Ed Oliver Arrested DWI

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

5 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

That's not how it works (but glad you got a kick out of it your way though).  You can't assume there is an even distribution for every 3 year period within a group (why would you?-these aren't random numbers). 

 

It could be that the oldest 3rd year period in each group has the highest number--they don't show the every-3-year-age breakdown for the decade groups.  But you can't just divide the total by 3 lol.  They are comparing clearly defined age groups.

 

Anyway, it's not me comparing, this is how the NHSTA grouped their data.  Early 20's, 30's, mid 40's---the lethal DWIs are nearly equally represented in all 3 age groups.

 

 

No.  Stats aren't a limited collection of personal life experiences. 

 

 

I'm using the data you cited in your post.  And it doesn't matter whether they give each year age breakdown.

 

It's simple: the question is do people "grow out of" drinking and driving as they age, compared to young adult (21-24, for these purposes).  Looking at the data (which you cited), the question can be answered by noting that, in fatal DWI car crashes involving BAL over .08, it is equally likely the crash involved a 21-24 as a 25-34 and nearly as equally a 35-44 year old.  This means it's not dropping off in a meaningful way. 

 

Just now, Royale with Cheese said:

I don’t understand how this is so hard for you.

 

 

People are wrong all the time. It's not a big deal. It's fine how wrong Mr. WEO is. To watch him so ferociously and confidently defends something that is so obviously wrong is absolutely mind numbing.  I mean that seriously. I can't even wrap my head around it.

 

I walked away from this board for a solid three months or so. It was great. Mr. WEO seriously arguing this gibberish is every reason I left. 

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

That's not how it works (but glad you got a kick out of it your way though).  You can't assume there is an even distribution for every 3 year period within a group (why would you?-these aren't random numbers). 

 

It could be that the oldest 3rd year period in each group has the highest number--they don't show the every-3-year-age breakdown for the decade groups.  But you can't just divide the total by 3 lol.  They are comparing clearly defined age groups.

 

Anyway, it's not me comparing, this is how the NHSTA grouped their data.  Early 20's, 30's, mid 40's---the lethal DWIs are nearly equally represented in all 3 age groups.

 

 

No.  Stats aren't a limited collection of personal life experiences. 

 

 

I'm using the data you cited in your post.  And it doesn't matter whether they give each year age breakdown.

 

It's simple: the question is do people "grow out of" drinking and driving as they age, compared to young adult (21-24, for these purposes).  Looking at the data (which you cited), the question can be answered by noting that, in fatal DWI car crashes involving BAL over .08, it is equally likely the crash involved a 21-24 as a 25-34 and nearly as equally a 35-44 year old.  This means it's not dropping off in a meaningful way. 

 

In the absence of more specific data, I used an average. But the math shows a clear picture. This could be described as something we call.....common sense. But you’ve made up your mind, so there’s no room for THAT! 

 

I can’t tell if you are kidding. I hope you are intentionally trolling us, for your sake. 

[Bronxbomber21]

I just heard it was a Cowboy fan that called the cops on Ed because hey saw his Bills shirt... didnt Ed destroy the cowgirls on Thanksgiving 

[Augie]

4 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

 

People are wrong all the time. It's not a big deal. It's fine how wrong Mr. WEO is. To watch him so ferociously and confidently defends something that is so obviously wrong is absolutely mind numbing.  I mean that seriously. I can't even wrap my head around it.

 

I walked away from this board for a solid three months or so. It was great. Mr. WEO seriously arguing this gibberish is every reason I left. 

 

Just look away, as I usually do. Some things you just can’t fix, as I heard Ron White say. 

[Doc]

Just now, Bronxbomber21 said:

I just heard it was a Cowboy fan that called the cops on Ed because hey saw his Bills shirt... didnt Ed destroy the cowgirls on Thanksgiving 

 

I was actually going to joke earlier that that's who it was. 

[Royale with Cheese]

3 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

 

People are wrong all the time. It's not a big deal. It's fine how wrong Mr. WEO is. To watch him so ferociously and confidently defends something that is so obviously wrong is absolutely mind numbing.  I mean that seriously. I can't even wrap my head around it.

 

I walked away from this board for a solid three months or so. It was great. Mr. WEO seriously arguing this gibberish is every reason I left. 

Common sense would state when an age group has an age range 3 times wider, there would be more “participants”.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

2 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Common sense would state when an age group has an age range 3 times wider, there would be more “participants”.

 

Mr. WEO is the king of doing quick google searches and copying or repeating the search results preview, even though he clearly doesn't understand what he is saying. 

