I just don’t understand drinking and driving

What kind of lamebrain response is, "the graph is the graph"?

Why don't you just admit that you posted a graph you don't understand because you don't even know how they have defined "relative crash risk" or how they arrived at a measure of that risk. You cannot take a graph like that out of the context of a study, without the descriptive material that should accompany it--unless your aim is to put forth propaganda rather than objectively assess the facts.

You are also starting from your own erroneous assumption that a .08 BAC has a minimal effect on driving ability, and on the specific tasks involved in driving, and, further, that people with a BAC .08 aren't getting into, and causing accidents, including those with serious injuries and fatalities--they are, and you are disregarding that fact. While they may do so in lower numbers than those with BAC levels 2 or three times higher, that's hardly a valid reason to raise the legal limit above .08. Someone with a BAC of .08 is still significantly more impaired than a person who has no alcohol in their system.

You have also chosen to ignore this information--based on hundreds of studies--from the NHTSA, the same source as your graph, which contradicts the argument you are trying to make that the legal BAC should be raised, since it clearly indicates that a driver with a BAC .08 is already at significantly more risk of being in a fatal crash than a driver with a BAC .00--in fact, they are anywhere from 11 to 52 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than drivers at .00 BAC, depending upon their age and gender. Given those statistics, your promotion of a higher legal BAC is downright irresponsible.

I am posting that info again because you have repeatedly failed to address it.


There really is no manpower and resources that are being used to only detect .08 drivers, while those with much higher BAC levels are swerving around the roads and being ignored. Sobriety checkpoints result in arrests with varying BAC levels--including those above .08--they help to get an impaired driver off the road before an accident happens. And, where I live these checkpoint stops are done very infrequently--generally around holidays and long weekends, like the one we just had. In areas with a high rate of DUI accidents and crashes, they may set up checkpoints on a very occasional Friday or Saturday night, but those are still infrequent. And no one in law enforcement is ignoring the driving behaviors of those on the roads the other 355 days and nights of the year they don't have checkpoints set up. If they can spot a drunk driver by his/her reckless or negligent operation of their motor vehicle, they'll go after them.

Realistically, the police can't be in all places at all times to even spot possible drunken drivers. Around here, I rarely see a police car on the street or on a parkway. It's other drivers who are more likely to spot someone driving recklessly or carelessly, and they'll call 911 and alert the police. But, often, by the time the police arrive, a horrible accident has already occurred. So, for you to say that the police should be out looking only for the most severely impaired drivers, isn't saying much that would change anything--those very infrequent checkpoints don't keep them from doing that, and they do arrest more people than just those with BAC levels .08--.10 at those checkpoints. And, if those checkpoints help to prevent alcohol-related accidents, both by getting some drunk drivers off the road for a night, and by causing others to not drink too much for fear of being caught at one, that's good. And if the arrests result in fines that generate revenue for the state, that's good too--the economy's tough and state budgets are strained to the max.

Unfortunately, a lot of DUI accidents happen very quickly--neither the DUI driver or whatever he collides with, may have more than a few moments notice before impact--the crash may be the first indication that someone was being inattentive, or reckless, or just not alert behind the wheel, and then it's too late. And the police could be on the same street, yet unable to prevent that accident from happening. So, having more police out cruising the streets might help, mainly to give the public a heightened sense they might be caught if driving DUI, but I don't think that alone will solve the problem of DUI serious crashes and fatalities.

There are a lot of people who chronically drink beyond the legal limit--sometimes way beyond the legal limit--and get behind the wheel. And, all too often, they continue to drink and drive even after a DUI arrest. And the amount of social binge drinking that goes on fairly regularly in our society, and is considered "acceptable" is also quite high and I posted statistics about that earlier in this thread--and a fair number of those allegedly social drinkers, who are binge drinking excessively a few times a month are also getting behind the wheel. I'm not sure any of the prevention/awareness efforts affect the driving habits of either of those groups--and I'm not sure what can be done until after a DUI arrest or a DUI accident and arrest. And the penalties are getting stiffer because penalizing harshly becomes the only main option when prevention fails.

From what I've heard in this thread, even Thom Swift's accident and arrest failed to change the drinking habits among his acquaintances, or among those who frequent the same watering hole that he did, even though his example should have been a wake-up call about the terrible consequences of drinking and driving. Particularly when it hits so close to home, if it doesn't change people's drinking and driving behaviors, I don't know what will.

Maybe what Thom is going through has prompted more people to use Rainbow Ride, or find an alternate means of transportation if they want to have more than a few drinks over the course of several hours. I really hope so. Changing people's patterns of behavior is the best way to deal with the problem of drunk driving. And, as a country, we've made good progress in that direction, and we have reduced the magnitude of the problem, and we have to credit organizations like MADD for helping to bring that about. But it is still a problem--and one wrong decision to drink and drive can devastate so many lives.

Aw, c'mon, dude, leave the lady alone! She ain't doin' nuthin'.

I just don’t understand drinking and driving

I just don't understand topics that go on and on and on and on ...

Bullshit on it face....................

The same as those so call surveys that claimed that one in four college women are sexually assaulted during their four years in college.

Drunk driving deaths average BAC is somewhere in the range of .17.

Something that it would not be if a .08 BAC resulted in a 11 to 52 times death rate compare to 00 BAC.

an yet here you are.....participating no less.

i have already documented that this is not so, as well as linked to one extensive scientific paper on the subject of increased risk as BAC goes up. except .01 bac, .02bac and .03bac is actually at less risk than 0.0 bac. This pretty much destroys your theory that drinking and driving is always a bad idea.


if true this would indicate that many have determined that the state is wrong with is draconian attempt to get thom for 30 years based upon what thom actually did wrong. Over reach always is a mistake, and given how fucked up the American "justice" system is the credibility of the entire american government is now questionable.

Then so is your graph. They both come from the same source.

You just can't dismiss statistical data you don't like, because it doesn't support your argument, by calling it "bullshit". Comments like that are the reason you can't be taken seriously. You fail to make a compelling argument for your case, and you fail to incorporate or address conflicting information. Your thinking is so rigid you wind up defeating your own argument.

You are trying to compare apples and oranges. You do not understand that those two statements refer to two different things--and they are not mutually exclusive or incompatible statements. You don't know how to correctly interpret data, and that's why the conclusion you are drawing is wrong.

They will never raise the legal BAC level beyond where it is now, for good reason, so it doesn't matter how much you continue to rant about it in this thread.

Continuing to belabor the same points with you is just plain boring.

That statement, in response to my comment, makes so little sense it borders on the bizarre.

I doubt that's the reason that others, who know Thom, might still be drinking and driving above the legal limit--if, in fact, they are doing that.

.

your opinion that my opinion sucks would be more interesting had you bothered to present one that makes more sense than mine, or any opinion at all. does this actually work were you come from? my friends and I are used to a better quality opposition than your "neener-neener!"

edit: i note with interest that you ignore the fact that you have been proven wrong about the quantity of risk we all face when driving at .08bac over 0.0bac.

scientific facts are such a bitch to you and your kind....better to avert your eyes and keep walking, and hope that those watching you dont notice that you were just caught in a lie.

that is right in line with my evidence that .1bac gets rid of 86% of the deaths caused by alcohol and .08 gets rid of 96%.....now do you care to address the disputes or is this going to be a replay of where you insist that you are right about sex law over hundreds of posts in multiple threads by presenting cases of rape which no one disputes are rapes?

i seriously am coming to the conclusion that you are used to dealing with nit-wits, because you seem utterly lost when needing to deal with reasonably intelligent people who present facts (waves to Billy).

Truthfully, Hawkeye, you are sounding more and more off the wall.

Is that a COMPLAINT that the thread is not dead ????

Is that a DEMAND that the thread shud end??????

Maybe, women have a better understanding on reality? I am referring to Bill by the way. Thank you FF. Exactly what I was referring to.




What a load of. There are cars, there will always be cars, off course, if you don't have friends then than counts that out, someone helping you out.

The thing is, being that ill? Throwing up? Going to work, as FF said, you were prepared for a dollar to infect other people without a care in the World about others. What does that say?

Then you state, that you only walk or bike it for your enjoyment. What does that state?

Then you try to close the argument with "oh, too sick to drive, therefore, to bie, or walk".. Yessum.. So you should not have drove, you chose not to walk or bike it.. A car is easier, huh.. No holes there hun at all.. You chose the easiest way out. Not caring for anyone else on the road, nor other people that would get infected.

Hawkeye, I understand Australia is different and there is a car, bike, walk, or car, bike, walk.

He's explained himself real well. He was irresponsible...................full stop..

Like the example of working at a freight yard control tower by myself so I am wondering who I was going to harm!!!!!!!

Second those thirty trains load of people roughly ten thousands plus would not likely to had been happy if my staying home in bed resulted in them being late for their work by an hour or two.

Money? I did that for money no dear I did such things as an obligation to my fellow citizens as staying in a warm better when sick in winter is far to be prefer to one day or even two days paid.



I do not know what does it state? but that I have a car however a few times a week during part of my working life when the weather were nice I would cycle to work a round trip distance of 34 miles.

When working for the railroad the distance was a great deal further to work at times in the neighborhood of 60/70 miles or so round trip.

Is there a point somewhere anywhere concerning your comments?

I did not see that comment until after posting the other part LOL so a college age young man is irresponsible in getting out of a sick bed and driving 30 miles or so in winter weather in order to be sure that ten thousands or so commuters can get to their work on time?

Odd as my employer at the time did not think such actions was anything but very responsible of me.

Oh if there had been others at the work site to give a disease to IE the Red Branch Freight yard control tower then there would had been no need for such actions and I would had call in sick as driving 30 miles starting at 4 am is not a fun thing to do.

Your country men also must be a great deal kinder then those in the US as people willing to get out of bed themselves and drive someone 30 miles at 4 am is not all that common in the US.

Oh I forgot I was suppose to take none existing public transportation or walk 30 miles or cycle 30 miles also to be your version of responsible.

Well at this time in my life I did not have s bike so an attempt to get to work on time by cycling 30 miles sick was not doable and walking I do not think so!

You know Found Soul the word idiot kept coming into my mind over and over when I read your posting.

I wonder why that would be so as your position that I was an irresponsible young man to made sure my job post were cover have some value points to it LOL.

Waves back Hawkeye.

Now you know how the rest of us feel when you post your inane nonsense.

Hi, David!



"No" to both questions. I'm neither complaining nor demanding. Just an expression of amusement, and I was being a bit silly.