Bloody Idiot

[polak]

Originally Posted by 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 the money.

Do you have any sort of source for these numbers?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that almost no one would go to pubs or lounges during the week. Who would feel like arranging a DD to go have a couple beers on the patio on Wednesday?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by 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.

Source please? I'll stand by the words of a good friend who owns several restaurants, selling food is a stupid business to be in. Selling alcohol is where you make money.

[getbak]

The Alberta-specific traffic collision stats can be viewed here: http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/3121.htm

It has stats on every traffic collision between 1998 and 2010. The drunk driving stats are on page 68/69 of each document.

If you look at 2010, there were 307 total fatal collisions, resulting in 344 deaths. The "condition of drivers" numbers total 412 drivers involved in fatal collisions, so there's obviously some collisions where the condition of more than one driver was noted by the officer at the scene.

I don't know if they would only note the condition of the at-fault driver(s) or not. It would distort the numbers if they noted that a person who wasn't at-fault was or wasn't impaired.


As the numbers stand, in 2010, 21.8% of drivers involved in fatal collisions had consumed some amount of alcohol before the collision, and 13.8% were impaired by alcohol. Those numbers are 4.7% and 2.6% for non-fatal injury collisions.


Of course, none of those stats would ever support drunk driving as being in any way safe.

[RougeUnderoos]

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.

Have you had much exposure to alcohol?

What kind of restaurants don't serve booze? Fast food restaurants?

And I don't think the average adult goes out for a meal thinking "I've got X amount of money to spend" and then adjusts the meal accordingly.

And they aren't going to order extra plate of food because they skipped the glass of wine.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by polak

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

You quoted an American insurance company's website for your 'statistics' relating to a problem you have with stats given in a report for Canadian alcohol related accidents, and you are concerned about fudging numbers?

If that's your concern, lets set the record straight:

From A Quick Look at Alcohol-related Crashes in Canada (Emphasis in the original)

This report looks at fatal alcohol-related crashes during the years 2003-2005. In this report, an alcohol-related crash is defined as a crash in which at least one driver of a road motor vehicle had been drinking. Cases where only a pedestrian, a bicyclist, or an operator of a non-road motor vehicle had been drinking are not included.

From the summary on that page:

Alcohol use by drivers was a factor in almost 30% of deaths from vehicle crashes during 2003-2005.

from the rest of the report:

The results of testing showed that more than 83% of drinking drivers killed in crashes during 2003-2005 were legally impaired; that is, had a BAC over 80 mg%.

Even more shocking, almost 56% of all drinking drivers killed in crashes had a BAC that was more than twice the legal limit (higher than 160 mg%).

Slightly over five percent of fatally injured drinking drivers had a BAC between 50 mg% and 80 mg%

Almost 12% of drinking drivers killed in crashes had a BAC lower than 50 mg%.

So that means, the 'exaggeration' that you are up in arms about, even assuming everyone who was .07 or lower was not impacted by alcohol at all, is 5%.

That 5% extra doesn't scare anyone. The reality is you are chasing a boogeyman because of some hard on you have for MADD and your concern that their prohibitionist agenda will somehow hurt your life.

This thread is about why people shouldn't drink and drive, not some ramblings of someone who is scared his booze might be harder to get or his taxes might go up.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Rathji

So that means, the 'exaggeration' that you are up in arms about, even assuming everyone who was .07 or lower was not impacted by alcohol at all, is 5%.

That 5% extra doesn't scare anyone. The reality is you are chasing a boogeyman because of some hard on you have for MADD and your concern that their prohibitionist agenda will somehow hurt your life.

This thread is about why people shouldn't drink and drive, not some ramblings of someone who is scared his booze might be harder to get or his taxes might go up.

A) I'm not sure how it's a "boogeyman" as MADD's agenda is pretty clear IMO.
B) Why wouldn't someone who does not support prohibition be concerned about an organization with a prohibitionist agenda?