[gobilz]

6 minutes ago, Bronxbomber21 said:

I just heard it was a Cowboy fan that called the cops on Ed because hey saw his Bills shirt... didnt Ed destroy the cowgirls on Thanksgiving 

Figures

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

At least he wasn’t at a poker game and shot off a few rounds 

 

[Warcodered]

29 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

 

People are wrong all the time. It's not a big deal. It's fine how wrong Mr. WEO is. To watch him so ferociously and confidently defends something that is so obviously wrong is absolutely mind numbing.  I mean that seriously. I can't even wrap my head around it.

 

I walked away from this board for a solid three months or so. It was great. Mr. WEO seriously arguing this gibberish is every reason I left. 

Feels oddly appropriate for this whole thing.

[Mr. WEO]

26 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

In the absence of more specific data, I used an average. But the math shows a clear picture. This could be described as something we call.....common sense. But you’ve made up your mind, so there’s no room for THAT! 

 

I can’t tell if you are kidding. I hope you are intentionally trolling us, for your sake. 

 

I don't think that's valid.  

 

For argument's sake, what if the year by year breakdown shows:  

 

AGE 21: 4%

22: 6%

23: 17%

34: 10%

40: 9%

 

34 and 40 year olds out-represented the 21 and 22 year olds.  Could be the case, but we aren't given those numbers.  

 

My point was made by (and I quoted it above) the conclusion stated by the NHSTA when comparing 2008 and 2017 data:  the incidence among older drivers is increasing, younger drivers decreasing.  I take that as a proxy for concluding that those so inclined to do this tend not "to grow out of it".    This is backed also by the admission of these people when questionnaired that on average they get arrested on their 80th episode of driving drunk and the high recidivism rate.

 

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

 

People are wrong all the time. It's not a big deal. It's fine how wrong Mr. WEO is. To watch him so ferociously and confidently defends something that is so obviously wrong is absolutely mind numbing.  I mean that seriously. I can't even wrap my head around it.

 

I walked away from this board for a solid three months or so. It was great. Mr. WEO seriously arguing this gibberish is every reason I left. 

 

I've been wrong plenty.  I do my best to bring it!

 

Your attacks on me and my posting aren't a problem for me.  But your posting history betrays a mind that went numb before being exposed to my posts or this site in general.  Given this, you may wish to reconsider continuing in your delicate state.

[Mat68]

Young man.  He will live and learn.  In the city?  Uber, In the country?  Do at your house.  Bringnit to you.  Have a buddy drive you and stay there.  Live and learn.

[Rochesterfan]

1 hour ago, Augie said:

 

SOME do not grown out of it, it’s not exclusive to youth, but the math is a bit faulty here. You keep comparing  a 3 year period to 9 year periods, and the actual averages go to undermine your point. Divide the 9 year period by 3 to get and actual 3 year number and you get:

 

21-24 is 2

 

25-34 averages 8.67% (over each 3 year period)

 

and 35-44 averages 7.66% (over each 3 year period)

 

I always hated math, but I love humor. I find it hysterical that I am explaining this. It gets better as people age, whether you like it or not.   Drunk driving does not disappear with age, but people generally grow up. 

 

I do not understand why you would divide it to get it into 3 year segments - it is a percentage.  The absolute numbers would change, but the percentage should not change no matter how you break the numbers down.  Based on the numbers it would be ~ 26% for any 3 year set from 25-34 so long as the average for the period is 26%.  

 

if you were comparing absolute numbers then yes you would divide by 3, but based on you logic if only 8.67% were impacted each 3 year set - then the total would be 8.67% for the entire time period - they are not additive.

 

For example if Josh throws a TD on every 10% of his passes this year and 10% again next year and he again throws TDs on 10% of his passes in 2022 - he would average as a percent of his total throws a TD on 10% of his passes for 2020-2022 - not 30% as you match suggests.  
 

His absolute numbers could be all over the place, but when they build it out into percentages as in the data set provided - that would make it the same % of fatalities each year during that period whether it is 3 years or 10 years. 
 

Therefore based on the numbers provided:

 

21-24 years = 27%

 

25-28 ~26%

28-31 ~26%

31-34 ~26%

average of these cohorts must be 26%

35-38 ~ 23%

38-41 ~23%

41-45 ~23%

average of these cohorts must be 23%

 

most likely what you would see based on mathematical formulas would be:

 

21-24 - 27%

 

25-28 ~27%

28-31~ 26%.      Aver = 26%

31-34 ~25%

 

35-38 ~ 24%

38-41 ~ 23%.     Aver = 23%

41-45 ~ 22%

This is logically how the numbers would fall in a perfect modeled world.

