Bloody Idiot

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by polak

I'm confused by what you're trying to argue here?
When people hear "alcohol related" the vast majority assume that a drunk driver caused the accident. Which, by definition, is not the case.

If you start throwing in every single event that includes someone who has had a beer in the past hour or two into your statistic regardless of actual fault or cause, you end up with a bigger number, hence a padded statistic.

If you haven't consumed any alcohol, start driving, get distracted and cause an accident and kill a pedestrian who had beer an hour ago, it's labelled as "alcohol related" which adds to that 30% when in reality it shouldn't, which fudges the number because whether or not that pedestrian had that beer earlier, you still would have hit him and he still would have died.

The ONLY type of incident included in those 'alcohol related' stats, where drinking and driving (not to be confused with legally over the limit to operate a vehicle) is not present, is when a drunk pedestrian is hit by a sober driver.

If your assertion is that this is a statistically meaningful portion of the statistics, then I will strongly disagree and ask that you provide some backing to your claim.

In all other incidents in that classification, it can safely be assumed that the driver had been drinking (BAC above 0.01). That means that, even though they may not have been 'legally DUI' there was alcohol that was a contributing factor, even if it was only a very small factor.

It would be like labelling any fatal accident that involved a driver or pedestrian who had a cell phone on their person as a "distraction related" accident, regardless if they were talking on the phone or not and regardless of who was at fault. The cellphone is a non-factor that is being included in the statistics in order to pad the numbers.

This is only true if the quote you posted included accidents where there was a bottle of beer/wine/etc in the trunk. If those cases were also classified as alcohol related, then I agree with you.

At 0.01 the BAC is a non-factor that is being included to pad numbers.

Why is it a non-factor? Simply because it is legal?

What are the numbers when this 'irrelevant' group is excluded? Without that data, you are simply grasping at straws. Especially when it is extremely likely that the portion of group that is responsible for the most deaths is the portion that is the most highly intoxicated (ie 0.07 or higher).

[rayne008]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I am confused by the point of your post.

30% of fatal accidents involve alcohol, which means either "either a driver, or pedestrian, had a measurable or estimated blood alcohol concentration [BAC] of 0.01 grams per deciliter or above."

Your post seems to advocate that any BAC while operating a vehicle should be criminal, since you are implying that even though people are not breaking the law by driving, they are involved in a disproportionate number of fatal car accidents. Unless of course more than 30% of all drivers on the road at any point in time have a BAC of higher than 0.01, which I seriously doubt.

Dude I don't know what you're drinking, but in no way does this post suggest this.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Rathji

The ONLY type of incident included in those 'alcohol related' stats, where drinking and driving (not to be confused with legally over the limit to operate a vehicle) is not present, is when a drunk pedestrian is hit by a sober driver.

If your assertion is that this is a statistically meaningful portion of the statistics, then I will strongly disagree and ask that you provide some backing to your claim.

In all other incidents in that classification, it can safely be assumed that the driver had been drinking (BAC above 0.01). That means that, even though they may not have been 'legally DUI' there was alcohol that was a contributing factor, even if it was only a very small factor.

You're try to accuse me of generalizing but you're doing the same thing.
I'd argue that there is a good chance that alcohol should not be considered as a contributing factor with a lot of the accidents where the driver who had a BAC greater than .01 alcohol wasn't at fault. There are a lot of situations where there is almost nothing the not-at-fault driver can do to avoid the accident.

This is only true if the quote you posted included accidents where there was a bottle of beer/wine/etc in the trunk. If those cases were also classified as alcohol related, then I agree with you.

Thats fair, but I'd just like to point out, that in non-fatal accidents the simple presence of alcohol is enough for it to be considered "Alcohol-related".

Why is it a non-factor? Simply because it is legal?

What are the numbers when this 'irrelevant' group is excluded? Without that data, you are simply grasping at straws. Especially when it is extremely likely that the portion of group that is responsible for the most deaths is the portion that is the most highly intoxicated (ie 0.07 or higher).

I agree with that, but I think extremely misleading to the public to include such a wide range of situations in this statistic. Like I said earlier, when people hear "Alcohol-related" they almost always assume that the driver that was at fault was drunk which in turn leads to support for groups like MADD and other prohibitionist parties and unfairly plays at emotions.

