A Simple Fix for Drunken Driving: Modest, Immediate Penalties(wsj.com)
wsj.com
A Simple Fix for Drunken Driving: Modest, Immediate Penalties
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-simple-fix-for-drunken-driving-1439564251
252 comments
em3rgent0rdr(1)
The program sounds like a very targeted, but also very invasive, ban on alcohol.
> Sobriety experienced not only a 12% drop in repeat drunken-driving arrests but also a 9% drop in domestic-violence arrests.
An interesting fact to consider when people talk about how substance abuse bans create "victimless crimes."
> Sobriety experienced not only a 12% drop in repeat drunken-driving arrests but also a 9% drop in domestic-violence arrests.
An interesting fact to consider when people talk about how substance abuse bans create "victimless crimes."
I don't think that most people are usually talking about all substance abuse bans, but rather specific substances like marijuana or psychedelics. In fact, many defenders of certain drugs will mention the dangers and harms of alcohol in comparison to the banned drug.
It's a little amusing to see people who have alcohol as a major part of their life respond negatively to other drugs with a much smaller social impact.
edit: or, from another perspective, let's say we find 8 hours of sleep a night, a better diet with fewer inflammatory foods, plenty of water, and an hour of exercise a day reduce violence by 40% in total. We criminalize not following this exercise program.
While it's damaging on a societal level if people don't abide by the Healthy Lifestyle, on the individual level most people would describe it as a victimless crime and say the government should not be able to regulate these decisions. (Or would they, if the effect was that strong?)
Whereas, on the opposite end of the spectrum, taking a pill with meth and PCP might increase the risk so much that very, very few people would call it "victimless" or wish to leave that decision up to the individual.
It's a little amusing to see people who have alcohol as a major part of their life respond negatively to other drugs with a much smaller social impact.
edit: or, from another perspective, let's say we find 8 hours of sleep a night, a better diet with fewer inflammatory foods, plenty of water, and an hour of exercise a day reduce violence by 40% in total. We criminalize not following this exercise program.
While it's damaging on a societal level if people don't abide by the Healthy Lifestyle, on the individual level most people would describe it as a victimless crime and say the government should not be able to regulate these decisions. (Or would they, if the effect was that strong?)
Whereas, on the opposite end of the spectrum, taking a pill with meth and PCP might increase the risk so much that very, very few people would call it "victimless" or wish to leave that decision up to the individual.
This is not a ban on alcohol and it's not really invasive.
They can still access cheap easy alcohol (legally even?), like anyone can access illegal crack.
And pretty sure they don't have to do the program, they can just lose their license and take their appropriate punishment.
This is about offering a medical solution to people with a problem, not a ban.
It also catches up people without problems but as above they have chosen it as a better 'punishment' and given they don't have a problem, hopefully being caught once it will also give them a life lesson.
They can still access cheap easy alcohol (legally even?), like anyone can access illegal crack.
And pretty sure they don't have to do the program, they can just lose their license and take their appropriate punishment.
This is about offering a medical solution to people with a problem, not a ban.
It also catches up people without problems but as above they have chosen it as a better 'punishment' and given they don't have a problem, hopefully being caught once it will also give them a life lesson.
> An interesting fact to consider when people talk about how substance abuse bans create "victimless crimes."
I don't see how this affects the victimless crime argument.
It's exactly as if you made a law forbidding people from living or hanging out together. Domestic-violence arrests would plummet, but the victimless argument would still be valid: living with someone else is not the problem, violence is.
I don't see how this affects the victimless crime argument.
It's exactly as if you made a law forbidding people from living or hanging out together. Domestic-violence arrests would plummet, but the victimless argument would still be valid: living with someone else is not the problem, violence is.
The difference is, alcohol has a direct causal effect with violence: making people violent or causing them to act on their violent tendencies.
With Prohibition in the United States, we discovered another interesting effect: heavy-handed restriction of alcohol lead to a surge in violent crimes and government corruption. It got so bad, that the original proponents of the 18th amendment joined with others to overturn it only 13 years later. It's worth pointing out how we've tried to "ban" alcoholism before.
There are two different issues: whether Prohibition's benefits outweighed it's costs, and whether regulation of alcohol use is fundamentally illegitimate. When people invoke the "victimless crime" trope, they are talking about the latter. But if keeping certain people from drinking reduces domestic violence measurably, clearly the activity does create risk for the public. That makes it fundamentally legitimate to regulate that activity, and the question then shifts to the efficacy of any particular sort of regulation.
Put another way: why are we seemingly okay with banning alcohol use for people who have had a DUI but we wouldn't be okay with banning masturbation or gay sex even for convicted felons? Because the latter are truly victimless activities. Substance use is, in contrast, an activity that creates risk to the public but is hard to regulate without major side effects. So targeted bans in substance abuse could be effective while overcoming th enforcement side effects of a gener ban, and would be legitimate because substance use isn't a "victimless crime."
Put another way: why are we seemingly okay with banning alcohol use for people who have had a DUI but we wouldn't be okay with banning masturbation or gay sex even for convicted felons? Because the latter are truly victimless activities. Substance use is, in contrast, an activity that creates risk to the public but is hard to regulate without major side effects. So targeted bans in substance abuse could be effective while overcoming th enforcement side effects of a gener ban, and would be legitimate because substance use isn't a "victimless crime."
> That makes it fundamentally legitimate to regulate that activity, and the question then shifts to the efficacy of any particular sort of regulation.
A common issue with regulation is that the regulators cannot be trusted to act with wisdom or moderation or honesty. One of Washington State's own prohibition enforcement agents became its greatest bootlegger [1], for example. Roy served illegal booze to politicians, police, and citizens alike, and was treated with kid gloves when eventually arrested.
This dilemma -- of how to design a regulatory program to resist capture by the people entrusted to execute it -- makes it very difficult for me to understand how you can just hand-wave past the question of legitimacy.
Put another way: There is a train on the tracks that is going to run into one person. You could switch the tracks and save the person, but the train will then run into 5 people. What do you do?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Olmstead
A common issue with regulation is that the regulators cannot be trusted to act with wisdom or moderation or honesty. One of Washington State's own prohibition enforcement agents became its greatest bootlegger [1], for example. Roy served illegal booze to politicians, police, and citizens alike, and was treated with kid gloves when eventually arrested.
This dilemma -- of how to design a regulatory program to resist capture by the people entrusted to execute it -- makes it very difficult for me to understand how you can just hand-wave past the question of legitimacy.
Put another way: There is a train on the tracks that is going to run into one person. You could switch the tracks and save the person, but the train will then run into 5 people. What do you do?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Olmstead
But if keeping certain people from drinking reduces domestic violence measurably, clearly the activity does create risk for the public. That makes it fundamentally legitimate to regulate that activity, and the question then shifts to the efficacy of any particular sort of regulation.
That's an enormous assumption that is being made. What about the social deadweight loss from a person's freedom and personal agency being diminished through substance bans?
That's an enormous assumption that is being made. What about the social deadweight loss from a person's freedom and personal agency being diminished through substance bans?
That's a fancy way of saying "its ok to beat women because personal freedom"? Or did I interpret your $2 words wrong?
Rayiner appears to be talking about bans for a carefully defined small section of society - people with criminal behaviour when drunk.
Vezzy-Fnord appears to be talking about the problem of bans when applied to everyone.
Vezzy-Fnord appears to be talking about the problem of bans when applied to everyone.
It's almost as if you deliberately chose the least charitable interpretation humanly possible. I'd hate to see what other sophistry you'd employ.
Also I'm quite amused how the original post referenced domestic violence and you immediately jump to it beating women.
In any event, I was referring to the use of substances and the right to determine one's own destiny.
Also I'm quite amused how the original post referenced domestic violence and you immediately jump to it beating women.
In any event, I was referring to the use of substances and the right to determine one's own destiny.
Um, you quoted the phrase about domestic violence, right? And 99% of domestic violence is against women. What did I miss, exactly?
And 99% of domestic violence is against women.
Even the NCADV puts it at 85%, which is still under heavy dispute from researchers in the gender symmetry disciplines of IPV research. A 2010 CDC report still puts men much higher than this: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a...
Not sure what tripe you've been reading.
Even the NCADV puts it at 85%, which is still under heavy dispute from researchers in the gender symmetry disciplines of IPV research. A 2010 CDC report still puts men much higher than this: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a...
Not sure what tripe you've been reading.
Not necessarily.
> The ‘natural experiment’ of cross-cultural study finds levels of variance which rule out any direct causal effects of alcohol on behaviour. We have already noted that in some societies drunken aggression and belligerence are commonplace, while in others the same doses of ethanol result in quite opposite behaviour, characterised by calmness, passivity and good humour. [1]
[1] http://www.sirc.org/publik/drinking4.html
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9273914
> The ‘natural experiment’ of cross-cultural study finds levels of variance which rule out any direct causal effects of alcohol on behaviour. We have already noted that in some societies drunken aggression and belligerence are commonplace, while in others the same doses of ethanol result in quite opposite behaviour, characterised by calmness, passivity and good humour. [1]
[1] http://www.sirc.org/publik/drinking4.html
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9273914
Are you arguing that there isn't a causal effect between people living together and domestic violence?
Or people who are more violent tend to drink more?
Except the experiment in this article disproves that possible direction of causation. If violent people were more likely to drink more, then violence wouldn't have gone down, as it did, when the courts forcibly kept them from drinking.
You're assuming it was the lack of drinking that caused the drop in violence, rather than the regular contact with law enforcement officials.
> The program sounds like a very targeted, but also very invasive, ban on alcohol.
Well, you only get hit by it if you drive drunk (and get caught) once. (Maybe that's what you meant by "targeted".) Once someone has driven drunk, you can lower the hammer on the driving part (loss of car/license), or on the drinking part. It seems less destructive to lower the hammer on the drinking.
Well, you only get hit by it if you drive drunk (and get caught) once. (Maybe that's what you meant by "targeted".) Once someone has driven drunk, you can lower the hammer on the driving part (loss of car/license), or on the drinking part. It seems less destructive to lower the hammer on the drinking.
It's useful to frame it that way -- the law is about doing two legal things, together.
Forcing violators to stop driving can seriously damage their lives (remove their ability to earn a living, see friends/loved ones, etc.), but hey, they're still allowed to get drunk!
It's seems in retrospect like needlessly cruel punishment, when "force violators to stop drinking" is the other option.
Forcing violators to stop driving can seriously damage their lives (remove their ability to earn a living, see friends/loved ones, etc.), but hey, they're still allowed to get drunk!
It's seems in retrospect like needlessly cruel punishment, when "force violators to stop drinking" is the other option.
> The program sounds like a very targeted, but also very invasive, ban on alcohol.
You could say the same of prison sentences for alcohol-related offenses. Which is more invasive?
You could say the same of prison sentences for alcohol-related offenses. Which is more invasive?
So it's like that, then...
The idea that prisoners have no access to alcohol (among other things) does not seem particularly reasonable to me.
I see that perhaps I worded this in such a way that I should clarify. I'm trying to say that I believe that prisoners who want alcohol are able to obtain it in spite of the prohibitions on it.
Okay, now I'm really curious at who disagrees with that and why? I have known both inmates and prison workers and have not heard of anywhere that one is unable to obtain alcohol.
I don't care if you downmod this again, but at least explain why you think I'm wrong.
I don't care if you downmod this again, but at least explain why you think I'm wrong.
This doesn't seem like an alternative to prison for more serious or recurring DUIs but rather an alternative to revoking driving privileges for first or second offenders.
Yes, it's not unusual to curtail certain freedoms of a person who broke the law.
Alcohol is especially associated with increased risk for violence. Other drugs, not so much.
Most violence related to illicit drugs is not caused by intoxication, but rather by fighting and stealing between drug dealers.
So there is good arguement that drug prohibition increases violence by creating a criminal black-market (where people turn to violence rather than police and laws to resolve disputes) and by encouraging alcohol use rather than use of safer, less violence-inducing drugs.
Most violence related to illicit drugs is not caused by intoxication, but rather by fighting and stealing between drug dealers.
So there is good arguement that drug prohibition increases violence by creating a criminal black-market (where people turn to violence rather than police and laws to resolve disputes) and by encouraging alcohol use rather than use of safer, less violence-inducing drugs.
Addiction is a useful predictor of violent behaviour.
Previous violence is a better predictor. Both combined is stronger still.
Mental illness by itself is a weak predictor (vast mojority of people with metal illness are not violet) but when you combine mental illness with addiction, or previous violence, or both, you get a strong predictor of violent behaviour.
It's true that the illegality of drugs creates more violence. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the risks.
Targetted bans for individuals who have shown that intoxication makes them more likely to harm other people seem reasonable.
Previous violence is a better predictor. Both combined is stronger still.
Mental illness by itself is a weak predictor (vast mojority of people with metal illness are not violet) but when you combine mental illness with addiction, or previous violence, or both, you get a strong predictor of violent behaviour.
It's true that the illegality of drugs creates more violence. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the risks.
Targetted bans for individuals who have shown that intoxication makes them more likely to harm other people seem reasonable.
> The program sounds like a very targeted, but also very invasive, ban on alcohol.
No kidding. It's in South Dakota, with a 10% (one of the highest) native american population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_Native_Americans
No kidding. It's in South Dakota, with a 10% (one of the highest) native american population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_Native_Americans
I haven't read much into it, but I assume this is a voluntary program. If you want to keep driving you can take part, but otherwise you'd have a standard sentence.
[deleted]
among my peer group, uber/lyft have done more to curb drunk driving than anything else. in fact i'm going to go ahead and say it's probably the only thing that has had any real impact, since nobody i know has ever gotten a DUI and i've seen some really risky shit go down.
scare tactics and huge fines (associated with pullovers and checkpoints which are super low probability events) just don't work, that's for sure. i know of people who literally drove drunk for YEARS until uber came along, then stopped entirely.
scare tactics and huge fines (associated with pullovers and checkpoints which are super low probability events) just don't work, that's for sure. i know of people who literally drove drunk for YEARS until uber came along, then stopped entirely.
oh goodness yes
In my early twenties I would occasionally drive home “tipsy” — what felt like tipsy at the time; in retrospect, I was as drunk as a skunk. But there were no alternatives! I lived in a spread out western city, taxis were unheard of.
Threats and punishments don’t work on young people who have a psychological sense of invulnerability. The best way to curb drunk driving is through practical solutions that have immediate and obvious effectiveness.
