Posted on 08/07/2007 4:59:35 PM PDT by rellimpank
"Pre-emptive war" got us into a real mess in Iraq. So maybe we ought to think twice before adopting similar measures when it comes to traffic law. Specifically, when it comes to an idea floated by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to require that all new cars be fitted with an ignition interlock that can detect alcohol in the driver's system -- and shut the car down if it does.
Several large automakers (including GM, Ford, Toyota and Honda) also support the idea -- and are working on ways to get these things into new cars, maybe within the next two or three years, if not sooner.
Sounds OK in principle -- sort of like the idea of liberating Iraq. The devil's in the details, though.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
How specifically does interlock devices address alcoholism? Would you like the Federal government to outlaw alcoholism?
“I’m NOT in favor of mandatory breathalizers in every car........it MIGHT be worth considering.”
Make up your mind. A person with no principles is willing to compromise on anything. You are void of principles and are ripe to become a victim of socialism.
If you have such an altruistic goal of provoking thought with the hope to convince women to stay away from alcoholic men, the you should really get off the computer and get out in the world to accomplish your goal. Not only are you void of logic, but you are also showing your own laziness with regards to this personal goal of yours.
“In 60 years of living, I’ve never been the least bit tipsy.”
Then what gives you the authority to be so judgemental of other individuals? Are you the second coming? If so, is the world going to really end in 2012?
How about when a sober driver is forced to prove his soberness every time he gets into his car. Thats bullshit and you know it.
So, in essence . . .
you are insisting
that my inferences are bad, wrong arbitrarily
but yours are wonderful and true . . . arbitrarily decided, of course.
Makes perfect nonsense. Cute.
Once again your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.
Sorry, the paragraphing was fine when I hit post.
Trying again . . .
A 1993 study found: 400,000 deaths from tobacco 300,000 deaths from diet/activity pattern causes and 100,000 deaths from alcohol.
Same doc:
Causes of ACCIDENTAL DEATHS:
(1) MOTOR VEHICLE 43.3%
(2) Falls 17.8%
(3) Poison,liq/solid 13.0%
(4) Drowning 3.9%
(5) Fires, Burns,Smoke 3.4%
(6) Medical/Surgical Complication 3.1%
(7) Other land transport 1.5%
(8) Firearms 0.8%
(9) Other (nontransport) 17.8% 2002 STATS ABOVE The five leading causes of fatal accidental death have remained the same between 1970 and 1998, and these top 5 account for 80% of all accidental deaths.
Approximately forty percent of deaths from acts of nature are due to floods.
Approximately forty percent of fire victims die in their sleep.
Motor vehicle fatalities are the leading cause of death for people between ages 1-29, and the rate is particularly high between the ages of 15-24. A 16-year-old has 3 times the crash risk of an 18-year-old and 7 times the crash risk of a 25-year-old.
As reported by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, in 2005 the States with the highest number of motor vehicle crash deaths per 100,000 people were
Wyoming (33.4),
Mississippi (31.9),
Montana (26.8) and
South Carolina (25.7),
whereas the States with the lowest were
Massachusetts (6.9),
New York (7.4),
Connecticut (7.8) and
Rhode Island (8.1).
The fatalities were most likely to occur in single-vehicle crashes for
Montana (72%) and
the District of Columbia (71%),
whereas fatalities were more likely to occur in multiple-vehicle crashes in
Delaware (65%) and
Michigan (60%).
The percentage of pedestrians killed in motor vehicle accidents was highest in
the District of Columbia (33%),
Hawaii (25%),
New York (22%) and
New Jersey (21%),
whereas it was lowest in
Nebraska, Idaho and
New Hampshire at 3%
.
According to CarandDriver.com there are 2.28 fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles driven in
Mississippi as opposed to
only 0.87 in Massachusetts.
In Wyoming 24% of the traffic is heavy trucks, whereas
Hawaii is at the other extreme with only 3% of traffic being heavy trucks.
(Crashes involving left-hand turns are much more likely to result in injury -- it is often safer to make three right turns than one left turn.)
Driving under the influence of alcohol is the most important cause of death in automobile accidents --
followed by driver fatigue.
The percentage of traffic fatalities attributed to alcohol dropped from 57.2% in 1982 to 45% in 1992.
The figure is probably much higher, because amounts of alcohol below the legal level of intoxication (all amounts of alcohol) reduce cognitive & physical function.
More than a third of pedestrians killed by a motor vehicle fatalities in 1992 were intoxicated.
A Gallop poll indicated that nearly a third of respondents remember falling asleep while driving an automobile. People often have "microsleeps" without being aware of them. Automobile accidents due to such incidents are typically unexplained or attributed to other causes.