 

 

[Augie]

8 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I don't think that's valid.  

 

For argument's sake, what if the year by year breakdown shows:  

 

AGE 21: 4%

22: 6%

23: 17%

34: 10%

40: 9%

 

34 and 40 year olds out-represented the 21 and 22 year olds.  Could be the case, but we aren't given those numbers.  

 

My point was made by (and I quoted it above) the conclusion stated by the NHSTA when comparing 2008 and 2017 data:  the incidence among older drivers is increasing, younger drivers decreasing.  I take that as a proxy for concluding that those so inclined to do this tend not "to grow out of it".    This is backed also by the admission of these people when questionnaired that on average they get arrested on their 80th episode of driving drunk and the high recidivism rate.

 

 

 

 

 

I've been wrong plenty.  I do my best to bring it!

 

Your attacks on me and my posting aren't a problem for me.  But your posting history betrays a mind that went numb before being exposed to my posts or this site in general.  Given this, you may wish to reconsider continuing in your delicate state.

 

Oh Lordy, that’s some fine cherry picking there! (I didn’t even bother confirming, because I’m done with you here.) When we look at ALL the data, it would appear you are just trying to make a case to support your assertion. The obvious, even without looking at someone else’s data, is OBVIOUS. Young males, alcohol and cars are a recipe for danger. But sure, you continue on arguing against that. 

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

2 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

I do not understand why you would divide it to get it into 3 year segments - it is a percentage.  The absolute numbers would change, but the percentage should not change no matter how you break the numbers down.  Based on the numbers it would be ~ 26% for any 3 year set from 25-34 so long as the average for the period is 26%.  

 

if you were comparing absolute numbers then yes you would divide by 3, but based on you logic if only 8.67% were impacted each 3 year set - then the total would be 8.67% for the entire time period - they are not additive.

 

For example if Josh throws a TD on every 10% of his passes this year and 10% again next year and he again throws TDs on 10% of his passes in 2022 - he would average as a percent of his total throws a TD on 10% of his passes for 2020-2022 - not 30% as you match suggests.  
 

His absolute numbers could be all over the place, but when they build it out into percentages as in the data set provided - that would make it the same % of fatalities each year during that period whether it is 3 years or 10 years. 
 

Therefore based on the numbers provided:

 

21-24 years = 27%

 

25-28 ~26%

28-31 ~26%

31-34 ~26%

average of these cohorts must be 26%

35-38 ~ 23%

38-41 ~23%

41-45 ~23%

average of these cohorts must be 23%

 

most likely what you would see based on mathematical formulas would be:

 

21-24 - 27%

 

25-28 ~27%

28-31~ 26%.      Aver = 26%

31-34 ~25%

 

35-38 ~ 24%

38-41 ~ 23%.     Aver = 23%

41-45 ~ 22%

This is logically how the numbers would fall in a perfect modeled world.

 

 

 

The percentages are of the total number of DUIs. In other words, 27% of DUI's are committed by people between 21-24, 26% by people 25-34, etc.  

 

You are interpreting the percentages as indicating what percentage of the age group is committing DUIs, that is not the original claim. 

[Augie]

39 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

I do not understand why you would divide it to get it into 3 year segments - it is a percentage.  The absolute numbers would change, but the percentage should not change no matter how you break the numbers down.  Based on the numbers it would be ~ 26% for any 3 year set from 25-34 so long as the average for the period is 26%.  

 

if you were comparing absolute numbers then yes you would divide by 3, but based on you logic if only 8.67% were impacted each 3 year set - then the total would be 8.67% for the entire time period - they are not additive.

 

For example if Josh throws a TD on every 10% of his passes this year and 10% again next year and he again throws TDs on 10% of his passes in 2022 - he would average as a percent of his total throws a TD on 10% of his passes for 2020-2022 - not 30% as you match suggests.  
 

His absolute numbers could be all over the place, but when they build it out into percentages as in the data set provided - that would make it the same % of fatalities each year during that period whether it is 3 years or 10 years. 
 

Therefore based on the numbers provided:

 

21-24 years = 27%

 

25-28 ~26%

28-31 ~26%

31-34 ~26%

average of these cohorts must be 26%

35-38 ~ 23%

38-41 ~23%

41-45 ~23%

average of these cohorts must be 23%

 

most likely what you would see based on mathematical formulas would be:

 

21-24 - 27%

 

25-28 ~27%

28-31~ 26%.      Aver = 26%

31-34 ~25%

 

35-38 ~ 24%

38-41 ~ 23%.     Aver = 23%

41-45 ~ 22%

This is logically how the numbers would fall in a perfect modeled world.

 

 

 

Unless I’m mistaken (and maybe I need to look closer at the reports) you have over 100% there. Is this what age group has the highest percentage of DUI’s/arrests? Or what % of the total they represent? You can’t have more than 100%, and I’m not wasting time delving into this. You cannot possibly be correct with numbers that total more than 100%. 

 

If some report tell me 45-50 year olds have the same level of DUI’s as 20-25 year olds, I KNOW that report is garbage. 

 

 

.

 

.

.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Augie

[Mr. WEO]

7 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Oh Lordy, that’s some fine cherry picking there! (I didn’t even bother confirming, because I’m done with you here.) When we look at ALL the data, it would appear you are just trying to make a case to support your assertion. The obvious, even without looking at someone else’s data, is OBVIOUS. Young males, alcohol and cars are a recipe for danger. But sure, you continue on arguing against that. 

 

A.  We have only the data they provide.

 

B.  I'm not arguing against "Young males, alcohol and cars are a recipe for danger."..  come on!  Thatt's what you're left with--that silly straw man??

 

Done indeed...

4 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Unless I’m mistaken (and maybe I need to look closer at the reports) you have over 100% there. Is this what age group has the highest percentage of DUI’s/arrests? Or what % of the total they represent? You can’t have more than 100%, and I’m not wasting time delving into this. BUT, you have to compare EQUAL groups.

 

If some report tell me 45-50 year olds have the same level of DUI’s as 20-25 year olds, I KNOW that report is garbage. 

 

.

 

It's the same data Royale cited.  None of this is "Your" (my) data, obviously.  When I noted that, I saw (and mentioned, several times since) that that is fatality data.  And it includes car and passenger with BAL over .08.  Click Royale with Cheese's link for the details, but I've already mentioned this correction of what we were looking at.  Matters little.

 

The report concluded that the increase in incidence was not in young, but in older drivers.  You can believe what you must...

 

[Mr. WEO]

14 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

The percentages are of the total number of DUIs. In other words, 27% of DUI's are committed by people between 21-24, 26% by people 25-34, etc.  

 

You are interpreting the percentages as indicating what percentage of the age group is committing DUIs, that is not the original claim. 

 

No.  I'm not.  No one is saying 26% of 21-24 year olds are committing DUIs

 

We've been over this.  It is a percentage of all DWI fatalities represented by each age group as grouped.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Mr. WEO

[Rochesterfan]

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Exactly.  Its like comparing TD passes in the NFL.

What age group throws the most TD passes?

21-24 year olds?

Or

25-33 year olds?

 

Obviously its the 25-33 year olds because there are more.

 

The number doesn’t matter if you are comparing percentages.  The percentages take the absolute number out of the equation.

 

You are looking at absolute numbers of TD passes - then yes the larger number of players win, but if as the numbers provided is a TDs as a percentage of passes thrown - it does not matter how many QBs make up the cohort - it only matters The % how many TDs were thrown versus how many passes thrown by each age bracket would be much closer.

 

Just a quick look using NFL.com 2019 stats and ages showed the following (did not include everyone because some guys would really throw the numbers off because of limited throws)

 

21-25: ~ 5.3% of passes were touchdowns the highest %, but because there were fewer players the actual number of TDs was only 155

25-34: ~ 4.9% of passes were TDs, but the highest absolute number due to sheer volume with over 200 for the players included.

over 34: ~ 3.8% of passes were TDs and the smallest overall number with 126 TD for the big 6 old guys that played a lot.

 

That is why percentage matters - it balances the entire number set over the age range making the absolute numbers meaningless.  It does not matter that more people are in the 25-34 bracket and it does not matter that it is larger as long as what you are using as a number and a denominator are the same idea - the percentage balances that out.

 

As to the other point - I can not then say well if we look at it in 3 year blocks for 25-34 each 3 year block only only threw 1.6% - it makes no sense - each block would remain ~4.9% until you pull the actual data and review that block and it will still be close to 4.9%.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

23 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

No.  I'm not.  No one is saying 26% of 21-24 year olds are committing DUIs

 

We've been over this.  It is a percentage of all DWI fatalities represented by each age group as grouped.

It is weird that you made my response to Rochesterfan about you. I clearly wasnt talking to you. Self-involved much?