Alcohol detectors in cars to be standard in CA?

[Craig234]

Myth about using a friend to breathe in it unless they are driving with you, then they are both sober and stupid for not driving themselves.

We agree this is likely an insignificant issue.

Biggest problem I see is the cost and disproportionate amount of minorities and poor this will affect making it a nonstarter.

No, it's not.

I saw a statistic that 1 in 3 people will be involved in a drunk driving accident.

I'm all for protecting the minorities and poor where it makes sense. Here, it doesn't.

If you want a government subsidy for them, ok. If that's a problem, do it without one.

 

[Matt915]

sorry if this has already been said, but what's to stop a person with one of these having someone else take the breathalyzer for them and then driving off?

 

[the DRIZZLE]

That's because it was a really dumb point. Studies are already available on the efficacy of ignition interlocks. http://dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/210_ignition_interlock_report.pdf

They are effective at reducing the DUI habits of all but the most severely addicted people. Since the vast majority of americans are not hopelessly alcoholic, it will work just fine.

You're right except your own study proves that most DUIs are committed by that hopelessly addicted minority. This would really only stop the casual DUIer who is not the real problem.

 

[JS80]

sorry if this has already been said, but what's to stop a person with one of these having someone else take the breathalyzer for them and then driving off?

This one time this dude was dragged to a club by his friends to help him get laid and they were hanging out with some chicks for a bachelorette party and he was taking one of them home but he didn't have a car (he rides a bike-cycle) so they had to take her car. She had one of those breathalyser things in her car but she was too drunk so she made him blow in it.

 

[fskimospy]

Your posting that means one of two things:
1. You don't understand how to read scientific studies, or
2. You think that i don't understand how to read scientific studies.
Your study shows quite the opposite effect of what you intended to show.

and, the most damning of all,

And I'll also point out that not a single trend found in that entire study was found to be statistically significant. In other words, the study itself found NO DIFFERENCE between drivers with or without an IID, even in the group where such a difference would be most likely to occur. For example,

This lack of significance is exactly why this study ended up being published on CA.gov rather than in a peer-reviewed journal, where it was no doubt rejected repeatedly because NONE of its findings indicated what the legislature required it to indicate. A p value of 0.85 means that there is an 85% probability that the miniscule difference between the two groups (with and without IIDs) occurred purely due to chance. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal would require a p value of less than 0.05, or less than 5% chance of the difference occurring due to chance. It's rubbish.

Well from this response we definitely know that you don't know how to read scientific studies. The study most certainly did not say the opposite of what I claimed, and only one study out of the 6 contained in that paper had a p value of .85, a study that was specifically noted to lack statistical significance. Let me guess, you just did a quick search without actually reading.

Oh, and the reason it isn't posted to an academic journal is that the California DMV doesn't post to academic journals, they submit reports to the legislature. (why on earth would they publish in a journal anyway?)

 

[DrPizza]

I skimmed through this thread and noted quite a bit of idiocy on both sides of the issue. (What's new for P&N, huh?) Someone claimed that the only thing of importance is that ("only") 1500 people died in accidents due to alcohol. I'm wondering how someone could look up such a statistic and not see the statistic right next to it with how many other people are injured, how much property damage is done, etc. I'm using this point, because the economic costs are being made on both sides of this issue. Some people are claiming that WE have to pay for the devices, and that's why we shouldn't be mandated to have them. However, that's only true if 2 things happen: 1. You completely ignore that WE also pay, at least indirectly, for every drunk driving incident. 2. We compare the costs of implementation of these devices to the amount we would save if everyone had them.

It seems to me, from the perspective of common sense, that economically, you must put a cost on each life. Otherwise, we would put things in place at the cost of billions of dollars, just to statistically save one life. Common sense seems, at least to me, that this decision can be made purely on economic grounds, without the influence of emotion. I really don't care if you're "inconvenienced" by having an relatively unobtrusive device in your vehicle, and I really don't care if you're afraid to go out on the road between 11pm and 4am because everyone doesn't have that device in their vehicle.

Simply, is the cost of implementation much cheaper than the economic damage that's caused by drunk drivers; or rather, would the implementation result in a decrease in economic damage (property damage, medical expenses, value of life, lost productivity, etc.) that's significantly greater than the cost of implementation?

i.e. an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Is this an ounce of prevention? 14 ounces of prevention? Or 19 ounces of prevention.

You can stick your arguments of government intrusions up your rear end. But sometimes government is actually useful when it makes a rule that saves society a lot of money in the long run. It's simply one more useful safety device on a car, little different than seatbelts, antilock brakes, certain required strength standards, etc. It'd be nice if there was an unobtrusive sensor (that cost much less to implement than the economic gains it would result in) that detected when drivers were unalert (falling asleep at the wheel, etc.) But, whether we should have this safety device mandated should completely hinge on whether it'll save more money than it costs. (I personally would guess that this is true, but I'm not certain. And, whichever way it works out, I'll go along with that side.)

 

[OCGuy]

Not going to happen.

 

[KMFJD]

Someone will make a fortune circumventing those things

 

[Craig234]

Someone will make a fortune circumventing those things

No, they won't.

Your comment is ignorant speculation that argues against something useful idiotically.

Reminds me of the mentality of people who argued against fluoridation of water because of the same sort of idiocy.

 

[alkemyst]

I skimmed through this thread and noted quite a bit of idiocy on both sides of the issue. (What's new for P&N, huh?) Someone claimed that the only thing of importance is that ("only") 1500 people died in accidents due to alcohol. I'm wondering how someone could look up such a statistic and not see the statistic right next to it with how many other people are injured, how much property damage is done, etc. I'm using this point, because the economic costs are being made on both sides of this issue. Some people are claiming that WE have to pay for the devices, and that's why we shouldn't be mandated to have them. However, that's only true if 2 things happen: 1. You completely ignore that WE also pay, at least indirectly, for every drunk driving incident. 2. We compare the costs of implementation of these devices to the amount we would save if everyone had them.

It seems to me, from the perspective of common sense, that economically, you must put a cost on each life. Otherwise, we would put things in place at the cost of billions of dollars, just to statistically save one life. Common sense seems, at least to me, that this decision can be made purely on economic grounds, without the influence of emotion. I really don't care if you're "inconvenienced" by having an relatively unobtrusive device in your vehicle, and I really don't care if you're afraid to go out on the road between 11pm and 4am because everyone doesn't have that device in their vehicle.

Simply, is the cost of implementation much cheaper than the economic damage that's caused by drunk drivers; or rather, would the implementation result in a decrease in economic damage (property damage, medical expenses, value of life, lost productivity, etc.) that's significantly greater than the cost of implementation?

i.e. an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Is this an ounce of prevention? 14 ounces of prevention? Or 19 ounces of prevention.

You can stick your arguments of government intrusions up your rear end. But sometimes government is actually useful when it makes a rule that saves society a lot of money in the long run. It's simply one more useful safety device on a car, little different than seatbelts, antilock brakes, certain required strength standards, etc. It'd be nice if there was an unobtrusive sensor (that cost much less to implement than the economic gains it would result in) that detected when drivers were unalert (falling asleep at the wheel, etc.) But, whether we should have this safety device mandated should completely hinge on whether it'll save more money than it costs. (I personally would guess that this is true, but I'm not certain. And, whichever way it works out, I'll go along with that side.)

Not really. Most DUI's result in no injury nor property damage. The next large number is self injury and self property damage (and nothing else), then a minority is the deaths of others and injuries to them and their property.

There is no way DUI costs more than it takes in other than the lobbyists spinning it.

You are probably all for airbags which have shown not to significantly improve anything other than if the occupant decided to skip the seat belt to begin with.

 

[Craig234]

I skimmed through this thread and noted quite a bit of idiocy on both sides of the issue. (What's new for P&N, huh?) Someone claimed that the only thing of importance is that ("only") 1500 people died in accidents due to alcohol. I'm wondering how someone could look up such a statistic and not see the statistic right next to it with how many other people are injured, how much property damage is done, etc.

Intellectual dishonesty. (Note that was for CA, not the US, which is over 10,000).

BTW, I didn't see specifics listed of the pro-device side's 'idiocy'.

From MADD :

An estimated three of every 10 Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related traffic crash at some time in their lives. (NHTSA, 2001)

Research shows that alcohol-related crashes cost the public an estimated $114.3 billion annually—this includes an estimated $63.2 billion lost in quality of life due to these crashes. (Taylor, Miller, and Cox, 2002)

The societal costs of alcohol-related crashes average $1.00 per drink consumed. People other than the drinking driver paid $0.60 per drink. (Taylor, Miller, and Cox, 2002)

Approximately 1.46 million drivers were arrested in 2006 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. This is an arrest rate of 1 for every 139 licensed drivers in the United States. (NHTSA, 2008)

Alcohol-impaired driving is the most frequently committed violent crime in the U.S.
(NHTSA, 2003)

I misplaced another stat on injuries and crashes (hundreds of thousands of crashes).

 

[SpatiallyAware]

My state (as do most) make a TON of money from DUIs.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Simply, is the cost of implementation much cheaper than the economic damage that's caused by drunk drivers; or rather, would the implementation result in a decrease in economic damage (property damage, medical expenses, value of life, lost productivity, etc.) that's significantly greater than the cost of implementation?

i.e. an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Is this an ounce of prevention? 14 ounces of prevention? Or 19 ounces of prevention.

I think they may be difficult to quantify.

First, we need to understand the scope of the problem. I'm having trouble finding out how many accidents are CAUSED by drunk driving. Many of the statistics seem to be about how many INVOLVE accidents and drinking, even at legal levels of BAL.

So, even if the accident was NOT caused by the person drinking, it goes into the statistic. Then there are accidents included where the BAL was legal, meaning these alcohol detectors wouldn't be relevent anyway.

Do we really know how much damage/death is from people with above .08 BAL causing accidents?

Until we know that with a high degree of certainty we can't know the scope of the problem.

I also still think the efficacy of these detectors is questionable.

Fern

 

[bfdd]

I can't believe people are still arguing over this. There is nothing to fucking argue over. You're a fucking piece of shit douche bag if you think this should be mandatory on all vehicles. You assume people are guilty until proven innocent and you are Un-American. Do the rest of us a favor, go fuck off and die.

No I've never had a DUI nor do I plan on ever getting one.

 

[bfdd]

I skimmed through this thread and noted quite a bit of idiocy on both sides of the issue. (What's new for P&N, huh?) Someone claimed that the only thing of importance is that ("only") 1500 people died in accidents due to alcohol. I'm wondering how someone could look up such a statistic and not see the statistic right next to it with how many other people are injured, how much property damage is done, etc. I'm using this point, because the economic costs are being made on both sides of this issue. Some people are claiming that WE have to pay for the devices, and that's why we shouldn't be mandated to have them. However, that's only true if 2 things happen: 1. You completely ignore that WE also pay, at least indirectly, for every drunk driving incident. 2. We compare the costs of implementation of these devices to the amount we would save if everyone had them.

It seems to me, from the perspective of common sense, that economically, you must put a cost on each life. Otherwise, we would put things in place at the cost of billions of dollars, just to statistically save one life. Common sense seems, at least to me, that this decision can be made purely on economic grounds, without the influence of emotion. I really don't care if you're "inconvenienced" by having an relatively unobtrusive device in your vehicle, and I really don't care if you're afraid to go out on the road between 11pm and 4am because everyone doesn't have that device in their vehicle.

Simply, is the cost of implementation much cheaper than the economic damage that's caused by drunk drivers; or rather, would the implementation result in a decrease in economic damage (property damage, medical expenses, value of life, lost productivity, etc.) that's significantly greater than the cost of implementation?

i.e. an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Is this an ounce of prevention? 14 ounces of prevention? Or 19 ounces of prevention.

You can stick your arguments of government intrusions up your rear end. But sometimes government is actually useful when it makes a rule that saves society a lot of money in the long run. It's simply one more useful safety device on a car, little different than seatbelts, antilock brakes, certain required strength standards, etc. It'd be nice if there was an unobtrusive sensor (that cost much less to implement than the economic gains it would result in) that detected when drivers were unalert (falling asleep at the wheel, etc.) But, whether we should have this safety device mandated should completely hinge on whether it'll save more money than it costs. (I personally would guess that this is true, but I'm not certain. And, whichever way it works out, I'll go along with that side.)

Really? The problem is REPEAT OFFENDERS, WE KEEP GIVING THEM BACK THEIR LICENSES! Stop giving the fucking retards their licenses back and watch those numbers drop. I have met quite a few people who have MULTIPLE DUIs on their record, some who have had the breathalyzer installed in their cars. It didn't matter, they just had someone else blow in it if they were drunk.

I'm more worried about us licensing people who are truly not ready to drive or understand that driving is more than just YOU in your own car. I bet those people cause more problems than the small amount that get shitfaced and drive.

 

[wuliheron]

I misplaced another stat on injuries and crashes (hundreds of thousands of crashes).

I understand MAD focusing on driving statistics, but alcohol is also involved in a large majority of all violent crimes. One reason why women in particular pushed for prohibition was that they were getting the shit beat out them. Until about a hundred years ago or so the average American drank a fifth a day. Tea was pushed as an alternative to drinking unsafe water.

 

[CycloWizard]

Well from this response we definitely know that you don't know how to read scientific studies. The study most certainly did not say the opposite of what I claimed, and only one study out of the 6 contained in that paper had a p value of .85, a study that was specifically noted to lack statistical significance. Let me guess, you just did a quick search without actually reading.

Oh, and the reason it isn't posted to an academic journal is that the California DMV doesn't post to academic journals, they submit reports to the legislature. (why on earth would they publish in a journal anyway?)

They didn't claim significance for any of the other trends, either - maybe you would have noticed that had you even skimmed the article instead of just assuming it supported your opinion. That could be because they improperly used categorical statistics rather than the appropriate method (regression). They picked 150 days without an accident as a metric, neglecting the fact that time is really a continuous variable. There's so much fail there that it doesn't even make sense to address it. That is why it will never be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Plenty of government-funded studies are published in the scientific literature all the time, but only if they have some semblance of utility and use appropriate methods to arrive at the conclusions. You know absolutely dick about anything they discussed, which is only marginally less than they know. Stop using your ignorance as a weapon because I will be more than happy to take it from you and bludgeon you to death with it.

 

[bamacre]

Someone will make a fortune circumventing those things

Someone will make a fortune manufacturing them, that's the real purpose of laws like this. Nanny staters and social conservatives will fall for it, hook like and sinker, as proven here in this thread.

I can't believe people are still arguing over this. There is nothing to fucking argue over. You're a fucking piece of shit douche bag if you think this should be mandatory on all vehicles. You assume people are guilty until proven innocent and you are Un-American. Do the rest of us a favor, go fuck off and die.

No I've never had a DUI nor do I plan on ever getting one.

Agreed, on all points, and no DUI here either.

 

[wuliheron]

I'm not for it or against it and really don't have an opinion on the subject.

I just hate to see people confuse ideology with reasoning. If you're going to think, then think. If you're going to be dogmatic then the thinking stops right there and you might as well give up the pretense.

 

[fskimospy]

They didn't claim significance for any of the other trends, either - maybe you would have noticed that had you even skimmed the article instead of just assuming it supported your opinion. That could be because they improperly used categorical statistics rather than the appropriate method (regression). They picked 150 days without an accident as a metric, neglecting the fact that time is really a continuous variable. There's so much fail there that it doesn't even make sense to address it. That is why it will never be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Plenty of government-funded studies are published in the scientific literature all the time, but only if they have some semblance of utility and use appropriate methods to arrive at the conclusions. You know absolutely dick about anything they discussed, which is only marginally less than they know. Stop using your ignorance as a weapon because I will be more than happy to take it from you and bludgeon you to death with it.

Government funded studies are much different than studies produced by agencies for the legislature or governor. I'm really not sure how you don't understand this. Pretty sweet that you're accusing me of skimming after trying to claim the whole study was a p value of .85. Not that I'm really shocked or anything.

Glad to see how mad you are for being called out though.

 

[Craig234]

I understand MAD focusing on driving statistics, but alcohol is also involved in a large majority of all violent crimes. One reason why women in particular pushed for prohibition was that they were getting the shit beat out them. Until about a hundred years ago or so the average American drank a fifth a day. Tea was pushed as an alternative to drinking unsafe water.

I largely agree, except am concerned by the fact you 'understand' MADD focusing on drunk driving statistics.

What's there to understand about it It's exactly what they should do.

One of the harmful effects of propaganda organizations' lies is that it creates distrust of legitimate organizations.

If a Union does a perfectly accurate study showing a problem that it has recommendations to fix, many respond, 'they WOULD say that' like it's a lie, but without any actual evidence that it is wrong. There are organizations with histories of inaccuracy and propagandizing it's fine to treat extra skeptically or even to refuse to waste time on, but it's not good to exaggerate the normal skepticism of an organization to simply claim anything they say is false because it fits their agenda.

Your history on alcohol and violence on women is useful - and remember spousal rape was a crazy idea most of our history, too.

 

[Craig234]

By the way, 2/3 of drunk driving arrests are for *first-time* offenders, even though it's estimated drunk drivers do it about 80 times for each arrest.

 

[DrPizza]

By the way, 2/3 of drunk driving arrests are for *first-time* offenders, even though it's estimated drunk drivers do it about 80 times for each arrest.

Really? The problem is REPEAT OFFENDERS, WE KEEP GIVING THEM BACK THEIR LICENSES! Stop giving the fucking retards their licenses back and watch those numbers drop. I have met quite a few people who have MULTIPLE DUIs on their record, some who have had the breathalyzer installed in their cars. It didn't matter, they just had someone else blow in it if they were drunk.

I'm more worried about us licensing people who are truly not ready to drive or understand that driving is more than just YOU in your own car. I bet those people cause more problems than the small amount that get shitfaced and drive.

Seems one of these two is off a little bit.

 

[Craig234]

Seems one of these two is off a little bit.

I agree completely.

 

[Doppel]

Peeps should be careful calling this invasion of privacy. After all, it's already illegal to drive while intoxicated. This simply enforces an existing law--and a damn good noe. There are valid arguments to be made about its cost, its invasiveness, and its effectiveness (e.g. false positives), but if a subtle method existed (this may or may not be that) to ensure that people do not drive while intoxicated it should be used.

Most people have at one point in their life driven while above the legal limit. And many do it chronically. It is a serious problem. As Eskimospy indicates, many do it a lot of times before being caught.

We're all used to, and most of us have no problem with, laws that control our speed not just for our good but that of others. As there is no reliable external way to measure drunkenness (as there is with speed and a radar gun), this is one possible way to enforce.