Slashdot Mirror

I did twice already, but since you were polite here goes ... http://www.getmadd.com/REALnumbers.htm [getmadd.com]

http://www.getmadd.com/REALnumbers.htm

Read this then: http://www.getmadd.com/REALnumbers.htm

Many studies in other countries have shown use of cell phone (even hands free) is the equivalent to driving with a mid range blood alcohol level or worse

Speaking of which, I seem to recall hearing somewhere that those effects have been exaggerated a bit by the transformation of anti-drunk groups into anti-alcohol groups. This was a while ago so I'm not sure where I got it from, trying to find a chart/table of driver BAC vs. number of crashes only turns up this site with their awesome title keywords.

Hmm, there's also this meta-analysis, which makes me think maybe what I saw was related to one of the studies that didn't show a meaningful relation.

You want the figures... here's an analysis of the numbers from the NHTSA themselves...

If you can prove the claim, here's $20,000 for you...

And... well... you can't cry if I link the NHTSA's actual numbers, can you? Of course, pay special attention to the passenger, rider, and NON-OCCUPANT figures... that means that the driver had no alcohol in his system, but someone in the car did...

And please note the difference between alcohol-related, and BAC .08+. Also, please do a little look to see what .08 BAC does to reflexes... and how little it takes to get there.

Also... look into the actual statements of MADD, and look what they're fighting for... and look into a nobody named Candy Lightner, and check into her current job, and why she is currently doing it.

Or look into the GAO's research to the NHTSA's claims...

I can only lead you to the information, I can't make you read them, nor can I make you believe in them.

Nephilium... currently enjoying a tasty barleywine...

Sometimes too much drink is barely enough. -- Mark Twain, American novelist

You want the figures... here's an analysis of the numbers from the NHTSA themselves...

If you can prove the claim, here's $20,000 for you...

And... well... you can't cry if I link the NHTSA's actual numbers, can you? Of course, pay special attention to the passenger, rider, and NON-OCCUPANT figures... that means that the driver had no alcohol in his system, but someone in the car did...

And please note the difference between alcohol-related, and BAC .08+. Also, please do a little look to see what .08 BAC does to reflexes... and how little it takes to get there.

Also... look into the actual statements of MADD, and look what they're fighting for... and look into a nobody named Candy Lightner, and check into her current job, and why she is currently doing it.

Or look into the GAO's research to the NHTSA's claims...

I can only lead you to the information, I can't make you read them, nor can I make you believe in them.

Nephilium... currently enjoying a tasty barleywine...

Sometimes too much drink is barely enough. -- Mark Twain, American novelist

Don't be so sure about the 10 year figure... look at the SIP program in Texas. Or the story in Virgina from a couple of years ago (Full story on another site); (Start of the archive story, need to pay for the full version)... And of course, commentary from FORMER MADD members...

The prohibitionist are back... and fighting strong now...

Nephilium

Why on earth aren't people continually drunk? I want ecstasy of the mind all the time. --- Jack Kerouac, beat writer

My friend, let me enlighten you. Everyone who has had an accident while using a mobile phone has thought exactly the same thing: that they were able to chat (and worse, SMS!!) on their phone and drive quite safely ... right up until the point where they killed either themselves or someone else. Self-perceptions of risk are never reliable, and especially not in situations like this where other people get killed.

Those who are truly wrong in their assessment of the risk are liable. But not every accident that is blamed on distraction is in fact caused by distraction. And while some people are incorrect in assuming they can drive and do something else at the same time, other people do both together. Also, let me tell you about a more serious source of distraction than cell phones: passengers, particularly kids.

Driving doesn't need to be your only priority but it does have to be your first priority. And I mean that in a very strict preemptive real time OS scheduling sense. If you can't enforce your priorities, do not multitask!

The prohibitionist view is that any risk is unacceptable. horsefeathers. Some level of risk is reasonable. One must weight the risk/benefit ratio.

Consider, for comparison, the drunk driving witch hunt. Yes, some people really should not be driving and originally the compaign actually did some social good; now the campaign is socially harmful. Even the "drunk" with 0.10% BAC who drives 1 home mile at 168% greater risk of having an accident is less of a threat to society than the tetotaller who drives 10 miles to go to a movie. The drunk has 3.68 risk adjusted miles (1 getting to the bar, 2 going home) and the tetotaller 10 risk miles. Both could have stayed home. But the "drunk" at 0.10% BAC is the one who faces legal persecution (DUI), even if he doesn't get involved in an accident. Drinkers usually choose bars close to their homes. In fact, if he drives home at 17 miles an hour instead of 35 (assuming it is late so he can do so without blocking traffic), completely canceling out the risk of alcohol he greatly increases his chances of prosecution. Further, NHTSA statistics that cite the percentage of accidents involving alcohol blame alcohol if the BAC was 0.01% or greater (relative risk 1.03 vs. sober) whether or not the person who consumed alcohol caused the accident in whole or in part. Ok, 45% of fatal accidents "involved" alcohol. In what percentage did alcohol cause the accident? In what percentage were the people hurt not the ones drinking? What percentage of people who did not have accidents had 0.01% BAC or greater? Less than one third of the fatalities in accidents "involving" alcohol were third parties (i.e. not the driver or someone who accepted the elevated risk when they got into the car with them). 92% of accidents do not involve alcohol at all. Two thirds of fatal crashes involve BAC greater than 0.15% with an average of 0.17% (risk factor: 39.05), yet the witch hunters keep trying to lower the legal limits. There is no statistically significant improvement in fatality rates from lowering DWI limits from 0.10% and 0.08%, according to a former MADD chapter executive director who reveals that MADD's priority is stopping drinking, not saving lives. Not even MADD's founder endorses their current policy: "I worry that the movement I helped create has lost direction. [.08 legislation] ignores the real core of the problem...If we really want to save lives, let's go after the most dangerous drivers on the road. --Candy Lightner, founder of MADD"

Back to driver distraction.

• Better to mess up the inside of your car than the outside of your car. In other words, don't drink that 32 oz soda while you drive unless you are willing to throw it on t

Just search Google. The Scrooge article is particularly exhaustive.