Ed Oliver Arrested DWI

[WEATHER DOT COM]

Ed's a good kid he'll be okay

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

36 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Wait, the 21-24 age group has 26%, and the three 3 years age ranges following that average 8.67%, and you don’t see that as a decrease? 

dod those new math aholes go change what percent means now? 
 

thus; if 26% of 25 years olds do it, and 26% of 26 yo do it and 26% of 27 yo do it and 26% of 28 yo do it then that means 104% of 25-28 yo do this? 

Edited May 18, 2020 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[njbuff]

18 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I don't think there are enough anecdotes in this thread from which I can make an informed decision. 

 

I would like to get the perspective of people over 30 who still drive impaired and have never gotten a DWI.  Thanks.

 

I think I can safely say that we have all done it.

 

When I was younger, I learned my lesson the easy way (meaning no one got hurt and I didn't get pulled over).

 

When I was buzzed (fancy word for being drunk ?), almost drove off the freaking GWB. That almost fatal experience sobered me up real quick. My speedometer was over 140 miles an hour also. From that moment, I NEVER have driven impaired again going on 26 years. I learned the easy way and got VERY LUCKY.

[MJS]

22 minutes ago, njbuff said:

 

I think I can safely say that we have all done it.

 

When I was younger, I learned my lesson the easy way (meaning no one got hurt and I didn't get pulled over).

 

When I was buzzed (fancy word for being drunk ?), almost drove off the freaking GWB. That almost fatal experience sobered me up real quick. My speedometer was over 140 miles an hour also. From that moment, I NEVER have driven impaired again going on 26 years. I learned the easy way and got VERY LUCKY.

 

I hate to be that guy, but we have not all done it. I never have. And there are TONS of people who never have.

 

Not trying to judge anyone or point fingers, but it is very common for people who break the law or do "bad" things to justify it by assuming that everyone else is doing it as well (not necessarily you, just people in general). We justify things like that so we can maintain our self image and not feel bad about ourselves as people.

[Hampton Josh fan]

This is disappointing given the incredible potential Oliver has. The only thing to say is he better understand he has arrived at the crossroads of his career. Look in the mirror and realize he does not have another misstep available.  The NFL will allow a young pro to screw up one time.  The next time he's damaged good, not worth the gamble. I hope he has good family support and advisors that he  trusts. I like Oliver, but I don't have the capacity to support a guy who can't understand the big picture and responsibility to team. 

[3rdand12]

3 minutes ago, MJS said:

 

I hate to be that guy, but we have not all done it. I never have. And there are TONS of people who never have.

 

Not trying to judge anyone or point fingers, but it is very common for people who break the law or do "bad" things to justify it by assuming that everyone else is doing it as well (not necessarily you, just people in general). We justify things like that so we can maintain our self image and not feel bad about ourselves as people.

you never did really stupid stuff that you learned from ?

[MJS]

19 minutes ago, 3rdand12 said:

you never did really stupid stuff that you learned from ?

He claimed specifically that all of us have driven under the influence. That I have not done.

 

Many people don't drink at all, and many who do, don't drink more than a couple drinks at a time. And most of those who DO drink and drive are men. So there's a significant portion of the population that has never broken the law while driving under the influence of alcohol.

Edited May 18, 2020 by MJS

[YoloinOhio]

24 minutes ago, MJS said:

He claimed specifically that all of us have driven under the influence. That I have not done.

 

Many people don't drink at all, and many who do, don't drink more than a couple drinks at a time. And most of those who DO drink and drive are men. So there's a significant portion of the population that has never broken the law while driving under the influence of alcohol.

I did not know this 

[Augie]

1 hour ago, njbuff said:

 

I think I can safely say that we have all done it.

 

When I was younger, I learned my lesson the easy way (meaning no one got hurt and I didn't get pulled over).

 

When I was buzzed (fancy word for being drunk ?), almost drove off the freaking GWB. That almost fatal experience sobered me up real quick. My speedometer was over 140 miles an hour also. From that moment, I NEVER have driven impaired again going on 26 years. I learned the easy way and got VERY LUCKY.

 

Years ago I was sitting at home on a Friday night when a heard a loud crash. I ran out front to find a car parked on top of  the mailbox of the house across the street........upside down. Yes, on it’s roof. The baby sitter at the house has run out front and is trying to call the homeowners. A young guy crawls out of the car, rips the phone away from her, and makes a call. (This is before everyone on the planet had a cell phone.) The first words out of his mouth were “Mom, I did it again.”  HUH?

 

It was “winter” in Florida, and it seemed odd that his front passenger window was down. The light went on for me, and I could see it all happening. The road was narrow and winding between us and the folks across the road and had an island at that point. The speed limit was like 10-15mph there. He had rolled the window down, tossed his Budweiser bottles into my front yard exactly where I expected to find them, lost track of the bend while aiming out the window, right front went up a berm and hit a palm tree, flipping him upside down and spinning on the roof. 

 

Not everyone has THAT kind of a moment, but far too many do. Kids (especially boys), alcohol and cars are a dangerous combination! 

 

 

.

Edited May 18, 2020 by Augie

[BillsFan2313]

4 hours ago, Mickey said:

 

My work was where I live, not Buffalo and it was between 2001 and 2009. Does your active involvement include excusing or making light of a guy drunk driving a pickup pulling a trailer with an ATV on it, an open beer between his legs and in possession of a fire arm while weaving in an out of his lane? The organization kind of frowned on that back when I was involved. 

 

Agreed. Just hope he learns from it, so many do not.

 

Show facts 

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I get that.

 

It's still the percent of the total busted who fall into each group.  An arrest for DWI is as likely to be 21-24 year old as it is to be someone in their late 20's to mid 30'.  And almost the as likely as someone 35-44.  So, as age cohorts, there is not a significant drop off as people age.  

 

Wow. 

 

@Limeaid To your point, get a load of this. 

Edited May 18, 2020 by JoshAllenHasBigHands

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Augie said:

 

Wait, the 21-24 age group has 26%, and the three 3 years age ranges following that average 8.67%, and you don’t see that as a decrease? 

 

 

 

As a percent of the total (and these are fatal crash numbers that me and others have been posting from NHTSA):

 

21-24: 27%

25-34: 26%

35-44: 23%

 

Not a significant drop over those 3 age groups.

 

Compared to 2008, all groups had a decrease except these groups went up: 55-64, 65-74, 75+....all went up.

 

"The 10-year trend of alcohol-impaired drivers involved increased for older drivers when compared to younger drivers."

 

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Whats the percentage of people ages 41-44?  If you take away ages 35-40, will it still be 23%?
Or will it be lower?

 

People do grow up and look at consequences more than they did when they were younger.  Its just human nature.  There’s a phrase called “young and dumb”. 

Ive never had a DUI and have been very lucky.  Im not lucky anymore because I don’t need it because I don’t drink to the point where I would get a DUI.  The same goes for so many people I know.  People grow out of things whether you want to believe it or not.

 

I had a Mustang when I was 21.  I used to go on the highway and do over 100 mph in stretches.  I don’t do that anymore either.

 

Personal anecdotes don't change the facts presented in the stats above.

 

When a cop pulls over a DWI and they blow/blood .08 of higher, they are equally as likely to be 21-24 as they are to be 25-34 and nearly as likely 35-44.   So clearly, this is a problem that does not disappear with age.  All 3 age groups essentially equally represented.  It's obviously not just the young and dumb.

 

No one would seriously compare sober speeding to drunk driving.

 

1 hour ago, BillsPride12 said:

I'm sorry but you sound completely ignorant by saying people don't grow out of drinking and driving.  I'd say that is one of the most common stupid things young adults do when they are in that age range.  I'm not sure what your background is and maybe you were in the service or something and matured at an earlier age than your peers or something and kudos to you if that's the case but a 22 year old is still a college-aged kid at that time.  An adult technically but for anybody that remembers what life is like for a 22 year old that is still the knucklehead stage.  22 was probably the craziest year of my life.  You still feel invincible at that age.  I don't have a clue what the percentage is but I promise you that the number of people who drive intoxicated in their early 20's that grows out of it is extremely higher than the percentage of people who will drive intoxicated for the rest of their life.  

 

Good thing I didn't say that.  Obviously some do.   But personal testimonials are meaningless when discussing the numbers as they are. 

 

It's not a problem of "youth" specifically.  Many don't grow out of it. 

[MJS]

16 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

I did not know this 

It's not a fact, it's just likely. We know that about 80% of binge drinkers (drinking 5 or more drinks for men and 4 or more drinks for women) are men. So the pool of likely candidates to then drive after binge drinking is mainly men.

 

And we know that those who are caught are overwhelmingly men. So the natural conclusion is that men are more likely to drink and drive then women.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/binge-drinking.htm

Edited May 18, 2020 by MJS

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

 

As a percent of the total (and these are fatal crash numbers that me and others have been posting from NHTSA):

 

21-24: 27%

25-34: 26%

35-44: 23%

 

Not a significant drop over those 3 age groups.

 

Compared to 2008, all groups had a decrease except these groups went up: 55-64, 65-74, 75+....all went up.

 

"The 10-year trend of alcohol-impaired drivers involved increased for older drivers when compared to younger drivers."

 

 

Personal anecdotes don't change the facts presented in the stats above.

