0% alcohol limits for drivers 21 and under

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

So what you're saying is, not only would this policy fail to save even one single life, but it couldn't possibly save a life? And that it is therefore not worth its high cost in... wait, what exactly would it cost us? Freedom, I guess? Let's go with freedom. It's easier to defend freedom than intoxication.

What does this law fix? If you're going to go on the basis of "saving even one life' there are a LOT of things that can be made completely illegal. But that isn't what this law does, it just adds a new punishment for a certain age group for a certain behavior, so what does it fix? You could argue the same logic applies to murder since murder is illegal but it still happens. That's not what I'm arguing though. I'm arguing that this law doesn't fix anything AND is targeting a specific group. The fact the target group is the minority portion of the problem just furthers my disagreement with it.

Then what does any law fix?

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
Sku Boi wrote:

But dont you understand? You can take a group that is not out of control and take them down another peg leaving the rest to run rampant and free. Besides if you tell them they cant drink then they'll accuse you of taking their guns too!

Well, this is Canada, so I'm not sure the gun taking away hyperbole applies :P

Take away their hockey?

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

I'm arguing that this law doesn't fix anything AND is targeting a specific group. The fact the target group is the minority portion of the problem just furthers my disagreement with it.

Roughly 20% of the drivers are committing 33% of the accidents. If you pick a random driver in that group and a random driver outside of it, the driver in that group has about twice the chance of causing an alcohol-related accident as the one outside it. Don't think of them as the "minority", but as the "high-risk pool".

It's like women whose families have a history of breast cancer getting early screening for breast cancer. There are multiple types of inherited genes, some that increase risk by a little and a few that increase it by a lot. Only about 1 in 4 breast cancer cases come from women who have inherited any of these genes from one of their parents. Since they're the "minority" of breast cancer cases, people shouldn't really worry about it, right?

Of course not, because the fact remains that if they have inherited a gene that increases their risk of cancer, their risk is increased. It's not about the fact that they're only one in four of all breast cancer patients. It's about what they can do to protect themselves and others.

Drivers under 25 are at higher risk to cause an alcohol-related accident. Your own numbers support this. Now whether the law actually prevents anyone under 21 from drinking before they drive... that's debatable. But if they had to pick a specific group to target, this is the correct one.

Roughly 20% of the drivers are committing 33% of the accidents.

Conversely 80% are committing 67% though, and 100% of them cause 100%.

Stengah wrote:
Seth wrote:

There's also the related, and contentious, argument that lowering the speed limit on Interstate highways (or, heck, all roads) to 45mph would vastly reduce the amount of fatal car accidents.

Sure, it'll save a few lives...but millions will be late!

We'll just eliminate green and make all the lights yellow.

They raised the speed limit in my area to 75 from 65 and the accidents went waaaay down, but the fatalities from each were higher.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Stengah wrote:
Seth wrote:

There's also the related, and contentious, argument that lowering the speed limit on Interstate highways (or, heck, all roads) to 45mph would vastly reduce the amount of fatal car accidents.

Sure, it'll save a few lives...but millions will be late!

We'll just eliminate green and make all the lights yellow.

Come on! Stay yellow! Stay yellow!

I'm being a filthy skimmer and posting before reading the whole thread, but in response to Keldar's thing about young people causing more drunk-driving accidents, proportionally... remember that kids also tend to drink to wild excess a lot more than adult drivers.

A 20-year-old with one beer in him or her is probably barely more dangerous than he or she would be without. And zero tolerance is just stupid, because it's too easy to trigger a false reading with any number of different products that have trace amounts of alcohol in them. They could be dead sober and still trigger a 'zero tolerance' law.

That's why we set limits on blood alcohol that are higher than zero. Under-21ers are simply more dangerous on the road, but there's no evidence I'm aware of that small amounts of alcohol impair them any more than anyone else. They just tend to drink heavily.

I've always thought these restrictions were silly. We're not increasing policing, so the penalties don't matter when you don't get caught.

In BC, the graduated licensing program (your first 3 years) has 0% tolerance. I still remember doing stupid stuff anyways, like driving with a forty of my parents' whisky stupid.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that raising awareness about drinking and driving (making it uncool for kids) plus many, many visible road blocks has done a whole lot more good than steadily increasing legal restrictions.

Malor, whether you were skimming or not, I liked everything you said in your post. Here's a +1 to it.

Minarchist wrote:

MADD is insane and everyone knows it. In fact, they just got downgraded as a charity.

It's so strange to see this organization lose focus and fall apart. I remember they're lectures and advertisements while I was in high school.

I'd probably be in favor of increasing penalties for under-21 drunk drivers, because they're dangerous on the roads to begin with, but I don't think it's supportable to go zero-tolerance on their asses. It's too easy to fail a zero-tolerance test without drinking at all, and I don't think it's right to punish young people for having taken cold medicine or something when we wouldn't punish a 40-year-old for the same thing.

I'd be in favour of cracking down on young drivers and some of the legitimate risks they create if the same standards were applied to senior drivers as I've had to deal with far more dangerous behaviour on the road from that age group. In the case of young people, they tend to take stupid risks. In the case of seniors, it's often that they don't pay attention, have tunnel vision and arrogantly believe it's everyone else's job to get out of their way and accomodate however they choose to drive. A generalisation of course but no moreso than the ones applied to other age groups. Unfortunately, polticians are terrified to go after seniors because they vote and call the local paper whereas young people just tend to complain on Facebook. Targeting any one risk group while ignoring others is being remiss to the responsibilities of society as a whole.

Doug wrote:

I've always thought these restrictions were silly. We're not increasing policing, so the penalties don't matter when you don't get caught.

In BC, the graduated licensing program (your first 3 years) has 0% tolerance. I still remember doing stupid stuff anyways, like driving with a forty of my parents' whisky stupid.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that raising awareness about drinking and driving (making it uncool for kids) plus many, many visible road blocks has done a whole lot more good than steadily increasing legal restrictions.

Agreed. The problem is that drunk people and young people are poor at assessing probabilities. Quite aside from the legal penalties, drunk driving already has a very strong disincentive: dying in a horrible crash. If that doesn't bother people, increasing the legal penalties aren't going to. As you say, improving subconscious awareness that it could happen to them and/or "drink-driving is a d*ck move" kind of campaign is more likely to be effective.

Edit: Example of a recent anti-speeding ad campaign target at young men in Australia

Ballotechnic wrote:
Minarchist wrote:

MADD is insane and everyone knows it. In fact, they just got downgraded as a charity.

It's so strange to see this organization lose focus and fall apart. I remember they're lectures and advertisements while I was in high school.

Same thing happened to Greenpeace. They fought to raise awareness and once they'd accomplished that, the reasonable people called it a victory and went to do something else. The crazies kept fighting, and when all your reasonable demands have been met, you're left with unreasonable demands.

Just to add, Doug is correct in saying that without the fear of being caught people will drink and drive. Even if 0% were reasonable, if there is no increase in random breathalysing it won't matter a jot. For example, its gotten to the point in Ireland that you will pass a random checkpoint several times a year with a good chance of getting selected. Combine that with the level of 80mg BAC and you just cannot risk it when the minimum penalty is losing your licence for a year. Also the number of deaths on our roads have proven it has worked.

You need to have the add campaigns to reinforce the thinking and not try and change it. Young people are dumb, I was once one of them, and no amount of add campaigns will get through to them without the fear.

Sku Boi wrote:

Should I raise the point for my understanding of the law in america:

In the states its illegal to sell or sell alcohol to anyone under 21. Thinking about this, it makes no sense. It really baffles the mind how such an arbitrary requirement would do any good. I'm just confused and angry, I need a drink!

Sort of. States actually have the authority to set the minimum age for legal possession of alcohol. However, if they set it any lower than 21, they lose massive amounts of federal money for highways and the like.

Seth wrote:

Question: how much would a dose of cold medicine raise one's BAC?

Probably enough to blow hot. I remember during driver's ed our instructor told us that even a hit of Binaca or any breath spray that contained alcohol would make you blow hot on the breathalyzer. Whether that was true or not I don't really know, but I was 16 at the time and believed the guy.

On top of that, for as liberal as Massachusetts is, they're still puritanical as hell about alcohol.