Drunk driving deaths down by 46% in B.C.

[oneh2obabe]

The Canadian Press
Posted: Nov 21, 2012 3:14 PM PT
Last Updated: Nov 21, 2012 6:39 PM PT

The B.C. government says a tough drunk driving law brought in two years ago has reduced the number of impaired driving deaths in the province by 46 per cent.

It says since the law took effect in September 2010, the number of alcohol-related traffic deaths has fallen to an average of 62 a year from about 114 in each of the previous five years.

The government says that means an estimated 104 lives have been saved.

It also says a roadside survey in several areas of the province has found a 44 per cent drop in the number of drivers with a blood alcohol count of 0.05 per cent and over, and a 60-per-cent drop among drivers with higher alcohol counts.

The government says these are the lowest levels of impaired drivers in the history of seven similar surveys.

Attorney General Shirley Bond says more people are getting the message not to drink and drive.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -down.html

[simnut]

The B.C. government says a tough drunk driving law brought in two years ago has reduced the number of impaired driving deaths in the province by 46 per cent.

It says since the law took effect in September 2010, the number of alcohol-related traffic deaths has fallen to an average of 62 a year from about 114 in each of the previous five years.

If you look at the statistics of those "averaged" years...the number of traffic deaths HAD been steadily going down. Five years back was an abnormally high year for drunk driving deaths....which inflated the "average" that Shirley Bond is using. Wonder why they went back five years...??? mmmm?

It also says a roadside survey in several areas of the province has found a 44 per cent drop in the number of drivers with a blood alcohol count of 0.05 per cent and over, and a 60-per-cent drop among drivers with higher alcohol counts.

Per Cent of what? You may have the same number of drivers drinking and driving, but if you stop MORE drivers and more of them are NOT drinking...your percentage of drinking drivers drop......while the number of drinking drivers stays the same!

Attorney General Shirley Bond says more people are getting the message not to drink and drive.

Wonder why these are hitting the news then?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... iving.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... eaths.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Vancou ... story.html

It is NOT the new laws that are saving lives....it is the simple fact that there are MORE police hours out on the road!!!! A caught drunk driver is one that CANNOT kill someone........the more they catch, the less deaths there are!!!! A drunk will drive REGARDLESS of the laws...................

[ticat900]

Quote:
The B.C. government says a tough drunk driving law brought in two years ago has reduced the number of impaired driving deaths in the province by 46 per cent.

OK Now is this the amount of people killed by a drunk drivers or the total of drunk drivers dieing plus people they have killed?

[keith1612]

omg the government would never lie about such things.
it would be terrible if we had another fake situation like the gun registry.

[ticat900]

omg the government would never lie about such things.
it would be terrible if we had another fake situation like the gun registry.

I watched the gun registery quit closely and not sure what fake situation your alluding to?
other than the estimated cost to impliment verses what it really cost
I personally thought it was a reasonable thing to do but after the utter mess and confusion it caused never mind the hideous cost never mind it did nothing to deter crime I have decided to change my mind

[Veovis]

This would be a great stat if it could be verified accurate. I doubt it can as I assume it has been slanted to make it look better.

None the less any decrease is good, however I would also like to see the stats on "sober" accident deaths as perhaps it is just bad drivers and not drunk ones? (never mind the trend was steady decrease anyways)

Unless the whole picture is presented you can pick and choose what makes your cause look better.

[simnut]

None the less any decrease is good, however I would also like to see the stats on "sober" accident deaths as perhaps it is just bad drivers and not drunk ones? (never mind the trend was steady decrease anyways)

Oh, I fully agree!!!! The ONLY good thing about the new drinking and driving laws is the fact that there are more police hours on the road to stop more drunks! But don't try and pass on that these laws are so good using manipulated statistics......

[simnut]

For those of you that are interested, take a look at this website...the BC Coroners Office. Select Motor Vehicle Accident death (1999-2010).

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/coroners/publ ... statistics

In that pdf, scroll down to page 3 and take a look at the stats headed:

MVI Fatalities with Alcohol and/or Drugs Contributing, 2002-2010


Now you will see, why in 2010 the Government went back 5 years in the stats to get their "average". 2005 had a very high number of deaths involving alcohol and, in my opinion, was included to inflate the stats. If you take the average of 4 years when the new laws came out, it would be much different!


Also, if you look at the drop of alcohol/drug impaired deaths from 2009 to 2010, it is only an 8% drop.

[my5cents]

Now you will see, why in 2010 the Government went back 5 years in the stats to get their "average". 2005 had a very high number of deaths involving alcohol and, in my opinion, was included to inflate the stats. If you take the average of 4 years when the new laws came out, it would be much different!


Also, if you look at the drop of alcohol/drug impaired deaths from 2009 to 2010, it is only an 8% drop.

Well done simnut.

There's a saying attributed to British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. "There are lies, damn lies, and statistic"

My favorite has always been the police' Christmas roadblock stats, take whatever jurisdiction you want.

"There has been and increase in the number of charges this year over last by 25%. Our enforcement strategies are working and we're getting more drunks off the road."