All that said, I’m impressed with the psychology behind this program, and it’s nice to see policy that aims at curbing and solving destructive behavior instead of profiting off it in the form of fines.
In my early twenties I would occasionally drive home “tipsy” — what felt like tipsy at the time; in retrospect, I was as drunk as a skunk. But there were no alternatives! I lived in a spread out western city, taxis were unheard of.
Threats and punishments don’t work on young people who have a psychological sense of invulnerability. The best way to curb drunk driving is through practical solutions that have immediate and obvious effectiveness.
All that said, I’m impressed with the psychology behind this program, and it’s nice to see policy that aims at curbing and solving destructive behavior instead of profiting off it in the form of fines.
> But there were no alternatives!
Are you seriously suggesting you had no better alternative than to drive drunk?
There were at least three alternatives available: Don't drink, get a ride with someone sober, or walk/bike/etc.
Are you seriously suggesting you had no better alternative than to drive drunk?
There were at least three alternatives available: Don't drink, get a ride with someone sober, or walk/bike/etc.
No alternatives within the acceptable cost window from his perspective. Of course there are alternatives, sleep on the street, whatever. But those aren't real when making impaired decisions.
That's why you make the decision to not get impaired in the first place, when deciding not to drink because there's no safe way to get home if you do. "If I drink this alcohol, I will then drink even more, followed by a nontrivial chance of murdering someone while trying to get home" should not be considered a choice that's acceptable to get wrong.
I've gone out for a few beers with co-workers and found myself having had a few more than I meant to on a couple of occasions. It's entirely possible to end up in no shape to drive with absolutely no ill intent.
To argue "but you knew when you were drinking that 3rd beer!!..." is all well and good, but the point of going out is to enjoy your friends company and have fun, not carefully monitor your alcohol consumption. The lack of taxis, buses, trains, etc in many states is a major contributor to drunk driving.
To argue "but you knew when you were drinking that 3rd beer!!..." is all well and good, but the point of going out is to enjoy your friends company and have fun, not carefully monitor your alcohol consumption. The lack of taxis, buses, trains, etc in many states is a major contributor to drunk driving.
Just don’t drink at all when you drive? I don’t know why you think it acceptable to drink anything at all before driving.
I think it’s unacceptable for me to drink anything at all when I plan on driving. That way I have never ever been in a situation where I had to drive while being drunk. It’s a quite simple heuristic …
I think it’s unacceptable for me to drink anything at all when I plan on driving. That way I have never ever been in a situation where I had to drive while being drunk. It’s a quite simple heuristic …
You're right, nobody should drink ever because they might at some point in the future have to drive. Problem solved!
I think it's acceptable to drink some amount before driving because I understand the physiological processes that turn alcohol into not-alcohol and therefore that at some point after I drink, I will be OK to drive. If that wasn't the case then having a drink would be a big decision, after which a person could never drive a car again.
The question is proximity. If we go for a few beers and then walk next door and have dinner (without beers) then I think it's safe to drive home. An hour drinking two beers, an hour eating dinner, and there should be little to no alcohol left in your system when you drive. Fine upstanding citizens do this all the time.
I think it's acceptable to drink some amount before driving because I understand the physiological processes that turn alcohol into not-alcohol and therefore that at some point after I drink, I will be OK to drive. If that wasn't the case then having a drink would be a big decision, after which a person could never drive a car again.
The question is proximity. If we go for a few beers and then walk next door and have dinner (without beers) then I think it's safe to drive home. An hour drinking two beers, an hour eating dinner, and there should be little to no alcohol left in your system when you drive. Fine upstanding citizens do this all the time.
Huh. Looks like I misunderstood "occasionally" in the ancestor as "regularly". Yes, accidents absolutely can happen.
> But those aren't real when making impaired decisions.
The comment I replied to was, presumably, written while unimpaired and with the benefit of hindsight.
The comment I replied to was, presumably, written while unimpaired and with the benefit of hindsight.
From the standpoint of understanding human behavior at scale, the alternatives you offered are unworkable.
People are going to drink, they are going to do it in social environments beyond their homes, and they are going to return to their homes. A realistic solution involves recognizing these centuries-old truths and minimizing the inherent risk. Water flows downhill, and hitting it with a stick won’t change that.
People are going to drink, they are going to do it in social environments beyond their homes, and they are going to return to their homes. A realistic solution involves recognizing these centuries-old truths and minimizing the inherent risk. Water flows downhill, and hitting it with a stick won’t change that.
Walking and biking are not always options, especially when you can get a DUI for riding a bike drunk or a drunk-and-disorderly for being drunk in public (on your walk home).
Drunk biking is illegal in many jurisdictions.
> Members of Alcoholics Anonymous like to joke that when alcoholics get arrested for drunken driving enough times, it finally sinks in that they need to make a change in their life, so they quit…driving.
That is great in areas where Uber/Lyft operate, but in rural areas, there is no public transportation, no taxis, etc. In these areas, a designated driver is really the only responsible option.
There is so much more to this experiment than drunk driving!
It shows that modest, swift, carefully metered punishment is a lot more effective than the more traditional slow, but heavy punishment.
This is a big deal, because it shows a promising path to dramatically reduce the US prison population. Don't mind the drunk driving, think about all of the crimes out there, and all of the people who got a hammer dropped on them.
It shows that modest, swift, carefully metered punishment is a lot more effective than the more traditional slow, but heavy punishment.
This is a big deal, because it shows a promising path to dramatically reduce the US prison population. Don't mind the drunk driving, think about all of the crimes out there, and all of the people who got a hammer dropped on them.
As a parent of a difficult child, this is not at all surprising.
What little evidenced-based parenting advice is out there[1] suggests the same thing: taken individually, immediate minor punishments are as effective as major punishments. The big advantage comes with the fact that the parent can be more consistent as minor punishments are typically less work than large ones. Consistent annoyances are better at provoking change than occasional calamity.
1: If you thought the story for evidence-based medicine was bad, just skim through the parenting books at a book store.
What little evidenced-based parenting advice is out there[1] suggests the same thing: taken individually, immediate minor punishments are as effective as major punishments. The big advantage comes with the fact that the parent can be more consistent as minor punishments are typically less work than large ones. Consistent annoyances are better at provoking change than occasional calamity.
1: If you thought the story for evidence-based medicine was bad, just skim through the parenting books at a book store.
The result here isn't what you said:
> taken individually, immediate minor punishments are as effective as major punishments
The result here is that frequent minor punishments are 72% more effective than infrequent major punishments (see the article on Hawaii's 5 year study of this approach linked to by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10064425).
> taken individually, immediate minor punishments are as effective as major punishments
The result here is that frequent minor punishments are 72% more effective than infrequent major punishments (see the article on Hawaii's 5 year study of this approach linked to by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10064425).
If I'm understanding right, grandparent isn't saying "effectiveness(minor, frequent) == effectiveness(major, infrequent)"; they're saying "effectiveness(minor) == effectiveness(major) && effectiveness(frequent) > effectiveness(infrequent)".
That's exactly what I was saying, though this (and my original comment) was a simplification.
That seems completely consistent with my original quote of "Consistent annoyances are better at provoking change than occasional calamity."
My point was a single minor punishment is about as effective as a single major punishment. It's more complicated than that of course, (sometimes a single major punishment is more effective, sometimes a major punishment is actually counterproductive), but in any event, frequency seems to be much more important than severity.
My point was a single minor punishment is about as effective as a single major punishment. It's more complicated than that of course, (sometimes a single major punishment is more effective, sometimes a major punishment is actually counterproductive), but in any event, frequency seems to be much more important than severity.
It's not the novelty of this approach that excites me, it's the evidence of it working so well.
We can take this data to a legislature and lobby for new treatment plans. A parent's hunch will not carry the same weight.
We can take this data to a legislature and lobby for new treatment plans. A parent's hunch will not carry the same weight.
Evidence-based politics is even less popular than evidence-based medicine.
I think your point is too blunt in its cynicism, it's not too useful this way.
Evidence is currency, and so are demagoguery, posturing, campaign money, endorsements, promises, actual political platform, public sentiments, etc. Sadly, evidence does not trump all else. Luckily, even a modest amount of evidence currency can tip the scales of the outcome.
I would like to draw your attention to a media campaign waged in recent month by forces unknown to reduce harshness of the US criminal justice system. It's pretty much every week that I get to read an article about in the New York Times, and they all refer to some sort of research being released, or a small investigation into a particular injustice. Now we get this article from the Wall Street Journal. You know it's on when both the NYT and the WSJ converge on something. The tide is turning rapidly away from "Tough On Crime" to "Measured Response", and this evidence will be a contributing factor in this sea-change.
Evidence is currency, and so are demagoguery, posturing, campaign money, endorsements, promises, actual political platform, public sentiments, etc. Sadly, evidence does not trump all else. Luckily, even a modest amount of evidence currency can tip the scales of the outcome.
I would like to draw your attention to a media campaign waged in recent month by forces unknown to reduce harshness of the US criminal justice system. It's pretty much every week that I get to read an article about in the New York Times, and they all refer to some sort of research being released, or a small investigation into a particular injustice. Now we get this article from the Wall Street Journal. You know it's on when both the NYT and the WSJ converge on something. The tide is turning rapidly away from "Tough On Crime" to "Measured Response", and this evidence will be a contributing factor in this sea-change.
Actually, you're wrong about evidence.
People become more steadfast in their opinions in the light of evidence.[1]
1. http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
People become more steadfast in their opinions in the light of evidence.[1]
1. http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
Perhaps this also applies to industries? There seem to be a lot of 50 year old nuclear plants. There also seems to be greater impetus to upgrade natural gas turbines. Maybe we need to favor machines/processes/designs that fail early and fail often, as opposed to ones that rarely fail but in catastrophic ways?
>1: If you thought the story for evidence-based medicine was bad, just skim through the parenting books at a book store.
Yes. All the ridiculous advice my partner and I get about our children is unbelievable. And I'm someone who had to self-diagnose medical issues after years of being ignored by doctors and other "experts" who wouldn't look at evidence-based approaches. I thought it couldn't get worse. But it does. Oh, it does... so much worse.
Yes. All the ridiculous advice my partner and I get about our children is unbelievable. And I'm someone who had to self-diagnose medical issues after years of being ignored by doctors and other "experts" who wouldn't look at evidence-based approaches. I thought it couldn't get worse. But it does. Oh, it does... so much worse.
This explains why my friends and family who use the "Naughty Step" seem to have discipline down to a T. I have even heard a few stories of kids putting themselves on the Naughty Step.
Even as someone who's not a parent, when I have done babysitting for said parents, I'm able to use the Naughty Step without fuss.
Even as someone who's not a parent, when I have done babysitting for said parents, I'm able to use the Naughty Step without fuss.
Do you have a link or book about this to share for a new parent?
Most of my research has been for dealing with kids that have trauma backgrounds, and there are different things you do there.
I will say that I've found the Love & Logic series less terrible than most of the mainstream stuff, and you'll likely be able to find a local class, which (assuming you're not a single parent) can be huge on getting you on the same page with your significant-other. That made a big difference for me, as my wife and I were raised very differently.
A few snippets of advice:
* Operant Conditioning[2] works both ways: your child's behavior will affect you, and you will subconsciously avoid things that are distressing to you. Not taking this into account can cause a lot of problems.
* One thing at a time. e.g. don't potty train and teach table manners at the same time. Partly because it's harder on the kids, but mainly to prevent burnout for the parents.
* Focus primarily on having a positive relationship (versus a lot of training & discipline) with kids under about 2. It seems likely that Martha Sears[1] went overboard, but there is definitely some phenomena like "attachment." (Also, Attachment Parenting, Attachment therapy and Attachment-based therapy are all different things, and the terminology is not always agreed upon)
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_parenting
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning
I will say that I've found the Love & Logic series less terrible than most of the mainstream stuff, and you'll likely be able to find a local class, which (assuming you're not a single parent) can be huge on getting you on the same page with your significant-other. That made a big difference for me, as my wife and I were raised very differently.
A few snippets of advice:
* Operant Conditioning[2] works both ways: your child's behavior will affect you, and you will subconsciously avoid things that are distressing to you. Not taking this into account can cause a lot of problems.
* One thing at a time. e.g. don't potty train and teach table manners at the same time. Partly because it's harder on the kids, but mainly to prevent burnout for the parents.
* Focus primarily on having a positive relationship (versus a lot of training & discipline) with kids under about 2. It seems likely that Martha Sears[1] went overboard, but there is definitely some phenomena like "attachment." (Also, Attachment Parenting, Attachment therapy and Attachment-based therapy are all different things, and the terminology is not always agreed upon)
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_parenting
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning
Yes children are experts at manipulating their parents. When you think about it they are on average as smart as their parents, but they have the advantage that their full time job is getting their parent to do what they want. Parents really don’t stand a chance.
Parents ar so much more experienced though. Reverse psychology works well even into the early teen years. How many parents fall for blatant reverse psychology. That's just one example of many techniques. Others include conditioning, reinforcement, outright education.
Not until you have a few :)
Most parents start out not really knowing much about the day to day details of being a parent. Your children learn really quickly how to achieve their aims.
As a parent the thing you do learn is to choose your battles. This is the cause of the eldest's lament that their parents were so much stricter with them than their younger siblings.
Most parents start out not really knowing much about the day to day details of being a parent. Your children learn really quickly how to achieve their aims.
As a parent the thing you do learn is to choose your battles. This is the cause of the eldest's lament that their parents were so much stricter with them than their younger siblings.
I've had a few ;) My kids can outsmart me sure, but I outsmart them much more easily than they, me.
I wish I could say the same - this is probably a positive assuming I am not an idiot.
Well as I said, they do get me sometimes and they certainly do try very hard lol
That is not a new idea. It's long been known that punishments are dramatically more effective if they are swift and certain. But, if the solution to crime is simply to catch every criminal immediately after they commit their crime, the question is how will you do that?
The real interesting part of this was the sobriety program. They found a way to identify bad habits at a relatively low cost. How to extend that model to other crimes is unclear. Parole basically exists for that purpose already, so the question is how it can be made more effective.
I just don't really see a clear path to general crime reduction here.
The real interesting part of this was the sobriety program. They found a way to identify bad habits at a relatively low cost. How to extend that model to other crimes is unclear. Parole basically exists for that purpose already, so the question is how it can be made more effective.
I just don't really see a clear path to general crime reduction here.
I think that the key generalization you could make is that once someone is shown to be engaging in criminal behavior, it's better to let that person stay free but have frequent checks than to put that person in a prison cell to rot.
It probably does work better for something habitual and detectable like alcohol use, but I could see how it could be applied to gang membership and other forms of thuggery. Maybe spending our resources on light consistent touch programs would help more than the significant resources needed for full-time incarceration.
It probably does work better for something habitual and detectable like alcohol use, but I could see how it could be applied to gang membership and other forms of thuggery. Maybe spending our resources on light consistent touch programs would help more than the significant resources needed for full-time incarceration.
> It shows that modest, swift, carefully metered punishment is a lot more effective than the more traditional slow, but heavy punishment.
I'd be very nervous about extending this beyond drunk driving.
With DUIs, breathalyzers are essentially "proof" of the crime (to the extent that there is ever incontrovertible proof for any crime). And if you refuse a breathalyzer, you've violated the implied consent law, so there's no ambiguity there either. You may be able to get off on a technicality, but it's rather difficult to abuse this, short of a police officer falsifying breathalyzer results outright.
But for most other crimes, there's a lot of ambiguity, which is why we have a separation between LEOs and the court system. I'm already uncomfortable with the level of unchecked power that LEOs (and non-LEOs, like the TSA) have today. I really don't want them to have any more leeway with detention of civilians.
I'd be very nervous about extending this beyond drunk driving.
With DUIs, breathalyzers are essentially "proof" of the crime (to the extent that there is ever incontrovertible proof for any crime). And if you refuse a breathalyzer, you've violated the implied consent law, so there's no ambiguity there either. You may be able to get off on a technicality, but it's rather difficult to abuse this, short of a police officer falsifying breathalyzer results outright.
But for most other crimes, there's a lot of ambiguity, which is why we have a separation between LEOs and the court system. I'm already uncomfortable with the level of unchecked power that LEOs (and non-LEOs, like the TSA) have today. I really don't want them to have any more leeway with detention of civilians.
You seem to be under the impression that this method abdicates judicial review? That's not the case, the metered punishment is delivered in pieces after the court order.
That is rather than send a person to jail upon conviction, a judge would put them on electronic probation, where each violation results into a small, immediate penalty. This will help in two way - prevent harsh sentences for simple missteps, and actual train people to follow the rules of the law by shortening feedback loop of the events.
That is rather than send a person to jail upon conviction, a judge would put them on electronic probation, where each violation results into a small, immediate penalty. This will help in two way - prevent harsh sentences for simple missteps, and actual train people to follow the rules of the law by shortening feedback loop of the events.
In a perfect world if you extended this beyond DUI the punishments given out would be reduced. Especially, the punishments that happen after you serve your time. One of my biggest problems with criminal justice system is the way the ex-cons are dogged by their mistakes for the rest of their life. I understand the interest an employer (or in the worst of cases a neighbor) might have in knowing that about a person but... somehow it seems deeply unfair.
> I understand the interest an employer (or in the worst of cases a neighbor) might have in knowing that about a person but... somehow it seems deeply unfair.
It is unfair if you believe that the jail is supposed to rehabilitate people. It seems to me that people believe it in theory but don't believe it in practice.
It is unfair if you believe that the jail is supposed to rehabilitate people. It seems to me that people believe it in theory but don't believe it in practice.
It is also unfair if their crime was more a matter of the circumstances they found themselves in than their baked-in character.
For example, if they got convicted for second-degree murder because they had a hot-tempered friend in college who started a fight, they tried to held, and then the friend pulled a gun and shot someone. That's the kind of mistake some (many?) people are not likely to make again. But the record is permanent. And due to Fundamental Attribution Error, the world is inclined to believe that they were involved and did what they did with intent because they had and continue to have a flawed character.
For example, if they got convicted for second-degree murder because they had a hot-tempered friend in college who started a fight, they tried to held, and then the friend pulled a gun and shot someone. That's the kind of mistake some (many?) people are not likely to make again. But the record is permanent. And due to Fundamental Attribution Error, the world is inclined to believe that they were involved and did what they did with intent because they had and continue to have a flawed character.
>>This is a big deal, because it shows a promising path to dramatically reduce the US prison population. Don't mind the drunk driving, think about all of the crimes out there, and all of the people who got a hammer dropped on them.
I hate to be that guy, but the US prison population is large because certain powerful interests want it to be large. This is unlikely to change anytime soon. And it definitely won't change as a result of a study about drunk driving.
That said, it's still an interesting study. Like many people, I've lost a friend in an accident involving a drunk driver, so the subject is important to me.
I hate to be that guy, but the US prison population is large because certain powerful interests want it to be large. This is unlikely to change anytime soon. And it definitely won't change as a result of a study about drunk driving.
That said, it's still an interesting study. Like many people, I've lost a friend in an accident involving a drunk driver, so the subject is important to me.
Something to rember about the "powerful interests" they only remain powerful because vast majority of voting Americans either agree with them on that don't care about that about that issue or care so little about the issue that it dosen't matter. When this changes policy changes. Look at Marijuana legalization, where are the powerful interests benefiting from it?
This is an important point. It's hard to enact change when it threatens the status quo. In California, Prison Correctional officers are backed by a powerful lobby[1].
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Correctional_Peace_...
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Correctional_Peace_...
To immediately think to not do something is often a reflex based on memory, and not a rational decision. Training reflexes is all about applying how the brain works.
Taking a hint from dog training, if you punish a dog too late, they forget what they're being punished for. Also the severity also doesn't seem to matter. Bad is bad no matter how loud or how painful, so just keep it to a minimum and have it for convenience. Beyond that rewards work much better for training brains.
Taking a hint from dog training, if you punish a dog too late, they forget what they're being punished for. Also the severity also doesn't seem to matter. Bad is bad no matter how loud or how painful, so just keep it to a minimum and have it for convenience. Beyond that rewards work much better for training brains.
It shows that modest, swift, carefully metered punishment is a lot more effective than the more traditional slow, but heavy punishment.
I thought we basically already knew that? I thought we had already shown in studies that swiftness & certainty of punishment are more effective deterrents than severity.
I thought we basically already knew that? I thought we had already shown in studies that swiftness & certainty of punishment are more effective deterrents than severity.
It's not obvious to me that I wouldn't be seeing a comment just like yours on a study finding the opposite. "We already know people just do what they want if the consequences are minor"
Consider:
> Hindsight will lead us to systematically undervalue the surprisingness of scientific findings, especially the discoveries we understand—the ones that seem real to us, the ones we can retrofit into our models of the world.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/im/hindsight_devalues_science/
Consider:
> Hindsight will lead us to systematically undervalue the surprisingness of scientific findings, especially the discoveries we understand—the ones that seem real to us, the ones we can retrofit into our models of the world.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/im/hindsight_devalues_science/
Indeed, this is something we've known since time immemorial. It's even in the Bible:
Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil. - (Ecclesiastes 8:11)
Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil. - (Ecclesiastes 8:11)
what boggles my personal mind is that this has to be demonstrated at all, and yet that's a truth that spans the width and depth of our institution mediated existence.
Timeouts are better than grounding.
What would be the equivalent for cellphone use? Because the biggest threat for me while biking is not drunk drivers but those texting and fiddling with their phones.
How about this:
If you're caught cell-driving, you either pay a large fine, say $750, or you submit to a program that bans talking while moving faster than 5mph for the next two months. The cell carrier will monitor the ban and issue citations by SMS.
So if you opt into this program, and then you're driving down the road, start talking on the cell phone, and then 30 seconds later BANG! you get a text message: "That call was $75 payable to the city hall before the end of the day". Yeah, you can't talk on the bus and stuff, but that's the "punishment" part for ya.
It's worth a try, I think.
If you're caught cell-driving, you either pay a large fine, say $750, or you submit to a program that bans talking while moving faster than 5mph for the next two months. The cell carrier will monitor the ban and issue citations by SMS.
So if you opt into this program, and then you're driving down the road, start talking on the cell phone, and then 30 seconds later BANG! you get a text message: "That call was $75 payable to the city hall before the end of the day". Yeah, you can't talk on the bus and stuff, but that's the "punishment" part for ya.
It's worth a try, I think.
The trick with using technology to assess "driving while texting" is that texters are often the passengers in the car. Waze tries to deal with moving typers by having an alert that pops up thatsays (roughly), "You can't enter text while moving" - but has a button that says, "It's ok, I'm a passenger."
The trick with a $75 fine for texting while moving is passengers. If you're willing to ban texting entirely while moving though, using technology to assess small fines could work!
The trick with a $75 fine for texting while moving is passengers. If you're willing to ban texting entirely while moving though, using technology to assess small fines could work!
I'm not proposing trying to figure out who is driving and who is riding. Once a person got caught breaking the law, he can't use his phone while moving; passenger or driver is not important at this point.
The key is to training new habit and making it stick, according to the article, is to make punishment moderate, certain, and immediate. We can't do that across the board due to the limitations of technology, legitimate use, privacy concerns, presumption of innocence and so on. But we sure can do that to those who broke the law, especially when they opt into it.
The key is to training new habit and making it stick, according to the article, is to make punishment moderate, certain, and immediate. We can't do that across the board due to the limitations of technology, legitimate use, privacy concerns, presumption of innocence and so on. But we sure can do that to those who broke the law, especially when they opt into it.
What if the person is on a train? Spending the entire ride not being able to use one's phone?
but Waze also asks you to report road conditions while driving even if you are the driver...
What about when the initial crime isn't discovered? All the people who don't get caught?
The problem with this is mostly spotting people doing it, and then taking action against them. When you have N cops, versus a thousand plus times as many drivers, spotting and pulling over the people doing it becomes an extremely laborious process.
There are three options that can be used alone or together.
1) Technology solution. Put digital eyes around the area of the steering wheel or otherwise pointing at the driver. Report drivers that frequently use a phone while driving. We can trivially build a phone identifier for a car today, given the drastic improvements in recognition technology. We could also easily judge drivers by their poor attentiveness to the road. This approach will freak people out in regards to being nanny state invasive.
2) Community shaming, education programs. This was half the battle with getting people to use seat belts regularly.
3) Traditional police enforcement. Cops start pulling people over for it more frequently, and hitting them with on the spot $100, $200, $500 fines. Perhaps it increases with each offense within a certain amount of time. The problem here is, the radical majority of people will simply slip through the enforcement cracks and not be caught. It would also be open to easy abuse, cops stuffing the budget with lots of fines. People see seat belts as a life saving device for the most part, so voluntary compliance mostly worked, but I'd wager most people do not see their phone habits as potentially life threatening. That requires greater disincentives to reach the same compliance, or a vastly larger shaming & education project.
There are three options that can be used alone or together.
1) Technology solution. Put digital eyes around the area of the steering wheel or otherwise pointing at the driver. Report drivers that frequently use a phone while driving. We can trivially build a phone identifier for a car today, given the drastic improvements in recognition technology. We could also easily judge drivers by their poor attentiveness to the road. This approach will freak people out in regards to being nanny state invasive.
2) Community shaming, education programs. This was half the battle with getting people to use seat belts regularly.
3) Traditional police enforcement. Cops start pulling people over for it more frequently, and hitting them with on the spot $100, $200, $500 fines. Perhaps it increases with each offense within a certain amount of time. The problem here is, the radical majority of people will simply slip through the enforcement cracks and not be caught. It would also be open to easy abuse, cops stuffing the budget with lots of fines. People see seat belts as a life saving device for the most part, so voluntary compliance mostly worked, but I'd wager most people do not see their phone habits as potentially life threatening. That requires greater disincentives to reach the same compliance, or a vastly larger shaming & education project.
On the spot fines seem like a great way to encourage graft and corruption among the police. Let's leave Judge Dredd-style policing in the comic books.
The current law enforcement milieu is simply revenue generation for the state and a lottery ticket for an addition road tax on violators. It just doesn't work. Until we decide what laws we really want and that we are ok with 90% enforcement of those laws, it will be a dangerous joke. A lot of the current scheme of law enforcement is based on most people being law abiding citizens. When you look at the road now, that's clearly not the case.
jessaustin(1)
You can't fix this with penalties & frankly anyone that says so is deluded.
Its a question of custom/culture. You need peer pressure that effectively says "only shtheads endanger others by climbing behind the wheel drunk" (forgive the language). That is what has an impact on the target audience...not fines (big/small/immediate/delay...)
Its a question of custom/culture. You need peer pressure that effectively says "only shtheads endanger others by climbing behind the wheel drunk" (forgive the language). That is what has an impact on the target audience...not fines (big/small/immediate/delay...)
I agree. Take Wisconsin as an example. The culture here is heavily drinking based. If you haven't visited, you won't understand. Meeting friends/family/coworkers/strangers? At a bar/pub. 7 days a week. Completely normal. If you're socializing there's probably a beer in your hand. Even coffee shops have beer on tap and whiskey/scotch by the dram.
We have 3043 bars for a population of 5,664,893. California has 3100 bars for a population of 36,969,200.
The states with the highest ratio are N Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Nebraska... Do you see the trend? We have a large % of the population without a lot of money.
Now, what do we lack? Reliable and cheap public transportation. I can drink piss beer all night on $20 but you want me to take a cab ride for $30 a few miles across town? No way. Not a chance people will voluntarily blow their drinking money on a taxi. At least Uber can be cheaper, but it's not prevalent or reliable.
Trolly/tram/train/buses to get quickly around town 24/7 for dirt cheap? You bet people would use them. But you've only solved the issue for a few major metropolitan areas; it's not feasible anywhere else. The rest of the state is rurual/farmland. After a long day of work on the farm you want nothing more than to throw back some cold ones and bullshit with neighbors at the bar. And then you'll drive home drunk, get up for chores, and start again. The cycle repeats.
I'm not condoning it. I've had many friends and family members have to deal with the consequences of their actions. But I can understand their plight. It's unfortunate.
Public shaming of drinking culture might be the only way to alter the behavior.
We have 3043 bars for a population of 5,664,893. California has 3100 bars for a population of 36,969,200.
The states with the highest ratio are N Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Nebraska... Do you see the trend? We have a large % of the population without a lot of money.
Now, what do we lack? Reliable and cheap public transportation. I can drink piss beer all night on $20 but you want me to take a cab ride for $30 a few miles across town? No way. Not a chance people will voluntarily blow their drinking money on a taxi. At least Uber can be cheaper, but it's not prevalent or reliable.
Trolly/tram/train/buses to get quickly around town 24/7 for dirt cheap? You bet people would use them. But you've only solved the issue for a few major metropolitan areas; it's not feasible anywhere else. The rest of the state is rurual/farmland. After a long day of work on the farm you want nothing more than to throw back some cold ones and bullshit with neighbors at the bar. And then you'll drive home drunk, get up for chores, and start again. The cycle repeats.
I'm not condoning it. I've had many friends and family members have to deal with the consequences of their actions. But I can understand their plight. It's unfortunate.
Public shaming of drinking culture might be the only way to alter the behavior.
Yep. My girlfriend's cousin lives in semi-rural North Carolina, and it's the exact same culture. He was mentioning friend after friend in stories and then later talking about this guy's rehab, that guy's permanent disability, this guy's suspended license... All DUIs. It's pretty common to get done with work, drive to the bar, get piss-drunk, and slam into a telephone pole while driving home on the back roads. And the way he was describing it, it was completely normal and done all the time. That's crazy to me, but it's how people grow up and live there. Until that changes, you're going to see the next generation do the exact same thing.
This is what's broken about people's ability to assess risk and address crime:
" the problem still costs some 10,000 Americans their lives each year."
Imagine if terrorist bombings were killing the same number of people each year. Maybe a plane load every month or two. Would we ask the psychologists what might be a more effective way of deterring people from bombing things? Banning them from flying after they were caught carrying explosives through the airport doesn't seem to be working well enough.
" the problem still costs some 10,000 Americans their lives each year."
Imagine if terrorist bombings were killing the same number of people each year. Maybe a plane load every month or two. Would we ask the psychologists what might be a more effective way of deterring people from bombing things? Banning them from flying after they were caught carrying explosives through the airport doesn't seem to be working well enough.
That was my thought as well. Just to drive the point home:
> costs some 10,000 Americans their lives each year
with
> Maybe a plane load every month or two.
Would have to be 100 planes/year (at ~100 people/plan)! Imagine if you had 8 plane crashes/month due to drunk pilots!
> costs some 10,000 Americans their lives each year
with
> Maybe a plane load every month or two.
Would have to be 100 planes/year (at ~100 people/plan)! Imagine if you had 8 plane crashes/month due to drunk pilots!
Excuse my math problem :P It seems to me that these factors can make people much more concerned about a danger:
A) Few but large scale killings - eg 100 planes of 100 people each seems worse than 10,000 cars of 1 person each.
B) A single identifiable group of outsiders that can be blamed. Most people drink so drinkers aren't outsiders.
But this last factor surprisingly doesn't seem to be a worry, as evidenced by people's willingness to drive, despite the fact that it sounds like it should induce terror:
C) Random sudden death without warning.
A) Few but large scale killings - eg 100 planes of 100 people each seems worse than 10,000 cars of 1 person each.
B) A single identifiable group of outsiders that can be blamed. Most people drink so drinkers aren't outsiders.
But this last factor surprisingly doesn't seem to be a worry, as evidenced by people's willingness to drive, despite the fact that it sounds like it should induce terror:
C) Random sudden death without warning.
I agree. Also, I think the amount of input you have into an activity is also somewhat inversely proportional to the shock when the accident happens.
People actively drive the car, so they may think "I have a chance to affect the outcome", whereas being a plane passenger is basically vegetating for X hours in a very uncomfortable seat, and there is no way you can actively influence the outcome in a positive way.
People actively drive the car, so they may think "I have a chance to affect the outcome", whereas being a plane passenger is basically vegetating for X hours in a very uncomfortable seat, and there is no way you can actively influence the outcome in a positive way.
> there is no way you can actively influence the outcome in a positive way.
Which ironically is what makes it a safer form of transport.
Which ironically is what makes it a safer form of transport.
I'd like to add D) Cannot be attributed to 'shit happens'
I always find it interesting how many people automatically agree drunk driving should be a crime. Drunk driving per se is victimless- only when life or property are injured is there a victim, and there are already crimes/legal remedies in place for those cases.
Consider the case where a drunk driver gets home safely while obeying all traffic laws. Or even the case where a drunk driver is swerving- she can already be pulled over under a reckless driving statute.
Consider the case where a drunk driver gets home safely while obeying all traffic laws. Or even the case where a drunk driver is swerving- she can already be pulled over under a reckless driving statute.
Be careful about the victimless label. Just because an individual action does not cause harm does not mean that it should not be punished as if it had. The act is the same. Whether or not someone is physically injured is largely a matter of luck. It would be horrific if punishments were handed out on that basis alone.
A long time ago I read a statement from a judge sentencing two defendants for felony murder. They both shot and a man was dead, but there was a debate as to which bullet actually killed. "The only difference between the two was aim, and I am not going to let one off for being the poorer shot."
The more appropriate word for such laws are "regulatory crimes". They are meant to regulate behavior to prevent or reduce an evil that does not occur in all cases. This covers everything from practicing medicine without a license to drug possession, neither of which necessarily cause a physical harm in every case.
A long time ago I read a statement from a judge sentencing two defendants for felony murder. They both shot and a man was dead, but there was a debate as to which bullet actually killed. "The only difference between the two was aim, and I am not going to let one off for being the poorer shot."
The more appropriate word for such laws are "regulatory crimes". They are meant to regulate behavior to prevent or reduce an evil that does not occur in all cases. This covers everything from practicing medicine without a license to drug possession, neither of which necessarily cause a physical harm in every case.
And yet, punishing people who haven't hurt anyone seems far worse the crime. Victim-less isn't a label, it's a statement of fact that no one was hurt and thus cannot claim injury; there should be no such crimes. "Regulatory crime" is way of putting a soft label on a terrible practice, punishing the innocent just because something "might" have happened.
What you call luck, others call knowing their limits.
What you call luck, others call knowing their limits.
So you're suggesting that people be allowed, for example, to practice medicine without a license right up to the point that they kill someone through incompetence?
You bring up a great point. I'd argue that, instead of being required to go to medical school, you should be tested on the merits.
If you meet the objective bar (no lawyer pun intended, though see California's attempt at doing this for the legal profession), then yes, you should be able to practice even without a multi-year degree.
If you meet the objective bar (no lawyer pun intended, though see California's attempt at doing this for the legal profession), then yes, you should be able to practice even without a multi-year degree.
One could consider med school to be a series of tests on the merits, including the subsequent internship/residency and licensing standards.
It's just not possible to study at home and be educated enough to be a doctor. You need huge amounts of expensive resources (cadavers, equipment, live patients, etc.)
It's just not possible to study at home and be educated enough to be a doctor. You need huge amounts of expensive resources (cadavers, equipment, live patients, etc.)
> One could consider med school to be a series of tests on the merits, including the subsequent internship/residency and licensing standards.
Only if one doesn't understand that medical schools are a cartel. There are far more people qualified and willing to be doctors than are allowed to be doctors, cartels have to keep their supply low to keep their wages high.
Only if one doesn't understand that medical schools are a cartel. There are far more people qualified and willing to be doctors than are allowed to be doctors, cartels have to keep their supply low to keep their wages high.
This makes more sense for professions that are "all books", so to say. E.g. law, where all you really need is a slightly longer test (or not even that).
But this makes no sense for medical school, which teaches a lot that would be extremely difficult to test directly. Often the direct test would basically amount to going to medical school for some non-trivial amount of time anyways.
But this makes no sense for medical school, which teaches a lot that would be extremely difficult to test directly. Often the direct test would basically amount to going to medical school for some non-trivial amount of time anyways.
Law is not all books. There is something physical about law school. It may not be as physical as med school, but the three-year process of getting the JD is more than a pile of textbooks. Interaction with students and professors, structured or not, is as important as the reading. It changes people. By third year you realize exactly how vast the practice is and no longer focus on the gritty aspects of constitutional debate.
Sorry, I didn't mean to disparage Law School. I assume it's valuable as well.
But the barriers inherent in medical training are really far and beyond pretty much any other field -- you need a bunch of dead bodies and a lot of very expensive equipment. By the time you pay for just the materials necessary for the series of tests and exams that would reasonably certify someone to be a doctor, you might as well make a degree program out of it.
So even if someone could get all of the book learning and also find a gaggle of doctors to study with and learn from, Medical School is one of the very few professional programs where having a degree program would still make sense, totally independent of learning and development, just from a logistical standpoint. In that sense Medicine is pretty unique (unless you count graduate degrees in experimental sciences, I guess).
But the barriers inherent in medical training are really far and beyond pretty much any other field -- you need a bunch of dead bodies and a lot of very expensive equipment. By the time you pay for just the materials necessary for the series of tests and exams that would reasonably certify someone to be a doctor, you might as well make a degree program out of it.
So even if someone could get all of the book learning and also find a gaggle of doctors to study with and learn from, Medical School is one of the very few professional programs where having a degree program would still make sense, totally independent of learning and development, just from a logistical standpoint. In that sense Medicine is pretty unique (unless you count graduate degrees in experimental sciences, I guess).
Yes actually, if someone freely chooses to visit an unlicensed medical practitioner, perhaps because it's all they can afford, that should be legal as long no fraud is being committed. Perhaps you like the nanny state making all your decisions for you, I do not.
>Perhaps you like the nanny state making all your decisions for you, I do not.
Here's another comment from you in this thread:
> Only if one doesn't understand that medical schools are a cartel.
If all you have to fall back on is name calling, that makes me believe that your position is not very sound.
Here's another comment from you in this thread:
> Only if one doesn't understand that medical schools are a cartel.
If all you have to fall back on is name calling, that makes me believe that your position is not very sound.
I know you may not mean this literally, but taken at face value, you're saying even attempted murder (assuming you don't end up harming your intended victim) shouldn't be a crime. I would actually argue that an attempted murder should be considered almost as great, if not as great, a crime as one that succeeded. Similarly for most crimes, in my opinion the intent is at least as important as the act itself.
Basically just because someone hasn't been hurt, it doesn't mean that a behaviour is acceptable in society.
Basically just because someone hasn't been hurt, it doesn't mean that a behaviour is acceptable in society.
Nobody gets into a car drunk with the intention of harming someone else. With attempted murder there is clear intent to do harm. A better comparison would be to manslaughter - if you do something dangerous which leads to the accidental death of somebody you are punished. The question would be, if you do something dangerous and nobody happens to be hurt, should you still be punished? Should "attempted manslaughter" be a thing?
No, but they do get into the car reckless as to harming someone else, which is a culpable state of mind as well. E.g. You shoot a gun into the air in downtown Chicago and the bullet happens not to kill anyone on the way back down. You didn't mean to kill any body, but it certainly was criminally reckless.
Besides that, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Why is manslaughter different than murder? The only difference is the intent--the end result is the same (someone's dead). When the state of mind is the same, why should luck in the outcome change the punishment?
Besides that, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Why is manslaughter different than murder? The only difference is the intent--the end result is the same (someone's dead). When the state of mind is the same, why should luck in the outcome change the punishment?
> No, but they do get into the car reckless as to harming someone else
False, you can be charged with DUI while perfectly sober; DUI applies to far more than alcohol.
> Why is manslaughter different than murder?
Manslaughter means accidental, murder means on purpose; if you don't see the difference, perhaps you need to think about that a bit harder.
> When the state of mind is the same, why should luck in the outcome change the punishment?
If you don't see the difference between an accident and doing something on purpose as requiring different punishment, well then you just fundamentally disagree with about all of mankind. If your car tire blows and you hit another car and kill someone through no fault of your own, apparently you think that's an equal crime to murder. Really... c'mon... really?
False, you can be charged with DUI while perfectly sober; DUI applies to far more than alcohol.
> Why is manslaughter different than murder?
Manslaughter means accidental, murder means on purpose; if you don't see the difference, perhaps you need to think about that a bit harder.
> When the state of mind is the same, why should luck in the outcome change the punishment?
If you don't see the difference between an accident and doing something on purpose as requiring different punishment, well then you just fundamentally disagree with about all of mankind. If your car tire blows and you hit another car and kill someone through no fault of your own, apparently you think that's an equal crime to murder. Really... c'mon... really?
> > When the state of mind is the same, why should luck in the outcome change the punishment?
> If you don't see the difference between an accident and doing something on purpose as requiring different punishment, well then you just fundamentally disagree with about all of mankind. If your car tire blows and you hit another car and kill someone through no fault of your own, apparently you think that's an equal crime to murder. Really... c'mon... really?
You miss the question here.
If I am driving my car and I take y attetion off the road for a moment to adjust my car radio, and then plough into another car...
1) ... And kill the driver of that other car
2) ... And injure, but don't kill the other driver
Why should y punishment for (1) be more severe than for (2)? My intent was the same, my poor behaviour was the same. Perhaps the difference between causing death and not causing death is the quality of the crashed driver's car.
Murder requires intent to kill. Man-slaughter also requires intent to cause harm. That's why there are seperate laws for vehicular death - causing death by dangerous driving or vehicular manslaughter. It's hard to meet the burden of proof required by murder or manslaughter.
> If you don't see the difference between an accident and doing something on purpose as requiring different punishment, well then you just fundamentally disagree with about all of mankind. If your car tire blows and you hit another car and kill someone through no fault of your own, apparently you think that's an equal crime to murder. Really... c'mon... really?
You miss the question here.
If I am driving my car and I take y attetion off the road for a moment to adjust my car radio, and then plough into another car...
1) ... And kill the driver of that other car
2) ... And injure, but don't kill the other driver
Why should y punishment for (1) be more severe than for (2)? My intent was the same, my poor behaviour was the same. Perhaps the difference between causing death and not causing death is the quality of the crashed driver's car.
Murder requires intent to kill. Man-slaughter also requires intent to cause harm. That's why there are seperate laws for vehicular death - causing death by dangerous driving or vehicular manslaughter. It's hard to meet the burden of proof required by murder or manslaughter.
At some level punishments based on outcome are a practical necessity. We cannot lock up everyone who takes their eyes off the road and causes a minor accident. Even though we know the did everything necessary to cause catastrophic injury, we let them off.
It's a balance between the modern concept of punishments based on state of mind and actions, and the oldschool concept of an eye for an eye, punishment based on outcome.
It's a balance between the modern concept of punishments based on state of mind and actions, and the oldschool concept of an eye for an eye, punishment based on outcome.
I agree! We create offences of "causing death by dangerous driving" and similar because we need to provide justice for the killed and because murder / manslaughter have (rightly) high burden on proof.
Please apply the principle of charity here: it is very likely that rayiner knows that "under the influence" applies to substances other than alcohol, and wants his conclusions to apply to those circumstances as well. (Although, personally, I define "sober" as not under the influence of any intoxicant, not just alcohol.)
YSK 'rayiner is a lawyer.
There are a couple of lawyers on this thread and, I suspect, also a few law students.
Then he should know DUI applies to more than just drinking and shouldn't be making such a silly point. And being a lawyer means he knows the existing law, it doesn't mean his opinion about what the law should be in regards to punishment is any more valid than anyone else's.
I absolutely agree with your last sentence. My intention is not to stand on the law as authority, but try to work through the logic of the law.
Why do we punish people criminally? For doing bad things with malicious intentions. Intention is the most important thing in criminal law, because a guy who shoots at someone is equally a bad, culpable person worthy of punishment whether or not his aim is very good. On the flip side, someone who kills someone while driving in an accident that could happen to anyone is not worthy of punishment while someone who kills someone intentionally with their car is worthy of being punished as a murderer. Even though the end result is the same--the intention is what matters.
That's why drunk driving is illegal in and of itself. You make a conscious reckless decision to put other people at risk. Even if you don't hurt anyone, you're guilty of that act and that recklessness is a form of malicious intent justifying punishment.
Why do we punish people criminally? For doing bad things with malicious intentions. Intention is the most important thing in criminal law, because a guy who shoots at someone is equally a bad, culpable person worthy of punishment whether or not his aim is very good. On the flip side, someone who kills someone while driving in an accident that could happen to anyone is not worthy of punishment while someone who kills someone intentionally with their car is worthy of being punished as a murderer. Even though the end result is the same--the intention is what matters.
That's why drunk driving is illegal in and of itself. You make a conscious reckless decision to put other people at risk. Even if you don't hurt anyone, you're guilty of that act and that recklessness is a form of malicious intent justifying punishment.
>That's why drunk driving is illegal in and of itself. You make a conscious reckless decision to put other people at risk.
If you are a novice driver and you choose to drive, you are consciously making a decision to put other people at risk.
There are different skill levels of driving. A highly skilled driver drinking can easily still be more skilled than someone who hardly ever drives or has poor reflexes in general.
So what are we punishing for, reducing your effective skills and then driving? If so, why don't we just charge everyone with a crime who fails to drive once a week to keep their skills sharp?
If you are a novice driver and you choose to drive, you are consciously making a decision to put other people at risk.
There are different skill levels of driving. A highly skilled driver drinking can easily still be more skilled than someone who hardly ever drives or has poor reflexes in general.
So what are we punishing for, reducing your effective skills and then driving? If so, why don't we just charge everyone with a crime who fails to drive once a week to keep their skills sharp?
> Why do we punish people criminally? For doing bad things with malicious intentions.
Agreed, however, the problem is what's considered "bad" isn't a matter of fact but of opinion. What is law is a matter of fact, but legal/illegal != bad/good.
Also, please stop calling it drunk driving, the law pertains to more than just alcohol which is why it matters and why it's unjust. Getting in a car and driving while sober can still get you a DUI because the law is stupid in defining what intoxicated/impaired means, this is especially important now that marijuana is legal for recreation in several states. Just because someone gets a DUI does not mean they were in any way reckless, beyond that it's just as reckless to drive tired as to drive intoxicated yet no one argues that should be DUI worthy, additionally "reckless" is a matter of opinion, not empirical fact.
The law is not logical, it is political, a popularity contest, not a logically evidence based means of helping society. There's certainly logic in keeping law self consistent for sure, which is where lawyers and judges have a role, but what becomes law has little to do with what is actually just. As you're a lawyer, you know this already.
Agreed, however, the problem is what's considered "bad" isn't a matter of fact but of opinion. What is law is a matter of fact, but legal/illegal != bad/good.
Also, please stop calling it drunk driving, the law pertains to more than just alcohol which is why it matters and why it's unjust. Getting in a car and driving while sober can still get you a DUI because the law is stupid in defining what intoxicated/impaired means, this is especially important now that marijuana is legal for recreation in several states. Just because someone gets a DUI does not mean they were in any way reckless, beyond that it's just as reckless to drive tired as to drive intoxicated yet no one argues that should be DUI worthy, additionally "reckless" is a matter of opinion, not empirical fact.
The law is not logical, it is political, a popularity contest, not a logically evidence based means of helping society. There's certainly logic in keeping law self consistent for sure, which is where lawyers and judges have a role, but what becomes law has little to do with what is actually just. As you're a lawyer, you know this already.
I'm not talking about applying DUI to marijuana or people sleeping in cars, which is why I'm saying drunk driving and not DUI. I'm talking about why drunk driving is legitimately criminal even when it doesn't result in harm. And that's because it's voluntarily reckless conduct that creates risk to the public.
Law is absolutely logical, you just have to be willing to look at the premises. And it is absolutely a structured expression of what people think is just.
The premise of criminal law is that it's an action taken with malicious intent that makes someone a criminal, not just causing a bad outcome. The law follows that logic to its conclusions. For example under the Model Penal Code, an attempt at murder is punished the same as a completed murder. Someone who, with intent to kill, points a gun and shoots at someone is no less criminal if he misses than if he hits. Criminal law is about punishing culpable conduct. It's illogical to punish two people differently who engage in the same culpable conduct because circumstances outside their control lead to one result versus another.
Now, you can disagree with the basic premise and apply a different logical framework. Just because the premise of the law is that intent is the most important thing does not mean you can't believe something different, such as actual harm being the most important thing. But you gotta wrestle with the implications of that. If harm is the most important thing, killing someone should always be murder. Shouldn't matter whether you hit a jogger wearing all black at night or whether you ran over your boss in broad daylight on purpose.
In my experience, the people who complain about the law being illogical and not the same as justice are the ones abandoning logic. They know what resuls they want, based on what "justice" means to them, (X should not be illegal) and get upset that's not the law. They don't take the time to look at the premises underlying the law to see if the rules logically follow from those premises. If you do that, you'd be surprised how often you conclude "well I think that premise is incorrect, but I can see how the rule follows logically from that."
Ps: also, reckless is a precisely definable concept: when conduct causes a measurable rise in the risk of some negative outcome. Where the line between acceptable and unacceptable rise in risk can't be precisely defined and must be established by social concnsus, but that doesn't make it an illogical concept as you imply by calling it an "opinion."
Law is absolutely logical, you just have to be willing to look at the premises. And it is absolutely a structured expression of what people think is just.
The premise of criminal law is that it's an action taken with malicious intent that makes someone a criminal, not just causing a bad outcome. The law follows that logic to its conclusions. For example under the Model Penal Code, an attempt at murder is punished the same as a completed murder. Someone who, with intent to kill, points a gun and shoots at someone is no less criminal if he misses than if he hits. Criminal law is about punishing culpable conduct. It's illogical to punish two people differently who engage in the same culpable conduct because circumstances outside their control lead to one result versus another.
Now, you can disagree with the basic premise and apply a different logical framework. Just because the premise of the law is that intent is the most important thing does not mean you can't believe something different, such as actual harm being the most important thing. But you gotta wrestle with the implications of that. If harm is the most important thing, killing someone should always be murder. Shouldn't matter whether you hit a jogger wearing all black at night or whether you ran over your boss in broad daylight on purpose.
In my experience, the people who complain about the law being illogical and not the same as justice are the ones abandoning logic. They know what resuls they want, based on what "justice" means to them, (X should not be illegal) and get upset that's not the law. They don't take the time to look at the premises underlying the law to see if the rules logically follow from those premises. If you do that, you'd be surprised how often you conclude "well I think that premise is incorrect, but I can see how the rule follows logically from that."
Ps: also, reckless is a precisely definable concept: when conduct causes a measurable rise in the risk of some negative outcome. Where the line between acceptable and unacceptable rise in risk can't be precisely defined and must be established by social concnsus, but that doesn't make it an illogical concept as you imply by calling it an "opinion."
I would disagree with the second sentence. I give more weight to a lawyer in regards to the law and politics. As lawyers they have put thousands of hours into studying these types of issues. I respect his/her opinion more in the same way I would respect any doctor's opinion on biological matters.
Well the lawyer himself just agreed with me on that point. The day defining justice is a specialized matter only the initiated have valid opinions on, is the day freedom is gone. Lawyers are trained in interpreting law, they have no special qualifications in defining what is or isn't justice. Law and justice have little to do with each other.
Exactly, and no, attempted manslaughter should not be a thing and that's basically what a DUI is.
> (assuming you don't end up harming your intended victim)
> I would actually argue that an attempted murder should be considered almost as great, if not as great, a crime as one that succeeded.
You are implicitly saying that it does harm. Indeed, it does harm the psych, which might lead to physical harm in the long run.
You are implicitly saying that it does harm. Indeed, it does harm the psych, which might lead to physical harm in the long run.
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that even in cases where it does not harm the intended victim, it should still be a serious crime. For example, say you tried to kill someone, failed, and they never even found out about it. Victimless, yes, but still a crime (as it should be).
It would harm my psyche if I thought everyone on the road has been drinking. I actively avoid it during times when it is in fact more likely (New Years eve etc). People who think they know their limits kill people all the time.
> People who think they know their limits kill people all the time.
So do people who are tired, or old, or stressed, or any other number of reasons. People kill people all the time, singling out one group and basically charging them with pre-crimes is not just. The world is a dangerous place, jailing people so your "psyche" feels good is not just. The world is dangerous, how about you accept that and act accordingly rather than supporting jailing those who haven't hurt anyone.
So do people who are tired, or old, or stressed, or any other number of reasons. People kill people all the time, singling out one group and basically charging them with pre-crimes is not just. The world is a dangerous place, jailing people so your "psyche" feels good is not just. The world is dangerous, how about you accept that and act accordingly rather than supporting jailing those who haven't hurt anyone.
Perhaps, but drinking and driving is quite a bit more preventable than being stressed. Certainly people get distracted and accidents happen, but purposely driving impaired is in fact something different.
That being said, generally speaking, a drunk driver who happens to not do anything wrong on the road is extremely unlikely to have any legal issues. Mostly they are going to have problems when they start swerving or exhibiting signs of being impaired. A tired driver who is swerving wildly is also likely to get pulled over.
That being said, generally speaking, a drunk driver who happens to not do anything wrong on the road is extremely unlikely to have any legal issues. Mostly they are going to have problems when they start swerving or exhibiting signs of being impaired. A tired driver who is swerving wildly is also likely to get pulled over.
DUI punishes more than the impaired.
> That being said, generally speaking, a drunk driver who happens to not do anything wrong on the road is extremely unlikely to have any legal issues.
That might be true if it weren't for things like DUI checkpoints, which make it untrue. You can be perfectly fine to drive and still get caught and punished because of what are essentially baseless mass searches.
> That being said, generally speaking, a drunk driver who happens to not do anything wrong on the road is extremely unlikely to have any legal issues.
That might be true if it weren't for things like DUI checkpoints, which make it untrue. You can be perfectly fine to drive and still get caught and punished because of what are essentially baseless mass searches.
Kudos for stating a taboo or at least unpopular opinion in a reasoned manner. I do think that drunk driving should be a crime, because on balance I expect making it so does more good than harm. There are certainly people who choose not to drive when intoxicated for no other reason than fear of being caught and punished. That said, I agree with aspects of your point: it should certainly be a greater crime to be swerving around the road while intoxicated than to simply blow slightly over the limit on a breathalyzer with no other symptoms, and while it could already be charged as multiple offenses, I'm not sure that that's often done in practice. Also, I tend to lean against "zero tolerance" laws, where any BAC whatsoever is a crime.
Heck, you could even argue that a particularly good driver and/or someone with a high alcohol tolerance may be safer even when impaired than some drivers are unimpaired; perhaps then the oldschool impairment tests - walk in a line, touch your nose, etc., are fairer than the theoretically more impartial breathalyzer. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but it seems like a reasonable argument at least.
Heck, you could even argue that a particularly good driver and/or someone with a high alcohol tolerance may be safer even when impaired than some drivers are unimpaired; perhaps then the oldschool impairment tests - walk in a line, touch your nose, etc., are fairer than the theoretically more impartial breathalyzer. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but it seems like a reasonable argument at least.
Your comment made me think of cops pulling over a driver and sticking them in a VR driving sim for a few minutes to test their response time and motor control. Implausible, sure, and we'll probably have autonomous cars before it can become a reality... but it would be interesting to test for actual driving impairment rather than a proxy like a breathalyzer (or even walking in a straight line).
It would also give police an opportunity to remove other dangerous drivers from the road, e.g. certain elderly or sleep-deprived drivers.
It would also give police an opportunity to remove other dangerous drivers from the road, e.g. certain elderly or sleep-deprived drivers.
This wouldn't work. Motor control isn't the only (or most significant) problem with drunk driving. It's the combination with impaired judgement/attentiveness that can be so deadly.
If you're in a VR driving sim with a cop standing next to you, you're going to pay attention and (virtually) drive, constantly paying attention to the speedometer and road signs. Rather than flipping through stations while turning around to tell a joke to the people in the back seat. Or just zoning out on a routine drive and not realizing you're 40 over.
It's why people often say "I'm a better driver when I'm drunk" -- not true for sloppy drunk, but probably true for slightly drunk because the fear of DUI causes them to intently focus when otherwise they would be on auto-pilot not devoting their full attention to the operation of a deadly machine.
If you're in a VR driving sim with a cop standing next to you, you're going to pay attention and (virtually) drive, constantly paying attention to the speedometer and road signs. Rather than flipping through stations while turning around to tell a joke to the people in the back seat. Or just zoning out on a routine drive and not realizing you're 40 over.
It's why people often say "I'm a better driver when I'm drunk" -- not true for sloppy drunk, but probably true for slightly drunk because the fear of DUI causes them to intently focus when otherwise they would be on auto-pilot not devoting their full attention to the operation of a deadly machine.
> It's why people often say "I'm a better driver when I'm drunk" -- not true for sloppy drunk, but probably true for slightly drunk because the fear of DUI causes them to intently focus when otherwise they would be on auto-pilot not devoting their full attention to the operation of a deadly machine.
No, we know that mild intoxication increases risk. A rule of thumb is 4 uk units increases risk by four times. A uk unit is a small amount of alcohol - 4 small glasses of weak wine (125 ml of 8% ABV * 4 is 4 uk units).
We know this because we put people in simulators and test them.
No, we know that mild intoxication increases risk. A rule of thumb is 4 uk units increases risk by four times. A uk unit is a small amount of alcohol - 4 small glasses of weak wine (125 ml of 8% ABV * 4 is 4 uk units).
We know this because we put people in simulators and test them.
People think they drive better when slightly drunk because they have impaired senses and do not notice potentially hazardous conditions that they luckily avoid.
tl;dr: Inattentive driving kills. Alcohol can cause inattentiveness. So can texting. If someone constantly texts while driving except for when they're 0.081, then they're probably a safer driver drunk than sober. Which is to say, they shouldn't be allowed to drive in either condition.
1. Regarding the last sentence of my prior post, I think you're also underestimating the extreme danger associated with inattentiveness while sober driving and/or how common distracted sober driving is. I 100% believe an very attentive person at .081 is less dangerous than an idiot texting and messing with the radio while driving. Which is to say, both are extremely dangerous.
See e.g. http://distracteddriveraccidents.com/texting-driving-dangero...
2. You / the grandparent are under-estimating the impact that attentiveness has in drunk driving accidents, and also underestimating the ability of drunk people to be attentive on demand. The VR test is not a good test of impairment because the drunk driver will be artificially attentive during the administration of the test.
Driving drunk is dangerous even before motor control is significantly impaired. And the reason for that is mostly psychological -- a bit reduced reaction time, okay, but the reduced attentiveness and judgement are really far more dangerous. The guy flying down the road 40 over "just wasn't paying attention". It's not that he would have noticed but didn't because "delayed reaction time". He never would have noticed because he was drunk and didn't have the good sense to pay attention while driving.
The problem with the VR test is that, when put on the spot, a drunk person can focus for a short or intermediate period of time. So that VR test isn't an accurate reflection of the actual typical behavior of an impaired driver.
Under-estimating the only-on-demand abilities of drunk people would be a deadly mistake when designing measurements of impairment. Measuring ability, not behavior, is not enough. Drinking changes behavior in ways that are dangerous while driving for for which a drunk person can often compensate (e.g. when confronted with a potential DUI, but often not when driving home on a routine route).
1. Regarding the last sentence of my prior post, I think you're also underestimating the extreme danger associated with inattentiveness while sober driving and/or how common distracted sober driving is. I 100% believe an very attentive person at .081 is less dangerous than an idiot texting and messing with the radio while driving. Which is to say, both are extremely dangerous.
See e.g. http://distracteddriveraccidents.com/texting-driving-dangero...
2. You / the grandparent are under-estimating the impact that attentiveness has in drunk driving accidents, and also underestimating the ability of drunk people to be attentive on demand. The VR test is not a good test of impairment because the drunk driver will be artificially attentive during the administration of the test.
Driving drunk is dangerous even before motor control is significantly impaired. And the reason for that is mostly psychological -- a bit reduced reaction time, okay, but the reduced attentiveness and judgement are really far more dangerous. The guy flying down the road 40 over "just wasn't paying attention". It's not that he would have noticed but didn't because "delayed reaction time". He never would have noticed because he was drunk and didn't have the good sense to pay attention while driving.
The problem with the VR test is that, when put on the spot, a drunk person can focus for a short or intermediate period of time. So that VR test isn't an accurate reflection of the actual typical behavior of an impaired driver.
Under-estimating the only-on-demand abilities of drunk people would be a deadly mistake when designing measurements of impairment. Measuring ability, not behavior, is not enough. Drinking changes behavior in ways that are dangerous while driving for for which a drunk person can often compensate (e.g. when confronted with a potential DUI, but often not when driving home on a routine route).
Ha, thinking about my comment after the fact last night, I went there too, and I agree. (Especially given other responses here stating that even minor impairment shows up as reduced performance in simulators; that suggests this could actually work.)
Well, common sense tells you that operating a 2 ton vehicle while even slightly impaired can lead to disasterous consequences.
10,000 people killed annually is more than the number of soldiers killed in the entire war Iraq and Afghanistan over a decade.
10,000 people killed annually is more than the number of soldiers killed in the entire war Iraq and Afghanistan over a decade.
But isn't swerving is victimless too? And running a red light or speeding or driving against traffic on the freeway?
If we only punish people for behavior that results in injury or damage then you're relying on each and every driver to correctly assess the risks of their behavior. People are notoriously bad at doing that, so any punishment will be ineffective as a deterrent.
If we only punish people for behavior that results in injury or damage then you're relying on each and every driver to correctly assess the risks of their behavior. People are notoriously bad at doing that, so any punishment will be ineffective as a deterrent.
Yes indeed! For some kind of evidence towards this, try walking on the streets of a city where running red lights, speeding, and driving on the wrong side of the road are reasonably common. (I'm not joking - where I live, this /is/ common.)
It's a victimless crime, all right - but only until the next victim.
It's a victimless crime, all right - but only until the next victim.
I'd argue it's not. People breaking traffic rules erode my ability to travel. If they were to regularly speed through red lights, I'd have to stop at green lights to watch for them. I have a right to travel through on a green light, but they'd take that from me.
We need to obey the rules of the road so other drivers can reason about our behaviour. We could have no rules, but it would be much less efficient. This is the prisoner's dilemma and the law enforces cooperation.
We need to obey the rules of the road so other drivers can reason about our behaviour. We could have no rules, but it would be much less efficient. This is the prisoner's dilemma and the law enforces cooperation.
True, you don't have to be killed or maimed to be a "victim".
Thank you, slavik and titanomachy - this was pretty much the point I was /trying/ to make, it didn't come out right.
You're confusing crimes with civil violations of rules, so let me be more clear; when I say crimes I mean things for which you can be incarcerated. A ticket and a fine for a civil violation is outside the scope of my meaning. A DUI can get you put in jail, even if you're fine to drive, even if you haven't ingested a substance in days. DUI's don't just apply to alcohol you know.
Plus, reducing the safety of using a shared resource (the roads) absolutely does cause harm, even if no injury occurs in a given case.
Shooting at people is victimless- only when the bullets actually hit people is there a victim, and there are already crimes/legal remedies in place for that.
Consider the case where a shooter sprays bullets in a crowded building wildly, but no one is actually hit.
Rightly or wrongly, drunk driving is considered endangerment of others.
endangerment comprises several types of crimes involving conduct that is wrongful and reckless or wanton, and likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm to another person.
Similar to crimes like attempted murder, we do not allow endangerment even though it may be the case that no one was hurt, because Person A took a high risk with Person B's life and we do not consider that acceptable.
Consider the case where a shooter sprays bullets in a crowded building wildly, but no one is actually hit.
Rightly or wrongly, drunk driving is considered endangerment of others.
endangerment comprises several types of crimes involving conduct that is wrongful and reckless or wanton, and likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm to another person.
Similar to crimes like attempted murder, we do not allow endangerment even though it may be the case that no one was hurt, because Person A took a high risk with Person B's life and we do not consider that acceptable.
That's not what "victimless" means. Victimless means no one is harmed, not even statistically, in consensually. Getting high at home, or having consensual sex, are victimless crimes.
Then drunk driving is not victimless, and my argument isn't needed anyway.
Sobriety is one of the conditions of the social contract you sign (literally, on your license application) in exchange for access to society's roads.
Jail time is not really appropriate. Really, you should just lose access to public roads. But license revocation is adulthood revocation for all but the privileged few in SF, NYC, and maybe Chicago. In most of this country you can't get groceries or primary medical care without driving, and you certainly can't hold a job or provide a normal life for your children. A five-figure fine and even a month or two in jail is many times less severe than permanent loss of driving privileges; that's life-destroying (pretty much your only option is to drop everything and move to a high-cost-of-living area of a high-cost-of-living city to get adequate public transit coverage).
Jail time is not really appropriate. Really, you should just lose access to public roads. But license revocation is adulthood revocation for all but the privileged few in SF, NYC, and maybe Chicago. In most of this country you can't get groceries or primary medical care without driving, and you certainly can't hold a job or provide a normal life for your children. A five-figure fine and even a month or two in jail is many times less severe than permanent loss of driving privileges; that's life-destroying (pretty much your only option is to drop everything and move to a high-cost-of-living area of a high-cost-of-living city to get adequate public transit coverage).
> license revocation is adulthood revocation for all but the privileged few in SF, NYC, and maybe Chicago
This is almost certainly true in America, but keep in mind that some other societies view driving somewhat differently. America represents less than one twentieth of the world's population. In major European cities, at least, car ownership seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
This is almost certainly true in America, but keep in mind that some other societies view driving somewhat differently. America represents less than one twentieth of the world's population. In major European cities, at least, car ownership seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
It's not really true in America, either. The (small) European cities I've lived in have far better transit than even major US cities, but any American city with a "greater metro area" population in the millions will have enough public transit that you can survive without a car and without living in an extremely costly area.
It requires some walking and biking, and some employment options do disappear. But most of those employment options are recoverable because the salaries (e.g. at suburban office parks) pay well enough to cover the cost of a cab from the nearest bus stop to the office every morning.
IME the lack of public will to walk a half mile, ride a bike in the rain, or wait ten minutes at a bus stop is by far the greatest barrier to use of public transit in America.
It requires some walking and biking, and some employment options do disappear. But most of those employment options are recoverable because the salaries (e.g. at suburban office parks) pay well enough to cover the cost of a cab from the nearest bus stop to the office every morning.
IME the lack of public will to walk a half mile, ride a bike in the rain, or wait ten minutes at a bus stop is by far the greatest barrier to use of public transit in America.
Using the word "salary", and talking about paying cabs to drive to buses shows that you ignoring the reality of a huge segment of the working population, who work hourly, and have childcare needs.
No, I'm not. I was giving two conditional scenarios, and dismissing the "salary" one precisely because the people you're telling me I'm ignoring are unlikely to work in those locations.
To reiterate:
IF you are not working in an office park off an interstate near an affluent suburb, most mid-sized American cities have enough transit to get by.
IF you are working in an office park off an interstate near an affluent suburb, then you're probably making enough that you can stitch together a combination of public transit and taxis to get to work from a low-rent area.
And yeah, long commutes suck when you're paying for child care. Which is why a lot of people choose a child care facility close to work.
Basically, my point was that I know a lot of Europeans whose commute involves > 1/2 mile of walking. And also a lot of Americans who live in cities that "don't have any public transit" because they have to walk 1/2 - 1 mile to get to a stop that takes them directly to work.
I'm not saying American public transit doesn't need to improve. Just that if Americans always demand door-to-door service, then public transit will never be good enough. And, more over, will always suck because that's an impossible demand.
To reiterate:
IF you are not working in an office park off an interstate near an affluent suburb, most mid-sized American cities have enough transit to get by.
IF you are working in an office park off an interstate near an affluent suburb, then you're probably making enough that you can stitch together a combination of public transit and taxis to get to work from a low-rent area.
And yeah, long commutes suck when you're paying for child care. Which is why a lot of people choose a child care facility close to work.
Basically, my point was that I know a lot of Europeans whose commute involves > 1/2 mile of walking. And also a lot of Americans who live in cities that "don't have any public transit" because they have to walk 1/2 - 1 mile to get to a stop that takes them directly to work.
I'm not saying American public transit doesn't need to improve. Just that if Americans always demand door-to-door service, then public transit will never be good enough. And, more over, will always suck because that's an impossible demand.
Car ownership rates in European countries are not vastly lower than in the US. In some, it's actually higher. On average the rate is a bit lower, but it's not anywhere close to "the exception rather than the rule."
Median commuting mileage per capita are higher.[1]
Japan, for example, has reasonably high per-capita car ownership, but the yearly mileage is less than half of US usage.
I think it's reasonable to suspect that the standard deviation in the US is much higher too.
1 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar4.htm
Japan, for example, has reasonably high per-capita car ownership, but the yearly mileage is less than half of US usage.
I think it's reasonable to suspect that the standard deviation in the US is much higher too.
1 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar4.htm
> Sobriety is one of the conditions of the social contract you sign (literally, on your license application) in exchange for access to society's roads.
Travel via the common means is a right, not a privileged; such laws are unjust. That driving requires you make such promises is absurd.
Travel via the common means is a right, not a privileged; such laws are unjust. That driving requires you make such promises is absurd.
> Travel via the common means is a right, not a privilege
Rights aren't unconditional.
> That driving requires you make such promises is absurd.
Here's why driving requires you to make these types of promises:
http://www.who.int/gho/road_safety/mortality/traffic_deaths_...
Rights aren't unconditional.
> That driving requires you make such promises is absurd.
Here's why driving requires you to make these types of promises:
http://www.who.int/gho/road_safety/mortality/traffic_deaths_...
> Rights aren't unconditional.
Conditions would make them privileges.
> Here's why driving requires you to make these types of promises
Not relevant, that it's dangerous doesn't change my opinion that it's absurd.
Conditions would make them privileges.
> Here's why driving requires you to make these types of promises
Not relevant, that it's dangerous doesn't change my opinion that it's absurd.
> Conditions would make them privileges.
This is a common misunderstanding.
Rights are unconditional is the sense that they apply to everyone equally. But almost all are conditional in the sense that they don't give carte blanc permission without exception.
It might help to think of rights like axioms. (A & (A -> B)) -> B is true unconditionally. It is an axiom. But it is also conditional. It is universally true, and yet, B is not universally true.
Nearly all rights we have are unconditionally conditional in this way. They always apply to everyone (universally), but that doesn't mean there aren't conditions (that get applied universally).
For instance, being convicted of murder triggers conditions on most of the rights we have as citizens. Not all of them, but most.
Privileges are different from rights because they don't have to apply to each person equally in the way rights do. The two are separated by the fact that rights are extended universally and privileges aren't, not by the presence or absence of conditions.
This is a common misunderstanding.
Rights are unconditional is the sense that they apply to everyone equally. But almost all are conditional in the sense that they don't give carte blanc permission without exception.
It might help to think of rights like axioms. (A & (A -> B)) -> B is true unconditionally. It is an axiom. But it is also conditional. It is universally true, and yet, B is not universally true.
Nearly all rights we have are unconditionally conditional in this way. They always apply to everyone (universally), but that doesn't mean there aren't conditions (that get applied universally).
For instance, being convicted of murder triggers conditions on most of the rights we have as citizens. Not all of them, but most.
Privileges are different from rights because they don't have to apply to each person equally in the way rights do. The two are separated by the fact that rights are extended universally and privileges aren't, not by the presence or absence of conditions.
Yes, I'm aware of that, I'm disagreeing with it as a matter of principle. Just because things are a certain way doesn't require that I accept it. Driving should not require a license and an annual fee to the state; the conditions we've accepted our on rights have destroyed many of our once long held freedoms. It didn't require a license to ride a horse or drive a buggy, licenses are just another way for the state to make money and restrict my right to travel via the common means of the day.
Beyond that, you understand what I'm saying, so rather than try to redefine what I mean when I use a word, how about just understanding my point. We're not in court, I don't need a lesson on the legal meaning of the word right.
Beyond that, you understand what I'm saying, so rather than try to redefine what I mean when I use a word, how about just understanding my point. We're not in court, I don't need a lesson on the legal meaning of the word right.
> you understand what I'm saying
Obviously, I apparently did not.
Therefore:
> I'm disagreeing with it as a matter of principle.
Please don't do that. Redefining words for yourself and then using your secret meanings in discussions is both irritating (because it wastes other commenter's time) and comes off as arrogant (because it demonstrates a clear disregard for other's time and a willful unwillingness to communicate effectively).
If you know something is a Right in the conventional sense even though it has conditions attached, state that you disagree with those conditions. Don't call it "not a right" to make a point. Doing so derails the conversation and wastes other's time.
> licenses are just another way for the state to make money and restrict my right to travel via the common means of the day.
That's obviously not true. You really think your $20 license fee pays for... anything? It's probably not even offsetting the cost of the licensing regime.
And restricting your travel obviously is not the goal of a driver's license. Where did you even get that idea?
"The State" doesn't require licensing because it wants to screw you out of money or keep you down. We, the people, require licensing because driving is dangerous and we don't want idiots to kill us.
> Driving should not require a license and an annual fee to the state
Of course, assuming you live in a democracy, you're free to try to change that.
I think you'll find this an impossible reform because given the danger of driving, licensing is an extremely important first step toward making roads safer.
> It didn't require a license to ride a horse or drive a buggy
Yeah, right, because horses and buggies didn't kill millions of people a year.
As an aside, in almost every state you can still ride horses on most public roads without a license.
Obviously, I apparently did not.
Therefore:
> I'm disagreeing with it as a matter of principle.
Please don't do that. Redefining words for yourself and then using your secret meanings in discussions is both irritating (because it wastes other commenter's time) and comes off as arrogant (because it demonstrates a clear disregard for other's time and a willful unwillingness to communicate effectively).
If you know something is a Right in the conventional sense even though it has conditions attached, state that you disagree with those conditions. Don't call it "not a right" to make a point. Doing so derails the conversation and wastes other's time.
> licenses are just another way for the state to make money and restrict my right to travel via the common means of the day.
That's obviously not true. You really think your $20 license fee pays for... anything? It's probably not even offsetting the cost of the licensing regime.
And restricting your travel obviously is not the goal of a driver's license. Where did you even get that idea?
"The State" doesn't require licensing because it wants to screw you out of money or keep you down. We, the people, require licensing because driving is dangerous and we don't want idiots to kill us.
> Driving should not require a license and an annual fee to the state
Of course, assuming you live in a democracy, you're free to try to change that.
I think you'll find this an impossible reform because given the danger of driving, licensing is an extremely important first step toward making roads safer.
> It didn't require a license to ride a horse or drive a buggy
Yeah, right, because horses and buggies didn't kill millions of people a year.
As an aside, in almost every state you can still ride horses on most public roads without a license.
I didn't redefine any words, I used the word in the common sense of the word, you're trying to use it in the legal sense. I made myself clear when I said applying conditions makes it a privilege, if you didn't understand my meaning after that, well then I can't help you, it couldn't have been clearer.
We used to live in a democracy, we now live in a plutocracy, the government hasn't represented the will of the governed in quite a long time, that's why voter turnout is abysmal.
We're done here, we obviously won't come to any agreement.
We used to live in a democracy, we now live in a plutocracy, the government hasn't represented the will of the governed in quite a long time, that's why voter turnout is abysmal.
We're done here, we obviously won't come to any agreement.
nmrm2(1)
> It didn't require a license to ride a horse or drive a buggy,
Horses were taxed. Carriages were taxed.
http://www.genguide.co.uk/source/taxes-miscellaneous/177/
Etc.
Horses were taxed. Carriages were taxed.
http://www.genguide.co.uk/source/taxes-miscellaneous/177/
Etc.
Taxed != license. No one ever lost their horse riding license.
Fines should be related to one's income. In Finland you can be unlucky enough to be fined a quarter of a million Euros for speeding if your income is high enough, same in Switzerland I think.
the proliferation of driverless cars could make the debate about losing access to public roads (i.e. losing one's drivers license) much more interesting.
While I agree that all laws should be questioned your example here misses the point.
When intoxicated with alcohol your reaction times and concentration level are slowed. You may obey all road rules perfectly on your normal drive home when drunk, but one night something may be a bit different - a train crossing that isn't normally used, an inattentive driver who pulls out slightly two late, or a pedestrian who crosses a bit slower than most people - and you're now in an accident that would have been avoided had you been sober and had your normal reaction and reasoning skills.
It's not the stereotypical swerving red-light-running drunk driver that we target with drink-driving laws, as you've mentioned that's already covered by dangerous driving laws.
When intoxicated with alcohol your reaction times and concentration level are slowed. You may obey all road rules perfectly on your normal drive home when drunk, but one night something may be a bit different - a train crossing that isn't normally used, an inattentive driver who pulls out slightly two late, or a pedestrian who crosses a bit slower than most people - and you're now in an accident that would have been avoided had you been sober and had your normal reaction and reasoning skills.
It's not the stereotypical swerving red-light-running drunk driver that we target with drink-driving laws, as you've mentioned that's already covered by dangerous driving laws.
When young/old/stupid/tired your reaction times and concentration level are slowed. But there are no laws against those things (unless you're actually driving badly).
> But there are no laws against those things
Yet. If we are ever able to reduce DUI to almost non existent the focus will move on other incident causes. I am sure there are already some people who would love to place camera inside every car to check if driver was paying attention.
Yet. If we are ever able to reduce DUI to almost non existent the focus will move on other incident causes. I am sure there are already some people who would love to place camera inside every car to check if driver was paying attention.
Drunk driving causes 10,000 deaths/year according to the article. How many are caused by the factors you mention? Doubtless some, but it's clearly not our top priority, especially given that it's much easier to give someone a breathalyzer test than to check for "stupidity" or "tiredness".
To be fair, tiredness is likely attributable to a great deal of road related injuries, but it isn't tracked because being tired isn't a criminal act.
I'm not saying you're wrong, per se, but suggesting that you're right due to the absence of evidence is premature.
That said, while I don't know how official these numbers are, the NHTSA attributes 100,000 accidents to driver fatigue per year, and while the victim count is currently lower than your assertion for drunk driving, I think that driving while fatigued is underreported for the reasons I mentioned above.
I'm not saying you're wrong, per se, but suggesting that you're right due to the absence of evidence is premature.
That said, while I don't know how official these numbers are, the NHTSA attributes 100,000 accidents to driver fatigue per year, and while the victim count is currently lower than your assertion for drunk driving, I think that driving while fatigued is underreported for the reasons I mentioned above.
Drunk driving causes 10,000 deaths/year
Here's part of the problem. The actual statistic is that 10k deaths occur where one driver had a BAC of 0.08 or higher. It's purely an assumption that these deaths would not have occurred if the drivers were sober. Some, certainly; some, certainly not. We need better information.
The discussion lacks "scientific integrity", as Feynman would put it.
Here's part of the problem. The actual statistic is that 10k deaths occur where one driver had a BAC of 0.08 or higher. It's purely an assumption that these deaths would not have occurred if the drivers were sober. Some, certainly; some, certainly not. We need better information.
The discussion lacks "scientific integrity", as Feynman would put it.
I expect quite a few are caused by tiredness specifically. I would not be surprised if it exceeded the drunk driving numbers (although I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it failed to either).
They do, and almost all countries have a minimum driving age. Some (including where I live) now have compulsory re-testing at intervals after a certain age, and there's the requirement to pass the a practical test to weed out the stupid.
Driving while tired is definitely an issue though.
Driving while tired is definitely an issue though.
There absolutely are - there is a minimum age, in may states reexamination is triggered above an age threshold, you must pass a test that the developmentally disabled may not be able to pass, and driving while tired is absolutely illegal. It ma be poorly enforced, but professional drivers have to maintain regularly audited logs showing that they are properly rested; trucking companies get fined for having employees driving for too many hours in a day.
I have argued this many times, but it usually gets heated on the internet where someone undoubtably knows someone who died from a drunk driver. That said I honestly believe the far and vast majority of drunk driving is victimless, and probably less dangerous than distracted driving.
Generally when you know someone who has died because of the choices of someone else it impacts how you view those choices.
I was in physical therapy next to someone who wasn't going to walk again because of a chronic drunk driver.
Distracted driving / texting while driving should be punished on the same level as drunk driving IMHO. It's really dangerous and until it's actively enforced people are going to get hurt often.
I ride my bike to work and it is so dangerous because of people texting. I've seen several accidents happen because one driver is texting and the one in front of them has to stop.
I was in physical therapy next to someone who wasn't going to walk again because of a chronic drunk driver.
Distracted driving / texting while driving should be punished on the same level as drunk driving IMHO. It's really dangerous and until it's actively enforced people are going to get hurt often.
I ride my bike to work and it is so dangerous because of people texting. I've seen several accidents happen because one driver is texting and the one in front of them has to stop.
If your commute is anything like London its the HGV (large trucks) vehicles that are the killers not texting while driving.
90% or so of the fatalities in london are caused by cyclists undertaking HGV's who turn into them.
90% or so of the fatalities in london are caused by cyclists undertaking HGV's who turn into them.
That's only the number of fatalities. A large number of serious injury occurs across a wider range of vehicles than just HGV's. I'd say the majority are probably down to poor driving judgement, and a modest number are due to distractions. A lot of these HGV injuries are to do with bad road design and poor cyclist judgement - pulling along side the left-hand side of a HGV while it's stationery into both the drivers blind spot and being unable to see the vehicles indicators. A few of the fatalities I know of were pretty unnecessary, since there are more than adequate cycle paths to skip around the dangerous sections of road. The Elephant and Castle roundabout is particularly notorious, but is surrounded by much safer cycle paths. Despite this, a large majority of cyclists stick to the highly dangerous road, and probably the same majority that decide to risk running red lights. (I am a cyclist, so I'm not starting a cyclist vs driver debate)
That's hilarious logic. The HGV runs someone over due to poor vision, and it's that persons fault?
That must be what people mean with the whole spraying bullets into a crowd thing. It's a victimless crime, except for the poor idiot that just had to lean into one bullet.
That must be what people mean with the whole spraying bullets into a crowd thing. It's a victimless crime, except for the poor idiot that just had to lean into one bullet.
The HGV pulls up to a traffic lighted junction. The driver is indicating to turn left. The traffic lights are currently red, and so the driver is stopped.
A cyclist undertakes the HGV - passes on the left. The cyclist is attempting to reach the cyclists junction box.
While making this manouver the traffic lights change from red to red-amber and then green. The HGV driver checks the mirrors but does not see the cyclist (who is in the HGV blindspot) and pulls off, turning left, crushing and killing the cyclist who is trapped between the HGV and the curb.
I've tried to word this neutrally. It's a tragic situation and there's learning for cyclists and HGV vehicles, and road designers here.
A cyclist undertakes the HGV - passes on the left. The cyclist is attempting to reach the cyclists junction box.
While making this manouver the traffic lights change from red to red-amber and then green. The HGV driver checks the mirrors but does not see the cyclist (who is in the HGV blindspot) and pulls off, turning left, crushing and killing the cyclist who is trapped between the HGV and the curb.
I've tried to word this neutrally. It's a tragic situation and there's learning for cyclists and HGV vehicles, and road designers here.
So a design fault of his vehicle made the driver unable to follow the rules of the road and properly check for the presence of other road users. As a result, he kills someone.
This isn't a tragic situation. It's a probable situation, and we know the root cause. It's the driver, of course, since the burden of lawfully operating his vehicle at all times falls on him, no matter the particularities. And it's the vehicle maker, because clearly the HGV isn't fit for traffic.
This isn't a tragic situation. It's a probable situation, and we know the root cause. It's the driver, of course, since the burden of lawfully operating his vehicle at all times falls on him, no matter the particularities. And it's the vehicle maker, because clearly the HGV isn't fit for traffic.
Apart form the fact that other road users don't normally undertake
Disregarding the fact that someone else violating a road law doesn't entitle you to run them over, that is an unnecessary complication in his scenario. You can be just as much in the ominous "blind spot" standing in a separate bike lane, or even just in a separate lane when the HGV tries to change lanes.
Those junction boxes in front of traffic are dangerous as it encourages cyclists to swerve through stopped traffic - I am sure the road designers in london hate cyclists
From what I remember of the highway code in the UK undertaking is banned. outwith slow moving traffic on motorways.
Cyclists need to understand that deliberately riding in unsafe ways to save a couple of minutes is dangerous.
Its more like going into a hells angels bar and picking a fight and being surprised you end up on hospital
Cyclists need to understand that deliberately riding in unsafe ways to save a couple of minutes is dangerous.
Its more like going into a hells angels bar and picking a fight and being surprised you end up on hospital
True 20 years ago I used to cycle in London and NOT! undertaking traffic and not riding in the gutter was my golden rule
Yeah, but all the other times where the drunk didn't hit someone it was victimless. So no need to try to stop him going out and driving drunk yet again.
Maybe the reason people keep telling you that you are wrong is not because they're overly emotional or biased, but because you're actually wrong.
I think the difference between distracted driving and drunk driving is the foreknowledge of impairment, and intentional increase of danger to the public. As such, in many states driving while texting or on the phone without a hands-free system are also illegal. The reasoned decision that someone's convenience is above the safety of the public is what I see as the problem here (and of course if someone isn't sober enough to make a reasoned decision about that, then I definitely don't think they have any place operating a piece of heavy equipment).
> foreknowledge of impairment, and intentional increase of danger to the public.
That sounds to me exactly like distracted driving.
That sounds to me exactly like distracted driving.
Yes, as in using a phone or being subject to a perception altering substance, as I stated. But you can also become distracted while driving without the ability to quickly stop driving. This could be the fault of the driver (paying attention to irrelevant things), or out of their control (conditions warrant splitting your attention between the road in front of you an another circumstance you have no control over). We don't punish these because we person is either not willfully causing the situation, or there is no way to determine if their behavior contributed.
Another way to think of it is that you aren't punished for drunk driving, but for breaking the law, and the law has been decided by determining that drunken driving provides unacceptable risk overall. Whether individually a person would have caused harm is irrelevant, we create a enforce laws for the good of all, and without enforcement, or selective enforcement without due process, we have a slew of other problems.
Another way to think of it is that you aren't punished for drunk driving, but for breaking the law, and the law has been decided by determining that drunken driving provides unacceptable risk overall. Whether individually a person would have caused harm is irrelevant, we create a enforce laws for the good of all, and without enforcement, or selective enforcement without due process, we have a slew of other problems.
You were remarking on the difference between distracted driving and drunk driving. I was replying that your stated difference did not sound like a difference at all.
Given the context of the surrounding discussion, I didn't think anyone was talking about situations of accidental distraction while driving.
Given the context of the surrounding discussion, I didn't think anyone was talking about situations of accidental distraction while driving.
I was trying to additionally distinguish between accidental and intentional distracted driving, because I find that when a distinction can be made like that but it isn't made clear, people end up talking past each other about slightly different things but with the same name.
I was a bit unclear in what I was doing though.
I was a bit unclear in what I was doing though.
Wise enough. I suppose I was taking it for granted that we were discussing intentional actions that place others in danger, and automatically excluding accidents.
Is it OK to shoot at you as long as I miss? Is it OK to poison your food if you turn out to be immune? Is it OK if I cut corners building your house to the extent that it's structurally unsound, as long as it doesn't actually collapse? Is it OK if your car's airbags spray shrapnel when they activate, if you never activate them?
So, you raise an interesting point. I have two follow-up questions.
Firstly, I'm not sure what "victimless" means exactly, and I think you may be taking it too literally. As people in the many comments below have pointed out, there are plenty of crimes which are "victimless", e.g. taking a machine gun and "spraying" a crowd of people with bullets, but failing to hit anyone. Is this a "victimless" crime? At what point do we decide to set the bar?
Come to think of it, there are charges of "reckless endangerment", where someone it can be a crime to do something which endangers other people in a reckless manner. Drunk driving certainly falls under those, so I'd say that drunk driving laws are simply enhancements of "reckless endangerment" laws, providing more specific context.
Secondly, we as a society will often choose to make our laws based on certain factors, like what an average citizen knows For example, driving under the influence causes a variety of physical changes that are not obvious and not known by every single driver, e.g. slower response times. These are things that a reasonable driver might not even realise are impacting them, and might not feel when they are partially drunk. But we, as a society that has done scientific tests, know that these effects always happen. In this case, it makes sense to block actions that we know are harmful.
Firstly, I'm not sure what "victimless" means exactly, and I think you may be taking it too literally. As people in the many comments below have pointed out, there are plenty of crimes which are "victimless", e.g. taking a machine gun and "spraying" a crowd of people with bullets, but failing to hit anyone. Is this a "victimless" crime? At what point do we decide to set the bar?
Come to think of it, there are charges of "reckless endangerment", where someone it can be a crime to do something which endangers other people in a reckless manner. Drunk driving certainly falls under those, so I'd say that drunk driving laws are simply enhancements of "reckless endangerment" laws, providing more specific context.
Secondly, we as a society will often choose to make our laws based on certain factors, like what an average citizen knows For example, driving under the influence causes a variety of physical changes that are not obvious and not known by every single driver, e.g. slower response times. These are things that a reasonable driver might not even realise are impacting them, and might not feel when they are partially drunk. But we, as a society that has done scientific tests, know that these effects always happen. In this case, it makes sense to block actions that we know are harmful.
> Firstly, I'm not sure what "victimless" means exactly, and I think you may be taking it too literally. As people in the many comments below have pointed out, there are plenty of crimes which are "victimless", e.g. taking a machine gun and "spraying" a crowd of people with bullets, but failing to hit anyone. Is this a "victimless" crime?
You've just terrorized a crowd of people, that's hardly victim-less; plenty of people there to complain about direct harm you've caused them, perhaps a few who will suffer years of PTSD. Plenty of lawsuits about to happen, victims by definition.
> At what point do we decide to set the bar?
If no one is aware enough to try and sue you, then you haven't hurt them, and thus your action is by definition victimless.
You seem to think DUI means alcohol only, it's a bigger issue than that and it's an absurd law that can get you in trouble literally days after you've been sober because it applies to all substances, not just alcohol. We have several states now with legal recreational marijuana, think about that. Many things people do while driving are far more influential on their response times than being "intoxicated", being tired is far more dangerous, being old is far worse on response times. DUI laws are unjust.
You've just terrorized a crowd of people, that's hardly victim-less; plenty of people there to complain about direct harm you've caused them, perhaps a few who will suffer years of PTSD. Plenty of lawsuits about to happen, victims by definition.
> At what point do we decide to set the bar?
If no one is aware enough to try and sue you, then you haven't hurt them, and thus your action is by definition victimless.
You seem to think DUI means alcohol only, it's a bigger issue than that and it's an absurd law that can get you in trouble literally days after you've been sober because it applies to all substances, not just alcohol. We have several states now with legal recreational marijuana, think about that. Many things people do while driving are far more influential on their response times than being "intoxicated", being tired is far more dangerous, being old is far worse on response times. DUI laws are unjust.
What's really telling to me is that in my state, you can even be arrested for sleeping one off in your car instead of being on the road. That says something to me about the purpose of the law. It suggests that its main purpose is to punish you for drinking, but that it has a side effect of encouraging you not to drive.
Yup. The only purpose most laws have, is getting someone elected. DUI laws are quite simply unjust but they exist because appearing tough on crime tends to work. We don't pass laws to be effective, if we did, many of the existing ones wouldn't exist.
You're still in charge ofthe vehicle even if you're not driving it.
Plenty of drunk people have a nap, wake up a few hours later and think they're not drunk and drive, even though they still are drunk.
Plenty of drunk people have a nap, wake up a few hours later and think they're not drunk and drive, even though they still are drunk.
In terms of harm minimization though, having a law which punishes you when you try to make the safest decision out of those available to you is messed up. I would much rather someone sleep 4 hours of a drunk off rather than trying to swerve home. Chances are, after 4 hours, they'll be closer to sleep deprived people in terms of their driving ability.
Its not victimless. The moment you got in the car, you created an increased risk for everyone else on the road. If someone came up to you, and asked you: how much would I have to pay you for an extra 0.1% chance that some drunk driver kills you on your way home from work tonight? The answer would not be $0. The risk it creates is in and of itself something that justifies criminalizing the activity.
I agree with you that it is not a crime by definition. But I think there should be a sufficient detriment to prevent people from doing this. And I think labeling it as a crime is the easiest thing to this end.
What is the alternative? Being frowned upon?
You say about how people automatically agree drunk driving should be a crime. But I always use to wonder how blindly we trust others on the road to behave responsibly. How often we leave our lives and our loved ones, to the fair judgement of a stranger.
Driving on roads will be impossible, without that trust. When you are drunk, and choose to drive when you judgement is poor, you are betraying the trust implicitly placed on you by every other person on the road. So isn't that something like a crime? Just thinking loudly.
I tell this as a moderate drinker myself.
What is the alternative? Being frowned upon?
You say about how people automatically agree drunk driving should be a crime. But I always use to wonder how blindly we trust others on the road to behave responsibly. How often we leave our lives and our loved ones, to the fair judgement of a stranger.
Driving on roads will be impossible, without that trust. When you are drunk, and choose to drive when you judgement is poor, you are betraying the trust implicitly placed on you by every other person on the road. So isn't that something like a crime? Just thinking loudly.
I tell this as a moderate drinker myself.
Here is the thing: through tens of years of auto dominance and "it's just an accident" precedent it has been rendered pretty much impossible to even charge anyone for killing someone with a car. Or injuring them, but then cops won't even investigate if all there is is an injury.
The simple reason we need drunk driving laws is exactly because they are victimless. It rightfully establishes strict liability.
The simple reason we need drunk driving laws is exactly because they are victimless. It rightfully establishes strict liability.
I'd actually grasp the other horn: I think the penalty for impaired/reckless/distracted driving should be the same whether you happen to kill someone or not. We all know that you drastically increase the risk of killing someone, it is only blind luck that prevented it. The penalties should not be capricious.
If you've known someone who's gotten hurt or killed by drunk driving you stop seeing it as a victimless crime.
There is no right to access public streets while intoxicated with two tons of steel.
There is no right to access public streets while intoxicated with two tons of steel.
and when they hit another car and kill someone that's okay too because punishing them at that point brings the other person back to life.
melling(1)
In my opinion, drunk driving is way over-regulated.
I understand that there's a limit - a point at which driving drunk is truly dangerous, and statistically obvious. But, I live in northern Virginia where drunk driving is a normality. I live in a culture of drunkenness, where the happy hour is the norm. I live in an overdrawn culture of wineries, breweries, and distilleries. There are wine and beer festivals seemingly every weekend. Yet, it's rarely the casual drunk who winds up in accidents (probably of skill at driving drunk). Yet, I see news of regular fatal accidents of those aggressive drivers who must get to work or home faster than average.
I understand that there's a limit - a point at which driving drunk is truly dangerous, and statistically obvious. But, I live in northern Virginia where drunk driving is a normality. I live in a culture of drunkenness, where the happy hour is the norm. I live in an overdrawn culture of wineries, breweries, and distilleries. There are wine and beer festivals seemingly every weekend. Yet, it's rarely the casual drunk who winds up in accidents (probably of skill at driving drunk). Yet, I see news of regular fatal accidents of those aggressive drivers who must get to work or home faster than average.
I'm with you. I've been in cars with drunk drivers and they're nowhere near as bad as soccer moms, taxis and old people. T
They're actually more careful cause they really don't want to be pulled over.
They're actually more careful cause they really don't want to be pulled over.
The unintended consequence of this otherwise excellent program is keeping the person within distance of the blowing station, and knowing where they will be twice a day. This is a huge amount of knowledge about a person, and a great deal of control over their movements.
So, yes, I would be for this program if the government agency administering it absolutely forbade all other law-enforcement from using their data to investigate people, and somehow I believed that they would really a) attempt to do protect the data, b) be capable of protecting the data, and c) allowed people freedom of movement.
So, yes, I would be for this program if the government agency administering it absolutely forbade all other law-enforcement from using their data to investigate people, and somehow I believed that they would really a) attempt to do protect the data, b) be capable of protecting the data, and c) allowed people freedom of movement.
This approach is being used a by a judge in Hawaii, with regard to its probation program:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law-july-dec13-hawaiihope_11-...
JUDGE STEVEN ALM: I thought to myself, well, what would work to change behavior? And I thought of the way I was raised, the way my wife and I would– were trying to raise our son. You tell him what the family rules are, and then, if there’s misbehavior, you do something immediately. Swift and certain is what’s gonna get people’s attention and help them tie together bad behavior with a consequence and learn from it.
MEGAN THOMPSON: These seemingly simple reforms in Hawaii soon produced remarkable results. An arm of the department of justice funded a study five years after the program launched. That study found that compared to people in regular probation, HOPE probationers were half as likely to be arrested for new crimes, or have their probation revoked. They ended up spending about half as much time in prison. And were 72% less likely to use drugs. The results from Hawaii caught the attention of criminal justice experts across the nation.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law-july-dec13-hawaiihope_11-...
JUDGE STEVEN ALM: I thought to myself, well, what would work to change behavior? And I thought of the way I was raised, the way my wife and I would– were trying to raise our son. You tell him what the family rules are, and then, if there’s misbehavior, you do something immediately. Swift and certain is what’s gonna get people’s attention and help them tie together bad behavior with a consequence and learn from it.
MEGAN THOMPSON: These seemingly simple reforms in Hawaii soon produced remarkable results. An arm of the department of justice funded a study five years after the program launched. That study found that compared to people in regular probation, HOPE probationers were half as likely to be arrested for new crimes, or have their probation revoked. They ended up spending about half as much time in prison. And were 72% less likely to use drugs. The results from Hawaii caught the attention of criminal justice experts across the nation.
How about the idea that not everybody that drives drunk is an alcoholic?
> he penalties [...] are modest. Drinking results in mandatory arrest, with a night or two in jail
Which will make you loose your job. Not that modest to me.
> he penalties [...] are modest. Drinking results in mandatory arrest, with a night or two in jail
Which will make you loose your job. Not that modest to me.
I've had two different friends killed over two different decades by drunken drivers.
In each case the drunk driver was FAR from their first offense and one of them even had a suspended drivers license but that didn't stop them.
Prison time to get them sober BEFORE they kill someone is the only answer I could come up with, but judges never seem to think it is a problem, even after they kill someone.
Neither of them got any significant sentence (just a few years) for literally murdering someone, it was like the law sees the other person on the road as taking their own chances or something just for driving.
In each case the drunk driver was FAR from their first offense and one of them even had a suspended drivers license but that didn't stop them.
Prison time to get them sober BEFORE they kill someone is the only answer I could come up with, but judges never seem to think it is a problem, even after they kill someone.
Neither of them got any significant sentence (just a few years) for literally murdering someone, it was like the law sees the other person on the road as taking their own chances or something just for driving.
http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/community/drug-offende...
This is the same idea applied to people on probation. The short overview - typcally when people on probation commit an infraction (fail a drug test, fail to meet probation officer) there's no consequence the first time, or the second or the third. Far down the line the consequence happens - the person goes back to jail for a couple of monthes or years.
The alternative method this program uses is that the first problem results in going back to jail - but for a short period of time, the way I read about it was on the order of a weekend. As it turns out immediate inconvenience is way more effective then a long term possibility of justice coming down on you like a ton of bricks.
Like the first poster said this is about way more then just drunk driving. I think it's about more then just criminal justice.
This is the same idea applied to people on probation. The short overview - typcally when people on probation commit an infraction (fail a drug test, fail to meet probation officer) there's no consequence the first time, or the second or the third. Far down the line the consequence happens - the person goes back to jail for a couple of monthes or years.
The alternative method this program uses is that the first problem results in going back to jail - but for a short period of time, the way I read about it was on the order of a weekend. As it turns out immediate inconvenience is way more effective then a long term possibility of justice coming down on you like a ton of bricks.
Like the first poster said this is about way more then just drunk driving. I think it's about more then just criminal justice.
I feel like this is a misleading headline. Law enforcement hands out modest, immediate penalties for other infractions every day - speeding tickets. Yet people still speed. This article is about targeting punishment and remedy to the 'other contributor' to the crime, alcohol, vs getting behind the wheel.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150127212158.ht...