[Rathji]

I think being concerned about the agenda is one thing, but bringing it up in a discussion that was initially actually about drunk driving, and not prohibition is odd. The boogeyman reference was likely not well worded, but was referring to the same idea that his actual problem didn't seem to have anything to do with the problem that the thread was about.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Rathji

You quoted an American insurance company's website for your 'statistics' relating to a problem you have with stats given in a report for Canadian alcohol related accidents, and you are concerned about fudging numbers?

If that's your concern, lets set the record straight:

From A Quick Look at Alcohol-related Crashes in Canada (Emphasis in the original)



From the summary on that page:



from the rest of the report:









So that means, the 'exaggeration' that you are up in arms about, even assuming everyone who was .07 or lower was not impacted by alcohol at all, is 5%.

That 5% extra doesn't scare anyone. The reality is you are chasing a boogeyman because of some hard on you have for MADD and your concern that their prohibitionist agenda will somehow hurt your life.

The "one driver" and the "have been drinking" part leads me to believe that it still refers to anything above .00 BAC and doesn't take fault into consideration so the basic logic still applies. If I'm either slammed out of my tree or I just had a single beer and Im sitting at a red light and someone who is completely sober rear ends me going 80 and dies, alcohol is still a "factor".

Those other precentages (17% under the limit, not 5% btw) only refer to accidents where the drinking driver died. You don't know how of these drinking drivers were completely fine (lets say between .01 and .04) and not at fault when they were involved in an accident where others died.

This thread is about why people shouldn't drink and drive, not some ramblings of someone who is scared his booze might be harder to get or his taxes might go up.

Yeah, lets all repost the OP. What a thrilling thread that would be. If you want to do that no one is stopping you.

BTW, If someone doesn't know they shouldn't drink and drive, a thread on an internet forum isn't likely to change there mind.

[polak]

Originally Posted by getbak

Of course, none of those stats would ever support drunk driving as being in any way safe.

And I want to once again restate that I'm in no way trying to say that drinking and driving is okay in anyway. I just have a problem with how these types of numbers are reported. I was also told by someone that they do the same thing with speed being a factor too but I never looked into it.

Oh and I want to explain that I used the US info cause thats the info I was shown when I got into a similar discussion with someone back when I couldn't believe someone could be "against" MADD.

Never thought of looking for Canadian numbers for this but I assumed it was a similar situation (which it appears to be).

[ernie]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Have you had much exposure to alcohol?

What kind of restaurants don't serve booze? Fast food restaurants?

And I don't think the average adult goes out for a meal thinking "I've got X amount of money to spend" and then adjusts the meal accordingly.

And they aren't going to order extra plate of food because they skipped the glass of wine.

No at 40 years old and having run a restaurant I have no exposure to alcohol. Several restaurants sell a very minor amount of booze compared to food. Most of their earnings come from food and non-alcoholic beverage sales. Overall profitability would hardly be affected in most restaurants. Restaurants that rely on alcohol sales are restaurants that don't tend to have a long life because they do not have true control on their costs and pricing.

And yes most adults do have a budget. They know how much money they have to spend on a night out and will budget accordingly. The money will be spent. It may not be spent at that sitting, though certainly many will do so, but it will be spent by having extra night outs.

google the markups it isn't hard to find. Here's one http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/09/...-huge-profits/ A glass of soda costs about 5 cents or so. you pay $2.50. Have 5 refills and the cost is still under 50 cents for that soda. Restaurants look to have 25-35 cents per dollar for food cost on the plate. Taking a bottle of wine they bought for $8 and sold for $24 is a huge markup. You know it's a huge mark up. It disgusts you that it's a huge mark up. The mark up is the same as the plate of food in front of you. Or should be if the manager knows what they are doing.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by ernie

No at 40 years old and having run a restaurant I have no exposure to alcohol. Several restaurants sell a very minor amount of booze compared to food. Most of their earnings come from food and non-alcoholic beverage sales. Overall profitability would hardly be affected in most restaurants. Restaurants that rely on alcohol sales are restaurants that don't tend to have a long life because they do not have true control on their costs and pricing.

And yes most adults do have a budget. They know how much money they have to spend on a night out and will budget accordingly. The money will be spent. It may not be spent at that sitting, though certainly many will do so, but it will be spent by having extra night outs.

google the markups it isn't hard to find. Here's one http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/09/...-huge-profits/ A glass of soda costs about 5 cents or so. you pay $2.50. Have 5 refills and the cost is still under 50 cents for that soda. Restaurants look to have 25-35 cents per dollar for food cost on the plate. Taking a bottle of wine they bought for $8 and sold for $24 is a huge markup. You know it's a huge mark up. It disgusts you that it's a huge mark up. The mark up is the same as the plate of food in front of you. Or should be if the manager knows what they are doing.

Huh. An expert. Who knew?

Anyway, what kind of restaurants are you talking about?

Like I'm not going out for dinner at Denny's and having a couple Canadians with my pan scrambler. Is that the kind of restaurant you are talking about?

Anyway, we've sure gone off on a tangent here. Point is, an adult should be allowed to have a drink and drive home. Zero Tolerance punishes people who have done nothing wrong, based on admittedly brilliant propaganda.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by polak

The "have been drinking" part leads me to believe that it still refers to anything above .00 BAC so the basic logic still applies. If I'm either slammed out of my tree or I just had a single beer and Im sitting at a red light and someone who is completely sober rear ends me going 80 and dies, alcohol is still a "factor".

Those other precentages (17% under the limit, not 5% btw) only refer to accidents where the drinking driver died. You don't know how many people were completely fine (lets say between .01 and .04) when they were involved in accident where others died.

To clarify, the 17% is 5% of 83%, so that's the amount that the 30% number you are complaining about being padded, is raised by. So accounting for your concern, the number is still 25%.

From the rest of the page:

25% of drivers who got into a fatal crash involving one vehicle had been drinking

Obviously at fault.

37% of drinking drivers who got into a fatal crash were involved in a run-off-the-road accident

Obviously not stopped at a light and quite likely at fault.

About 17% of drinking drivers involved in a fatal accident were in a head-on crash.

Not rear ended, but there is a slight chance that the drinking driver is not at fault. I wouldn't put money on it though.

Lets assume that no single vehicle accidents were head on collisions, and that neither head on or single vehicle accidents would possibly qualify for run off the road, that gives us 79% of all these deaths being pretty squarely the fault of the drunk.

Not a lot of room in those stats for the innocent drunk driver being killed by the sober guy. However, lets go with 80% of the remaining 21% being totally innocent drunks, which is a totally absurd assumption, but it makes the math easy, since it just doubles our previously 17%. That changes our 5% error to 10%, so the 'polak approved' amount of fatal accidents that are caused by legally drunk drivers is 20%.

I don't see how that is any less scary of a stat for anyone to parade around.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Rathji

That changes our 5% error to 10%, so the 'polak approved' amount of fatal accidents that are caused by legally drunk drivers is 20%.

I don't see how that is any less scary of a stat for anyone to parade around.

I still think there is an error in how you're converting that into the original stat of "30% of fatalities are alcohol related" but I digress because I'm about to leave work and want to reply to this...

Where on earth did I say that I'm fine with or "approve" any sort of % of fatalities? You just proved to yourself that at least 1/3 of the data is misleading. Thats what I have a problem with. That and MADD's overall agenda under the disguise of a anti-drunk driving organization.

[Rathji]

I meant that it would be a stat that didn't conflict with your specific definition of what alcohol related fatalities should be.

The point is, it is still bad at 20%,even using your definition, that you say places like MADD are twisting.

I don't think your definition is the right one to be using and don't think that there in any harm in counting all deaths, not just ones where the driver was over 0.07. That is an arbitrary line, which anyone who has ever dream understands that a 0.10 for one person can have the same impact as a 0.05 for another in terms of things that matter when driving.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

. That and MADD's overall agenda under the disguise of a anti-drunk driving organization.

Please expand on this and explain it further.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Could care less if people have a beer or drink with supper, but wasn't the same argument made when bars and restaurants went not smoking about how they would all have to shut down? People would adapt.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

Could care less if people have a beer or drink with supper, but wasn't the same argument made when bars and restaurants went not smoking about how they would all have to shut down? People would adapt.

Kind of, except the people who smoke could still go to bars, but they just have to go oustide for a drag.....and that's what they do. Where as with drinking, the bars heavily rely on alcohol sales, which is directly related to the war on casual drinkers. (they don't sell cigarettes).

So yes people will adapt to this, as well, the difference being that people adapted to the new smoking laws by complaining and then still going out to bars, but now they had to step outside to smoke, where as people will adapt to these drinking and driving laws that target the non drunk drivers by not drinking which will affect the bars and resteraunts.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Or they will just make sure to have a designated driver or have someone come pick them up. Though I do agree one or two isn't all bad.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

Or they will just make sure to have a designated driver or have someone come pick them up. Though I do agree one or two isn't all bad.

Not likely from what I've seen. People generally don't go to the trouble of "preparing" to have between 1 and 3 drinks, it's just too much hassle. The more common response to this new law is "I'm worried about this stupid legislation, I'll just pass on drinking tonight."

It really has done exactly what people said it would. It has affected the person having a drink or two with dinner and hasn't addressed the problem drunk drivers, who are the ones out there creating a major danger on the road at night.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Huh. An expert. Who knew?

Anyway, what kind of restaurants are you talking about?

Like I'm not going out for dinner at Denny's and having a couple Canadians with my pan scrambler. Is that the kind of restaurant you are talking about?

Anyway, we've sure gone off on a tangent here. Point is, an adult should be allowed to have a drink and drive home. Zero Tolerance punishes people who have done nothing wrong, based on admittedly brilliant propaganda.

Never said I was an expert just saying what happens in an industry I have worked in and close ties in (relatives who own restaurants). Hell you don't have to believe me simply google and you'll find multiple sources on the internet that say the same thing on what food costs SHOULD be if you are managing things properly and that is 25-35% of what is on the plate. The same as even some of the highest marked up alcohol that isn't wine by the glass. Not all foods are equal...steak and seafood is a struggle to mark up in the same manner because no one wants to pay $35 for a rib eye unless you are at a premium steakhouse. Not all alcohols are equal...wine by the bottle and beer for a restaurant will be higher than simple one ounce drinks (rye and coke etc). On a MOST bills, not all of course, food is the predominant expense for the guest compared to alcohol that by the end of the night food is far and away the biggest source of revenues. So while I'm not an expert I do know that if your food cost per dollar sold is the same as your alcohol cost per dollar sold or near to it and 80% of the nights revenues are food then a restaurant is indeed making the bulk of their money on things other than alcohol. I'm not saying they don't make money on alcohol as they do but the cost of goods sold on average for alcohol in most restaurants is the same as it is for the food on the plate and they simply sell more food (and soft drinks, coffee, tea etc). And it also doesn't mean the restaurant business is easy. Labor will be another 25-30% of your cost (you tend to want 55-60% of your expenses to be from cost of good sold and labor). When everything else is added into the mix (overheads etc) a good restaurant can turn a 5% or so profit. It's a hard business to make money in and an easy one to lose money in but quite simply alcohol sales is not the make it or break it in a properly run place nowadays.

So the question is why do they sell alcohol? Well because they can make a profit with it (never said otherwise) and because it adds to the completion of the restaurant and, yes, the dining experience. But we aren't talking about one restaurant being supposedly impacted but every restaurant. The playing field is equal. People are not going to stay home and not eat at restaurants because they might not be able to have a beer. They'd already do that if it was the case. People are not going to stay away from bars because one in the group will be a DD. At least I've never ever seen any group of people stay away from a bar because they have a DD. Hell a bar will welcome a DD because that DD is going to drink soft drinks all night and likely order some appetizers etc. They don't lose profit on a DD. I will concede that such a move (especially in the states for instance) would have an effect it was a state by state thing instead of a federal thing for restaurants at or near state borders.


Now I know people will think this dirty pool but answer honestly...how would you feel if the person driving the kids on your school bus had just finished a meal where he/she had "a beer or two"? My guess is you wouldn't be happy. Not happy at all. I certainly wouldn't be and if I'm not happy about that why the hell would I want you behind the wheel after "a beer or two"?