Where do you see me trying to suggest anything? What did he dilute himself with in those three hours? How much alcohol lefts his blood stream in that time? Maybe it is you beihng "disingenuous'. I state not suggest.
You suggested the fact that the driver who hit you had a BAC of 0.123 as a rebuttal to my claim that drivers over 0.15 BAC pose most of the danger. The fact that the driver who hit you in fact had a BAC of 0.17-0.21 would seem to make that rebuttal disingenuous.
What is your basis for .15?
It's a rough estimate of the point where 50% of truly-alcohol-caused crashes are with people whose BAC is below and 50% above. Actually, I suspect the real point is higher than that, but didn't feel like pushing it.
Note that I am defining "truly alcohol-related crashes" as being ((accident rate per passenger mile of people with a given BAC) minus (accident rate per PM of people with 0.00BAC)) times (passenger miles driven by people with a given BAC).
A very large portion of the accidents are caused by a very small number of bad drivers. Why don't you want to free up prison cells for those drivers? How about me riding with no BAC having his life ruined?
Your life was ruined by a driver with a 0.08-0.09BAC? I thought based on what you said before that he had a 0.17-0.21BAC?
"Especially given that someone whose life has been ruined by such a conviction has little to lose for repeat offenses."
That shows error in punishment doled out. Each offense should become stiffer and stiffer with the means of jail time. "little to lose" is exactly where three strikes laws came from.
you have a funny sense of ruined, Ill give you that.
Depending upon where they live and work, people convicted of DUI are likely to have no practical way of continuing to work at their present job or live in their present home. Depending upon the person's field of employment, it may be difficult or impossible for the person to find a suitable job that they could work at.
If a persons life is ruined by DUI convictions, I would offer to you they should have made better choices.
BTW, I recall reading articles similar to the ones you cited that used 0.10 as the threshhold for the effects you describe. Got any accident-rate data, categorized by location and time of day, and BAC level? The data I've shown suggests that 0.12 is where things really start to pick up and alcohol becomes a more significant factor than many of the other things that contribute to bad driving.
"You suggested the fact that the driver who hit you had a BAC of 0.123 as a rebuttal to my claim that drivers over 0.15 BAC pose most of the danger"
Speaking in terms of when HE blew and when your example registers .15. Seems we were talking about two different times.
I still would like to see where you get .20....oh now thats changed to .17 to .21....I would say that GEE .17 isn't that much more than .15, the crashes that happen from .15 to .17 arent that much more......same things you said to me.
I would offer THAT is the argument that is disingenuous and no matter WHAT level is established that argument can always be made.
"It's a rough estimate"
Who's rough estimate? I would like to read about it.
His bac at time of register was .123. I offered you a what he blew and when he blew it. I simply stated it to you.
I gotta tackle this one for a minute and see what you have to say. I would like to ask you a question to see how much stock you put into averages of this type.
"Note that I am defining "truly alcohol-related crashes" as being ((accident rate per passenger mile of people with a given BAC) minus (accident rate per PM of people with 0.00BAC)) times (passenger miles driven by people with a given BAC)."
% of money given per capita by canadians as compared to % of money given by Americans. While canada's % is higher the USA gives a WHOOOOLE lot more in dollars. Wouldn't you agree?
If so, does that not make the comparison in percents a bit aside of reality...making them appear something they are not?
I feel that sometimes numbers are crunched a bit to much and this is done to make the outcome fit a preconceived notion. Sorry but per passenger mile strikes me as something along those lines.
"Your life was ruined by a driver with a 0.08-0.09BAC? I thought based on what you said before that he had a 0.17-0.21BAC?"
My life was destroyed by a driver that blew over .08, not to mention an underage second time offender.
"Depending upon where they live and work, people convicted of DUI are likely to have no practical way of continuing to work at their present job or live in their present home."
That is the choice they make now isn't it? At least they have that choice, I know I sure didn't. I lost my job, had i not had some help from people around me I would have lost my home and everything else too. While you talk a DUI convicts losses, where do you stand on mine?
"The data I've shown suggests that 0.12 is where things really start to pick up and alcohol becomes a more significant factor than many of the other things that contribute to bad driving."
I would like to see that data, I posted several links a while back as to where mine comes from.
"Less than 1.3% of 2001 fatalities involved a driver between .08 and .10 BAC vs. 12.4% at .15 or greater. Even the .00-.02 (trace level) range accounts for about 1.2% of fatalities... "Anyone with a modest understanding of this issue, and who is honest, " says NMA President Jim Baxter, "knows that drivers with low BACs such as .08% are no more likely to be involved in an accident than someone with a BAC of 0.0%."