A statistic for accidents involving a driver who is legally drunk is far more telling (I'm sure it's still pretty high by the way.)

[ernie]

Personally I don't understand why it's so hard for people to not drive if they've had any alcohol. Only 1 or 2 beer at dinner is not an excuse to get behind the wheel UNLESS you have concrete experimental evidence that those 1 or 2 drinks do not impact you in any way.

There is a reason the DD is the guy who doesn't drink not the guy who drinks less.

If you've been drinking don't drive. It's simple. I'm all for zero tolerance in that regard.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by polak

Thats fair, but I'd just like to point out, that in non-fatal accidents the simple presence of alcohol is enough for it to be considered "Alcohol-related".

Is this true? Where did you get this from?

Is it the same for fatal accidents?

The most important point to understand is how many accidents are non alcohol related and how many are alcohol related compared to how many cars on the road and pedestrians (assuming your claim is accurate) are alcohol related vs non related (if that makes sense). I guarantee you will find a correlation between increased alcohol and increased crashes and death. Weather a ticket was warranted does not matter, only the alcohol does.

I believe Freakonomics stated that 1 in 16 cars are driven drunk at all times on the road. On top of that, drunk walking is more dangerous for yourself than driving drunk. Good series of books if you have not read them.

[polak]

Originally Posted by ernie

Personally I don't understand why it's so hard for people to not drive if they've had any alcohol. Only 1 or 2 beer at dinner is not an excuse to get behind the wheel UNLESS you have concrete experimental evidence that those 1 or 2 drinks do not impact you in any way.

There is a reason the DD is the guy who doesn't drink not the guy who drinks less.

If you've been drinking don't drive. It's simple. I'm all for zero tolerance in that regard.

Well then be prepared to deal with the impacts this will have on other things. Your taxes will be raised due to the increase in criminal cases in the courts and for more for Cabs and Transit, Resturants and Bars will have to completely restructure their business, Events such as Flames games or concerts will become more expensive as revenue from alcohol sales decrease and the list goes on and on.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Is this true? Where did you get this from?

Is it the same for fatal accidents?

In the link I posted on the first page. To be fair, it pretains to the US. I didn't look for Canadian specific.

It's different for fatal accidents.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by polak

Well then be prepared to deal with the impacts this will have on other things. Your taxes will be raised due to the increase in criminal cases in the courts and for more for Cabs and Transit, Resturants and Bars will have to completely restructure their business, Events such as Flames games or concerts will become more expensive as revenue from alcohol sales decrease and the list goes on and on.

criminal case - didn't say there was a need for criminal charges. The only financial impact would be on the person who gets the fine. If they want to fight it then fine but ultimately it won't be any different than the minority that fights a speeding ticket.

Cabs and transit - so? if you don't want to pay increased costs then don't drink that night or make sure you have a driver who hasn't. Many already factor this into their evenings activities.

Bars and restaurants restructuring? why? It's an individual responsibility not the business.

I also think you'd be shocked to find that the majority of people already follow the no tolerance rule. It likely wouldn't have a great affect on anything.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by polak

I agree with that, but I think extremely misleading to the public to include such a wide range of situations in this statistic. Like I said earlier, when people hear "Alcohol-related" they almost always assume that the driver that was at fault was drunk which in turn leads to support for groups like MADD and other prohibitionist parties and unfairly plays at emotions.

So your problem can be boiled down to people who dislike and campaign against drunk driving are getting undue support for their cause because the wording of the statistics makes the problem seem worse than it is?

Am I pretty much summarizing that correctly?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by ernie

criminal case - didn't say there was a need for criminal charges. The only financial impact would be on the person who gets the fine. If they want to fight it then fine but ultimately it won't be any different than the minority that fights a speeding ticket.

Cabs and transit - so? if you don't want to pay increased costs then don't drink that night or make sure you have a driver who hasn't. Many already factor this into their evenings activities.

Bars and restaurants restructuring? why? It's an individual responsibility not the business.

I also think you'd be shocked to find that the majority of people already follow the no tolerance rule. It likely wouldn't have a great affect on anything.

Why? Because restaurants make a significant portion of their income from the markups on alcohol sales. If people can't have a glass of wine at dinner that income is gone and will have to be made up elsewhere.

And a majority of people already do this? I call BS.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by ernie

Personally I don't understand why it's so hard for people to not drive if they've had any alcohol. Only 1 or 2 beer at dinner is not an excuse to get behind the wheel UNLESS you have concrete experimental evidence that those 1 or 2 drinks do not impact you in any way.

There is a reason the DD is the guy who doesn't drink not the guy who drinks less.

If you've been drinking don't drive. It's simple. I'm all for zero tolerance in that regard.

Zero Tolerance always works perfectly!

A 200 pound man having a beer with his dinner is obviously in some way intoxicated and can't be trusted to walk home, let alone drive his murdermobile home.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by ernie

Personally I don't understand why it's so hard for people to not drive if they've had any alcohol. Only 1 or 2 beer at dinner is not an excuse to get behind the wheel UNLESS you have concrete experimental evidence that those 1 or 2 drinks do not impact you in any way.

There is a reason the DD is the guy who doesn't drink not the guy who drinks less.

If you've been drinking don't drive. It's simple. I'm all for zero tolerance in that regard.

You really think one beer is going to cause a 200 lb man to be unable to drive a car? Really?

You'd better make sure that anyone in any sort of situation that might mildly affect their driving ability should also not be driving.

Have a cold? Don't drive because you might distract yourself while sneezing.l

Didn't get 8 hours of sleep last night? Don't drive because you might be tired and fall asleep.

Eat a heavy meal with lots of carbs? Don't drive because you might get sleepy as well.

Is it dark out? Don't drive because your visibility is impaired.

[polak]

Originally Posted by ernie

criminal case - didn't say there was a need for criminal charges. The only financial impact would be on the person who gets the fine. If they want to fight it then fine but ultimately it won't be any different than the minority that fights a speeding ticket.

Judges and prosecuters all need to be paid. If you give out fines, you need to be able to fight them. This will also clog up the system even more.

Cabs and transit - so? if you don't want to pay increased costs then don't drink that night or make sure you have a driver who hasn't. Many already factor this into their evenings activities.

You think only the users pay for the transit and cabs? Where do you think CT gets their funding from? Who do you think licenses and registers cabs?

Taxes.

Even if you put all increased costs on the users, you'll end up hurting those that rely on these services on a daily basis the most.

Bars and restaurants restructuring? why? It's an individual responsibility not the business.

How are they going to make up the lost sales of alcohol?

I also think you'd be shocked to find that the majority of people already follow the no tolerance rule. It likely wouldn't have a great affect on anything.

I think you would be shocked to find out how many people have no such policy.

Originally Posted by Rathji

So your problem can be boiled down to people who dislike and campaign against drunk driving are getting undue support for their cause because the wording of the statistics makes the problem seem worse than it is?

Am I pretty much summarizing that correctly?

If you think MADD is still solely about drunk driving you should really read up on them a bit more. You could start with this quote from the founder who left the organization in 1985.

It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned," said Mrs. Lightner, who founded MADD after her daughter was killed by a drunk driver. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-035702-2222r/

[ernie]

Originally Posted by valo403

Why? Because restaurants make a significant portion of their income from the markups on alcohol sales. If people can't have a glass of wine at dinner that income is gone and will have to be made up elsewhere.

Sorry don't buy it. Many restaurants don't even offer alcohol or serve very little of it. If all businesses are losing liquor sales because of it the market responds by adjusting other prices. The customer has x amount of money to spend for the evening they will spend it. Buying more appetizers etc which coupled with greater margins compensates. I think you'll find that while markups are high the actual income derived from alcohol for most restaurants is low. Certainly nothing compared to the income and profit derived from a soft drink which is by far the most ordered drink at every restaurant.

Restaurants and bars concentrating on nightlife aren't going to be adversely affected because one person in a group is not drinking (which tends to have the effect of the other people drinking more).

And a majority of people already do this? I call BS.