"There has been a drop in the number of charges this year over last by 25%". Our enforcement strategies are working, fewer drinking drivers are on our roadways."

On average, world wide, there are fewer births recorded in February than any other month.

If you right foot is frozen in a solid piece of ice and your left foot is in boiling water, on average you are comfortable.

(There are fewer days in February)

[noneofyourbiz3]

How do the stats effect their funding?

[my5cents]

Since we are on the subject of numbers, has anyone noticed the jump in hit and run collisions ?

Wouldn't it make sense that if a government enacts draconian drinking and driving laws, or "sanctions" or whatever you want to call them, they should also increase the punishment,,, sorry, the sanctions, for related offences, like taking off after being involved in a driving incident ?

Keeping with program, the suspect would have to be guilty without a trial and the punishment should be immediate and drastic.

As for statistics, the VPD (Vancr Police) announced today that in the first week of Christmas Drinking and Driving roadblocks they nabbed 60 drivers.

In 2011 during the same first week, they nabbed only 45, so that's a 33% increase ! Interesting trend.

[Smurf]

There again the picture would be much clearer if they told you the percentage of drivers stopped that were charged each year. Maybe they stopped three times as many drivers in 2012 therefore the actual number would be lower.

[my5cents]

There again the picture would be much clearer if they told you the percentage of drivers stopped that were charged each year. Maybe they stopped three times as many drivers in 2012 therefore the actual number would be lower.

Exactly. Thus my reference to less births in February. ie you have to have the whole picture to analyze stats.

I think one method used to avoid skewed stats is to use a larger base and eliminate the highs and the lows.

[KL3-Something]

The B.C. government says a tough drunk driving law brought in two years ago has reduced the number of impaired driving deaths in the province by 46 per cent.

It says since the law took effect in September 2010, the number of alcohol-related traffic deaths has fallen to an average of 62 a year from about 114 in each of the previous five years.

If you look at the statistics of those "averaged" years...the number of traffic deaths HAD been steadily going down. Five years back was an abnormally high year for drunk driving deaths....which inflated the "average" that Shirley Bond is using. Wonder why they went back five years...??? mmmm?

Do you really need to ask why they went back 5 years from 2010? Could it have something to do with September 20, 2010 being the starting point of the IRP? They needed a baseline to reference to and the five year average was it.

It also says a roadside survey in several areas of the province has found a 44 per cent drop in the number of drivers with a blood alcohol count of 0.05 per cent and over, and a 60-per-cent drop among drivers with higher alcohol counts.

Per Cent of what? You may have the same number of drivers drinking and driving, but if you stop MORE drivers and more of them are NOT drinking...your percentage of drinking drivers drop......while the number of drinking drivers stays the same!

They are not referring to vehicles stopped by police. There were surveys done by a consulting company in various areas of the province. They set up voluntary road checks in several different communities in consecutive years (including Kelowna) where driver's were surveyed by the group and answered questions/took ASD tests with no consequences. If they were over the limit or were found to have been driving under the influence of drugs they were allowed to park their cars and walk away. That is the survey they are referring to. The results were surprising, AND kind of scary.

Attorney General Shirley Bond says more people are getting the message not to drink and drive.

Wonder why these are hitting the news then?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... iving.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... eaths.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Vancou ... story.html

"Were" hitting the news. Those are three reports from almost a year ago during the time when the IRP fails were suspended due to the Sivia decision. One week of data does not make a trend....But does make interesting news.

It is NOT the new laws that are saving lives....it is the simple fact that there are MORE police hours out on the road!!!! A caught drunk driver is one that CANNOT kill someone........the more they catch, the less deaths there are!!!! A drunk will drive REGARDLESS of the laws...................

How can you possibly say that it isn't as a result of the new laws? The new laws ARE what is allowing more police to be on the roads to stop those drunks. Instead of each drunk taking two cops off the road for two hours at a time the laws allow the one member to stay on the road while the other spends less than an hour dealing with the drunk and his or her car.

[KL3-Something]

For those of you that are interested, take a look at this website...the BC Coroners Office. Select Motor Vehicle Accident death (1999-2010).

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/coroners/publ ... statistics

In that pdf, scroll down to page 3 and take a look at the stats headed:

MVI Fatalities with Alcohol and/or Drugs Contributing, 2002-2010


Now you will see, why in 2010 the Government went back 5 years in the stats to get their "average". 2005 had a very high number of deaths involving alcohol and, in my opinion, was included to inflate the stats. If you take the average of 4 years when the new laws came out, it would be much different!


Also, if you look at the drop of alcohol/drug impaired deaths from 2009 to 2010, it is only an 8% drop.

I've been doing my job for a long time. And in each year they have taken the average of the previous five years and compared it to the last or current year. Year after year, for years. Until 2010 those number could be compared directly because the laws never changed. In September of 2010 the goal posts were moved with the IRP with a very specific goal in mind that was directly related to the number of alcohol-related fatalities. When trends have been based on 5-year averages for years and years why would they change the reference now? If there was a spike in 2005 then oh well. That is why it is a five year average. An average is an average. The spike did not affect the overall numbers that much.

You just don't want to find any good in these new laws.