Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29

Thread: More Drinking Hours, Fewer Accidents

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    17,247
    Thanks
    846
    Thanked 4,225 Times in 2,940 Posts
    Groans
    304
    Groaned 343 Times in 329 Posts

    Default More Drinking Hours, Fewer Accidents

    This does not imply that drinking is harmless, regardless of what idiots like pmp, yoda or taft will claim. Prohibition and/or the attempt to regulate behavior oftens lead to unintended consequences and only makes matters worse.

    http://www.cato.org/blog/more-drinki...ewer-accidents

    Does restricting access to alcohol reduce traffic accidents? Not necessarily, according to a recent study by economists from the University of Lancaster:


    Recent legislation liberalised closing times with the object of reducing social problems thought associated with drinking to “beat the clock.” Indeed, we show that one consequence of this liberalization was a decrease in traffic accidents. This decrease is concentrated heavily among younger drivers. Moreover, we provide evidence that the effect was most pronounced in the hours of the week directly affected by the liberalization; late nights and early mornings on weekends.
    The authors also suggest that the restrictive closing times caused more traffic congestion (everyone left the pubs at the same time), increasing the scope for accidents.


    So more freedom seems to generate better outcomes, presumably because most people use increased freedom sensibly.
    Last edited by Timshel; 04-22-2014 at 10:32 AM.
    Leviticus 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. 34 The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the homeborn among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,691
    Thanks
    2,300
    Thanked 1,256 Times in 960 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 137 Times in 127 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    What if standard equipment on automobiles was a breathalyzer? Too much to drink car won't start.

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,856
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    They've had this discussion here recently in San Francisco where all bars close at 2 but there has been debate whether they should stay open to 4. The obvious concern, which the above article addresses, is public safety and drunk drivers along with costs. I saw someone in the California state senate is trying to pass a bill that would allow those places that already stay open until 4am but don't serve alcohol past 2am to serve alcohol to 4am.

    It would be interesting to see a direct comparison between cities like SF which close at 2am and Chicago and New York which close at 4. I'm all for the staying open later.

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,856
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XLVIII DOMINATORS View Post
    What if standard equipment on automobiles was a breathalyzer? Too much to drink car won't start.
    Meaning someone has to blow into it every time they get into their car for it to start? Would you really want to do that?

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    10,125
    Thanks
    3,144
    Thanked 4,536 Times in 2,978 Posts
    Groans
    84
    Groaned 107 Times in 102 Posts

    Default

    Wow...2 am and 4 am. The only time I am up that late/early is if I'm fighting a fire or getting out of bed to go fishing.

    Edit: Added "early"

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Canton, Oh
    Posts
    3,663
    Thanks
    135
    Thanked 161 Times in 112 Posts
    Groans
    10
    Groaned 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    Ehhh, Self Driving Cars will be out soon... case solved.
    You Are Not So Smart Podcast - A celebration of Self-Delusion

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DigitalDave For This Post:

    J Craft (04-22-2014), Minister of Truth (04-23-2014), The Dude (04-24-2014)

  8. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,691
    Thanks
    2,300
    Thanked 1,256 Times in 960 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 137 Times in 127 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    Meaning someone has to blow into it every time they get into their car for it to start? Would you really want to do that?
    Not sure, probably wouldn't love it, but I'm sure if it were standard equipment I'd get used to it. I'm sure innovation could come up with a sleek and innocuous styling. Maybe auto insurance rates would drop as fewer drunks would be on the road. Maybe we could even reduce the number of cops needed to patrol the highways and incarcerate the drunks?

  9. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    47,970
    Thanks
    4,579
    Thanked 3,084 Times in 2,618 Posts
    Groans
    3,368
    Groaned 2,119 Times in 1,992 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    They've had this discussion here recently in San Francisco where all bars close at 2 but there has been debate whether they should stay open to 4. The obvious concern, which the above article addresses, is public safety and drunk drivers along with costs. I saw someone in the California state senate is trying to pass a bill that would allow those places that already stay open until 4am but don't serve alcohol past 2am to serve alcohol to 4am.

    It would be interesting to see a direct comparison between cities like SF which close at 2am and Chicago and New York which close at 4. I'm all for the staying open later.
    that would be interesting. when i used to bar hop etc...we never stopped at two...we simply went somewhere else to drink.

