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.
"The point is that the guy's BAC was certainly above 0.15"
That is nothing more than an outright guess for you also do not know what he drank or when.
"Accident rates as a function of BAC are pretty flat below about 0.12, when they start going up very sharply."
"An April 1999 study of all fifty states conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) confirmed MADD’s assertions. It compared states with .08 BAC laws to states with .10 BAC laws before and after the laws were passed. The study found that states that passed .08 BAC laws reduced the involvement of drunk drivers in fatalities by 8 percent."
http://www.enotes.com/drunk-driving-article/
I think matters. Proof being in the pudding and all.