Slashdot Mirror

You appear to be under the misconception that red light cameras reduce accidents.

It simply isn't the case. http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/

For intersections with high rates of run through, the answer is to send an engineer out and rework the light timings to make sure they work in conjunction with surrounding lights and have a sufficient yellow time, to reduce the travel speed on the road close to the intersection, or to re-engineer the intersection to better control traffic.

They are a gimmick designed to turn a profit for the state and the private contractors who operate them. They have a vested interest in making intersections LESS safe by inducing more revenue generating red light tickets.

-Rick

This already is illegal http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

Sounds like something wrong with the yellow light timing. Perhaps you should petition to increase yellow light time.

http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/regulating-red-light-cameras/

http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/traffic-light-cameras-bad-choice/

"House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) recently called for congressional hearings in the wake of a report that claims local governments have progressively shortened yellow-lights since 1985 to maximize fines, and have endangered motorists in the process. "

And then look here: http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/14/six-ities-busted-for-shortening-yellow-light/

"Chattanooga, Tennessee; Dallas, Texas; Springfield, Missouri; Lubbock, Texas; Nashville, Tennessee; and Union City, California all cut the timing on their lights, and while some have paid back the fines, others have not. "

And for the international traveller: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/italian-red-light-cameras-rigged-with-shorter-yellow-lights.ars

"It turns out, however, that Arrighetti and a handful of public officials were allegedly a bit greedier than most. He's accused of conspiring with 63 municipal police, 39 local government officials, and the managers of seven different companies in order to rig the system so that it would turn from yellow to red quicker, therefore catching more motorists. "

Remember when government's purpose was to serve the public rather than screw it?

Wouldn't the governments time and energy be better served, for example, by looking into ways to better synchronize and schedule the stop lights rather than turn them into revenue generation tools?

Oh, by the way, lots of cities cheat when they put red light cameras in. Just in case you still actually think that safety has anything to do with it.

Houston, TX installed "red light cameras."

Then the greedy-ass city council wanted more revenue, so they shortened the yellow-light timing. They now have yellow-light times that are around 2 seconds on most of the camera-watched intersections. Other cities have done the same thing.

The problem is, the shorter a yellow-light timing, the more accidents. Study after study has shown this. Shortening the yellow light timing (to trap motorists "still in the intersection") to get more ticket revenue also makes for more accidents.

It's literally blood money, coming at the expense of people injured or killed in those accidents, but the city councils don't care because it's "their" blood money.

Some cities decided to shorten the yellow phase to have more violators and therefore more profit from those cameras. It's just too tempting. See reports here http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/ and here http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/trolling-for-trouble-in-the-red-light-district/

And yet you have far more in the way of random road blocks (to check for drunk drivers, uh-huh) and requirements to carry identification (like whilst driving).

The requirement to carry your drivers license while driving doesn't strike me as particularly onerous. That is actually the point of the drivers license, is it not? In any case you generally won't get into too much trouble if you don't have it -- they can assume that you are an unlicensed driver but more often than not they will just look you up on the computer. When they make a requirement that you carry your drivers license around all the time is when I'll get concerned.

The road blocks is a better point to raise, IMHO. I've spoken out against them before. It would seem to be more effective to use those police resources to patrol around looking for the guy who is swerving all over the place than to use them hassling everybody who drives through a particular stretch of roadway.

Then again, I'm convinced that the whole DWI issue is blown out of proportion and used to distract the populace from other issues. I rather like the viewpoint that the NMA has about it.

http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/guidelines-identifying-treating-locations-red-light-running-problem/

Not that I disbelieve this report, but for some reason, any time I see a U.S.-based organization whose logo includes an eagle (and whose primary concern appears unrelated to birds of prey), my bias alarm immediately goes off.

There are numerous studies out that show that citing your sources make what you say credible.

Literally cutting and pasting "decreasing the yellow light period does in fact increase the number of rear end collisions" from the original post into Google returns http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/ as the second result (the first is a link to this discussion).

Yeah, it's on the person making the claim to justify it, but come on - if you can cut and paste their claim and get the source within the first couple results, it hardly makes sense to complain about it as if this was Wikipedia or something.

Sure, but a reasonable person would just google first and only post "citation please" if they can't find good enough results.

I searched for: increasing yellow lights safety study
and: increasing yellow light safety research

There aren't that many studies but a few if done well should be good enough.

http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/guidelines-identifying-treating-locations-red-light-running-problem/

http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/yellow-light-timing-myths/

Sure, but a reasonable person would just google first and only post "citation please" if they can't find good enough results.

I searched for: increasing yellow lights safety study
and: increasing yellow light safety research

There aren't that many studies but a few if done well should be good enough.

http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/guidelines-identifying-treating-locations-red-light-running-problem/

http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/yellow-light-timing-myths/

These people could use your money and support: http://www.motorists.org/

http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/guidelines-identifying-treating-locations-red-light-running-problem/

At least we know that it doesn't happen in America. Except in about 6 cities or so.

A lot more than six. Manipulating the traffic control system for fun and profit is becoming a very common activity for cash-strapped localities. It's not just lights: speed limits are dicked around with everywhere for the same reason. The NHTSA has pointed out that the politically-motivated abuse of the nations' traffic systems is responsible for some number of deaths and injuries every year.

At least we know that it doesn't happen in America. Except in about 6 cities or so.

There was another study in Virginia that showed that while fatalities decreased (right angle crashes), total accidents increased significantly after putting in red-light cameras, and this effect did not diminish over time. Source: thenewspaper.com. I'm sure you'll find a similar refutation of the Texas study; it is still too soon to see that.

There was another study from the Univ. of South Florida with similar results.

In short, traffic cameras show no statistical improvement in accident rate, and in some cases show no improvement in injury rate, either. By contrast, yellow light studies consistently show a significant improvement, and have never been shown to cause any increase in accidents.

Here are five more studies on the subject.

As for comparisons with yellow light cameras, I'm having a hard time digging those up, but here's a story about an experiment on one particularly bad intersection in Fort Collins. Here's a study on all-red intervals that is also relevant here. Either way, it should be clear that if studies show red light enforcement increases the number of accidents and yellow light timing changes decrease it, it doesn't take a genius to know that photo enforcement is not a good solution to the problem.

There was another study in Virginia that showed that while fatalities decreased (right angle crashes), total accidents increased significantly after putting in red-light cameras, and this effect did not diminish over time. Source: thenewspaper.com. I'm sure you'll find a similar refutation of the Texas study; it is still too soon to see that.

There was another study from the Univ. of South Florida with similar results.

In short, traffic cameras show no statistical improvement in accident rate, and in some cases show no improvement in injury rate, either. By contrast, yellow light studies consistently show a significant improvement, and have never been shown to cause any increase in accidents.

Here are five more studies on the subject.

As for comparisons with yellow light cameras, I'm having a hard time digging those up, but here's a story about an experiment on one particularly bad intersection in Fort Collins. Here's a study on all-red intervals that is also relevant here. Either way, it should be clear that if studies show red light enforcement increases the number of accidents and yellow light timing changes decrease it, it doesn't take a genius to know that photo enforcement is not a good solution to the problem.

There was another study in Virginia that showed that while fatalities decreased (right angle crashes), total accidents increased significantly after putting in red-light cameras, and this effect did not diminish over time. Source: thenewspaper.com. I'm sure you'll find a similar refutation of the Texas study; it is still too soon to see that.

There was another study from the Univ. of South Florida with similar results.

In short, traffic cameras show no statistical improvement in accident rate, and in some cases show no improvement in injury rate, either. By contrast, yellow light studies consistently show a significant improvement, and have never been shown to cause any increase in accidents.

Here are five more studies on the subject.

As for comparisons with yellow light cameras, I'm having a hard time digging those up, but here's a story about an experiment on one particularly bad intersection in Fort Collins. Here's a study on all-red intervals that is also relevant here. Either way, it should be clear that if studies show red light enforcement increases the number of accidents and yellow light timing changes decrease it, it doesn't take a genius to know that photo enforcement is not a good solution to the problem.

Actually, if people aren't running the lights they make it more likely to run the light by shortening the yellow light. Several cities have been caught doing so already.

In 5 min, I have not found the information citing the 65 to 75 change. BUt I did come across an interesting write up about Montana having no speed limit vs. a speed limit.

http://www.motorists.org/pressreleases/home/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox/

However, since the federal government will withhold highway maintenance funds for any state with a speed limit not equal to 70mph, the highway speed limit is unchanged.

No. There used to be a limit of 55 mph, but was repealed in 1995. The original reasoning was to limit gas usage during the fuel crisis of the '70s, and at some point also picked up a safety aspect.

Gas usage is probably correct, though a lot depends on engine tuning and the effects of drafting. With modern direct injection and variable valve timing, the difference isn't as clear as it used to be.

Safety is completely erroneous. Despite Ralph Nader's warning that "history will never forgive Congress for this assault on the sanctity of human life", safety has actually improved. As a corollary, the unrestricted German Autobahn has a better safety record than most European nations, though this isn't entirely comparable to the US due to higher standards of licensing and regular car maintenance.

