get pulled over, you would blow well over the .08 limit, even if you had only taken that one drink. The alcohol will register higher because you just took the drink, even though you didn't drink nearly enough of it to be drunk. Not so with blood tests. They actually measure the amount of alcohol that is in your bloodstream.
Slippery slope doesn't work for an argument. The fighting and domestic abuse have no bearing on DUI's and the argument is a logical fallacy. Americans don't take driving serious enough, someone almost ran me off the road because they were texting and picked their head up long enough to laugh about it. People can get by without a car, the law needs to be strict enough that no one will ever want to get caught doing it.
The problem, at least as I see it, is that the idea is not to get rid of it. The idea is to capitalize on it.