"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.
I allowed values as low as 0.17 because I didn't know the guy's weight. If he was really big, it could have been that low, but it was more likely 0.18-0.20. And compared with 0.123, I'd say calling 0.18-0.20 "about 0.20" is not unreasonable. The point is that the guy's BAC was certainly above 0.15 and thus included in the category of people I mentioned.
Perhaps you think that if a 0.16BAC will increases a person's probability of a crash by a certain amount, a 0.08BAC will increase it by half that amount. But that isn't even remotely near the case. Accident rates as a function of BAC are pretty flat below about 0.12, when they start going up very sharply. Even if the guy's BAC was "only" 0.17, that level would but his accident rate significantly about what would have been caused by 0.15, much less 0.123.
If so, does that not make the comparison in percents a bit aside of reality...making them appear something they are not?
I multipled the rates per mile by the number of miles driven. If you prefer another formulation, count the "true alcohol-caused accident count" for a given BAC as being the difference between the number of accidents caused by drivers with a given BAC and the number of accidents those same drivers would have had if they'd been stone-cold sober (I was estimating before that such drivers, if sober, would have roughly the same accident rate per passenger mile as sober drivers).
The point being that the absolute number of crashes caused by those with BACs of 0.15 or over exceeds the number of crashes that occur with BACs of 0.10 and below that would not have occurred even if the driver's BAC was 0.00.
My life was destroyed by a driver that blew over .08, not to mention an underage second time offender.
The driver's BAC was almost certainly well over 0.15 at the time of the crash. So why not focus your energies on people whose BACs are at least in the same ballpark as the jerk that victimized you?
Your action is akin to someone getting injured by a 90 year-old driver who's nearly blind calling for the revocation of licenses for anyone over 50. After all, the 90-year-old driver was "over 50", right"
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?
I think that people who repeatedly drive with BAC levels of over 0.15 should be kept locked up as long as liberals will allow. But that does not imply that the same should apply to someone who blows a 0.08.