"Do you accept or not accept this statistic"
I accept they are from 1992.
Isn't it unconstitutional to ignore the minority?
Updated information can be found here :
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2003/809761.pdf
"Alcohol related' debate is noted and observed. They are still far too many at levels above .08.
The studies done show that dropping from .10 to .08 is at least contributing to the decline of alcohol related deaths on our nations highways.
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/drive/a/blnhtsa031027.htm
"How much money do you think the state can expect to receive from the prosecution of a motorist who has already been busted six times for >0.15 DUI, gotten into three accidents, and killed twice?"
Killed once in Illinois means jail time. Note: that is post 2003. You defend the money gained from offenders and leave out the money taken from victims by the offenders that harm them. Maybe it is time to take note of both.
"How much money do you think the state can expect to receive from the prosecution of a motorist who has a nice car and a steady job, has never gotten in an accident, and blows a 0.09?"
Many times those nice cars are the ones that crash. Notice Paris Hiltons Bently. ;)
"Do you think that police would effectively reduce alcohol-related crashes by stopping, e.g. 10% of motorists at random (letting even grossly drunk drivers slip through whenever the cop is busy checking out a sober driver), "
Cmon now. I call straw man on that one. Got an example of how a grossly drunk driver got thru a roadside safety check while a sober one was detained? I don't think so. This is a what if kind of question. Raodside safety checks do deterr people from driving drunk on those roads....as they are announced prior to holding them, (caveat, atleast they are here)
"or by stopping only those motorists who show signs of impairment "
That is exactly what is done at roadside safety checks. I have been thru several and never had any type of trouble. A question or two and waved right on by. That happening cuz I wasn't drunk, I had on my seat belt, my kids were in their child seats and I held up my insurance card as I rolled on up. Seems pretty simple.
On that note do you feel that insurance laws are unconctituional and the checking of them ona traffic stop is intrusive?
"There is a huge difference between someone who drives at 0.15 versus 0.08."
Sure I do, the gap between .06 and .08 as it relates to the gap between .08 and .10 is substantial also. Would you agree? Hence .08 and not .06. liekwise why it is .08 and no longer .10.
"One technique of dishonest people is to identify that some uncommon behavior is bad, and then try to equate that with some other, much more common, "superset" behavior when the two behaviors are qualitatively different.
Another tactic of a dishonest person is to rely on 13 year old data when they know full well and good that newer data is available and chose not to take a good look at it because it leads a direction other than past information.
"I would suggest that there is a qualitative rather than quantitative difference between entering a busy intersection 10 milliseconds after the signal turns red and entering a busy intersection ten seconds after the signal turns red."
I would say that is what the Yellow light is for. After red is after red.....that means you would be busted and should be held responsible. If you enter an intersection After it is red no matter how long then you didn't head the yellow. If it turned yellow and you would have created a danger by stopping , thus putting you in the intersection during red, then you were either speeding or lacked attention and reaction to the traffic light when on yellow.
This is why they are identical.
I accept they are from 1992.
My mistake. 2002, actually, though if it were 1992 it would make my point stronger not weaker, since the percentage of drivers with BACs in the 0.07-0.09 range would have been higher then. But in any event, my mistake--it's 2002 data.
As for the cites you suggest, the former does not break down BAC into different levels above 0.08. You and I both agree that drivers with BAC above 0.08 are a problem, but I would argue that that's only because drivers with BAC above 0.15 also have a BAC above 0.08.
As for the other article, I saw it make mention of some studies, but I didn't see any link to read the studies themselves. Thus, I can't tell what if anything the studies did to disprove the null hypothesis (i.e. that the differential reduction in alcohol-related fatalities stems from increased enforcement action against grossly-intoxicated individuals, and from the fact that people who would have gotten into crashes with a 0.08BAC now get into crashes with a 0.00BAC). I would expect that both of those factors apply to some extent; without examining the studies themselves I can't tell that they don't account for the entire observed phenomenon.
Sure I do, the gap between .06 and .08 as it relates to the gap between .08 and .10 is substantial also. Would you agree? Hence .08 and not .06. liekwise why it is .08 and no longer .10.
I wish I could find the graph of accident rates per passenger mile vs. BAC. The difference between 0.12 and 0.15 is bigger than the difference between 0.00 and 0.10.
Another tactic of a dishonest person is to rely on 13 year old data when they know full well and good that newer data is available and chose not to take a good look at it because it leads a direction other than past information.
The newer data I've seen (including the nhtsa page you linked) does not seem to distinguish between people whose BAC was 0.15+ and the superset of those whose BAC was 0.08+. If you have data newer than 2002 which preserves this distinction, I'd like to see it.
I would say that is what the Yellow light is for. After red is after red.....that means you would be busted and should be held responsible. If you enter an intersection After it is red no matter how long then you didn't head the yellow. If it turned yellow and you would have created a danger by stopping , thus putting you in the intersection during red, then you were either speeding or lacked attention and reaction to the traffic light when on yellow.
If all of the intersections along a road have a 3.5 second yellow light, except for the one with a camera on it that has a 3.0 second yellow light, would you fault a motorist for not somehow knowing to expect the shorter yellow?
Further, if a motorist notices a tailgater in the rear-view mirror when the light ahead turns yellow, is it better to (1) slam on the brakes to avoid running a red light if the yellow happens to be short (at the risk of being hit by the tailgater); (2) hit the brakes very briefly in an effort to get the tailgater's attention (in case he hasn't seen the yellow light yet) and then accellerate through the intersection (so as to make one's intentions clear to waiting cross-traffic motorists); (3) proceed as quickly as possible through the intersection, and hope the tailgater noticed the traffic signal.
I would suggest that #2 is the safest course of action, even though it has the greatest likelihood of "running the red light". If ones concern is merely to avoid running the red light, choice #1 would be most likely to succeed in that regard, but it would also run the greatest risk of resulting in a major accident.
BTW, a few years ago I once deliberately floorboarded my way into an intersection where I was stopped, about 100ms after my light turned red. I was passed IN THE intersection by a motorist I'd observed approaching at breakneck speed in the rear-view mirror. Although I in fact averted a collision, my intention was actually merely to minimize its severity (I could tell the vehicle behind me wasn't going to be able to stop before the intersection, and even if I accellerated and he braked he couldn't stop before overtaking me). If there had been a red light camera there, should I have been required to pay the ticket? My actions almost certainly saved that crazy motorist's life (for awhile, anyway).