tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559260500579382213.post1726763332914107114..comments2024-03-23T13:18:17.693-05:00Comments on Anybody Want A Peanut?: Drinking and driving and progressive penaltiescherenkovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15355986781478585611noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559260500579382213.post-49086386806769258282010-12-20T14:50:39.636-06:002010-12-20T14:50:39.636-06:00I don't know. Maybe it's because we elect...I don't know. Maybe it's because we elect stupid people. All governments hire numerous researchers, and policy analysis and people with PhDs who are perfectly capable of reading studies and formulating intelligent policy, but somehow we end up with laws that at best are only moderately effective, and too often actually counter-productive. Sometimes at least it's just because of optics, or what requires the least amount of effort, or what they think will get them the most votes. I don't know..cherenkovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15355986781478585611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559260500579382213.post-12260181149884465892010-12-20T12:03:49.856-06:002010-12-20T12:03:49.856-06:00"It's unfortunate that our law makers are..."It's unfortunate that our law makers are more concerned about the appearance of law rather than the effectiveness of law. The new cell phone law is no different"<br /><br />Agreed. Do you think it's because they want the appearance of doing something, or is it genuinely because most lawmakers don't know how to make proper laws?<br /><br />I think you should have at least included the sentiments of the article in your blog. Most people think it's common sense that if you reduce BAC and set up roadblocks, that will lead to reduced accidents and deaths.<br />I agree that it is unlikely that the laws will ever change, but going with the flow helps nothing.Gustav Nelsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559260500579382213.post-71123855552887702082010-12-20T09:34:52.420-06:002010-12-20T09:34:52.420-06:00I agree with the point of that article, however it...I agree with the point of that article, however it is highly unlikely that the government would ever get rid of b.a.c-based DUI, so if they're going to have DUI they should at least go after the most serious risks -- those with serious levels of impairment. Like the article said: "the average BAC in alcohol-related fatal accidents was 0.17" (and that avg includes accidents where drivers had very low bac where alcohol was likely not a factor)<br /><br />It's unfortunate that our law makers are more concerned about the appearance of law rather than the effectiveness of law. The new cell phone law is no different.cherenkovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15355986781478585611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559260500579382213.post-88503040653413759302010-12-20T07:51:10.084-06:002010-12-20T07:51:10.084-06:00I disagree, focusing on Blood Alcohol Content rath...I disagree, focusing on Blood Alcohol Content rather than actual wreckless driving doesn't help make the roads safer.<br /><br />http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-lawsGustav Nelsonnoreply@blogger.com