You posted a number of links; I did not find any breakdown of fatalities by BAC more recent than 2002. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong place? Would you be so kind as to identify exactly where you got that particular figure from?
FYI, one source of my figures is here: http://www.ridl.us/pdf_stats/pdfs/2002/2002DriverErrorsAtBACandDrugs.pdf which is found off the link from post 105.
According to this, fatal accidents in which a driver committed one or more errors (including "unknown") in 2002, drivers with no alcohol were responsible for 46,632 crashes; those with amounts from 0.01 to 0.14 were responsible for 3,647, and those with amounts of 0.15+ were responsible for 4,409.
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.
If I pass twenty traffic signals on a road and all the ones I stop at have 3.5-second yellows, is it unreasonable for me to expect that (absent something obvious cause like a municipal boundary or speed-limit change) the twenty-first will also have something resembling a 3.5 second yellow (note: the difference between 3 seconds and 3.5 seconds is huge)? In the absense of the photo revenue device, what would be the worst reasonably-expected consequence of such an assumption, even if it turns out to be mistaken?
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.
Interesting philosoply. Interestingly, it's one I wrote about ages ago in my blog. Seems to me that you don't mind getting in an accident if you can blame it on someone else. My philosophy is that if one can prevent an accident--even if it wouldn't be your fault--you should do so.
On the note about being passed IN the intersection by this person, I would ofer that you had another option. That being changing lanes.
Let me draw you a picture:
... INTERSECTION ... || ___ || ___ | ___ || || ### || ### | ### || || CAR || ME# | CAR || || ### || ### | ### || || ___ || | ___ || || ### || | ### || || CAR || | CAR || || ### || | ### ||To my left was a left-turn lane, separated by a crossable median. In the lane to my right there were at least two cars. I noticed the maniac behind me in my lane approaching at breakneck speed.
In the second or so that I analyzed the situation (I noticed the guy before I'd come to a stop, then realized he wasn't going to), I determined that somebody's car was going to enter the intersection after the light turned red. I don't know if it would have been possible for the maniac to jump the centerline, but I certainly wasn't going to count on him doing so; as far as I could tell, his car was going to enter the intersection in my lane, my car was going to as well, and the only question was whether it should do so under its own power.
If I had remained stopped at the intersection as long as I could (i.e. until the moment of impact) my car would still have entered the intersection after the red light. Probably about 1-2 seconds after it did. Any injury caused to me or anyone the remains of my vehicle happened to hit would, legally speaking, be entirely the fault of the corpse behind me. But is it not better for all concerned that I decided to try to both warn other drivers that the intersection was not safe to enter, and lessen what I expected to still be a rather severe force of impact?
Decisions made that reflect milliseconds really DO matter huh? I would wonder what the milliseconds in reaction time are affected at .08...........
Probably comparable to the effects of being up 18+ hours without sleep. But people who do that aren't demonized.
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.
If he could catch him. I suppose that if he radioed for cops to be on the lookout ahead, they'd probably be able to figure out who the guy was even if the first cop didn't get the plate. On the other hand, it's not unknown for cops to go after the people they can catch.
Instead of between .08 and .10 it should read below .10.
That is my mistake. You will dismiss these deaths? Second link in post 312 is where it came from.
Dismiss these deaths all you want to and in addition dismiss the reality that lowering to .08 contributed to progress that is documented full well.
" those with amounts from 0.01 to 0.14 were responsible for 3,647, and those with amounts of 0.15+ were responsible for 4,409."
Gee seems there is not hardly any difference being twice as intoxicated......only 762 more people died at almost twice the BAC. Is this really your argument? Is it really?
rationalize it all you want to moving the numbers around all you want to but I would offer that is exactly what the is said about the 'alcohol related' numbers.
Point to take note of .08 is working as a multi pronged approach. I suppose maybe it is time that you make a case how raising it to .10 will make the numbers drop. But then that would be arguing FOR something instead of against something. The position you take is one that seems to say that ALL progress made in bringing death and injury down is aside from .08. I would offer that is something you would need to back up rather than me to refute. Could you do that for me? Could you make the case about how raising the . BAC .08 law to BAC.10 or even .15 would decrease fatalities or injuries? I betcha cannot, or you already would have.
This thread has links and my last post has people to contact if you refute the many studies done to the reductions documented since the .08 acceptance.
I cannot make you accept the studies or what they show. ( what they show being that the multi progned approach is the best bet and it shows progress).
(("If I pass twenty traffic signals on a road and all the ones I stop at have 3.5-second yellows, is it unreasonable for me to expect that (absent something obvious cause like a municipal boundary or speed-limit change) the twenty-first will also have something resembling a 3.5 second yellow"))
Yes it is. This is like saying twenty 'four corners' did not have a stop sign so is it unreasonable for me to expect that the twenty first one would be any different. Each traffic signal is there for a reason, it applies to that intersection and should be followed as it directs you.
(("My philosophy is that if one can prevent an accident--even if it wouldn't be your fault--you should do so."))