Everybody I know does. It's just not worth it even if you are technically under the limit you are affected far before hitting that limit. I think you'll find that places with zero tolerance laws have not had the negatives that have been mentioned.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by ernie

Sorry don't buy it. Many restaurants don't even offer alcohol or serve very little of it. If all businesses are losing liquor sales because of it the market responds by adjusting other prices. The customer has x amount of money to spend for the evening they will spend it. Buying more appetizers etc which coupled with greater margins compensates. I think you'll find that while markups are high the actual income derived from alcohol for most restaurants is low. Certainly nothing compared to the income and profit derived from a soft drink which is by far the most ordered drink at every restaurant.

I would bet money that you have never worked in a licensed eating establishment.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by ernie

Sorry don't buy it. Many restaurants don't even offer alcohol or serve very little of it. If all businesses are losing liquor sales because of it the market responds by adjusting other prices. The customer has x amount of money to spend for the evening they will spend it. Buying more appetizers etc which coupled with greater margins compensates. I think you'll find that while markups are high the actual income derived from alcohol for most restaurants is low. Certainly nothing compared to the income and profit derived from a soft drink which is by far the most ordered drink at every restaurant.

Restaurants and bars concentrating on nightlife aren't going to be adversely affected because one person in a group is not drinking (which tends to have the effect of the other people drinking more).

Everybody I know does. It's just not worth it even if you are technically under the limit you are affected far before hitting that limit. I think you'll find that places with zero tolerance laws have not had the negatives that have been mentioned.

Sorry, you have no idea what you're talking about.

And nobody I know does. So that leaves us where exactly?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by polak

If you think MADD is still solely about drunk driving you should really read up on them a bit more. You could start with this quote from the founder who left the organization in 1985.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-035702-2222r/

I am going to assume your answer to my question is yes.

[polak]

Originally Posted by ernie

Sorry don't buy it. Many restaurants don't even offer alcohol or serve very little of it. If all businesses are losing liquor sales because of it the market responds by adjusting other prices. The customer has x amount of money to spend for the evening they will spend it. Buying more appetizers etc which coupled with greater margins compensates. I think you'll find that while markups are high the actual income derived from alcohol for most restaurants is low. Certainly nothing compared to the income and profit derived from a soft drink which is by far the most ordered drink at every restaurant.

Considering most resturants offer free refills for $3 soft drinks, I seriously doubt that they earn more in sales from that then they do off of a $6-$8 beer. If this was the case, why even bother with a "lounge" area?

How on earth would you expect something like Wing Nights to be profitable? I'd imagine pubs would be devestated.

Everybody I know does. It's just not worth it even if you are technically under the limit you are affected far before hitting that limit. I think you'll find that places with zero tolerance laws have not had the negatives that have been mentioned.

There are so many things that have at least some effect on a persons ability to drive on a day to day basis that using your logic, driving should be illegal, period.

[ernie]

The highest marked up items in a typical restaurant:

Fountain soda: 20 times
Green salads: 8 times
Pastas: 6-10 times
Eggs: 5 times
Pizza: 8 times

wine by the glass is the highest marked up alcohol item in a restaurant: 5 times

Alcohol is indeed marked up but it in a well run restaurant cost of food good sold don't tend to make up any more than the cost of alcohol goods sold. Most restaurants run both those costs at around 30% with labor being another 25-30%. Surprised? That's because no one even takes into account the cost of a liquor license and maintaining that license. The cost of having a specialized person mixing drinks. The cost of extra glassware that is broken. The extra cost of insurance for a restaurant that serves an appreciable amount of alcohol. In a well run restaurant gone are the days where it is alcohol that makes you your money.

No one you knows follows a no drink rule? Well that's too bad when it is very well established that any alcohol level has an effect on your ability to safely drive. You make your choice and I'll make mine. We may also choose to speed even though that is also not safe...the difference is you take your chances and pay your fine. An alcohol fine IMO shouldn't be anything different. Take your chances and pay your fine and decide if you want to do it.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I am going to assume your answer to my question is yes.

Yup. Sorry I don't support the fudging of numbers to help "scare" people into added legslations and restrictions that are unnecessary.