Replies

(sorry I got some quotes pasted out-of-order above)

It does seem like there are some areas where we are talking past each other. Perhaps you could answer a few questions, if you don't mind:

I have offered you a source for some statistical information on the subject. Among other things, the 1992 statistics show that in the majority of fatal crashes where the driver's BAC was non-zero, it was 0.15 or over. Do you accept or not accept this statistic? If you do not accept it, can you offer any rebuttal?
How much money do you think the state can expect to receive from the prosecution of a motorist who has already been busted six times for >0.15 DUI, gotten into three accidents, and killed twice? How much money do you think the state can expect to receive from the prosecution of a motorist who has a nice car and a steady job, has never gotten in an accident, and blows a 0.09?
Do you think that police would effectively reduce alcohol-related crashes by stopping, e.g. 10% of motorists at random (letting even grossly drunk drivers slip through whenever the cop is busy checking out a sober driver), or by stopping only those motorists who show signs of impairment (thus ensuring that the cop would not usually be too busy to catch them unless two such motorists passed within a few minutes of each other)?

There is a huge difference between someone who drives at 0.15 versus 0.08. Do you acknowledge this? Should the law not acknowledge this distinction?

One technique of dishonest people is to identify that some uncommon behavior is bad, and then try to equate that with some other, much more common, "superset" behavior when the two behaviors are qualitatively different.

For example, I would suggest that there is a qualitative rather than quantitative difference between entering a busy intersection 10 milliseconds after the signal turns red and entering a busy intersection ten seconds after the signal turns red. The former behavior will not cause a crash (or any other meaningful harm) if other drivers are even remotely alert; the latter behavior is extremely likely to cause a crash even if other drivers are highly alert. Nonetheless, some localities regard the two behaviors as identical. Can you think why?

"Do you accept or not accept this statistic"

I accept they are from 1992.

Isn't it unconstitutional to ignore the minority?

Updated information can be found here :
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2003/809761.pdf

"Alcohol related' debate is noted and observed. They are still far too many at levels above .08.

The studies done show that dropping from .10 to .08 is at least contributing to the decline of alcohol related deaths on our nations highways.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/drive/a/blnhtsa031027.htm

"How much money do you think the state can expect to receive from the prosecution of a motorist who has already been busted six times for >0.15 DUI, gotten into three accidents, and killed twice?"

Killed once in Illinois means jail time. Note: that is post 2003. You defend the money gained from offenders and leave out the money taken from victims by the offenders that harm them. Maybe it is time to take note of both.

"How much money do you think the state can expect to receive from the prosecution of a motorist who has a nice car and a steady job, has never gotten in an accident, and blows a 0.09?"

Many times those nice cars are the ones that crash. Notice Paris Hiltons Bently. ;)

"Do you think that police would effectively reduce alcohol-related crashes by stopping, e.g. 10% of motorists at random (letting even grossly drunk drivers slip through whenever the cop is busy checking out a sober driver), "

Cmon now. I call straw man on that one. Got an example of how a grossly drunk driver got thru a roadside safety check while a sober one was detained? I don't think so. This is a what if kind of question. Raodside safety checks do deterr people from driving drunk on those roads....as they are announced prior to holding them, (caveat, atleast they are here)

"or by stopping only those motorists who show signs of impairment "

That is exactly what is done at roadside safety checks. I have been thru several and never had any type of trouble. A question or two and waved right on by. That happening cuz I wasn't drunk, I had on my seat belt, my kids were in their child seats and I held up my insurance card as I rolled on up. Seems pretty simple.

On that note do you feel that insurance laws are unconctituional and the checking of them ona traffic stop is intrusive?

"There is a huge difference between someone who drives at 0.15 versus 0.08."

Sure I do, the gap between .06 and .08 as it relates to the gap between .08 and .10 is substantial also. Would you agree? Hence .08 and not .06. liekwise why it is .08 and no longer .10.

"One technique of dishonest people is to identify that some uncommon behavior is bad, and then try to equate that with some other, much more common, "superset" behavior when the two behaviors are qualitatively different.

Another tactic of a dishonest person is to rely on 13 year old data when they know full well and good that newer data is available and chose not to take a good look at it because it leads a direction other than past information.

"I would suggest that there is a qualitative rather than quantitative difference between entering a busy intersection 10 milliseconds after the signal turns red and entering a busy intersection ten seconds after the signal turns red."

I would say that is what the Yellow light is for. After red is after red.....that means you would be busted and should be held responsible. If you enter an intersection After it is red no matter how long then you didn't head the yellow. If it turned yellow and you would have created a danger by stopping , thus putting you in the intersection during red, then you were either speeding or lacked attention and reaction to the traffic light when on yellow.

This is why they are identical.