In 1989; 50,000 US citizens were killed by drunk drivers. Then we woke up, and regulated.

[Imallin4Joe]

The results..

(Still too high)
About 10,000 US citizens die annually due to drunk driving crashes as of 2019.

As a former over-the-road truck driver, I've encountered drunk driving crashes on our highways. I've helped EMT's remove a persons legs from a crashed car, then their torso. Get the meaning of the seriousness of drunk driving crashes?

Yes, that is 100% true.

Regulation is a necessary function. It results from dangerous wrong-doing. From environmental destruction to banks preying on the impoverished to drunk drivers killing innocent families..

Regulation works.

Never let a GOPer tell you that regulation is a bad thing.

[JI7]

1. I read about the resistance to seat belts

Too many still die but without these laws and regulations it would be far worse . And even now we have to continue to improve things.

[Imallin4Joe]

4. Thanks for adding the seatbelt topic..

that was another huge fight back in the 80's. I was born in 1970 and became a huge political nerd through that era.

I remember Dems fighting hard for the pro-seatbelt reg and winning that fight. That reg has likely saved more lives than any regulation in the history of modern democratic governments.

JI7, thanks for adding that!

[Jimbo S]

40. I was opposed at first

The auto didn't industry didn't want mandatory dual air bags laws, so they convinced Congress if enough states pass seat belt laws, they could get out of installing the second air bag in their cars.

[AllyCat]

25. I remember this. We were kids. We didn't mind at all.

But the adults around us thought it was massive overreach. My uncle bought a white T-shirt that had a black “seatbelt” printed on it to look like he was wearing him so the cops wouldn’t stop him.

[malaise]

2. Get thee to the greatest page

for visibility

[joshcryer]

3. I have a strong feeling a lot of DUI deaths are also suicides.

There's very little research on this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224939391_Car_accidents_as_a_method_of_suicide_A_comprehensive_overview

Because it would be hidden in the data. Dead men tell no tales. Would have to do interviews with their family to see if they had ideation, which is common among alcoholics.

[lostnfound]

16. Would also suspect many are never counted as DUI.

A person who dies in a car wreck may not get tested for alcohol in the blood in many cases.

[TEB]

5. Agreed

Years ago I was hit by drunk in day cab in Brooklyn tore my passenger side fuel tank open. First words was no cops he said weaving at like 01:30 in morning as fuel was gushing out. He didn’t hit me that hard he just crossed over on turning lane.

[dsc]

6. I am 20 years sober and in my early days of AA I would hear leads

from people who had driven drunk in the 70's and early 80's. To say it was treated as a lark would be very spot on. Cops driving people home, letting them sit in a cell for a few hours to dry out, that kind of thing. We did a 180 on drunk driving in a very short period. To be fair, some of the drop is better car technology, but most of it is that the vast majority of people who drive drunk now are alcoholics who have done so repeatedly and wind up in prison. Casual drunk driving plummeted. I am old enough to remember when designated drivers became a thing.

[backroadblast]

11. the ole days.

yes
that's how it was back in those days. i have first hand knowledge from when i was under the influence and totaled my car running into a tree. it was me and a friend, stoned and speeding, no serious injury to either of us, so that was probably the best outcome.

my buddy walked back to the party, i got a ride home from the cops that night.

[thesquanderer]

7. Curious, what regulations since 1989 had an impact on drunk driver fatalities? (n/t)

[Imallin4Joe]

8. thanks for asking a very important question..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States

under Administrative penalties

the SR-22 requirement

Bill Clinton signed a reg that allowed the federal govt to withhold highway funding from states that didn't enact tough anti-DUI laws. .08 is now a natl standard for BAC.

[fescuerescue]

9. Seats belts and safer cars helped too

In the 1980's lots and lots of pre-1971 safety standard cars were still on the road.


I"m sure there are fewer drunk driving crashes. But I bet the decline line on Drunk Driving crashes isn't as steep as the decline on drunk driving deaths.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. Don't forget one of the most visible and vocal advocates for this

MADD

(founded in 1980)

[Hortensis]

13. Yes, by pushing to make DUI itself a felony, not just killing people

under the influence, they revolutionized society's attitude.

I was a young adult in the days when responsible adults routinely let friends drive home under the influence, offering to drive the ones who were noticeably impaired, but shrugging when they said no and all agreeing they hoped they'd get home okay and then going back to whatever they were talking about. It's how respectable people behaved, not just society's duds.

All that changed when DUI was criminalized. No longer respectable at all. Completely unacceptable.

We know, btw, that conservatives are overall especially intolerant, unforgiving and punitive toward those they see as criminals. These days they're also by far the most accepting of corruption in government and by far more likely to elect corrupt officials and see them as respectable. Just imagine the effects of turning politicians in tailored suits into convicts in prison suits on those attitudes also.

[lostnfound]

17. I remember that too. It was laughed off, the frequent subject of comedy..

But MADD, and good newspapers who profiled the victims, changed minds in the early 1980s.

[jaxexpat]

32. must be siblings from different parents.............No disrespect intended.

"Just imagine the effects of turning politicians in tailored suits into convicts in prison suits on those attitudes also."

That's how my mind works as well. Because, like just about every plan ever devised, unintended consequences may be surprising, even out performing the intention. Maybe that's why/how legislation, perhaps clumsily designed, that is primarily a punitive response and consequence to anti-social behavior can profoundly effect the psyche of the society at large. Perhaps that is the underlying element of civilization. Could be that Republicanism is the flowering product of some "blue law", forgotten by time. Like, "thou shalt wash well before the feast day lest ye be shunned as the priests' concubine".

If that word salad has any relevance then it may be a neat challenge to attempt identifying the here-to-fore unrecognized and on-going phenomenon which removes our ox from it's current ditch.

[Whatthe_Firetruck]

28. I'm kinda upset with MADD...

Here in California we had a State proposition (22) written by Uber, Lyft, and Doordash, to allow them to continue to treat their workers like gig contractors, instead of like employees with benefits. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020)

I was on the no side, believing it was a self serving bill and the writers were being greedy and callous to their drivers. They had threatened to pull out of California if they didn't prevail. They'd air comnercials of people saying, "I already have a job with benefits, this is just a side job for extra cash." I would imagine those who weren't so lucky, trying to survive entirely on this work, and how 22 would allow the companies to skirt worker protections and benefits.

The commecials for and against were on constantly, but the one with a MADD spokeswomen saddened me. They were taking Uber's side of denying protections to drivers, on what I considered to be specious grounds: If these companies pull out of the state, there will fewer sober drivers taking impaired people home, and more drunk driving.
https://www.madd.org/press-release/an-open-letter-to-californians-vote-yes-on-prop-22/

I used to respect the organization, now, not so much.

[BumRushDaShow]

37. Looks to me that they narrow-focussed on the ability to have

some kind of alternate "way home" for the inebriated vs the mechanics of how those companies operated.

One of the issues that has happened more and more as these ride-share companies began to proliferate (and they had a doozy of a time getting licensed/permitted here in PA and in Philly), was that the traditional cab companies have begun to dwindle and those that are the larger ones, often don't cross county lines if trying to hail one when not coming from a place like an airport or major Amtrak train station. So absent that, it leaves limited or no options for such an impaired person, if their companions (and/or designated driver) don't step up to the plate to do the deed themselves.

[Tikki]

38. I totally agree...

Tikki

[genxlib]

12. The job-killer argument also bugs me

No one seems to recognize that regulations can create jobs as well; agency reps, auditors, inspectors, etc.

I am an Engineer and much of our industry is driven by helping people navigate regulations like environmental permits, building codes, drainage requirements, etc,

[Mr. Evil]

14. Regulations encourage innovation.

If it didn't we'd still be driving V8 clunkers that barely get 8 miles per gallon and fall apart after 3 years.

[dawg day]

21. Uber and Lyft helped...

Making it almost fashionable to get a driver home... making it easy to get a ride.

[Mr. Evil]

23. Funny how perceptions can change.

If you took a cab it meant you were too poor to own a car. With Uber and Lyft it means you have money to burn. Go figure.

[dawg day]

42. I remember being intimidated about "calling a cab"--

like it was some alien thing that other people did, people in Manhattan maybe.

But Uber and Lyft figured it out-- make it an app, make it easy, and that almost made it cool. It wasn't some shameful admission if you ordered a ride because you'd been drinking. Almost liberating-- you could drink without counting every sip and calculating the breathalyzer results.

