U.K. Drinking Costs

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I don't know if attitudes are different in the US or not, but over here, the majority of the population doesn't drink then drive.

Over here, I would say that the majority of people do not drink and drive the majority of the time. That means there is a minority of people who do drink and drive and have no problem with it and then there is a larger minority that will plan ahead on most occasions with taxis and designated drivers, but will slip up every once in a while and drink and drive if they feel "okay to drive". As I've said, almost everyone here knows its bad to drink and drive but there are rare occasions where people didn't plan ahead and the risk is taken. There are a few people who have no problem drinking and driving and do it on a regular occasion, I would assume these people make up the vast majority of accidents, but these people, as in Australia, make up the vast minority of people.


I guess my main point is that with respect to drunk drivers, as ironic as it sounds, there are two types of drunk drivers, those that do respect others and try to avoid drunk driving and those that do not give a shit and will do it on regular occasions. For the first group, these people will only drink and drive if they their options are extremely limited and will feel bad for it. These people will take advantage of other means if they are available. The second group, these are the people that will drink and drive no matter what and have no respect for anyone else because they either don't care or they think they are a "good drunk driver". These people are the reason why we need harsh drinking and driving laws.

So my idea on a good solution is to polarize these two groups. As realistically as possible, offer easy and cheap alternatives ways to travel to lower the drunk driving for those who do want to avoid it while keeping and maybe extending harsh penalties for those who choose not to take them.

At my university, there is a service where the student body will take turns driving a van around at night, giving free rides to whoever needs transportation. From my personal experiences, this is cheap, easy, and relatively quick. With this service, there is very little excuse to drink and drive. Obviously, this exact service is not realistic on a large city scale, but the idea could somewhat be used.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Don't forget Pierce is in college. He's surrounded by people of a completely different mindset, because they do not yet know anyone who screwed up a year of their life with a DUI, or worse, gotten into a terrible accident or killed someone.

True, I was going to integrate that into this post. I do not know about the people that do get many DUIs and or have gotten an accident, but I do notice trends in the past two years. I noticed that out of the people that do drink and drive, there are those who hate doing it but will if they feel they have little alternative and those that feel comfortable doing it and do nothing to prevent themselves from getting in a bad situation. I am assuming that the first group will eventually learn to plan ahead more effectively and along with more and more people who quit drinking, designated drivers will be much easier to come by. I am also assuming the second group will get more and more comfortable with drunk driving and keep pushing themselves and then eventually get a few DUIs or get into an accident. I know it isn't that clear cut and DUIs and accidents do happen to those who I would consider in the first group but I am generalizing.

While you're waiting to find out which one of your friends it will happen to, Pierce, you would be wise to make sure it isn't you.

I know it will not be me. I quit drinking a year ago and always offer to DD and will even go out of my way to make sure my friends do not drink and drive. I have physically restrained people and have almost gotten into a fist fight about the issue. I am confident in my ability to plan ahead for myself and my friends but even then, especially for those in the young to mid twenties, it is almost impossible to know what will happen during the night so occasionally, bad situations will arise. What I have learned over the past few years is that it is not only disrespectful assholes who have no concern for other people's lives who drink and drive. There are legitimately respectful people who will drink and drive because of planning issues. This has changed my perspective on the issue and hence my different views. I am not advocating that my perspective the correct one but it is what I observe and will probably change as I get older. I am not trying to justify anyone's actions, I strongly disagree with drinking and driving, but I do realize, at least for my demographic, drinking and driving is a reality and I am thinking of possible solution.

Edit - Just in case I wasn't clear, I do not have any sympathy for people who get a DUI. If you are over the limit and drive, no matter the situation, you are taking a known risk. Plus, there is always the chance that you screw over someone else's life besides your own. But, in spite of that, it is sometimes an extreme hassle to not drink and drive for some in particular situations and many people, at least of my age, will take the risk because most people I know in those situations do not get caught or have anything bad happen to them. This is a reality and I think this should be taken into account for any anti-drunk driving law planning.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

over here, the majority of the population doesn't drink then drive. Usually the designated driver wont have any at all, or if they do, maybe just one or two light beers.

Depending on weight, sex, body fat, and how quickly they drink those 1-2 beers, they will fairly easily go over the 0.08 limit by drinking that much alcohol.

According to Wikipedia "However, it is generally accepted that the consumption from sober of one standard drink of alcohol (e.g. 14 grams (17.74 ml) ethanol content by U.S. standard) will increase the average person's BAC roughly 0.02% to 0.05% and would return to 0% about 1.5 to 3 hours later (at a dissipation rate of around 0.015% per hour)."

