Denial, judges (was: New here)

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.

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.

It sounds " a little high but not absurdly so, " in spite of my bend-over

backwards generousness in weeding out non drinking-driver as the only person

accidents?

I would say, more likely, no more than 15 percent of alcohol-related

fatalities have a passenger drinking, but not the driver, and 10 percent

have a pedestrian drinking, not the driver.

That leaves 3/4 of that 40 percent, or 30 percent of all fatalities, caused

by a drinking driver.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

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.

It sounds " a little high but not absurdly so, " in spite of my bend-over

backwards generousness in weeding out non drinking-driver as the only person

accidents?

I would say, more likely, no more than 15 percent of alcohol-related

fatalities have a passenger drinking, but not the driver, and 10 percent

have a pedestrian drinking, not the driver.

That leaves 3/4 of that 40 percent, or 30 percent of all fatalities, caused

by a drinking driver.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

August 11, 2001

, thanks for your tact. In your response to a woman's

admission of her son's murder you say that the world is a funny

place. These two sentences just do not seem to belong anywhere near

each other, certainly not in the same message.

I apologize for attacking over something I am sure you did not

intend, but it just really hit a nerve somehow.

> >>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.

>

August 11, 2001

, thanks for your tact. In your response to a woman's

admission of her son's murder you say that the world is a funny

place. These two sentences just do not seem to belong anywhere near

each other, certainly not in the same message.

I apologize for attacking over something I am sure you did not

intend, but it just really hit a nerve somehow.

> >>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.

>

August 11, 2001

, thanks for your tact. In your response to a woman's

admission of her son's murder you say that the world is a funny

place. These two sentences just do not seem to belong anywhere near

each other, certainly not in the same message.

I apologize for attacking over something I am sure you did not

intend, but it just really hit a nerve somehow.

> >>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.

>

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

What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

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

What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

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

What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

August 11, 2001

At 07:51 PM 8/11/01 +0000, you wrote:

>, thanks for your tact. In your response to a woman's

>admission of her son's murder you say that the world is a funny

>place. These two sentences just do not seem to belong anywhere near

>each other, certainly not in the same message.

> I apologize for attacking over something I am sure you did not

>intend, but it just really hit a nerve somehow.

Go back and read it again. I didn't say it in response to her

mentioning her son's death; I said it in response to a later comment.

I'll leave it below so that you can reread it.

>

> > >>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.

> >

August 11, 2001

> In a message dated 8/11/01 2:40:27 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> cool_guy@s... writes:

>

> > 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.

Oh but Mona! The lower BACs work in Europe!

> 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.

About the driver, how am I not surprised about the positive THC

test results! I think pot effects different people in various ways,

just as alcohol or any other mind altering substance does, and those

that say pot doesn't make you a worse driver are full of it (in

probably 99% of the cases anyway, but there could be some

exceptions). The guy sounds like a nut; I'd sooner blame him than

pot, of course.

I am not sure about your feelings on this... it is my opinion

that DUI laws are similar to drug laws, that they are not needed and

do not help the " problem " . So I don't think it matters if the

driver was under the influence of any drug. I believe the driver

should be punished for what he did, for his actions that caused harm

to another human being's property or person and shouldn't be given

extra punishment because he was influenced by a drug, nor should he

be let off in any way because of it. But it is a far from perfect

world.

August 11, 2001