Boy, it seems like we're talking about a lost time long ago, back when we'd go to a bar and drink and then get a ride home....

It was JUST LAST YEAR!

[Mr. Evil]

45. LMAO! Back in the day we'd try to get a ride home from the person who passed out before we did!

[Akacia]

15. My oldest son was killed by a drunk driver.

I have absolutely no tolerance for people who drive while drunk! And yes, I celebrate that it is regulated as it is.

[niyad]

19. I am so very sorry for your loss.

[Akacia]

20. Thank you. nt.

[malaise]

24. Horrific

[AllyCat]

26. Akacia, I am so sorry to hear this.

Cannot fathom the heartbreak. My condolences to you and your family on losing your son.

[Akacia]

43. Thank you. nt.

[NewJeffCT]

18. US population in 1989 was 246 million

Now, it is 331 million.

so, without regulation, drunk driving deaths would be in the 65,000 to 70,000 range based on population increase solely.

[AllyCat]

27. Yes! This!

[Klaralven]

30. Total auto accident deaths in 1989 were 45,582. Not all of them were caused by drunk driving.

2018 total auto accident deaths were 36,560.

https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot

Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles dropped from 2.17 in 1989 to 1.13 in 2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

The reduction is likely due to a combination of law enforcement, seatbelt usage, airbags, better vehicle crashworthiness, anti-lock brakes, traction control systems, and the trend towards larger, more robust SUVs.

[Mariana]

34. The OP has greatly exaggerated the number of drunk driving deaths in 1989.

Also, annual drunk driving deaths were already decreasing by 1989.

[former9thward]

35. Drunk driving deaths in 1989 were 17,849

The OP pulled the 50,000 figure out of thin air.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001856.htm#:~:text=From%201982%20through%201989%2C%20the,to%2014%2C644%20(Table%202).

[Auggie]

22. Motorcycle helmets!

Another regulation I remember in my lifetime

[smirkymonkey]

46. Yes, I was just thinking about that.

I wonder what the stats are on that and how many lives that regulation has saved. I seem to remember that there was a lot of pushback when that first became a requirement as well.

[former9thward]

29. I have no idea why you are choosing 1989.

Drunk driving was illegal before that year.

[Mariana]

31. In 1989, about 17,849 people died in alcohol-related crashes.

From the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Dec. 14, 1990:

From 1982 through 1989, the estimated number of fatalities in crashes in which at least one driver or nonoccupant was intoxicated decreased 12%, from 20,356 to 17,849.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001856.htm#:~:text=From%201982%20through%201989%2C%20the,to%2014%2C644%20(Table%202).

[eppur_se_muova]

33. Best metaphor for laissez-faire, lax regulation is still "a hockey fight without referees" ...

... to describe what "unfettered Capitalism*" would be like. Same applies to Libertarianism, which just extends the same "principles" (or absence thereof) to every aspect of society, not just economics.










*Capitalization (no pun intended -- oh, OK, maybe a little) to indicate ("big-C&quot capitalism taken as an indoctrinated creed, or dogma, not to be questioned by either the faithful or unbelievers, as opposed to "small-c" capitalism as an occasionally useful principle which works well enough as long as it isn't be carried too far.

[Turbineguy]

36. I run into this all the time in my classes

because there tend to be a god number of teabaggers in the group.

But then also, this happens. One guy turned around and said, "... that Lufthansa crash would not have happened here because our regs require 2 persons in the cockpit..." This was a class shortly after this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525

[Oneironaut]

39. There's a logical fallacy with gun control that, if there is even one crime, gun control doesn't

work. It’s really annoying to argue with people who don’t get why this is bad logic.

I mean, the Grand Canyon Skywalk has railings, and people still fall over! I guess we should remove the railings. They’re not helping at all!

[BobTheSubgenius]

41. There is sometimes overreach; regulators get too zealous, or knowledge is added to the equation.

Sometimes human error, sometimes changing paradigms, but I can't think of a regulation that was done out of malicious intent. Can anyone?

Nothing is ever going to make everyone happy, and least of all the unfettered who become the regulated. Eventually, an equilibrium is reached, and people just learn to go along with the new boss, which is hopefully an improvement over the old boss.

And sometimes, you just have to suck it up and deal with the new realities.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

44. Where in the world did you get that number from?

Because according to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year about 45,000 people died in car accidents altogether.