So one drink is probably OK, but that second drink, depending on a bunch of different variables, might put you into jail. That's where it gets into the gray area. Is a person who has had that second drink an impaired driver? Sometimes I'll feel a little "light headed" after having two drinks. Sometimes, I won't feel at all different after having two drinks. Three drinks, and I'm impaired, without a doubt.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by glatt

Depending on weight, sex, body fat, and how quickly they drink those 1-2 beers, they will fairly easily go over the 0.08 limit by drinking that much alcohol.

According to Wikipedia "However, it is generally accepted that the consumption from sober of one standard drink of alcohol (e.g. 14 grams (17.74 ml) ethanol content by U.S. standard) will increase the average person's BAC roughly 0.02% to 0.05% and would return to 0% about 1.5 to 3 hours later (at a dissipation rate of around 0.015% per hour)."

So one drink is probably OK, but that second drink, depending on a bunch of different variables, might put you into jail. That's where it gets into the gray area. Is a person who has had that second drink an impaired driver? Sometimes I'll feel a little "light headed" after having two drinks. Sometimes, I won't feel at all different after having two drinks. Three drinks, and I'm impaired, without a doubt.

Generally it is acceptable to have one standard drink per hour if you're male and one standard drink about every hour and a half if you're female.

If I were driving I might have 2 drinks if I were going to be there for a few hours, and I wouldn't be having the second if I were getting into the car within an hour, but having said all that, usually I will choose to just not drink if I'm driving. What's the point of taking the risk?

I really don't care what the circumstance is. There's no excuse for drink driving. There are always better options.

[Shawnee123]

Which is exactly why alcohol treatment is important. People will say it's a choice, drinking. I agree with that to some degree, but making the choice in an illness, a disease, may require treatment. We don't discuss treatment for diseases that are attributable to obesity, or not walking a mile a day to stay heart-healthy, but we will discuss costs of treatment for drinking or smoking or drug use, and there will be uprising that these dregs of society don't just pick themselves up by their bootstraps and quit doing what it is that is making them unhealthy.

At least, I think that was the original point of the thread, that it is bound to come up that there are people who will be outraged that Johnny the Alcoholic will get treatment, when Johnny the Alcoholic quit his job some time ago and has no personal insurance.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Which is exactly why alcohol treatment is important. People will say it's a choice, drinking. I agree with that to some degree, but making the choice in an illness, a disease, may require treatment. We don't discuss treatment for diseases that are attributable to obesity, or not walking a mile a day to stay heart-healthy, but we will discuss costs of treatment for drinking or smoking or drug use, and there will be uprising that these dregs of society don't just pick themselves up by their bootstraps and quit doing what it is that is making them unhealthy.

At least, I think that was the original point of the thread, that it is bound to come up that there are people who will be outraged that Johnny the Alcoholic will get treatment, when Johnny the Alcoholic quit his job some time ago and has no personal insurance.

I guess my original intent was to make the point that, although I support the idea of universal health-care, there will be a price to pay in terms of individual freedom. The American tendency to over-do the moralizing will probably lead to ineffective one size fits all interventions similar to Bush era sexual abstinence trainings. We'll end up with nonsense like .05 blood alcohol limits. Keep in mind that this is being written by someone who shouldn't drink even a little.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Griff

~snip~The American tendency to over-do the moralizing will probably lead to ineffective one size fits all interventions similar to Bush era sexual abstinence trainings. ~snip~

Perhaps we'll try prohibition again?

Good thoughts, Griff, there are always multitudes of angles no one sees until the ball really gets rolling. You're a thinker, you are. These issues will certainly become apparent as time goes on, and as those who opposed the health care reform will tell us "should have been careful what you wished for...watch THIS, how you like them poison apples, eh?"

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I just don't believe continuing to lower the drinking limit and raising the consequences will do anything.

Well, it worked for Sweden. Their driving limit is .02, and the recommended penalty for driving with a 1.0 (even if you don't hit someone) is 2 years in prison. It's pretty Draconian, but they do have less than half the alcohol-related fatalities we do (measured per miles driven, so it takes into account their smaller population,) and that's even with a drinking age of 18. On the other hand, there obviously still are some number of drunk drivers in their country, even with the harsh laws.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Well, it worked for Sweden. Their driving limit is .02, and the recommended penalty for driving with a 1.0 (even if you don't hit someone) is 2 years in prison. It's pretty Draconian, but they do have less than half the alcohol-related fatalities we do (measured per miles driven, so it takes into account their smaller population,) and that's even with a drinking age of 18.