 

When a cop pulls over a DWI and they blow/blood .08 of higher, they are equally as likely to be 21-24 as they are to be 25-34 and nearly as likely 35-44.   So clearly, this is a problem that does not disappear with age.  All 3 age groups essentially equally represented.  It's obviously not just the young and dumb.

 

No one would seriously compare sober speeding to drunk driving.

 

 

Good thing I didn't say that.  Obviously some do.   But personal testimonials are meaningless when discussing the numbers as they are. 

 

It's not a problem of "youth" specifically.  Many don't grow out of it. 

 

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 26%

 

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. 

[BillsPride12]

5 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

 

As a percent of the total (and these are fatal crash numbers that me and others have been posting from NHTSA):

 

21-24: 27%

25-34: 26%

35-44: 23%

 

Not a significant drop over those 3 age groups.

 

Compared to 2008, all groups had a decrease except these groups went up: 55-64, 65-74, 75+....all went up.

 

"The 10-year trend of alcohol-impaired drivers involved increased for older drivers when compared to younger drivers."

 

 

Personal anecdotes don't change the facts presented in the stats above.

 

When a cop pulls over a DWI and they blow/blood .08 of higher, they are equally as likely to be 21-24 as they are to be 25-34 and nearly as likely 35-44.   So clearly, this is a problem that does not disappear with age.  All 3 age groups essentially equally represented.  It's obviously not just the young and dumb.

 

No one would seriously compare sober speeding to drunk driving.

 

 

Good thing I didn't say that.  Obviously some do.   But personal testimonials are meaningless when discussing the numbers as they are. 

 

It's not a problem of "youth" specifically.  Many don't grow out of it. 

Agree to disagree.  The problem with this argument is it's going to be subjective to your own personal life and experiences.  While I think everybody would agree what Ed did was wrong and getting behind the wheel after some pops is WRONG in general..if you are someone that never did that in your life I can see why you would think it's inexcusable under any circumstances.  For those of us that lived that lifestyle when we were young and dumb I think we can empathize seeing a young person make the same stupid mistakes that we had to learn and grow up from.  I will say this though it sounds like you weren't around the bar and party scene when you were younger which is fine but I promise you there's a HUGE population of kids that age that will drive after having some drinks and it's usually just because a lot of kids are inexperienced in life and think they are invincible at that stage, not that they think they are putting anybody in danger.  Most grow out of that but obviously not all.  As for the adult population that drives under the influence that is an entirely different demographic where there are probably more issues going on like alcoholism, depression etc.   

[njbuff]

Ed Oliver will win the 2020 NFL DMVP now.

 

?

[Royale with Cheese]

15 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

 

As a percent of the total (and these are fatal crash numbers that me and others have been posting from NHTSA):

 

21-24: 27%

25-34: 26%

35-44: 23%

 

Not a significant drop over those 3 age groups.

 

Compared to 2008, all groups had a decrease except these groups went up: 55-64, 65-74, 75+....all went up.

 

"The 10-year trend of alcohol-impaired drivers involved increased for older drivers when compared to younger drivers."

 

 

Personal anecdotes don't change the facts presented in the stats above.

 

When a cop pulls over a DWI and they blow/blood .08 of higher, they are equally as likely to be 21-24 as they are to be 25-34 and nearly as likely 35-44.   So clearly, this is a problem that does not disappear with age.  All 3 age groups essentially equally represented.  It's obviously not just the young and dumb.

 

No one would seriously compare sober speeding to drunk driving.

You didn’t answer my question.  You’re still comparing a 3 year age group with 9 year age group.  
The age groups are not equally represented because of that.  

Edited May 18, 2020 by Royale with Cheese

[Royale with Cheese]

6 minutes 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 26%

 

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. 

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.

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes 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 26%

 

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. 

 

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.

 

2 minutes ago, BillsPride12 said:

Agree to disagree.  The problem with this argument is it's going to be subjective to your own personal life and experiences.  While I think everybody would agree what Ed did was wrong and getting behind the wheel after some pops is WRONG in general..if you are someone that never did that in your life I can see why you would think it's inexcusable under any circumstances.  For those of us that lived that lifestyle when we were young and dumb I think we can empathize seeing a young person make the same stupid mistakes that we had to learn and grow up from.  I will say this though it sounds like you weren't around the bar and party scene when you were younger which is fine but I promise you there's a HUGE population of kids that age that will drive after having some drinks and it's usually just because a lot of kids are inexperienced in life and think they are invincible at that stage, not that they think they are putting anybody in danger.  Most grow out of that but obviously not all.  As for the adult population that drives under the influence that is an entirely different demographic where there are probably more issues going on like alcoholism, depression etc.   

 

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

 

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

You didn’t answer my question.  You’re still comparing a 3 year age group with 9 year age group.

 

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. 

[Royale with Cheese]

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. 

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

 

[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?