Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 I believe the government is as absurd as MADD regarding "alcohol related accidents" (among other things!) I have read somewhere (sorry I forget where) that any alcohol use by anyone involved in an accident will qualify the accident as alcohol related. Even if the driver (or a passenger) of the offended car has been drinking (not even drunk) the accident is deemed alcohol related... so 40% is not a Real number by any means. But it is good propaganda for lowering BAC limits. I think the lower BAC limits are getting ridiculous -- .08 is silly, imo. However, I also know that it is going to be rare for a driver to be sober while the passengers are not. Indeed, that this was the case in the instance in which my son died shocked us all very much, since the dreiveer is a notorious drunk. It just so happened he hadn't had any alcohol that day -- yet. He was merely "playing chicken" on the highway. He did, BTW, test positive for THC. But it was impossible to determine when he had smoked pot last, and he insisted he had not smoked that day. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 .. In your response to a woman's admission of her son's murder you say that the world is a funny place. I didn't take any offense at all from 's point. I think all she meant was that it was odd that a drunk who drives that way all the time, was actually sober when he killed someone. That's pretty much how I see it, too. But I do appreciate that you are sensitive to the issue. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 .. In your response to a woman's admission of her son's murder you say that the world is a funny place. I didn't take any offense at all from 's point. I think all she meant was that it was odd that a drunk who drives that way all the time, was actually sober when he killed someone. That's pretty much how I see it, too. But I do appreciate that you are sensitive to the issue. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 .. In your response to a woman's admission of her son's murder you say that the world is a funny place. I didn't take any offense at all from 's point. I think all she meant was that it was odd that a drunk who drives that way all the time, was actually sober when he killed someone. That's pretty much how I see it, too. But I do appreciate that you are sensitive to the issue. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 At 09:28 AM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote: > > > > I researched this a few years ago. Unfortunately I seem to have > > misplaced my citations, but I found two studies which not only > > eliminated the obvious silliness (like passengers who'd had a > > few even when the driver was sober) but also corrected for > > bad weather and other known risk factors. One of them concluded > > that alcohol was in fact responsible for about 2% of motor vehicle > > accidents, and the other concluded it was about 4%. > >I'm not a hyper-fan of MADD, and I haven't gone to the National Highway >Transportation Safety Administration's website, but what I have read in the >past tells me alcohol-related accidents are probably higher than 4 percent. >And I don't think that's " fair " to factor out bad weather and other risk >factors, inasmuch as sober drivers will have better responses to weather >conditions. " Correcting for " factors doesn't mean throwing out any results which are touched by those factors. It means accounting for those factors' influence. Take a simple example: you take 20 sober drivers and 20 drivers with a BAC of .10. You send them all across a treacherous road, and observe that the sober drivers had five accidents while the drinking drivers had eight accidents. If you work for MADD, you announce that there were eight alcohol-related accidents and ignore the sober drivers. If you were trying to deflate, you'd decide that all the drinking drivers' accidents should be thrown out since sober drivers had accidents also. If you are correcting for the treacherousness of the road, though, then you simply observe the fact that the drinking drivers had three *more* accidents than the sober drivers and count three alcohol-influenced accidents. That's not an unreasonable conclusion, given that the sober drives did have a fair number of accidents as well. That's an extremely simple example, of course. In the real world, traffic engineers have to consider dozens of factors. >So, " knocking it down " to 2-4 pct. is, in my opinion, ***disinflating*** >alcohol-related traffic accident numbers is a reverse spin. >It's like alcohol-related job accidents. If I knock out wet floors, and >other workplace poor environments, of course I can " show " that alcohol >doesn't cause many workplace accidents, while burying the fact that someone >drinking will have poorer actions in less than ideal environments. But if you knocked them out, then you wouldn't be correcting for them properly. >I'd like to see these " 2-4 pct. " numbers. I'd like to see them again too, actually. I hope they're around here somewhere. I lost a lot of my data a couple of years ago in a hard drive crash, and I suspect that was part of what bit the dust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 At 09:28 AM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote: > > > > I researched this a few years ago. Unfortunately I seem to have > > misplaced my citations, but I found two studies which not only > > eliminated the obvious silliness (like passengers who'd had a > > few even when the driver was sober) but also corrected for > > bad weather and other known risk factors. One of them concluded > > that alcohol was in fact responsible for about 2% of motor vehicle > > accidents, and the other concluded it was about 4%. > >I'm not a hyper-fan of MADD, and I haven't gone to the National Highway >Transportation Safety Administration's website, but what I have read in the >past tells me alcohol-related accidents are probably higher than 4 percent. >And I don't think that's " fair " to factor out bad weather and other risk >factors, inasmuch as sober drivers will have better responses to weather >conditions. " Correcting for " factors doesn't mean throwing out any results which are touched by those factors. It means accounting for those factors' influence. Take a simple example: you take 20 sober drivers and 20 drivers with a BAC of .10. You send them all across a treacherous road, and observe that the sober drivers had five accidents while the drinking drivers had eight accidents. If you work for MADD, you announce that there were eight alcohol-related accidents and ignore the sober drivers. If you were trying to deflate, you'd decide that all the drinking drivers' accidents should be thrown out since sober drivers had accidents also. If you are correcting for the treacherousness of the road, though, then you simply observe the fact that the drinking drivers had three *more* accidents than the sober drivers and count three alcohol-influenced accidents. That's not an unreasonable conclusion, given that the sober drives did have a fair number of accidents as well. That's an extremely simple example, of course. In the real world, traffic engineers have to consider dozens of factors. >So, " knocking it down " to 2-4 pct. is, in my opinion, ***disinflating*** >alcohol-related traffic accident numbers is a reverse spin. >It's like alcohol-related job accidents. If I knock out wet floors, and >other workplace poor environments, of course I can " show " that alcohol >doesn't cause many workplace accidents, while burying the fact that someone >drinking will have poorer actions in less than ideal environments. But if you knocked them out, then you wouldn't be correcting for them properly. >I'd like to see these " 2-4 pct. " numbers. I'd like to see them again too, actually. I hope they're around here somewhere. I lost a lot of my data a couple of years ago in a hard drive crash, and I suspect that was part of what bit the dust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 At 09:28 AM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote: > > > > I researched this a few years ago. Unfortunately I seem to have > > misplaced my citations, but I found two studies which not only > > eliminated the obvious silliness (like passengers who'd had a > > few even when the driver was sober) but also corrected for > > bad weather and other known risk factors. One of them concluded > > that alcohol was in fact responsible for about 2% of motor vehicle > > accidents, and the other concluded it was about 4%. > >I'm not a hyper-fan of MADD, and I haven't gone to the National Highway >Transportation Safety Administration's website, but what I have read in the >past tells me alcohol-related accidents are probably higher than 4 percent. >And I don't think that's " fair " to factor out bad weather and other risk >factors, inasmuch as sober drivers will have better responses to weather >conditions. " Correcting for " factors doesn't mean throwing out any results which are touched by those factors. It means accounting for those factors' influence. Take a simple example: you take 20 sober drivers and 20 drivers with a BAC of .10. You send them all across a treacherous road, and observe that the sober drivers had five accidents while the drinking drivers had eight accidents. If you work for MADD, you announce that there were eight alcohol-related accidents and ignore the sober drivers. If you were trying to deflate, you'd decide that all the drinking drivers' accidents should be thrown out since sober drivers had accidents also. If you are correcting for the treacherousness of the road, though, then you simply observe the fact that the drinking drivers had three *more* accidents than the sober drivers and count three alcohol-influenced accidents. That's not an unreasonable conclusion, given that the sober drives did have a fair number of accidents as well. That's an extremely simple example, of course. In the real world, traffic engineers have to consider dozens of factors. >So, " knocking it down " to 2-4 pct. is, in my opinion, ***disinflating*** >alcohol-related traffic accident numbers is a reverse spin. >It's like alcohol-related job accidents. If I knock out wet floors, and >other workplace poor environments, of course I can " show " that alcohol >doesn't cause many workplace accidents, while burying the fact that someone >drinking will have poorer actions in less than ideal environments. But if you knocked them out, then you wouldn't be correcting for them properly. >I'd like to see these " 2-4 pct. " numbers. I'd like to see them again too, actually. I hope they're around here somewhere. I lost a lot of my data a couple of years ago in a hard drive crash, and I suspect that was part of what bit the dust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > > > > > > > I researched this a few years ago. Unfortunately I seem to have > > > misplaced my citations, but I found two studies which not only > > > eliminated the obvious silliness (like