Denial, judges (was: New here)

[Guest guest]

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--

[Guest guest]

.. 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--

[Guest guest]

.. 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--

[Guest guest]

.. 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--

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

>

> > >

> > > 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

[Guest guest]

>

> > >

> > > 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

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

> >>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

[Guest guest]

> >>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

[Guest guest]

> >>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

[Guest guest]

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--

[Guest guest]

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--

[Guest guest]

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--

[Guest guest]

> 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

[Guest guest]

> 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

[Guest guest]

> 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

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.