Drinking and driving

The topic led me to a web page that reports percentages of fatalities due to drunk driving in each state which was rather revealing.

Apparently, by their count, the worst is Rhode Island, at 55%, but what caught my eye was Hawaii coming in second at 53%.

I can understand boozing if you are stuck in Rhode Island, but why would you need to get drunk in Hawaii??

JB

Huh? I said it wrong, in that the numbers reflect the percentage of people involved in the accident, and do not imply that every accident was caused by the alchohol. What do you mean by 'impossible to determine?" If the stats are collected at the scene, isn't that pretty accurate?

Oh I see, a trolling attempt :-) Seems the stat was for location, not blame, so I don't get the attempt....

The 20% number given earlier on is way off. That would have to be my only real point, as it is much higher than that.

JB

Why not?

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, "Let there be Light."
And there was still nothing, but you could see it.

Correct. All they can do is to show a statistical correlation.

However, I read a summary of an interesting study done about 20 years ago. It concluded that the measurable effects of alcohol on the human nervous system persist for up to 5 days following a person's drinking. So, the problem isn't so much that law enforcement is attempting to correlate drinking with accidents, but they are only counting those caught with some measurable level of alcohol in their bloodstream's.

The roads would be a lot safer if people had to choose between drinking (ever) and driving.

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bradley (IBM programmer who created the Ctrl-Alt-Del reboot
keyboard sequence), "I may have invented it, but Bill made it famous."

This information is simply impossible to deterime as a matter of principle.

The fact that someone may be classified as legally drunk, doesn't mean that such a state was actually responsible for any associated deaths.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

1)If you dont know how to surf

2) It's an island. Island mentality will set in

3) It's full of Americans

martin

After the first death, there is no other. (Dylan Thomas)

Either way you slice it, violent crime has increased since everyone bent over, grabbed their ankles and gave up their firearms, and all rights to self defense.

And they mock us for having weapons to defend ourselves.......

JB

I was just a lighthearted comment. Not everything has to be deep rooted in liberalism, or conservatism, religion, or flame bait.....

JB

Yep, statistics are for the weak and mindless. Driving drunk, now that is what intelligent people do.

As long as its not the complete and utter cause of ALL accidents, there is absolutely no sense in doing anything about it, right?

Makes me wonder why we bother to try to find cures for cancer, when cancer is not the cause of the most deaths in the world. In fact, we ought to maybe consider not even fighting crime, as it doesn't seem to correlate to the majority of the problems in society.

Makes sense from here......

JB

As far as you know :-)

That, and the lack of other drivers not only late at night, but simply less population. I am as guilty as you for being a foolish teenager, but I am not about to brag that I drove drunk, under control and as careful as a kitten. I thought I did at the time, but reason and logic tells me otherwise.

JB

Because no one here, or anywhere else, has quantified exactly what an "accident" involves. Banging into the car in front of you at the intersection is just life in the city, and not worthy of concern, but its still an accident.

Without hard facts and numbers, and a useless attempt to note the seriousness of the "accident" the stats don't mean anything.

What I do know is that far too many of the late night wrecks on the TV, where people are dead, or seriously injured, seem to include high levels of alchohol in the blood. Not all, but certainly quite a few.

Saying that most accidents are caused by people who are not drunk is an empty comment, because hitting a tree in the neighborhood does not compare to flying across the median and taking out a family on the way to gramma's

Some here don't think that is any big deal, but I bet a lot more think it warrants some attention.

JB

Most of the folks in Hawaii are Americans. Yes, there is a pretty large asian immigrant population. Island mentality sets in on outsiders who can't adopt to the customs of Hawaii. They are also the ones that are socially shunned because they are too bigoted to accept different cultures.

As to the drinking, like most other people in the world, folks in Hawaii enjoy boozing with friends.

As to the statistic, posted speeds in Hawaii are rarely above 45 mph. During the day, the speed is kept below 25 mph due to massive traffic jams. If you think driving in L.A. is bad, try Oahu during rush hour. A 16 mile commute can take 1 to 1.5 hours. The speeds tend to be low enough where it is rare for someone to die in an accident. The people who die or kill in traffic accidents(?) are probably some blalah who has just downed a case of Olympia and T-boned a car.

Mark

Have you ever considered how many of those "sober" drivers that get into trouble are hung over? Does anyone test for that? I would really like to know. Bleary eyed and not officially impaired but lethal nevertheless.

--

    Boris Mohar

Yea, sorry. Luckily, I didn't say anything inciteful... did it?

JB

You snipped out the wrong part. You are really quoting Frank under my post that you clipped out. I hope that was an accident.

--

    Boris Mohar

Yep.

and thats not what you said.

Its impossible to calculate "percentages of fatalities due to drunk driving" as you stated above.

There is no way to know if being drunk was what caused a fatality.

No. I just don't like statistics spin.

Its bad enough over here with the election. Labour are claiming that violent crime has gone down with conservatives claiming that violent crime has gone up.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Perhaps he was typing while under the influence...

I tend to agree. I think it's the ones who get aggressive and stupid when they are drunk that are the problem. I don't agree with drinking and driving, but, when younger and more foolish, I consistently did just that, often when seriously drunk (we're not talking .09 here), for about a 5 year period before I stopped. Never hit a person, dog, or car. Granted, most was late at night when the roads weren't as busy. When drunk, I was the most cautious driver you ever met; I wouldn't take any (other) chances. I credit that for my good fortune in not creating a bad statistic, not that I was a great driver when drunk.

Tom

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward wrote (in ) about 'Drinking and driving', on Thu, 21 Apr 2005:

Different stats, of course. Labour - crimes reported to police; Conservatives - crimes reported to an official survey of 40 000 people.

And the survey, like most, under-represents those most likely to be involved in crime, either as perpetrators or victims - young men.

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
\'What is a Moebius strip?\'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk