Drinking and driving

Apr 21, 2005

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

Jim Thompson · Apr 21, 2005

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:03:21 -0600, learning@learning.com wrote:

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

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

martin griffith · Apr 21, 2005

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:03:21 -0600, in sci.electronics.design
learning@learning.com wrote:

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

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)

Kevin Aylward · Apr 21, 2005

learning@learning.com wrote:

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

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
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Apr 21, 2005

In <8FQ9e.11157$Pc.8321@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, on 04/21/05
at 04:37 PM, "Kevin Aylward" <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> said:

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

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

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?

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

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

John Woodgate · Apr 21, 2005

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
<see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in
<ugU9e.13395$Pc.5461@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk&gt

about 'Drinking and
driving', on Thu, 21 Apr 2005:

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.

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

martin griffith · Apr 21, 2005

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:44:10 GMT, in sci.electronics.design "Kevin
Aylward" <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

snip

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
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

I noticed that violent UK crime (BBC?)has risen by 10%. Some bright

spark could assume that non violent crime has risen by 90% to make the
figures round up to 100%

martin

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

Paul Hovnanian P.E. · Apr 21, 2005

learning@learning.com wrote:

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??

Why not?

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto

aul@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.

Frank Bemelman · Apr 21, 2005

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> schreef in bericht
news:426822EF.82800339@Hovnanian.com...

Kevin Aylward wrote:

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

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.

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.

Why is that? Most accidents are still caused by people that are
not drunken. The roads are safe enough as they are. There are
risks involved getting out of the house. And to staying home as well.
In a car you have 99.99% less chance getting electrocuted, for starters.
Interesting studies of 20 years ago... boring pieces of crap, more
likely. Statistics are often crap, and summaries are the worst.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

Tom MacIntyre · Apr 21, 2005

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:37:24 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

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

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.

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

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Boris Mohar · Apr 21, 2005

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 00:16:41 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
<f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

Why is that? Most accidents are still caused by people that are
not drunken. The roads are safe enough as they are. There are
risks involved getting out of the house. And to staying home as well.
In a car you have 99.99% less chance getting electrocuted, for starters.
Interesting studies of 20 years ago... boring pieces of crap, more
likely. Statistics are often crap, and summaries are the worst.

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

Apr 21, 2005

In <ao7g61d2oo8il50lmt29ra8rpfqaqp2153@4ax.com>, on 04/21/05
at 11:47 PM, martin griffith <martingriffith@XXyahoo.co.uk> said:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:44:10 GMT, in sci.electronics.design "Kevin
Aylward" <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

snip
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
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

I noticed that violent UK crime (BBC?)has risen by 10%. Some bright spark
could assume that non violent crime has risen by 90% to make the figures
round up to 100%

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

Apr 21, 2005

In <426820F7.BBECBEF@Hovnanian.com>, on 04/21/05
at 02:53 PM, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> said:

learning@learning.com wrote:

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??

Why not?

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

JB

Apr 21, 2005

In <426825e0$0$97021$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, on 04/22/05
at 12:16 AM, "Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> said:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> schreef in bericht
news:426822EF.82800339@Hovnanian.com...
Kevin Aylward wrote:

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

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.

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.

Why is that? Most accidents are still caused by people that are not
drunken. The roads are safe enough as they are. There are risks involved
getting out of the house. And to staying home as well. In a car you have
99.99% less chance getting electrocuted, for starters. Interesting
studies of 20 years ago... boring pieces of crap, more likely. Statistics
are often crap, and summaries are the worst.

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

Apr 21, 2005

In <iu9g61p2pvkm9afug5rv3tog7lhrk4otcu@4ax.com>, on 04/21/05
at 10:28 PM, Tom MacIntyre <tom__macintyre@hotmail.com> said:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:37:24 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

learning@learning.com wrote:

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

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.

As far as you know <wink, wink>

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.

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

Apr 21, 2005

In <1sbg619vr2nr14gcci905uq8faotum369u@4ax.com>, on 04/21/05
at 07:00 PM, Boris Mohar <borism_-void-_@sympatico.ca> said:

Why is that? Most accidents are still caused by people that are
not drunken. The roads are safe enough as they are. There are
risks involved getting out of the house. And to staying home as well.
In a car you have 99.99% less chance getting electrocuted, for starters.
Interesting studies of 20 years ago... boring pieces of crap, more
likely. Statistics are often crap, and summaries are the worst.

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

Boris Mohar · Apr 21, 2005

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:55:15 -0600, learning@learning.com wrote:

In <1sbg619vr2nr14gcci905uq8faotum369u@4ax.com>, on 04/21/05
at 07:00 PM, Boris Mohar <borism_-void-_@sympatico.ca> said:

Why is that? Most accidents are still caused by people that are
not drunken. The roads are safe enough as they are. There are
risks involved getting out of the house. And to staying home as well.
In a car you have 99.99% less chance getting electrocuted, for starters.
Interesting studies of 20 years ago... boring pieces of crap, more
likely. Statistics are often crap, and summaries are the worst.

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

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

Apr 22, 2005

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

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

JB

qrk · Apr 22, 2005

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:24:11 +0200, martin griffith
<martingriffith@XXyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:03:21 -0600, in sci.electronics.design
learning@learning.com wrote:

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

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

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

Terry Given · Apr 22, 2005

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:03:21 -0600, learning@learning.com wrote:

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

Aborigines seem to be prone to alcoholism.

...Jim Thompson

Apparently they lack some sort of digestive enzyme that westerners have,
no doubt due to our long association with booze. This means they just
keep getting drunker, whereas "we" would pass out.

Perhaps its frustration with John "fuck the abbos" Howard.

Cheers
Terry

Drinking and driving

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

martin griffith

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

martin griffith

Guest

Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Guest

Frank Bemelman

Guest

Tom MacIntyre

Guest

Boris Mohar

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Boris Mohar

Guest

Guest

qrk

Guest

Terry Given

Guest

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Online statistics

Forum statistics

Drinking and driving

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

martin griffith

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

martin griffith

Guest

Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Guest

Frank Bemelman

Guest

Tom MacIntyre

Guest

Boris Mohar

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Boris Mohar

Guest

Guest

qrk

Guest

Terry Given

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor