|
I'd say there are two independent points here, which people are presenting as though they're in opposition. 1. You shouldn't drink and drive 2. Getting caught drinking and driving is much worse for you if you're poor I don't think "Well just don't drink and drive" is a good answer to point 2.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
It's not like there are any social issues that cause high rates of drunk driving and everyone knows deterrence-based laws work, right? DUI laws are idiotic and based around the knee jerk reaction of "gently caress you" instead of science. Y'all are parroting the same exact arguments Republicans make for everything they want to throw black people in jail forever for. Driving drunk is completely socially acceptable around where I live as long as you don't get caught - I'm literally having a hard time thinking of anyone I know who I haven't witnessed doing it or going out of their way to avoid it. That's a social issue and sticking their heads on a stake outside of city hall isn't going to change it. KillHour fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Jan 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:There, I fixed it for you, that wasn't so hard after all. Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/apagunion/status/1346370951399632897?s=21 SISEA, that incredibly draconian kneejerk bill created in the wake of that really poo poo NYT op-ed, died without getting any attention in committee. Remains to be seen if Sasse and Merkley will reintroduce it in this current Congress. (Goes without saying that the Twitter account I linked here is very NSFW besides the SISEA news.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 15:58
|
|
|
You can make allowances for people being unable to behave like automatons in a lot of cases, but "don't get drunk in a situation where you will be forced to drive yourself somewhere" isn't really like most of those. Though I do admit that having lost someone to a drunk driver I may not be objective in that. I think the real question is whether or not drunk driving laws being punitive are effective deterrent. Most of the research I've seen shows that no individual law, no matter how draconian, really moves the meter on deterrence much. It was shown in a 1991 study by the NIH that synergistic laws (like sobriety stops and preliminary breath tests) do have an effect... so, it would seem that the answer is more laws, rather than harsher or stronger ones. Fines aren't particularly effective at keeping people from doing things, and do harm the poor more than the rich, whether or not that's intended. As objectively as I can look at it, the fact that someone well-connected like Laura Bush can murder someone in a drunken stupor and face virtually no repercussions (and in fact eventually gets to use it as an emotional manipulation to get people to buy her book) while someone poor or non-white can be destroyed by it utterly is a total failing of the system... but that's hardly unique to DUIs. I can't find any specific useful numbers or policies where a country enacted a new type of law or system of laws that brought the rate of drunk drivers down, so I think what's really required isn't stronger laws or harsher penalties, but effective, cheap and widespread access to public transit. It's a systemic problem that remains relatively stable (and is, in fact, pretty similar in a lot of countries that aren't the US. Like, the fatality rates from drunk driving when compared to the total car accident fatality rates in France and Australia and Canada are similar to ours). Sometimes the things we hate aren't really fixable by making people behave better, even if they can, because the problems are created somewhere else. The combo of unfulfilling lives with obscene work/life balance, no access to mental healthcare, easy access to cheap alcohol, the spread-out nature of most places in the US, and the severe lack of public transit or services to get people places they need to be outside of major metro areas, the lovely roads and lovely lighting all combine to make the problem here as bad as it is. My gut instinct is to go "gently caress drunk drivers forever they're scum" but ... that's kinda been the thing we've been doing since the 70's at least, and that hasn't had much effect. So changing some of the other poo poo in our systems is probably the better plan. Ershalim fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Jan 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 15:58
|
|
|
Gort posted:I'd say there are two independent points here, which people are presenting as though they're in opposition. Point 2 has nothing to do with drunk driving in particular. At all. Our justice system being unfairly lenient towards the rich doesn't mean that we should be more lenient about drunk driving.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
hexate posted:You could change this to "I was almost killed by a driver hitting me at a stop light at 50 miles an hour last year.", and it would sound equally believable and mundane. American car culture is insane. The rate of traffic related fatalities actually went up: https://www.curbed.com/2020/10/covid-traffic-deaths-up-speeding.html. Unfortunately, reduced traffic doesn't correlate to fewer accidents. This is why we need safer road designs. E: I assume you're saying diminished need for a daily commute makes the roads safer, sorry if you were not making this claim.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
The other problem with drunk driving laws, is how do you reliably prove someone driving erratically is drunk? America's current method, relying on a racist police force, surprisingly isn't all that reliable! EDIT: ^ and that's true about increased fatalities. Report implied (to me, at least) that the drivers still on the road have been more reckless; if it's only heavy traffic and low speeds that are keeping fatalities down, what does that say about the average driver? This year, I've been left with the realization that I'm not wasting hours of my life driving anywhere each week, and it's nice. It's simultaneously inherently dangerous, time-consuming on a daily basis, and expensive, and it's nice to be able to cut a good chunk of it out of my life. hexate fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Jan 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:Most of the research I've seen shows that no individual law, no matter how draconian, really moves the meter on deterrence much. Yeah, this has been my experience also. It seems to be "likelihood of getting caught" is the main deterrent to crime rather than "severity of punishment". Plus you get that unwanted effect of, "Well if I get caught my life is over so I'll do literally anything to get away if I'm detected" if you jack the punishments up too high.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
Drunk driving ruins a lot of lives but it also helps a lot of people get to work on time so it's impossible to say whether it's good or bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:DUI on record can kill job prospects. They may be restricted to driving completely, or only during daytime and/or going to and from work. They may have to pay for a breathalyzer to be installed in their ignition. Fun fact - a DUI on record prevents you from getting a state license for almost all professions, at least in Texas. A couple of notable exceptions are the state bar and medical board. If you're looking at an OR in action, the only person who is trusted to have DUIs on record is the doctor performing the surgery and the anesthesiologist. The nurses can gently caress off. The PTs for recovery can gently caress off. A lawyer representing a defendant in a DUI case can in fact have DUIs on his record, the state is really chill about that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:03
|
|
|
It's incredibly simple: There is zero excuse for drunk driving. None. Whether or not the punishments for doing so need to be retooled and how to do so is a completely separate conversation that does not alter the undeniable correctness of the first point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:03
|
|
|
KillHour posted:It's not like there are any social issues that cause high rates of drunk driving and everyone knows deterrence-based laws work, right? I'd like to know what social issues you think cause drunk driving, because I don't think there's any "science" behind the idea that poor people are more likely to drive drunk. They're just more likely to be caught and unfairly treated by the legal system. But that has nothing to do with the drunk driving charge, because the poor are treated unfairly by the legal system as a whole. Leniency towards drunk driving in particular doesn't solve that. It would still be more lenient towards the rich.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:04
|
|
|
Gort posted:Yeah, this has been my experience also. It seems to be "likelihood of getting caught" is the main deterrent to crime rather than "severity of punishment". Plus you get that unwanted effect of, "Well if I get caught my life is over so I'll do literally anything to get away if I'm detected" if you jack the punishments up too high. If you get to the point where you've had enough to drink that you're going to get pulled over for it and you have your keys on you, you're probably not in a state to make a logical decision about it. There's a cultural issue where we're like "Yeah, leave it up to the drunk person to decide when they've had too much." It's like letting your kids decide when they've had enough candy and grounding them for a month if it's too much. Xombie posted:I'd like to know what social issues you think cause drunk driving, because I don't think there's any "science" behind the idea that poor people are more likely to drive drunk. They're just more likely to be caught and unfairly treated by the legal system. But that has nothing to do with the drunk driving charge, because the poor are treated unfairly by the legal system as a whole. Why do you assume the social issues would apply only to poor people? The social issue is that binge drinking is normalized combined with our culture of driving everywhere leaves a bunch of drunk people in charge of going "can I drive home like this?" KillHour fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Jan 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:05
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Point 2 has nothing to do with drunk driving in particular. At all. Our justice system being unfairly lenient towards the rich doesn't mean that we should be more lenient about drunk driving. I don't think anyone's suggested being more lenient about drunk driving, the tone of the conversation's been more along the lines of "the law's insufficiently punitive against the rich since they can afford the fines and don't care about being locked out of jobs they don't need anyway"
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:05
|
|
|
Gort posted:Yeah, this has been my experience also. It seems to be "likelihood of getting caught" is the main deterrent to crime rather than "severity of punishment". Plus you get that unwanted effect of, "Well if I get caught my life is over so I'll do literally anything to get away if I'm detected" if you jack the punishments up too high. Drunk drivers being poor judges of their own likelihood to get caught goes hand-in-hand with why it is very illegal. Gort posted:I don't think anyone's suggested being more lenient about drunk driving, the tone of the conversation's been more along the lines of "the law's insufficiently punitive against the rich since they can afford the fines and don't care about being locked out of jobs they don't need anyway" Multiple people have absolutely put this in the frame of "drunk driving in particular targets the poor". This entire conversation is about a pocket veto of extending leniency towards drunk driving specifically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:06
|
|
|
a substance abuse problem is a medical problem
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
Gort posted:I'd say there are two independent points here, which people are presenting as though they're in opposition. More, it's 'How do you craft a penalty that's fair to both the rich and the poor'? Fines and loss of license aren't a significant burden if you are above a certain threshold. It just means you uber more, or hire a car. Some sort of community service where you work off some dollar value in labor hours? If you are wealthy enough this still isn't as much of a burden either because you are in the leisure class or your job offers lots of flexible hours but if you are poor having to keep your, potentially multiple, job and work off time is a significant burden. You don't want habitual drink drivers on the road though, so that a loss of license is inherently unfair to the poor may just be a, 'well too bad' sort of thing. Unless you start subsidizing alternate travel arrangements for convicted drunk drivers? Car pool to and from your job only? *shrug*
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:08
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Leniency towards drunk driving in particular doesn't solve that. It would still be more lenient towards the rich. You seem to be agreeing in a disagreeable manner. You're not wrong about this, it's just that DUIs were the crime being discussed at the time so people said "DUIs are insufficiently punitive towards the rich"
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:08
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Drunk drivers being poor judges of their own likelihood to get caught goes hand-in-hand with why it is very illegal.  Why would anyone think this would work? Like what drunk person is paying attention to how illegal it is?Gort posted:You seem to be agreeing in a disagreeable manner. You're not wrong about this, it's just that DUIs were the crime being discussed at the time so people said "DUIs are insufficiently punitive towards the rich" I don't think laws in general should be punitive at all. If your goal is punishing people who are driving drunk, then I guess the current state is fine. But if your goal is preventing drunk driving, it doesn't do poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:I believe the thought behind that is that people with more money can afford good DUI lawyers and mostly 'get out of it', for lack of a better term. More lenient sentence, not sure about fees, though. My dad once told me he was supposed to hold a case against Vince McMahon's son for a drunk driving offense in New York. The offense would have resulted in Vince McMahon's son losing his license. Vince McMahon's lawyer, however, found out the officer who reported the offense was retiring in 6 months. That would result in the case being easier to process in favor of Vince McMahon's son. So they successfully delayed the case for six months and won. So, I can see the argument from second hand experience that this burdens poor people more than rich people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
KillHour posted:
I think the logic is the other way around, i.e. it's super illegal because people can't make informed and rational decisions when drunk, which undermines their whole basis for being permitted to drive a car.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I don't think laws in general should be punitive at all. If your goal is punishing people who are driving drunk, then I guess the current state is fine. But if your goal is preventing drunk driving, it doesn't do poo poo. I think there's some level of prevention of drunk driving by the current laws against it. I certainly think you'd see more drunk driving if you removed those laws.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:12
|
|
|
Here's a good laugh https://twitter.com/rollcall/status/1346473050078777356
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
I would like to know what Whitmer's justification ends up being. Going against that kind of bipartisan support is surprising.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Here's a good laugh I'm seeing Pence resigning tomorrow trending on Conspiracy Twitter™ quite a bit this morning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Why do you assume the social issues would apply only to poor people? The social issue is that binge drinking is normalized combined with our culture of driving everywhere leaves a bunch of drunk people in charge of going "can I drive home like this?" That isn't a social issue. It's an infrastructure issue. KillHour posted:
The drunker someone is the more likely they are to be a poor judge of their ability to drive. This is how you get the "I drive better when I'm drunk" alcoholics. Drunk people not wanting to drive drunk for fear of getting a DUI is the entire backbone of the rideshare industry. The point is to scare people into planning to not drive home in the first place, rather than wait to see how drunk they get before deciding. Xombie fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Jan 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:I think the logic is the other way around, i.e. it's super illegal because people can't make informed and rational decisions when drunk, which undermines their whole basis for being permitted to drive a car. But how is that going to stop them? It doesn't do anything. Gort posted:I think there's some level of prevention of drunk driving by the current laws against it. I certainly think you'd see more drunk driving if you removed those laws. Maybe on the margins, but going from 'literally everyone drives drunk' to '90% of people drive drunk' is not great for the amount of enforcement around it. Part of it is there are a lot of people who can be over the limit and you'd never know, so it just becomes an extra gently caress you on top of the normal stuff you'd get arrested for if you were driving unsafely. Xombie posted:That isn't a social issue. It's an infrastructure issue. Maybe in big cities, but I've never seen anyone around here call an uber because they drank more than they thought they would. Their car is here and they don't want it towed. Xombie posted:That isn't a social issue. It's an infrastructure issue. You're going to solve an infrastructure issue with punative laws?