Alcohol detectors in cars to be standard in CA?

[CycloWizard]

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.

If only you knew what, "For example," followed by a direct quote from the article, mean, you would see that I never implied or attempted to imply that the one cited p value applied to anything other than the one difference which they claimed to measure. They did not cite p values for the other studies. Not citing a p value in no way implies significance - only that you don't know how to calculate it for that case. Furthermore, the study never offers a guideline for what p value significance will be assumed (generally 0.05, but this is an essentially arbitrary guideline adopted by the scientific community that must be stated explicitly). Instead, the study says such scientific things as,

The results of this can be seen graphically in Figure 2, below.

When one looks at Figure 2, one sees that, at the end of the study, those using the IID actually had a lower survival rate than those who did not. Thus, the "researchers" decided to pick an arbitrary cutoff (150 days) and treat time as a categorical variable in their analysis. This is a completely incorrect approach, since time is a continuous variable. They did this because it's easier to show a statistically significant difference between an arbitrarily selected value along a line (the incorrect approach adopted in the study) and the actual slopes of the two lines (the correct approach). But even though they pulled these statistical shenanigans, it appears they were either unable or unwilling to compute an actual p value, resorting to the idiot's solution:

This difference is unlikely to have occurred by chance.

This is statistics speak for: we don't know what the p value is, or it's too high to mention. I would fail a student if I found this on a lab report. A scientific journal would send the authors packing for this offense. Confidence intervals are conveniently omitted from the figures, making any inference about the likelihood of a true difference between the two populations impossible. In other words, the authors used completely improper statistical methods to arrive at the conclusion they knew they were supposed to arrive at, then published them in the only rag that would even consider publishing such rubbish: a government report.

 

[CycloWizard]

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.

That's not quite how that works. A lie is not true until proved otherwise. A statement which falls in line with a suspected conflict of interest requires evidence as reinforcement, not blind faith stating that the conclusions are immutable.

 

[boomerang]

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?

Nothing, but what's important to the progressives arguing for adoption of this legislation is that their will be imposed on the rest of us. Well, unless you're here illegally. I'm thinking they'll be screaming bloody murder if this keeps an illegal from starting a car. Now THAT would be profiling.

 

[wuliheron]

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.

That's just one of the prices we pay for organizing in such large groups. Sociologists have noted that once you get around 300 people in any group its just no longer possible for everyone to know each other on a first name basis. That's when they start to organize more around abstract principles and even fascism begins to emerge. Let's face it, in large groups otherwise perfectly nice people can be inhumane, stupid, and even downright insane and self-destructive.

 

[zsdersw]

Totally 100% against this proposal. The best move you can make, in any situation, is one that delivers maximum gain at a minimum cost. This proposal does neither.

 

[CycloWizard]

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.)

If you want to take that approach, can you provide a number for how much damage is done in California every month due to DUI? These devices apparently cost $65-75/month just for upkeep/calibration, not including the time lost to have that upkeep done. I assume there are tens of millions of cars in California. That's a lot of property damage that needs to be avoided for any economic argument.

I'm 100% behind decreasing DUI, but this is not the way to do it. The legal penalties for DUI are trivial and, in many places, altogether avoidable with the right lawyer. More severe penalties are only triggered if someone is actually maimed or killed. DUI rates are much lower in other countries with more potent penalties, so stricter laws can be a useful deterrent. The prevailing US mentality regarding alcohol in this country might make such laws slightly less effective, but would probably still make a big difference.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

It's not the gums, it's through the veins in ones mouth, especially under the tongue, which do in fact absorb enough to get it traveling through the blood stream, which is why there are quite a few medications that are used by placing them under the tongue.

Still ignoring the fact you would need to ingest 2 oz's of the strongest listerine on the market to reach the equivalent of 1 beer. If your into poisoning yourself I suppose its a concern.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

And what if I wear gloves? Am I just not allowed to wear gloves while sober when my car's below freezing?

you can put the gloves on after starting car.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I guess those in favor are presuming people are guilty until proven otherwise before they start their cars.

guilty of what? These devices don't trigger criminal charges.

 

[Craig234]

Nothing, but what's important to the progressives arguing for adoption of this legislation is that their will be imposed on the rest of us. Well, unless you're here illegally. I'm thinking they'll be screaming bloody murder if this keeps an illegal from starting a car. Now THAT would be profiling.

95% of what is said about liberals here is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

1500 people died in 06 due to alcohol related accidents. In a state of 30 million, that's quite insignificant and less than 1/3rd of total accident fatalities. It sounds like you have an irrational fear of others and wish to control those around you by any means necessary because you fear for your life every waking second. Sounds like you're a giant fucking pussy.

Seriously Craig, fuck you and your totalitarian bullshit you spout in almost every goddamn thread you come in.

If its not a big deal then stop making it a big deal. The laws these days now demonize dui offenders moreso than rapists.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

(First wanna say the OP's link is not working for me. So, I can't read the article.)

I think a number of practical arguments against this proposal have been made. And in one or two more.