Alcohol and sleepiness interact in a way that is far more dangerous than might be expected.
Experiments with twelve healthy men in the 20−26 age range showed that either restriction of sleep to 5 hours or a blood alcohol level roughly equal to the United Kingdom limit for automobile driving nearly tripled the number of lane drifting incidents in the 30−60 minute driving period on a driving simulator.
Combining both those levels of alcohol with sleep deprivation again nearly tripled the number of lane drifting incidents above that seen for either the alcohol or sleepiness alone.
But the reported sleepiness of those who had the alcohol/sleep-deprivation combination was no greater than what was reported by those who had only been sleep deprived [OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE; Horne,JA; 60(9):689-692 (2003)].
################################
QX:
There's a comment above that such stats are worthless.
That's one of the silliest statements I've read on here since FR was founded.
Statistics need to be collected with sound methodology and analyzed and interpreted in logical, meaningful and appropriate ways. When they are, they distill a lot of very potent and practical information of great usefulness to thoughtful responsible persons. Such statistics responded to in thoughtful practical, responsible ways can save lives. Lives are precious and worth saving.
Suicidal/self-destructive behavior is not a good survival habit. And rants about how itÂ’s an individualÂ’s right to cause loved ones unnecessary pain and suffering just do not move me. Selfishness is selfishness and destructive, deadly.
It's interesting that the person making such a narrow, rigid, biased, off the wall statement about statistics asserts that statistics are worthless because of bias!
GTTM GUFFAWS TO THE MAX!
ROTFLOLHMHS ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING OUT LOUD HOLDING MY HURTING SIDES.
The same poster has the brazen audacity to imply that we should take their posts on such topics seriously! GTTM.
For others without much experience with statistics and their origins . . . bias can be a problem with statistics IF the biases cause the methodology of collecting the data to be skewed for some reason(s) in some way(s). However, bias can be 100% on one side but the methodology in collecting, analyzing and reporting the statistics can be very solid and the resulting statistics can be totally objective and useful. ItÂ’s sad the one allergic to statistics is so uninformed as to miss such potentially life-saving facts.
A clue as to why might be found in an evidently fierce death wish to die early from smoking related diseases.
You can lead a horse to the solid statistics but you canÂ’t make him think.
Actually, the statistics were all collected with responsible, solid methodology and analyzed in responsible solid ways.
Of course, those wanting the “freedom” to destroy their own lives early from smoking related diseases and thereby steal comfort and companionship from their loved ones most selfishly—such folks with a death grip on a pathological death wish will be unlikely to ever pay attention to even the most sound and useful statistics.
But I’m not really interested in another smoking-deaths-are-wonderful tirade. I’ve had too many loved ones die horribly with emphysema.
But, hey, if you’re so fond of such things, you could practice ahead of time by breathing through a straw with the inner diameter of a hair.
Statistically challenged or research challenged?
I didn’t realize there were so many FREEPERS with a death grip on a death-by-smoking wish.
I’m sure the grieving children will be impressed.
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO GOOD OLD FASHIONED PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!
= = =
This is such a ragingly hypocritical pile of horse biscuits.
The folks pontificating such rationalizations come across to me as the least responsible, most selfish and most likely to die an early unnecessary death-due-to-irresponsibility of all FREEPERS.
Sad—very sad, that.
Didn’t lie at all.
Didn’t realize I’d left anything out someone would consider significantly crucial.
I try not to bother with meaningless, insignificant, unfounded, useless points. I don’t always succeed.
So by your rationale . . .
we should deduce that
CELL PHONE DEATHS MAKE ALCOHOL GENERATED DEATHS PERFECTLY REASONABLE, WONDERFUL AND JUSTIFIED.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And you want me to take your posts seriously.
GTTM.
Rock on, man. It’s not worth fighting with a crazed nanny-state lunatic with a low IQ though.
Wrong inference from my posts.
And, you’ve evidently missed that I’m not actually in favor of breathalizers on every vehicle.
But I think the discussion is warranted.
And anything that would even potentially markedly decrease horrible deaths of innocent children is worthy consideration.
Make up your mind. A person with no principles is willing to compromise on anything. You are void of principles and are ripe to become a victim of socialism.
= = =
You have less than 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of a clue
about me . . . evidently about some other things as well.
More evidence that you are near totally clueless about me.
I’m quite comfortable with my reality based assements born of decadess of alcohol counseling.
But I can understand the incredulity of the inexperienced and untrained.
More wholesale inaccuracies! LOL.
I won’t embarrass you by revealing my IQ numbers.
I wish MADD would disappear along with the ACLU.
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.