  10. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    47,970
    Thanks
    4,579
    Thanked 3,084 Times in 2,618 Posts
    Groans
    3,368
    Groaned 2,119 Times in 1,992 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XLVIII DOMINATORS View Post
    Not sure, probably wouldn't love it, but I'm sure if it were standard equipment I'd get used to it. I'm sure innovation could come up with a sleek and innocuous styling. Maybe auto insurance rates would drop as fewer drunks would be on the road. Maybe we could even reduce the number of cops needed to patrol the highways and incarcerate the drunks?
    i would never get used to blowing into a breathalyzer everytime i drove. i often drive with clients or associates and it would be a major inconvenience for little benefit. i have no doubt they would be easy to turn off.

  11. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,691
    Thanks
    2,300
    Thanked 1,256 Times in 960 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 137 Times in 127 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yurt View Post
    i would never get used to blowing into a breathalyzer everytime i drove. i often drive with clients or associates and it would be a major inconvenience for little benefit. i have no doubt they would be easy to turn off.
    It's hard to say how innovative it could get. I can't dismiss the benefit as littlle in light of drunk driving deaths, arrests, and the ensuing costs.

  12. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Detroit, AKA HEAVEN
    Posts
    31,403
    Thanks
    11,769
    Thanked 10,865 Times in 7,323 Posts
    Groans
    642
    Groaned 785 Times in 732 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XLVIII DOMINATORS View Post
    Not sure, probably wouldn't love it, but I'm sure if it were standard equipment I'd get used to it. I'm sure innovation could come up with a sleek and innocuous styling. Maybe auto insurance rates would drop as fewer drunks would be on the road. Maybe we could even reduce the number of cops needed to patrol the highways and incarcerate the drunks?
    Or we'd just disable it. Fuck you and your fascist idea.
    WATERMARK, GREATEST OF THE TRINITY, ON CHIK-FIL-A
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigmund Freud View Post
    The fields of mediocre chicken sandwiches shall be sowed with salt, so that nothing may ever grow there again.
    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

    www.gunsbeerfreedom.blogspot.com

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to /MSG/ For This Post:

    Cancel 2018. 3 (04-23-2014), The Dude (04-24-2014), Timshel (04-23-2014)

  14. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    68,352
    Thanks
    18,375
    Thanked 18,674 Times in 14,047 Posts
    Groans
    628
    Groaned 1,136 Times in 1,080 Posts

    Default

    I'm all for removing the legal curfew. That said, if the bars stay open 24 hours, then drunks are going to be wandering out into the morning commute, rather than simply into the dead of night. The idea that this will actually limit damages, DUIs, and deaths seems highly unlikely. The curfew is an unncessary government intrusion, though. It's bad enough that adults under the age of 21 are prohibited from being allowed to partake.

  15. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,691
    Thanks
    2,300
    Thanked 1,256 Times in 960 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 137 Times in 127 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Pearse View Post
    Or we'd just disable it. Fuck you and your fascist idea.
    Tell me how you really feel.

    Safety equipment already has its fascist ass planted in automobile designs. The lawful rationale for such designs is that costs associated with not having them justified their requirements. I only theorized about this dude, as it aligns with other similar safety equipment.

  16. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,856
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XLVIII DOMINATORS View Post
    Tell me how you really feel.

    Safety equipment already has its fascist ass planted in automobile designs. The lawful rationale for such designs is that costs associated with not having them justified their requirements. I only theorized about this dude, as it aligns with other similar safety equipment.
    I'm not a fan of the idea at all. If we want to put breathalyzer's in cars for people who have received DUI's then that's one thing and I can understand that argument. Otherwise do not like.

  17. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,691
    Thanks
    2,300
    Thanked 1,256 Times in 960 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 137 Times in 127 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    UNCLE on the breathalyzer.

Similar Threads

  1. More guns in fewer hands
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 12-24-2012, 10:26 AM
  2. Many fewer U.S. gun owners
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 471
    Last Post: 12-03-2011, 04:52 PM
  3. Fewer insults on the board?
    By WinterBorn in forum Introductions, User Announcements, Suggestions and General Board Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-27-2010, 04:58 PM
  4. Smoking bans, lead to increased drunk-driving accidents, fatalities
    By Little-Acorn in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 127
    Last Post: 04-08-2008, 01:07 PM
  5. Five die in two accidents on M6
    By NewsBoy in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-10-2006, 07:55 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •