Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BlueStateDepression
"Do you accept or not accept this statistic"

I accept they are from 1992.

My mistake. 2002, actually, though if it were 1992 it would make my point stronger not weaker, since the percentage of drivers with BACs in the 0.07-0.09 range would have been higher then. But in any event, my mistake--it's 2002 data.

As for the cites you suggest, the former does not break down BAC into different levels above 0.08. You and I both agree that drivers with BAC above 0.08 are a problem, but I would argue that that's only because drivers with BAC above 0.15 also have a BAC above 0.08.

As for the other article, I saw it make mention of some studies, but I didn't see any link to read the studies themselves. Thus, I can't tell what if anything the studies did to disprove the null hypothesis (i.e. that the differential reduction in alcohol-related fatalities stems from increased enforcement action against grossly-intoxicated individuals, and from the fact that people who would have gotten into crashes with a 0.08BAC now get into crashes with a 0.00BAC). I would expect that both of those factors apply to some extent; without examining the studies themselves I can't tell that they don't account for the entire observed phenomenon.

Sure I do, the gap between .06 and .08 as it relates to the gap between .08 and .10 is substantial also. Would you agree? Hence .08 and not .06. liekwise why it is .08 and no longer .10.

I wish I could find the graph of accident rates per passenger mile vs. BAC. The difference between 0.12 and 0.15 is bigger than the difference between 0.00 and 0.10.

Another tactic of a dishonest person is to rely on 13 year old data when they know full well and good that newer data is available and chose not to take a good look at it because it leads a direction other than past information.

The newer data I've seen (including the nhtsa page you linked) does not seem to distinguish between people whose BAC was 0.15+ and the superset of those whose BAC was 0.08+. If you have data newer than 2002 which preserves this distinction, I'd like to see it.

I would say that is what the Yellow light is for. After red is after red.....that means you would be busted and should be held responsible. If you enter an intersection After it is red no matter how long then you didn't head the yellow. If it turned yellow and you would have created a danger by stopping , thus putting you in the intersection during red, then you were either speeding or lacked attention and reaction to the traffic light when on yellow.

If all of the intersections along a road have a 3.5 second yellow light, except for the one with a camera on it that has a 3.0 second yellow light, would you fault a motorist for not somehow knowing to expect the shorter yellow?

Further, if a motorist notices a tailgater in the rear-view mirror when the light ahead turns yellow, is it better to (1) slam on the brakes to avoid running a red light if the yellow happens to be short (at the risk of being hit by the tailgater); (2) hit the brakes very briefly in an effort to get the tailgater's attention (in case he hasn't seen the yellow light yet) and then accellerate through the intersection (so as to make one's intentions clear to waiting cross-traffic motorists); (3) proceed as quickly as possible through the intersection, and hope the tailgater noticed the traffic signal.

I would suggest that #2 is the safest course of action, even though it has the greatest likelihood of "running the red light". If ones concern is merely to avoid running the red light, choice #1 would be most likely to succeed in that regard, but it would also run the greatest risk of resulting in a major accident.

BTW, a few years ago I once deliberately floorboarded my way into an intersection where I was stopped, about 100ms after my light turned red. I was passed IN THE intersection by a motorist I'd observed approaching at breakneck speed in the rear-view mirror. Although I in fact averted a collision, my intention was actually merely to minimize its severity (I could tell the vehicle behind me wasn't going to be able to stop before the intersection, and even if I accellerated and he braked he couldn't stop before overtaking me). If there had been a red light camera there, should I have been required to pay the ticket? My actions almost certainly saved that crazy motorist's life (for awhile, anyway).

364 posted on 11/13/2005 4:12:43 PM PST by supercat (Sony delinda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies ]


To: supercat

"I would expect that both of those factors apply to some extent"

That is exactly what I said and why I agree with the take the articles and the link I gave you to them at face value. It fits. Multi pronged approaches aoften work best.

I posted the link to the article that shows over 3000 deaths in one year at BAC between .08 an .10.

You are of the position that .08 doesnt cause enough death and harm to warrant .08 being the law. We respectfully disagree on that note. You will claim that .15 is where the trouble begins or that it is insiginificant. You have that right. I disagree.

Feel free to contact these folks for further information about a couple of the studies and I would say that they could prolly send youin the direction if you sought more information than they could provide to you'

"FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In NHTSA: Ms. Marlene Markison, Office
of Injury Control Operations & Resources, NTI-200, telephone (202) 366-
2121, fax (202) 366-7394; Ms. Heidi Coleman, Office of Chief Counsel,
NCC-113, telephone (202) 366-1834, fax (202) 366-3820; or Ms. Tyler
Bolden, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-113, telephone (202) 366-1834, fax
(202) 366-3820.
In FHWA: Mr. Randy Umbs, Office of Safety, HSA-1, telephone (202)
366-2177, fax (202) 366-3222; or Mr. Raymond W. Cuprill, Office of
Chief Counsel, HCC-30, telephone (202) 366-0791, fax (202) 366-7499."

I got them here : http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-2790.htm

A good bit more info there too you might find interesting.


(("If all of the intersections along a road have a 3.5 second yellow light, except for the one with a camera on it that has a 3.0 second yellow light, would you fault a motorist for not somehow knowing to expect the shorter yellow?))

Speedlimits on roads work with the timing of red yellow and green lights. IF you are driving the posted speed limits the length of the yellow light ins't an issue. However your attention is. If you blow a yellow light because you were counting in it being 3.5 I would say you are responsible for making an improper assumption.

(("Further, if a motorist notices a tailgater in the rear-view mirror when the light ahead turns yellow, is it better to (1) slam on the brakes to avoid running a red light if the yellow happens to be short (at the risk of being hit by the tailgater); (2) hit the brakes very briefly in an effort to get the tailgater's attention (in case he hasn't seen the yellow light yet) and then accellerate through the intersection (so as to make one's intentions clear to waiting cross-traffic motorists); (3) proceed as quickly as possible through the intersection, and hope the tailgater noticed the traffic signal."))

You are responsibile for your car and they are responsible for theirs. Here in Illinois if you rearend someone it is your fault. Period. That is to say, if I am tailgating you and you stop at a yellow/red light and I run into you, it is on me. Seems to me that this example tries to put responsibility for a person running a red light on a tailgater rather than on the person that runs it themselves.
Doesn't work that way. It is safest to stop at yellow to red lights.

# 2 (providing you are going the speedlimit) seems to offer that you would advocate disobeying the posted speed limit.
If speeding up allows you to pass thru on yellow and not red this would be appropriate ( but then this light stuff started about red lights didn't it), but if you have to speed up and pass thru on a red light you either had time to stop or you were speeding to begin with.

On the note about being passed IN the intersection by this person, I would ofer that you had another option. That being changing lanes.

Decisions made that reflect milliseconds really DO matter huh? I would wonder what the milliseconds in reaction time are affected at .08............

Had an officer been watching it take place I would offer he wouldn't be writing YOU a ticket, indeed he would be writing the person that blew by you a ticket.



367 posted on 11/14/2005 10:56:37 AM PST by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson