The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Social Issues]

I'm dubious on the claimed figures here...... with that said, and my salt-shaker full:

While about eight percent of drivers during weekend nighttime hours had alcohol in their system, only one percent were found with breath alcohol content higher than 0.08 percent – the legal limit in every state, according to the survey by the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

....

The number of weekend nighttime drivers who were found with drugs in their system jumped from 16.3 percent in 2007 to 20 percent in 2014.

So what you're telling me is that drunk driving is no longer a material problem of any sort, since virtually nobody is actually operating a vehicle while impaired.

On the other hand, drugged driving is increasing.

There is a solution to this that has been available for a couple of decades -- impairment testers that measure reaction time, much like a video game.  They're pretty good, but have one big problem: Many older drivers cannot pass them irrespective of what drugs they have in their system, and yet these drivers are equally dangerous to someone on drugs or booze.

If we gave a damn about actual hazardous driving we'd use those and quit with the bull**** about BAC levels and such.  I know several people who have blown levels double or more the legal limit into my pocket BAC meter and yet they do not appear to be subjectively intoxicated and would likely pass a field sobriety test!

Are they dangerous on the road?  Probably not -- and definitely not as dangerous as some people with much lower objective levels of alcohol in their system yet who are obviously and visibly impaired.

So why not test for actual impairment rather than "levels"?  The answer is simple: You'd wind up jailing people due to actual hazard, and that would include a hell of a lot of senior citizens and others, including politicians, who tank up on various things other than booze and which are not, at present, able to be objectively tested for.

Such a change would also decimate the claims of those that "0.08" is a legitimate statutory BAC limit.  It simply is not; for some people it's dramatically wrong and not always in the "too low" direction either.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.