I'm sure if we replicated Sweden's drunk driving laws here it would also have an effect of the number of drunk drivers but since drunk driving is something that the vast majority people know is wrong, or initially know is wrong, and do make attempts to avoid, I don't think making the laws even harsher will be as effective. Ideally, working with the population to create alternative solutions would produce better results. From what I've seen, people truly do want to avoid drunk driving but doing so is sometimes too much of a hassle so risks are taken. However, I am not aware of any other ideas or if they are realistic so the current laws may be the only realistic way to curb drunk drivers.

Also, I usually don't like comparing laws from other countries as concrete evidence. I have never been to Sweden but I'm sure the driving and drinking cultures are different than here in the US, especially in the Midwest, so the same laws may produce different results.

On the other hand, there obviously still are some number of drunk drivers in their country, even with the harsh laws.

I have a feeling this is going to be true no matter what as long as people drink, cars are a used form of transportation, and checkpoints are not setup.

[Clodfobble]

Don't forget Pierce is in college. He's surrounded by people of a completely different mindset, because they do not yet know anyone who screwed up a year of their life with a DUI, or worse, gotten into a terrible accident or killed someone.

While you're waiting to find out which one of your friends it will happen to, Pierce, you would be wise to make sure it isn't you.

[piercehawkeye45]

Blah...I have a lot of free time today so I have been thinking a lot about this today so here my summarized thoughts instead of the pretty cluttered stuff I've posted earlier.

As I mentioned many times, I feel there are two types of drunk drivers, the ones that do it because they feel they are "good drunk drivers" and have no respect for others and those that do not like drunk driving but will occasionally get into situations where it is an extreme hassle not to drink and drive. As for laws, I completely agree with extremely strict drunk driving laws as long as the second group is taken into account.

For the first group, there is almost NOTHING our government can do to stop them from drinking and driving. They will do whatever is easiest for them and drinking and driving is almost always that. Besides a few exceptions, no matter how strict we make the laws, these people will continue to drink and drive because they believe they will not get caught and have a general disrespect for everyone else.

The second group, on the other hand, will take into account that drunk driving is strongly unperferable. These people will make sacrifices to try to avoid drunk driving but will if it becomes too much of a hassle. This also means extremely strict laws will have little effect on them because, like the first group, they also will only do it when they feel they will not get caught. But, this group will avoid drunk driving if a realistic alternative is provided.

This means I believe anti-drunk driving laws and planning should include two parts. The first part is prevention. This means setting up realistic means of transporting drunk people that did not effectively plan ahead. An idea off the top of my head would be the subsidizing of five taxi rides a year for those to apply to a certain program (18+). This will not only provide an escape route for those who did not effectively plan but will also show that government is trying to prevent drunk drivers and not just prosecute them, making it harder to justify unplanned instances where drunk driving occurs. The second part is prosecution. This is where the extremely strict drunk driving laws come in. While not solving the problem, this will scare people from the "second group" into using alternative ways of transportation and try to keep people from the "first group" off the streets.

Whether you believe all drunk drivers, no matter the "group", are disrespectful selfish people or not, I would much prefer to pay a little more in taxes to subsidize a free taxi ride than have him or her go to jail for a few years, costing even more money, or potentially kill someone if they only drink and drive on rare occasions.

[monster]

If someone drives after a few drinks, they have a much greater chance of killing or hurting someone than a regular asshat driver. So we have a law to stop them even if they do no damage.

If someone pulls a gun in perceived self defence after a few drinks it's only a crime if they hurt someone innocent.....

If someone has sex with someone else agaianst their will after a few drinks, their drunkenness is used as a defence.

Just sayin'

[Undertoad]

Then there's the heavyweight factor. An ex cow orker of mine was clocked at .10 and did a weekend in jail. But he reports not being impaired at all. He's a daily alcoholic; he works a second job as a bartender at a rum bar. .10 is like his baseline. It's what he wakes up with.

[glatt]

Was he pulled over for driving in a way that made the cops think he was impaired, or was it more random than that? Like a taillight out or a checkpoint?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Then there's the heavyweight factor. An ex cow orker of mine was clocked at .10 and did a weekend in jail. But he reports not being impaired at all. He's a daily alcoholic; he works a second job as a bartender at a rum bar. .10 is like his baseline. It's what he wakes up with.

Doesn't matter if he was impaired or not, it's money maker for the cops.

[Shawnee123]

In my town, they can gun you down the second you walk out of the bar, no questions asked.