First, these things are costly.

What do we do about cars that have already been manufactured without them?

First things first, why are you focusing on the reasons why something can't work instead of thinking about how it can work?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

The problem here isn't about the repeat offenders, it's about those who have done nothing wrong but are treated like criminals.

lol.....treated like criminals, thats rich. Where are you guys kicking and screaming about the DHS, TSA and the patriot act? lol

 

[Craig234]

The laws these days now demonize dui offenders moreso than rapists.

I disagree. They are more demonized now that they used to be, when it was a sort of joke, as they should be. Rapists are still more demonized IMO, and lack these apologists.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Lets sum it up. You'd be happy being treated like a criminal in the name of security so long as it doesn't explicitly violate the Constitution. Got it.

Sorry, some of us have more self-respect. Apply the breathalyzer machines to the guilty ones and leave the rest of us alone. Let me spell it out for you.

1. I have never driven drunk.
2. I will never drive drunk.

How can you prove either of these things? So we should take you and every would be drunk driver at their word? Obviously that system doesn't work with 1million + dui arrests each year and 15k+ dui accident deaths. The honor system doesn't work.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

If this were to somehow become "law", how hard would it be to bypass? Just unplug it or invent "Breath in a Can" and get rich off of it.

reading fail.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I disagree. They are more demonized now that they used to be, when it was a sort of joke, as they should be. Rapists are still more demonized IMO, and lack these apologists.

rapists have a tangible victim. If you get caught dui multiple times you can do mandatory sentences longer than rapists and their isn't even a victim!

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Exactly this. Why should the populace, more specifically me, be forced to prove that I am not drunk, even though I don't even drink, to use my property because of a minutia of people that will undoubtedly find ways around these measures anyway? It's just more feel good, do nothing bullshit.

It is not feel good do nothing bullshit. This is proven to prevent. This has a track record for success in preventing DUI in repeat offenders.

you admit that only a minutia of people would find a way around it, sounds pretty solid. If you can prevent 98% of DUI you have saved tens of thousands of lives annually and hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[xj0hnx]

95% of what is said about liberals here is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.

99% of what is said by Craig234 here is wrong or lies, no one cares enough to remember the other 1%.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Someone will make a fortune circumventing those things

Anything could be circumvented any hacker will tell you that. Make the punishment for such too brutal to even consider it.

 

[MotF Bane]

Anything could be circumvented any hacker will tell you that. Make the punishment for such too brutal to even consider it.

Oh, oh, that's a great idea! Let's just make the punishment for DUI too brutal to even consider it! This will surely work!

 

[IceBergSLiM]

If you want to take that approach, can you provide a number for how much damage is done in California every month due to DUI? These devices apparently cost $65-75/month just for upkeep/calibration, not including the time lost to have that upkeep done. I assume there are tens of millions of cars in California. That's a lot of property damage that needs to be avoided for any economic argument.

I'm 100% behind decreasing DUI, but this is not the way to do it. The legal penalties for DUI are trivial and, in many places, altogether avoidable with the right lawyer. More severe penalties are only triggered if someone is actually maimed or killed. DUI rates are much lower in other countries with more potent penalties, so stricter laws can be a useful deterrent. The prevailing US mentality regarding alcohol in this country might make such laws slightly less effective, but would probably still make a big difference.

Couple things:

1) calibration is required on the breathalyzers.(old technology)
2) Societal costs are astronomical. 15000 deaths per year. Tens of thousands more injured.
3) car crash survivors often costs more than a fatality with a lifetime of healthcare costs that can be attributed to the accident
4) court costs - 1million dui arrests each year huge burden on an already stretched thin judicial system
5) jail costs - I know that in CT it costs about $40k per year to jail an inmmate
6) Then their are the ancillary costs, like an otherwise high functioning member of society, say a father of four gets dui and loses his license. can't drive and loses his job. Can't pay bills, house foreclosure, go on welfare. Or goes to jail and can't get a job afterwards, doesn't have a car is no longer a functioning member of society. Whats the price tag on that?

There are only two roads here that I see:

1) HARSH Zero Tolerance Laws across the board. Where by anything above 0.01 BAC is permanent revocation of license + jail time
or
2) Preventative safety technology


There is really no other way as the current direction doesn't work at all.

 

[OCGuy]

Stop feeding the troll....this is never going to happen.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Oh, oh, that's a great idea! Let's just make the punishment for DUI too brutal to even consider it! This will surely work!

It would work, not 100% but we already established nothing is 100%

A zero tolerance policy would at least send a clear message that drinking and driving is never ok. Set the mandatory sentence for a first offense of anything above 0.01 BAC to be permanent revocation of license and jail time.

 

[MotF Bane]

It would work, not 100% but we already established nothing is 100%

A zero tolerance policy would at least send a clear message that drinking and driving is never ok. Set the mandatory sentence for a first offense of anything above 0.01 BAC to be permanent revocation of license and jail time.

So do that, and the alcohol detectors in every car become totally unnecessary. Done.