passengers who'd had a > > > few even when the driver was sober) but also corrected for > > > bad weather and other known risk factors. One of them concluded > > > that alcohol was in fact responsible for about 2% of motor vehicle > > > accidents, and the other concluded it was about 4%. > > > >I'm not a hyper-fan of MADD, and I haven't gone to the National Highway > >Transportation Safety Administration's website, but what I have read in >the > >past tells me alcohol-related accidents are probably higher than 4 >percent. > >And I don't think that's " fair " to factor out bad weather and other risk > >factors, inasmuch as sober drivers will have better responses to weather > >conditions. > > " Correcting for " factors doesn't mean throwing out any results which >are touched by those factors. It means accounting for those >factors' influence. > >Take a simple example: you take 20 sober drivers and 20 drivers >with a BAC of .10. You send them all across a treacherous road, >and observe that the sober drivers had five accidents while the >drinking drivers had eight accidents. > >If you work for MADD, you announce that there were eight >alcohol-related accidents and ignore the sober drivers. If you >were trying to deflate, you'd decide that all the drinking >drivers' accidents should be thrown out since sober drivers >had accidents also. > > >So, " knocking it down " to 2-4 pct. is, in my opinion, ***disinflating*** > >alcohol-related traffic accident numbers is a reverse spin. >But if you knocked them out, then you wouldn't be correcting >for them properly. The one big reason I'd like to see the numbers is to see the methodology behind them.... did they simply " correct, " as you explain it, or did they " knock them out? " Seeing as how Federal government numbers, ****not**** MADD numbers, note that 40 percent of vehicular fatalities are alcohol related, my skeptical suspicion says the survey you reference " knocked them out. " Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > > > > > > > I researched this a few years ago. Unfortunately I seem to have > > > misplaced my citations, but I found two studies which not only > > > eliminated the obvious silliness (like passengers who'd had a > > > few even when the driver was sober) but also corrected for > > > bad weather and other known risk factors. One of them concluded > > > that alcohol was in fact responsible for about 2% of motor vehicle > > > accidents, and the other concluded it was about 4%. > > > >I'm not a hyper-fan of MADD, and I haven't gone to the National Highway > >Transportation Safety Administration's website, but what I have read in >the > >past tells me alcohol-related accidents are probably higher than 4 >percent. > >And I don't think that's " fair " to factor out bad weather and other risk > >factors, inasmuch as sober drivers will have better responses to weather > >conditions. > > " Correcting for " factors doesn't mean throwing out any results which >are touched by those factors. It means accounting for those >factors' influence. > >Take a simple example: you take 20 sober drivers and 20 drivers >with a BAC of .10. You send them all across a treacherous road, >and observe that the sober drivers had five accidents while the >drinking drivers had eight accidents. > >If you work for MADD, you announce that there were eight >alcohol-related accidents and ignore the sober drivers. If you >were trying to deflate, you'd decide that all the drinking >drivers' accidents should be thrown out since sober drivers >had accidents also. > > >So, " knocking it down " to 2-4 pct. is, in my opinion, ***disinflating*** > >alcohol-related traffic accident numbers is a reverse spin. >But if you knocked them out, then you wouldn't be correcting >for them properly. The one big reason I'd like to see the numbers is to see the methodology behind them.... did they simply " correct, " as you explain it, or did they " knock them out? " Seeing as how Federal government numbers, ****not**** MADD numbers, note that 40 percent of vehicular fatalities are alcohol related, my skeptical suspicion says the survey you reference " knocked them out. " Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 At 01:55 PM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote: > >But if you knocked them out, then you wouldn't be correcting > >for them properly. > >The one big reason I'd like to see the numbers is to see the methodology >behind them.... did they simply " correct, " as you explain it, or did they > " knock them out? " > >Seeing as how Federal government numbers, ****not**** MADD numbers, note >that 40 percent of vehicular fatalities are alcohol related, my skeptical >suspicion says the survey you reference " knocked them out. " Your suspicion is wrong. The correction was done properly -- that's the only reason why the study was worth reading in the first place, much less saving. And BTW, these studies were of accidents and not of fatalities. Those are not the same thing. You have to bear in mind that the fedgov also has some motive to inflate the number of traffic accidents of various kinds. While they aren't quite as foolish as MADD, counting the drunken pedestrians and the like, they certainly would report eight " alcohol-related " accidents in the little example I described before. It's not just DWI that they do this kind of stuff with, either -- for many years they actively encouraged the urban legend that traffic accidents skyrocket on holiday weekends. I guess it helps them justify their existence, and as a side benefit it makes people more amenable to the blackmail which is regularly performed with federal highway funds. As I mentioned, if you consider only the most serious accidents, the number would probably be somewhat higher than 4%. It seems unlikely that it would be an order of magnitude higher, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 At 01:55 PM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote: > >But if you knocked them out, then you wouldn't be correcting > >for them properly. > >The one big reason I'd like to see the numbers is to see the methodology >behind them.... did they simply " correct, " as you explain it, or did they > " knock them out? " > >Seeing as how Federal government numbers, ****not**** MADD numbers, note >that 40 percent of vehicular fatalities are alcohol related, my skeptical >suspicion says the survey you reference " knocked them out. " Your suspicion is wrong. The correction was done properly -- that's the only reason why the study was worth reading in the first place, much less saving. And BTW, these studies were of accidents and not of fatalities. Those are not the same thing. You have to bear in mind that the fedgov also has some motive to inflate the number of traffic accidents of various kinds. While they aren't quite as foolish as MADD, counting the drunken pedestrians and the like, they certainly would report eight " alcohol-related " accidents in the little example I described before. It's not just DWI that they do this kind of stuff with, either -- for many years they actively encouraged the urban legend that traffic accidents skyrocket on holiday weekends. I guess it helps them justify their existence, and as a side benefit it makes people more amenable to the blackmail which is regularly performed with federal highway funds. As I mentioned, if you consider only the most serious accidents, the number would probably be somewhat higher than 4%. It seems unlikely that it would be an order of magnitude higher, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 At 03:09 PM 8/11/01 -0400, you wrote: >>Just FYI, when my son was killed as a passenger in a vehicle, he had quite a >bit of alcohol in his sytem. The driver, however, was stone cold sobner, and > " merely " driving like an idiot. However, because of my son's BAC the paper >reported the accident as " alcohol-related. " I've learned to regard the phrase " alcohol-related " as something of a red flag. It's essentially meaningless. It's also rather disrespectful to your son's memory. >However, that the driver was not drunk was a mere fluke. He drives drunk all >the time, before and since. The world's a funny place. I've driven drunk, and have never had an accident. Yet I've been involved in several accidents, including one full-blown wreck which landed me in the emergency room, and in none of those accidents had anyone involved consumed any alcohol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 At 03:09 PM 8/11/01 -0400, you wrote: >>Just FYI, when my son was killed as a passenger in a vehicle, he had quite a >bit of alcohol in his sytem. The driver, however, was stone cold sobner, and > " merely " driving like an idiot. However, because of my son's BAC the paper >reported the accident as " alcohol-related. " I've learned to regard the phrase " alcohol-related " as something of a red flag. It's essentially meaningless. It's also rather disrespectful to your son's memory. >However, that the driver was not drunk was a mere fluke. He drives drunk all >the time, before and since. The world's a funny place. I've driven drunk, and have never had an accident. Yet I've been involved in several accidents, including one full-blown wreck which landed me in the emergency room, and in none of those accidents had anyone involved consumed any alcohol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 At 03:09 PM 8/11/01 -0400, you wrote: >>Just FYI, when my son was killed as a passenger in a vehicle, he had quite a >bit of alcohol in his sytem. The driver, however, was stone cold sobner, and > " merely " driving like an idiot. However, because of my son's BAC the paper >reported the accident as " alcohol-related. " I've learned to regard the phrase " alcohol-related " as something of a red flag. It's essentially meaningless. It's also rather disrespectful to your son's memory. >However, that the driver was not drunk was a mere fluke. He drives drunk all >the time, before and since. The world's a funny place. I've driven drunk, and have never had an accident. Yet I've been involved in several accidents, including one full-blown wreck which landed me in the emergency room, and in none of those accidents had anyone involved consumed any alcohol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > >>Just FYI, when my son was killed as a passenger in a vehicle, he had >quite a > >bit of alcohol in his sytem. The driver, however, was stone cold sobner, >and > > " merely " driving like an idiot. However, because of my son's BAC the >paper > >reported the accident as " alcohol-related. " I recognize the stats I cited referred to fatalities, not all alcohol-related accidents. And that law enforcement may (but will not necessarily do so) count a passenger fatality such as Mona's son as alcohol related. However, I doubt that those fatalities make up more than 10 percent of alcohol related fatalities. But, to be bending over backwards conservative, let's say that passengers with alcohol in their system, and where the driver has not been drinking, comprise 20 percent of alcohol-related fatalities. I'll also be incredibly generous and say pedestrians drinking alcohol in driver-pedestrian accidents where the driver had not been drinking comprise another 20 percent of alcohol-related fatalities. That ***still*** leaves 60 percent of alcohol-related fatalities, or 24 percent of all traffic fatalities, caused by alcohol-influenced drivers. I personally wouldn't consider that " essentially meaningless. " Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > >>Just FYI, when my son was killed as a passenger in a vehicle, he had >quite a > >bit of alcohol in his sytem. The driver, however, was stone cold sobner, >and > > " merely " driving like an idiot. However, because of my son's BAC the >paper > >reported the accident as " alcohol-related. " I recognize the stats I cited referred to fatalities, not all alcohol-related accidents. And that law enforcement may (but will not necessarily do so) count a passenger fatality such as Mona's son as alcohol related. However, I doubt that those fatalities make up more than 10 percent of alcohol related fatalities. But, to be bending over backwards conservative, let's say that passengers with alcohol in their system, and where the driver has not been drinking, comprise 20 percent of alcohol-related fatalities. I'll also be incredibly generous and say pedestrians drinking alcohol in driver-pedestrian accidents where the driver had not been drinking comprise another 20 percent of alcohol-related fatalities. That ***still*** leaves 60 percent of alcohol-related fatalities, or 24 percent of all traffic fatalities, caused by alcohol-influenced drivers. I personally wouldn't consider that " essentially meaningless. " Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > >>Just FYI, when my son was killed as a passenger in a vehicle, he had >quite a > >bit of alcohol in his sytem. The driver, however, was stone cold sobner, >and > > " merely " driving like an idiot. However, because of my son's BAC the >paper > >reported the accident as " alcohol-related. " I recognize the stats I cited referred to fatalities, not all alcohol-related accidents. And that law enforcement may (but will not necessarily do so) count a passenger fatality such as Mona's son as alcohol related. However, I doubt that those fatalities make up more than 10 percent of alcohol related fatalities. But, to be bending over backwards conservative, let's say that passengers with alcohol in their system, and where the driver has not been drinking, comprise 20 percent of alcohol-related fatalities. I'll also be incredibly generous and say pedestrians drinking alcohol in driver-pedestrian accidents where the driver had not been drinking comprise another 20 percent of alcohol-related fatalities. That ***still*** leaves 60 percent of alcohol-related fatalities, or 24 percent of all traffic fatalities, caused by alcohol-influenced drivers. I personally wouldn't consider that " essentially meaningless. " Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Hello Mona, I am sorry to read that you've lost your son. I empathise. My aunt lost her daughter and I miss my cousin, but I feel much more for my aunt's loss than mine. I don't know as I've seen anything that can cause more pain. I believe the government is as absurd as MADD regarding " alcohol related accidents " (among other things!) I have read somewhere (sorry I forget where) that any alcohol use by anyone involved in an accident will qualify the accident as alcohol related. Even if the driver (or a passenger) of the offended car has been drinking (not even drunk) the accident is deemed alcohol related... so 40% is not a Real number by any means. But it is good propaganda for lowering BAC limits. > In a message dated 8/11/01 1:56:21 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > steverino63@h... writes: > > > > Seeing as how Federal government numbers, ****not**** MADD numbers, note > > that 40 percent of vehicular fatalities are alcohol related, my skeptical > > suspicion says the survey you reference " knocked them out. " > > > > Just FYI, when my son was killed as a passenger in a vehicle, he had quite a > bit of alcohol in his sytem. The driver, however, was stone cold sobner, and > " merely " driving like an idiot. However, because of my son's BAC the paper > reported the accident as " alcohol-related. " > > However, that the driver was not drunk was a mere fluke. He drives drunk all > the time, before and since. > > --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Hello Mona, I am sorry to read that you've lost your son. I empathise. My aunt lost her daughter and I miss my cousin, but I feel much more for my aunt's loss than mine. I don't know as I've seen anything that can cause more pain. I believe the government is as absurd as MADD regarding " alcohol related accidents " (among other things!) I have read somewhere (sorry I forget where) that any alcohol use by anyone involved in an accident will qualify the accident as alcohol related. Even if the driver (or a passenger) of the offended car has been drinking (not even drunk) the accident is deemed alcohol related... so 40% is not a Real number by any means. But it is good propaganda for lowering BAC limits. > In a message dated 8/11/01 1:56:21 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > steverino63@h... writes: > > > > Seeing as how Federal government numbers, ****not**** MADD numbers, note > > that 40 percent of vehicular fatalities are alcohol related, my skeptical > > suspicion says the survey you reference " knocked them out. " > > > > Just FYI, when my son was killed as a passenger in a vehicle, he had quite a > bit of alcohol in his sytem. The driver, however, was stone cold sobner, and > " merely " driving like an idiot. However, because of my son's BAC the paper > reported the accident as " alcohol-related. " > > However, that the driver was not drunk was a mere fluke. He drives drunk all > the time, before and since. > > --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Hello Mona, I am sorry to read that you've lost your son. I empathise. My aunt lost her daughter and I miss my cousin, but I feel much more for my aunt's loss than mine. I don't know as I've seen anything that can cause more pain. I believe the government is as absurd as MADD regarding " alcohol related accidents " (among other things!) I have read somewhere (sorry I forget where) that any alcohol use by anyone involved in an accident will qualify the accident as alcohol related. Even if the driver (or a passenger) of the offended car has been drinking (not even drunk) the accident is deemed alcohol related... so 40% is not a Real number by any means. But it is good propaganda for lowering BAC limits. > In a message dated 8/11/01 1:56:21 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > steverino63@h... writes: > > > > Seeing as how Federal government numbers, ****not**** MADD numbers, note > > that 40 percent of vehicular fatalities are alcohol related, my skeptical > > suspicion says the survey you reference " knocked them out. " > > > > Just FYI, when my son was killed as a passenger in a vehicle, he had quite a > bit of alcohol in his sytem. The driver, however, was stone cold sobner, and > " merely " driving like an idiot. However, because of my son's BAC the paper > reported the accident as " alcohol-related. " > > However, that the driver was not drunk was a mere fluke. He drives drunk all > the time, before and since. > > --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > I believe the government is as absurd as MADD regarding " alcohol >related accidents " (among other things!) I have read somewhere >(sorry I forget where) that any alcohol use by anyone involved in an >accident will qualify the accident as alcohol related. Even if the >driver (or a passenger) of the offended car has been drinking (not >even drunk) the accident is deemed alcohol related... so 40% is not >a Real number by any means. But it is good propaganda for lowering >BAC limits. Of course, people can have reasons for wishing BAC rates were higher, too.... makes it look like problems with alcohol are minor or nonexistent. European countries, in general, have lower to much lower BACs than America. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > I believe the government is as absurd as MADD regarding " alcohol >related accidents " (among other things!) I have read somewhere >(sorry I forget where) that any alcohol use by anyone involved in an >accident will qualify the accident as alcohol related. Even if the >driver (or a passenger) of the offended car has been drinking (not >even drunk) the accident is deemed alcohol related... so 40% is not >a Real number by any means. But it is good propaganda for lowering >BAC limits. Of course, people can have reasons for wishing BAC rates were higher, too.... makes it look like problems with alcohol are minor or nonexistent. European countries, in general, have lower to much lower BACs than America. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > I believe the government is as absurd as MADD regarding " alcohol >related accidents " (among other things!) I have read somewhere >(sorry I forget where) that any alcohol use by anyone involved in an >accident will qualify the accident as alcohol related. Even if the >driver (or a passenger) of the offended car has been drinking (not >even drunk) the accident is deemed alcohol related... so 40% is not >a Real number by any means. But it is good propaganda for lowering >BAC limits. Of course, people can have reasons for wishing BAC rates were higher, too.... makes it look like problems with alcohol are minor or nonexistent. European countries, in general, have lower to much lower BACs than America. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 At 02:38 PM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote: >That ***still*** leaves 60 percent of alcohol-related fatalities, or 24 >percent of all traffic fatalities, caused by alcohol-influenced drivers. That might not be too far off as an estimate. It still sounds a little high to me, but probably not absurdly so. >I personally wouldn't consider that " essentially meaningless. " I said that the term " alcohol-related " is essentially meaningless, not that the phenomenon of alcohol-influenced accidents doesn't exist. But of course you actually knew that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 At 02:38 PM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote: >That ***still*** leaves 60 percent of alcohol-related fatalities, or 24 >percent of all traffic fatalities, caused by alcohol-influenced drivers. That might not be too far off as an estimate. It still sounds a little high to me, but probably not absurdly so. >I personally wouldn't consider that " essentially meaningless. " I said that the term " alcohol-related " is essentially meaningless, not that the phenomenon of alcohol-influenced accidents doesn't exist. But of course you actually knew that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.