Well of course I agree with that and when I told you that the officer would be writing the guy that blew by you a ticket I conveyed that sentiment to you. I hope that is more clear now. I didn't offer philosphy to you with that part, I offered you truth. If you rear end someone it is your fault. I guess I could take from your post there that you think you can defensively drive for all people? Umm that would equally silly eh.
(("Let me draw you a picture"))
Hmmm, now hold on a second, if there was a car next to you how did the car behind you blow by you? Unless of course he was in the oncoming turn lane.....just doesnt sound quite right......
(("Probably comparable to the effects of being up 18+ hours without sleep. But people who do that aren't demonized."))
Ummm, ever hear of a truckers logbook and rules regarding their driving times? It isn't about demonizing sir, it is about accepting reality and in the case of truck driviers that has already been done which is why they have to keep a log book. Hundreds of bills have been introduced about these matters. The problem with passage of them surrounds people being unable to bring themselves to agree on the middle of the road mutually beneficial policy.
Talking about, dealing with and looking objectively at what happens when drinking and driving are mixed is hardly demonizing. Objective studies have been done and will continue to be done concerning this issue.
You wanna drive at .15, hey go for it. You know the risk. Apparently you take the attitude that 'it won't happen to you until you drive X amount of miles'. Or ' I'm not really impaired at .10'. I wish you the best of luck with that, not to mention all the people near you when you do.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/New-fact-sheet03/Point08BAC.pdf
an interesting tidbit here :
"An Iowa DOT review of Iowa fatal crash data from 1995-2000 indicates that 40 fatal crashes in Iowa resulting in 50 deaths involved drivers with BAC levels between .08 and .10. Sixty percent of those drinking drivers were age 25 or younger."
http://www.state.ia.us/government/dps/gtsb/gtsft_9.htm
"BAC’s between .08-.09 were involved in an estimated 40,000 crashes that killed 1,067 and injured 34,000 people that same year (Jensen et al. Impaired Driving in the United States: State Fact Sheets. Public Services Research Institute, 1999).""
You might find some useful information here: http://www.tf.org/tf/alcohol/ariv/drivsum5.html#9
Very Very interesting graphs here:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2001/2001overview.pdf
I would state that .08 all by itself may or may not decrease fatalities or injuries. I would also state that various penalty types alone could be looked at in the same light. I would further state that public education all by itself would produce the same maybe maybe not results.
I would go on to state that when a multi pronged approach is taken, as it has been, results are gained in the progress department.
.08 is here to stay and for that I am thankful. Our congress agreed on this issue better than they do about most and I think that carries a bit of weight.
When it comes right down to it, drinking and driving is just a bad idea to begin with. Alcohol does impair, that cannot be disputed. Impaired driving causes loss that range from life to dollars. Impairment cannot be refuted so those that chose to defend an act that is undefendable from the impairment angle as a whole move the debate to the actual level that the proven impairment becomes dangerous for each individual.
I would pose that this avenue is one that leads to never ending debate. As each person is affected as to impairment very differently. This is part of of humanity. This is part of the individual uniqueness that we all contain.
I would offer there is no way to logistically form a law or policy that would apply to all people equally based on the sheer volume of uniqueness. Therefor the only logical way to proceed is to set a standard limit for all people. Removing the individual impairment argument is proper in this case to end a never ending debate.
As facts become known thru studies and statistics the law should and is adjusted according to what data shows. I am convinced that data shows that the multi pronged approach that really began under President Ronald Reagan ( with his age 21 push) has shown great improvements since he was the leader of our nation.
I would offer that to see the BAC level laws changed to .10 or .15, a person should show how that will provide progress in the direction of combating the loss of life liberty and personal property. I find it very telling that I do not see that type of argument being made. I do not think it can be made, which is why i feel I do not see it being made.
I agree that a person should be able to have wine with dinner. I agree that a person should be able to have a few during the course of a football game. I agree a person should be able to 'stop and have one' (as my grandfather used to say) on their way home from work. I agree there is a balance that needs to be struck in regards to this issue.
I would offer that .08 allows for all these things to be done legally while taking into account the danger that such activity presents.
The argument is made that .08 will just lead to .05 and to .03 and ultimately to .00. OK then if that is a vlaid argument I could pose it right back the other way. Saying that if it is raised to .10 it will only lead to .15 and eventually to no BAC limits at all. Both of those arguments hold equal validity being that they are talking point phrases that really do not have the merit they attempt to portray.
IMHO, and that of congress, and I would argue the majority of americans .08 is right and proper. Not .00 or .05 or .10 or .15. .08 is middle of the road balance as best it can be determined and still allow for people at both ends of the spectrum to benefit in their points of view. A mutual benefit solution. Something that the 'middle' (also the majority imho) can support as proper policy.
Being that I have read some of your posts from as far back as 2002, I take notice the similarity in your posts now and make a judgement call that this is a never ending debate for you.
Maybe a case made as to the mutual benefits of moving the BAC to .10 would further this conversation.