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Maybe on the margins, but going from 'literally everyone drives drunk' to '90% of people drive drunk' is not great for the amount of enforcement around it. Part of it is there are a lot of people who can be over the limit and you'd never know, so it just becomes an extra gently caress you on top of the normal stuff you'd get arrested for if you were driving unsafely. I don't think 90% of people drive drunk. I think the number's much lower than that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
Xombie posted:I'd like to know what social issues you think cause drunk driving, because I don't think there's any "science" behind the idea that poor people are more likely to drive drunk. They're just more likely to be caught and unfairly treated by the legal system. But that has nothing to do with the drunk driving charge, because the poor are treated unfairly by the legal system as a whole. I don't have specific studies to cite here, but it makes a lot of sense that people with less money are less able to pay for ubers/taxis, often live in areas with shittier public transit, can't decide to throw down money on a hotel room if they don't have any other place to sleep it off, and otherwise end up more pressured to drive after they've had too much to drink. Money makes a lot of things in life a lot easier, including "oh poo poo how do I avoid driving drunk." KillHour posted:But how is that going to stop them? It doesn't do anything. I think you have a real hosed up idea of the prevalence of DUIs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:I think you have a real hosed up idea of the prevalence of DUIs. Maybe it's just my entire family and all of my friends then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:18
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Maybe it's just my entire family and all of my friends then. Sounds like it, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:18
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Here's a good laugh https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1346475563502866433 What the hell is going on here 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:19
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Maybe it's just my entire family and all of my friends then. They ALL have DUIs? That's crazy. Like, a third of Americans don't even drink alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:19
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Sounds like it, yeah. Sounds like you live in a relatively large city where everyone doesn't drive 20 minutes to go to a bar. I'm not saying everyone here gets shitfaced before driving, but everyone here that I know has done it at least once, and regularly drives after having 2-3 beers. Gort posted:They ALL have DUIs? That's crazy. Basically none of them get caught. I'm not talking about getting a DUI, I'm talking about driving after drinking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:19
|
|
|
I went looking for stats and found this:quote:North Dakota – Not only does North Dakota have the highest DUI percentage at 5.17 percent, but adults also report the highest rate of binge drinking in the nation. Edit: OK, you're talking about something different. Still, a third of drinking-age Americans don't drink at all, so "90% of drivers drive drunk" still seems inaccurate
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ChrisPolPsych/status/1346466819352055808?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:21
|
|
|
Gort posted:I went looking for stats and found this: Yeah, sorry if I gave the impression that we're all just crashing our cars into fire hydrants on the daily and our police force is too drunk to take our keys away. But if there's a state where 5+% of people have been caught doing it, you bet your rear end WAY more do it and haven't been caught.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
KillHour posted:Maybe in big cities, but I've never seen anyone around here call an uber because they drank more than they thought they would. Their car is here and they don't want it towed. I'm not sure what your point is. You're not going to get public transportation built in rural areas that aren't populated enough for rideshare. The solution here is still to get people to not go out drinking and driving. quote:You're going to solve an infrastructure issue with punative laws? No? You're the one that brought up infrastructure issues. You're going to deter drunk driving with punitive laws. Space Gopher posted:I don't have specific studies to cite here, but it makes a lot of sense that people with less money are less able to pay for ubers/taxis, often live in areas with shittier public transit, can't decide to throw down money on a hotel room if they don't have any other place to sleep it off, and otherwise end up more pressured to drive after they've had too much to drink. Money makes a lot of things in life a lot easier, including "oh poo poo how do I avoid driving drunk." You're still going to have to make these people not drive drunk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 16:22
|
|