Posted on 12/16/2005 5:33:56 PM PST by RWR8189
goldfinger1...get hysterical much?
"I mean there were "only" 2,500 innocent victims killed in very bloody crashes by "non impaired" alcohol drugged drivers with a BAC of LESS THAN .08 BAC in 2003, and "only" 2,208 innocent people killed by "non impaired" alcohol drugged drivers in 2004, with a BAC of LESS THAN .08% BAC"
So, I take it you haven't studied statistics, or lying with statistics. (Yes, I actually had a course called "Lying with Statistics" in college.)
Let's look at a couple of problems with your use of these statistics.
You claim that X numbers of people were "killed by" drivers with "less than" .08 BAC.
Does that include drivers that had a BAC of zero because they hadn't been drinking? If not, we have to presume that many, many more people were "killed by" drivers with a zero BAC than by drivers with a BAC greater than zero but equal to or less than .08.
Looking at the statistics that way would seem to indicate that sober drivers are the most dangerous of all.
Of course, the problem is that merely saying that X number of drivers had X BAC tells you nothing about the causation of the accidents in question.
One way the Carrie Nations whip up hysteria is by counting *every* accident that involves in any way anyone who had been drinking as a "drunk kills innocent victim" crash.
For instance, if a guy is too drunk to drive, and so takes a cab home, and on the way the cab is broadsided by a cold sober truck driver, that drunk passenger in the cab goes into your "2,500 innocent victims."
If a drunk pedestrian lurches in front of a sober driver, that drunk pedestrian goes into your "2,500 innocent victims."
Sorry, but your argument is ludicrous on its face. You're asserting that 2,500 "victims" out of what, 60,000 traffic fatalities, shows that the 2,500 were impaired. Well, then, what caused the other 57,500 fatalities?
People who are cold sober have accidents.
People who have had a couple of beers have accidents.
Therefore...
People who have had a couple of beers are impaired?
That's ridiculous.
"Everyone drove better with a BAC of .10%. as compared to what?"
As opposed to stone cold sober.
"Anyone who believes a person can drive better with a BAC of .10% compared to someone who has not consumed alcohol has some very serious issues, in my opinion."
Your opinion is misguided. It's a fact. Oh, some people may be impaired at .1, but others are just nice and loose.
"Would you or anyone else who reads this think a BAC of .08% is bloody ridiculous if your son, daughter, mother, father, wife, or husband were massacred/killed by a person with a BAC of only .08%"
You know, intellectually speaking, that's downright offensive.
Would it be preferable to lose a loved one to a sober driver? How about a well-rested, alert sober driver, who was observing speed limits? Would that make you feel better?
The question of whether or not a BAC of .08% is bloody ridiculous rests on whether a driver's abilities are impaired at .08%, not on estrogen-reeking banshee wails about "massacres."
"No, I can't recall ever getting hysterical."
Well, your last note sure had me fooled.
"the total number of people killed in alcohol related motor vehicle crashes which in 2003, the number is 17,105 (total)."
Which includes a very high number of cases in which alcohol played no causal role. IOW, lying with statistics.
"Sober drivers do kill more people than people driving under the influence of alcohol."
Okay, then, it would behoove a rational lawmaker to try and determine what role alcohol actually plays, rather than assuming that alcohol is a causal factor whenever it is present.
"And yes, people who have only had a few beers, and don't think they are impaired cause many accidents."
Which in no way demonstrates that the beer they drank played any causal role. And that is the point: all the evidence indicates that it does not.
"Everybody's brain processes alcohol the same way."
There are similarities. However, some people can play chess at a high level with a BAC over .1, some people can't play decent chess even sober.
"Others who are "nice & loose" at .10% BAC 48x more likely to have a crash."
That doesn't jibe at all with published statistics.
"others who are "real nice & real loose" at .015+ are 380x more likely to have a crash."
Well, now, that's looking a little more reasonable. People at .15 are generally impaired...but I don't know about the 380x.
"source..auto insurance council"
Oh, now *there's* an unbiased source. Next we're going to start asking the DNC for advice on economic and social policy, I presume.
".08% is the law."
Uh, huh. And once upon a time prohibition was the law.
"deal with it"
Not an issue for me, except insofar as it reflects the increasing power of the kind of people I dislike. I drink very little.
"or get the law changed."
Who knows what the future may bring? Some day we may even have open season on tobacco Nazis.
are you saying the auto insurance council is biased?
I have the distinct feeling that you know darn well what is commonly meant by that phrase, but are trying to distract from the debate with a bit of absurdity. But I'll play along.
When our society is discussing drinking and driving, we normally discuss the act of drinking AND THEN driving. Yes, it is illegal to drink WHILE driving in most states. When someone warns you, "Don't drink and drive," 99.9% will tell you that it means the same thing. Don't drink and THEN drive
DSC is doing a good job of answering the faulty stats that you have been spoon fed. I'll let him carry on without distraction. He is doing such a fine job.
"are you saying the auto insurance council is biased?"
Ah-yup.
So, you are claiming the auto insurance council is biased eh? Can you back that up with factual information that they are biased? Because I mistakingly put that name in there.........I do not think there is a such thing as the auto insurance council.......sorry for the mistake...............you can find the info at www.nhtsa.dot.gov
I think you got it now somewhere in message where you said Don't drink and THEN drive. Glad to see we are making some progress.
There are the big bucks.
I only know of one person who was found guilty of DUI who did not have to go to 'treatment' for allegedly being an alcoholic.
Either I know a lot of alcoholics, or something is a wee bit skewed in their criteria. And, no, I don't drink.
Welcome to freerepublic...goodluck staying.
"I do not think there is a such thing as the auto insurance council.......sorry for the mistake......"
There are hundreds of different sorts of insurance councils through out the nation including automobile. It's always a good idea to be informed on the subject matter before ranting and raving nonsense.
Why in the world would you wish me luck in staying? I have not launched any personal attacks on any one, (don't even get me started). Do we have some weenies in here?
From what I've seen in here, talking about DUI laws, alcohol addiction, mentioning that alcohol is a dangerous drug, probably the most deadly and dangerous, is a trigger for a lot of people going off on me. Whoopie!
I'm not claiming to point a finger at anyone as I am as guilty as anyone for breaking the alcohol and driving laws, in the past. After reading a lot about it and seeing all the consequences for getting caught doing it , I'm not going to do it.....One of the biggest problems I see is the massive denial that people have relating to alcohol and their addiction to it.
We've gone from a needed crusade against drunk drivers to draconian laws governing drinking and driving. Any reformers that have nearly total success have this problem. They don't fold their tent, but continue to agitate for what becomes extremist totalitarianism.
I'm an alcoholic. Haven't drank in almost 17 years. Drinking drivers and drunk drivers are not the same thing. I routinely drove in what are called blackouts. I was the one the police should have been after, but God blessed myself and others. That's drunk driving, which today's laws are more than sufficient to deal with.
We have gone way too far with this thing.
It is about generating revenue, not saving lives. That's the sad part imho.
Here's what you are denying:
"the U.S. Government Accountability Office reviewed all the statistical data and concluded "the evidence does not conclusively establish that .08 BAC laws by themselves result in reductions in the number and severity of crashes involving alcohol."
Get a grip.
OK. My suspicions are now confirmed. Your talking points don't hold up to scrutiny. You now resort to semantical gymnastics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.