• SadSadSatellite @lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m interested in what the harsher dui laws have done to drunk driving rates. Are less people doing it and less people dying? Or are there just a lot more fines and arrests from people driving home from restaurants and bars?

    I’ll clarify I refuse to drive with more than two beers in me, I really only have more than that at home, but I do feel like the somewhat arbitrary alcohol limits seem harsh And the fact you can be pulled over and forced into a BAC test for really any reason feels a little ‘Minority Report’.

    Again I’m not condoning drunk driving, just interested in the shift in effected lives.

    • HiddenLayer5
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Better public transportation, walkable streets, and non car-centric urban planning in general has done far more to prevent drunk driving than harsher laws. Data shows that the incidence of DUIs are more or less proportional to the need for residents in a city to drive in general. DUIs are rarely premeditated, purposeful crimes. Very few people are at the bar rubbing their hands together as they down their fourth shot, anticipating the moment when they get behind the wheel. The vast majority of DUIs are the result of poor planning and poor decisions when you just want to get home, and in situations like that the threat of punishment or simply the voice of their conscience is also a lot more likely to be ignored. Providing easy alternatives to droving goes a long way to preventing DUIs. People are way less likely to be in a position to DUI when the metro is the most convenient way to and from the bar.

    • tenchiken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      BAC limits are at least supposed to be based on averages recorded from “test subjects were impaired / affected at this level or higher”… It’s not a bad metric to use in itself, but the level applied and how it’s enforced are definitely able to be questioned harder.

      The fact that cops use “they seemed influenced” as a catch all to threaten and excuse shitty behavior is the bigger problem by far. It’s squarely under the other traffic laws in my mind … While well intentioned, the vast majority of people will just behave the same regardless. Only 2 real things happen:

      1. Abuse of said laws for monetary / power gains
      2. Actual death/harm caused by major infractions holds a real chance at penalty or enforcement

      Balancing between them is the bigger problem.

      Ultimately, societal change on personal responsibility would be the better solution, but humans will always be “but I should be allowed to break the rule because I won’t hurt anyone!”… Or they are sociopathic and just don’t care if their fun hurts others.

      • SadSadSatellite @lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think BAC is probably the best real indicator we have, the issue that stands out to me about it is (unsure if state or national) the legal limit has been lowered twice in my memory, and it was due to groups like MAAD pushing, not scientific studies.

        Note: MAAD was just an example I chose, I really know nothing about them. They could be complete abolishonists or concerned citizens, I have no opinion.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just FYI it stands for Mothers Against Drunk Driving. They are MADD not MAAD. I remember the church bus accident on I-71 in Kentucky. That’s when they got a ton of political capital.

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          In my opinion, I have no problem lowering the BAC floor. You cannot tell when you’re too drunk to drive. It’s much safer to just follow the maxim of if you’re going to drink, don’t drive; if you’re going to drive, don’t drink. It’s so easy to not drink alcohol. Easier than drinking even; you just have to not buy it.

          My opinion might be skewed because I know several alcoholics who insist that they’re good (if not “better”) drivers when they’re buzzed. I hate my city’s drug culture. People treat me like a damn unicorn because I don’t use alcohol, nicotine, or THC.

          • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Easier than drinking even; you just have to not buy it.

            I don’t buy more than 1 beer when I go out. I end up drinking 4-5 because people buy me drinks for singing. I literally sing for my supper liquid bread.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Harsher laws don’t reduce crime. We have over 40 years of data in the US to corroborate that. They just increase your prison population.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36178871/

      Conclusion: There was a marginally significant [p = 0.07] higher incidence rate of drunk-driving episodes among residents of states with no minimum jail sentence compared to those in states with a minimum jail sentence for the first time DUI.

      Minimum sentences for first offense are correlated with lower rates of drunk driving. This doesn’t prove causation, of course, and continuing to ratchet up sentencing will obviously have diminishing returns, but it does seem to help a bit.