Running thru a red light 10 seconds after it has turned red is one thing.
Running a red light because the city changing the time, shortening the yellow light, to catch more "red light runners" is bullshit.

http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/118879.html

Yes, people who blatantly run a red light are dangerous, but the solution isn't to setup red light cameras, and modify times to catch more people to generate income. In lots of places it is about the income, and not about the safety.

There were some really good ones I've read, but they were on government run sites and have been taken down. Here are some articles that indirectly support what I'm saying.

http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/

A conspicuously biased study from a lobby group. No responsible safety professional would define safety solely in terms of probability of accidents; it has to be scaled according to the severity of the accident. Sure, there may be more likelihood of an accident at low speed than at high speed, but if one results in a dented fender and the other results in me and my family smeared all over the highway then they're hardly equivalent.

http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/

Another biased report from the same lobby group. If you read the report that it links to you will see that "when the casualty accidents at signalised intersections was plotted [...] it can be seen that while there is a small decrease in right-thru accidents in 1989 it is nowhere near the same magnitude of change as at the 41 RLC sites. The drop at the 41 sites was more than 30%" (my emphasis). Again, your lobby group is selectively reporting, only looking at accidents, not the severity (although in this case it doesn't matter much, because the report they cite goes on to say in the conclusions that the quality data available to the study pretty poor, so the conclusions aren't up to much anyway. Something else the lobby group didn't mention).

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

Enjoy.

Now that was an interesting study -- but it said nothing about safety, only the standard of enforcement in the USA.

There were some really good ones I've read, but they were on government run sites and have been taken down. Here are some articles that indirectly support what I'm saying.

http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/

A conspicuously biased study from a lobby group. No responsible safety professional would define safety solely in terms of probability of accidents; it has to be scaled according to the severity of the accident. Sure, there may be more likelihood of an accident at low speed than at high speed, but if one results in a dented fender and the other results in me and my family smeared all over the highway then they're hardly equivalent.

http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/

Another biased report from the same lobby group. If you read the report that it links to you will see that "when the casualty accidents at signalised intersections was plotted [...] it can be seen that while there is a small decrease in right-thru accidents in 1989 it is nowhere near the same magnitude of change as at the 41 RLC sites. The drop at the 41 sites was more than 30%" (my emphasis). Again, your lobby group is selectively reporting, only looking at accidents, not the severity (although in this case it doesn't matter much, because the report they cite goes on to say in the conclusions that the quality data available to the study pretty poor, so the conclusions aren't up to much anyway. Something else the lobby group didn't mention).

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

Enjoy.

Now that was an interesting study -- but it said nothing about safety, only the standard of enforcement in the USA.

There were some really good ones I've read, but they were on government run sites and have been taken down. Here are some articles that indirectly support what I'm saying.

http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/
http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

Enjoy.

There were some really good ones I've read, but they were on government run sites and have been taken down. Here are some articles that indirectly support what I'm saying.

http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/
http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

Enjoy.

"Shut up"? I'd go with "Fuck MADD". Seriously. An orginization that started for a fairly laudable purpose (combating drunk driving and assisting the victims of it) has turned into a neo-prohibitionist organization that spends as much time demonizing alcohol as it does fighting the problem of drunk driving. Even the original founder got fed up with the group and left. She was quoted as saying something like 'I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving'.

This is an orginization that encourages practices that are (IMHO) un-American. Practices like random police roadblocks (normally associated with military directorships), implied consent laws (5th amendment, what?) and my personal favorite: Getting the drinking age raised to 21. Gotta love the irony -- you can get married, join the military, sign a contract and borrow money from the bank -- but you can't legally purchase booze. Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense. Besides which, you could make the argument that this is counterproductive in terms of reducing drinking -- prohibit something and you just make it that much more attractive for teenagers.

Recently I heard that they've come out in favor of mandatory ignition interlock systems for all automobiles -- not just as a punishment/deterrent for those previously convicted of DUI. Yeah, I should have to pay extra money for my car and blow into a tube every time I want to start it just because a small minority of people make stupid decisions and drive drunk.

Want some sanity on this issue? Take a look a the DUI positions of the National Motorist Association. Turns out there are ways to combat the problem of drunk driving that don't involve shredding our civil liberties or demonizing alcohol.

In more than one city the yellows were set below the legal limit. Courts ruled that the yellow light times had to be increased and ticket fines refunded.

Most interestingly, one city (Dallas) shut down and several of their cameras after that, citing that they no longer had enough revenue coming in from them. They basically admitted, straight up, that it's all about the money. Does that cause you to rethink your "self-deluding crap" assessment?

The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices Section 4D.10 specifies "The duration of a yellow change interval shall be predetermined. Guidance: A yellow change interval should have a duration of approximately 3 to 6 seconds. The longer intervals should be reserved for use on approaches with higher speeds."

The standard formula seems to be the one shown at http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/sgn_int/app02.htm

There's also some information in the TFA^3 at http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

Actually, they had to give 90%, and the school board is working out a deal to bring them back.

See http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/local-school-board-wants-ticket-camera-cash/

Here's the link to the actual story:

http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

For those interested in the real article, it's here:
http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

The blog post /. links to doesn't actually link to it. Even this article is a summary of 6 articles from TheNewspaper.com (which it does link to).

Your idea is interesting, but do you actually have studies to back it up? At http://www.motorists.org/, they have links to studies that lenghthing yellow light time is sufficent to lower accident rates.

Well, that's because people have learned that traffic signs are meaningless, because of speed limits being set arbitrarly to generate revenue. So it starts with learning that even though the limit says 55, you can easily do 80 safely. So you start thinking other signs are meaningless.. this cycle has been shown in various studies.

http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/

Check out the second to last question on that page.

The law also dictates that traffic control devices be set according to safe, proven engineering principals. The argument can be made that if the government had followed the law, you would not have broken any laws.

http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/home/safety-setting-speed-limits/

IN the first paragraph is mention of a federal law which lays down this requirement. I think it applies to ALL roads, not just federally funded ones.

Maybe I'm new here ( after a decade ), but it seems to me that referencing a blog that's giving out information not only second hand, but maybe third-hand isn't helping much. I tracked the links to Motorist.org, that's as far as I'm going. Here's the article I found that appears to be relevant:

http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

This also appears to be a blog, but gives attribution to TheNewspaper.com's archives as the source material for their commentary.

A link to the original article. Techdirt links to a Leftlanenews site that in turn links to the original article.

The cities involved are Union City, CA, Dallas and Lubbock, TX, Nashville and Chattanooga, TN, Springfield, MO.

As others have pointed out, if the government were truly interested in safety and not revenue, they would put up signs well ahead of the intersections. They would do the same with speed cameras - find where people are driving to fast for conditions (with accident data to back it up), put up a speed camera and then put up a sign .5 miles beforehand warning of the speed camera.

Of course, if safety were actually a reasonable cause for speeding, we would have speed limits actually based around the 85th percentile and other statistically proven safe policies.

Instead we have the police using tickets as a revenue source.

After jumping through two blogs (neither of which are the actual story), you'll come to Motorists.org -- the National Motorists Association -- and find the story, dated March 26, 2008 (3 weeks ago). Reading the story, you'll see they cite six different local newspaper articles, some dating back more than a year ago:

http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

So while indeed this is interesting, it is not particularly "new" nor "news." Cities have been doing this for over a decade, and they occasionally get caught, but more often than not, they do not. They will continue to push for the cameras since they generate virtually "free" revenue (free in the sense of little manpower and little initial investment cost).

Sadly, this is a fairly common occurrence: 6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit. It is deceitful and just plain wrong.

Care to give me a couple layman-worthy cites?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#85th_percentile_rule
http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/

If your going to talk about things like the Autobaun, don't bother, since that isn't geared towards the Big Gulp and Taco, Cellphone, Hair Drying, and Novel Reading American Driver. We're too busy doing other things to be fully trusted to our own means. If there are valid studies, taking into account the unique American character of road use and vehicular philosophy, I will cede your point, barring that I'm sure (guessing here) that there are other studies, equally valid in method, that say otherwise.

Well, perhaps you should do society a favor, and turn in your license. Your argument is that the average American (which you are, and we can't assume otherwise) can't handle making reasonable judgement calls. It stands to reason that you can't either, so make us all safer and stop driving.

The only studies I'm aware of which contradict the civil engineers are done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Guess who fundes them? The same people can will raise rates if you get a ticket.. so they have a vested intrerest in making sure you get a ticket. Besides, the accident rates don't lie; rates do not increase as speed limits are increased, and in many cases accident rates actually drop.

We can agree on the mob-rule thing, though I wouldn't go so far as calling democracy (en toto) mob-rule, and thus bad, there is something to be said for a group of people having the right to represent themselves.

Of course there are issues that don't matter; for example, buying alcohol on Sunday, and other blue laws. These laws may be backed by a majority, but so what? Why should they take the rights of the minorirty that disagree?

I do find benefits in the idea of Philosopher Kings or meritocracy, but generally these go wrong, since those who claim the right to rule generally look out for themselves, to the detriment of the polis. We generally forget that government is here for the sake of the governed, and not for that of the governors.

Generally? Try "always." It's not that we "forget," it's that invariably once government starts regulating things, they tend not to stop. Our Consitution was supposed to stop or slow this, but unfortunately many state and certainly the Federal governments are overstepping their legal bounds. But that's ok, because the mob says its "for our safety."

Actually the ideal form of government, IMHO, would be mob-rule (ala democracy) with an informed public, and a large body of empowered experts within advisory roles in the government. Sadly, here in the US we have an ignorant and apathetic public, and corporate interests (and scientists who are willing sell their standards to said interests) represented in government. I digress.

Again though, the mob tramples the rights of the minority, so we must allow the minority to stop the mob from doing so. The only way to really stop all the issues you bring up is to simply remove most government intervention.

But, interestingly, the g-g-parent said something along the lines of "most people don't want speed limits, but they are enforced for revenue only". This IS a statement FOR mob-rule, the term "most people" confirms it.

I disagree with that statement; it seems to me that "most people don't want speed limits for themselves, but think that they should apply to everyone else." Also, I'm not arguing that we should remove speed limits because that's what people want; my argument is that speed limits are freedoms being limited illegally, not only because there's no proof that there is an "overwhelming societal need to do so (i.e. safety)," the opposite is true: speed limits make roads MORE unsafe. My argument has nothing to do with the OPs content

I'm not a civil engineer, but they all agree that what everyone wants to do ends up being the safest way to handle things.

http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/

Speed limits exist to put profit into police and insurance companies, not to make anyone safer.

The other side of this problem are the assholes who believe the lies they've been sold by car commercials and have been deluded into believing that it is their God given right to travel 30-40 over the limit and fly into hissy fits if anyone dares impinge upon their "right".

Except that civil engineering studies have shown time and again that the best limit is no limit at all, and if there must be a limit that it follows the 80th percentile rule. Unfortunately, pretty much every government in the US breaks this rule and uses speed limits to raise revenue. This also pays off for the insurance companies, because limits which are too low increase accident rates, thus justifying higher and higher premiums. As a rule, if the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says a certain law will improve safety, they are lying. After all, they are funded by the insurance companies.. what do you expect them to say?

http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/

I'm sorry, but that's a dangerous attitude to have. The Government is not some parent that gets to dole out 'privileges' to it's children as long as they behave. The state has a legitimate interest in making sure that everybody who drives meets some standard of skill (which is why we have road tests and learners permits) but that's where it should end.

If they want to pass a law that says you can lose your license for longer if you refuse the breath test and are subsequently convicted of a DWI I'd be fine with that. But I have a serious problem when the Government calls something a "civil penalty" so they can get around the burden of proof imposed by a criminal proceeding.

If the Government is going to take something away from you then it should require full due process of law. The burden of proof should be the same as it is in a criminal trial -- beyond a reasonable doubt. The civil side of the justice system should exist to resolve disputes between private individuals and/or corporations. It should not be used by the Government against individuals.

Go read the NMA issues page on DWI. They actually have a somewhat logical position about it.

This doesn't work; the officer is assumed (and usually certified) to know how to use the equipment, and the reliablity of radar is typically "established in the state" already.

The only right way to fight a ticket is to hire a lawyer that will fight it for you.

Oh, and sign up with the NMA.

While the participants in this stunt definitely seem reckless, in my opinion this is a wonderful example of civil disobediance.

The fact is that most speeding regulations are just a form of crypto-taxation, in which artificially low speed limits are used as tools to enrich local governments (through assessed fines) and pad the profits of insurance companies (through point-triggered increases in premiums).

Further, there is plenty of evidence out there which shows that lowered speed limits do NOT actually reduce road-related fatalities. See http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits or http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/home2.html for references.

The prudent action would be to remove rural speed limits in most cases, and set speed limits at the 85th percentile speed in other highway cases. Urban and residential speed limits, however, should remain in force.

• They have come out publicly against trains offering drinks to passengers on overnight routes. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QODTIO0& show_article=1
• They have publicly stated that they want all cars to be fitted with electronic sensors that detect alcohol in any person in the car and lock the ignition off if the level is determined to be over 0.0 http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/08/wh en_failure_to.html
• They continue to equate the federal statistics for "alcohol-related accidents" and present them as "drunk driving fatalities". Under the former term, if two cars collide and both drivers are sober, but a passenger is drunk, it qualifies as an "alcohol-related accident". If a person has a drink before committing suicide in their car, it's an "alcohol-related accident". This blatantly false method of reporting increases the number of "drunk drivers" by 400-500%. http://www.motorists.org/dui/home/common-dui-dwi-m yths/