Re:Predictive Policing Software Is Pretty Terrible at Predic...
by Retric on Tuesday October 03, 2023 @11:21PM
(#37760479)
That argument breaks down when you look at how these laws were actually created and changed over time.
People didn’t pick 0.08 BAC and then lower it because they found 0.08 BAC wasn’t low enough, instead the same organizations kept pushing for ever lower limits so they keep dropping independent of any actual impact.
Re:Predictive Policing Software Is Pretty Terrible at Predic...
by NovemberWhiskey on Tuesday October 03, 2023 @11:41PM
(#37760596)
In fact, that reinforces my argument: it's not about relative risk, it's about the definition of what's considered negligent varying over time based on changing attitudes.
Re:Predictive Policing Software Is Pretty Terrible at Predic...
by Retric on Wednesday October 04, 2023 @04:56AM
(#37762624)
Zero tolerance laws have nothing to do with impairment. 0.001 BAC doesn’t have a detectable influence on behavior but 7 states set have zero tolerance at literally 0.000. The definition of negligence isn’t changed by these groups, they are going to arbitrarily increase penalties over time because that’s why they exist.
Nobody advocates for drunk drivers as a group so there’s no equilibrium reached, just ever harsher penalties and lower limits. I don’t drink, but it’s obvious that using literally 0 as your threshold will pointlessly waste money going after edge cases unrelated to drinking.
This is fundamentally nothing to do with economic trade-offs: it's about generally disincentivizing risk-taking when in command of a multi-ton vehicle moving at speed.
We can know this because even if a "bad" driver is objectively more risky than a professional race-car driver who is 20yo, but has drunk a beer; it's the latter that's committing a crime when they drive.