43,220 dead

[NightCrawler]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&u=/nm/20040428/us_nm/transport_deaths_dc_2&printer=1

You bunch of evil car mongers.....I advocate we bring back the bicycle.

 

[leeboy]

Forty percent of all fatalities, or 17,401 deaths, were alcohol-related

That is the stat that makes me fvcking sick, but then again, I don't drink, so I am biased.

I wonder how many people died last year from pot smokers smashing into their car and killing them. What a double standard country we live in where people are encouraged to drink but will spend jail time if they get caught with a joint in their ashtray. I am all for bringing back prohibition OR decrimanalizing marijuana use. Drinking is so much more detrimental to OTHERS health that it is mind boggling. But now I am just ranting, long live NORML

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: leeboy
Forty percent of all fatalities, or 17,401 deaths, were alcohol-related

That is the stat that makes me fvcking sick, but then again, I don't drink, so I am biased.

I wonder how many people died last year from pot smokers smashing into their car and killing them. What a double standard country we live in where people are encouraged to drink but will spend jail time if they get caught with a joint in their ashtray. I am all for bringing back prohibition OR decrimanalizing marijuana use. Drinking is so much more detrimental to OTHERS health that it is mind boggling. But now I am just ranting, long live NORML

I concur (and I drink, so not as biased)

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: leeboy
Forty percent of all fatalities, or 17,401 deaths, were alcohol-related

That is the stat that makes me fvcking sick, but then again, I don't drink, so I am biased.

I wonder how many people died last year from pot smokers smashing into their car and killing them. What a double standard country we live in where people are encouraged to drink but will spend jail time if they get caught with a joint in their ashtray. I am all for bringing back prohibition OR decrimanalizing marijuana use. Drinking is so much more detrimental to OTHERS health that it is mind boggling. But now I am just ranting, long live NORML

You know that alcohol statistic includes such silly things as pedestrians that had a beer before getting hit by a car, passengers in cars involved in accidents that had a drink and a host of other similar things?

 

[Linflas]

MADD Flunks the Honesty Test

The NHTSA defines a fatal traffic crash as being alcohol-related if either a driver or a non-occupant (e.g., pedestrian) has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater in a police-reported traffic crash. To put 0.01 g/dl in perspective, ten times that amount is required to achieve a BAC of 0.10 g/dl, which is the legal limit of intoxication in most states. Yet MADD continues to mislead America by allowing the public to believe that there were 17,448 victims of drunk drivers in 2001.

In laymen terms, if a legally sober driver is involved in a traffic accident in which another legally sober person is killed, and the person killed happened to drink one beer 30 minutes prior to the accident, the NHTSA will classify that fatality as alcohol-related, and MADD will use that particular fatality to bolster its numbers in an effort to persuade the legislature to enact tougher laws to curb drunk driving.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: leeboy
Forty percent of all fatalities, or 17,401 deaths, were alcohol-related

That is the stat that makes me fvcking sick, but then again, I don't drink, so I am biased.

I wonder how many people died last year from pot smokers smashing into their car and killing them. What a double standard country we live in where people are encouraged to drink but will spend jail time if they get caught with a joint in their ashtray. I am all for bringing back prohibition OR decrimanalizing marijuana use. Drinking is so much more detrimental to OTHERS health that it is mind boggling. But now I am just ranting, long live NORML

I drink, i drive, but i never combine the two, if i have had ONE beer, i don't drive, if i need to drive anywhere, i won't have that beer.

 

[leeboy]

I won't get behind the wheel if I have smoked (even though it can be quite fun, thinking back to my youth, now). Not because my driving ability deminishes, but because it makes me nervous. Damn old age.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Linflas
MADD Flunks the Honesty Test

The NHTSA defines a fatal traffic crash as being alcohol-related if either a driver or a non-occupant (e.g., pedestrian) has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater in a police-reported traffic crash. To put 0.01 g/dl in perspective, ten times that amount is required to achieve a BAC of 0.10 g/dl, which is the legal limit of intoxication in most states. Yet MADD continues to mislead America by allowing the public to believe that there were 17,448 victims of drunk drivers in 2001.

In laymen terms, if a legally sober driver is involved in a traffic accident in which another legally sober person is killed, and the person killed happened to drink one beer 30 minutes prior to the accident, the NHTSA will classify that fatality as alcohol-related, and MADD will use that particular fatality to bolster its numbers in an effort to persuade the legislature to enact tougher laws to curb drunk driving.

you don't get any sympathy from me. i don't care that Madd lies. the fact is people who drive while under the influence are a menace to society.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Linflas
MADD Flunks the Honesty Test

The NHTSA defines a fatal traffic crash as being alcohol-related if either a driver or a non-occupant (e.g., pedestrian) has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater in a police-reported traffic crash. To put 0.01 g/dl in perspective, ten times that amount is required to achieve a BAC of 0.10 g/dl, which is the legal limit of intoxication in most states. Yet MADD continues to mislead America by allowing the public to believe that there were 17,448 victims of drunk drivers in 2001.

In laymen terms, if a legally sober driver is involved in a traffic accident in which another legally sober person is killed, and the person killed happened to drink one beer 30 minutes prior to the accident, the NHTSA will classify that fatality as alcohol-related, and MADD will use that particular fatality to bolster its numbers in an effort to persuade the legislature to enact tougher laws to curb drunk driving.

you don't get any sympathy from me. i don't care that Madd lies. the fact is people who drive while under the influence are a menace to society.

So that justifies trumping up the statistics to make the issue seem much more extensive than it really is? :roll: I am not looking for any sympathy from you, I have driven for 32 years and never once had a DWI.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Linflas
MADD Flunks the Honesty Test

The NHTSA defines a fatal traffic crash as being alcohol-related if either a driver or a non-occupant (e.g., pedestrian) has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater in a police-reported traffic crash. To put 0.01 g/dl in perspective, ten times that amount is required to achieve a BAC of 0.10 g/dl, which is the legal limit of intoxication in most states. Yet MADD continues to mislead America by allowing the public to believe that there were 17,448 victims of drunk drivers in 2001.

In laymen terms, if a legally sober driver is involved in a traffic accident in which another legally sober person is killed, and the person killed happened to drink one beer 30 minutes prior to the accident, the NHTSA will classify that fatality as alcohol-related, and MADD will use that particular fatality to bolster its numbers in an effort to persuade the legislature to enact tougher laws to curb drunk driving.

you don't get any sympathy from me. i don't care that Madd lies. the fact is people who drive while under the influence are a menace to society.

So that justifies trumping up the statistics to make the issue seem much more extensive than it really is? :roll: I am not looking for any sympathy from you, I have driven for 32 years and never once had a DWI.

That is like bragging about being married for 30 years and never ONCE having killed your wife.

There should be bullet money on drunk drivers, 100$ for everyone you kill.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Linflas
MADD Flunks the Honesty Test

The NHTSA defines a fatal traffic crash as being alcohol-related if either a driver or a non-occupant (e.g., pedestrian) has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater in a police-reported traffic crash. To put 0.01 g/dl in perspective, ten times that amount is required to achieve a BAC of 0.10 g/dl, which is the legal limit of intoxication in most states. Yet MADD continues to mislead America by allowing the public to believe that there were 17,448 victims of drunk drivers in 2001.

In laymen terms, if a legally sober driver is involved in a traffic accident in which another legally sober person is killed, and the person killed happened to drink one beer 30 minutes prior to the accident, the NHTSA will classify that fatality as alcohol-related, and MADD will use that particular fatality to bolster its numbers in an effort to persuade the legislature to enact tougher laws to curb drunk driving.

you don't get any sympathy from me. i don't care that Madd lies. the fact is people who drive while under the influence are a menace to society.

So that justifies trumping up the statistics to make the issue seem much more extensive than it really is? :roll: I am not looking for any sympathy from you, I have driven for 32 years and never once had a DWI.

That is like bragging about being married for 30 years and never ONCE having killed your wife.

There should be bullet money on drunk drivers, 100$ for everyone you kill.

What the heck are you talking about? You people are trying to make it out that I am defending drunk driving when all I am doing is pointing out that the statistics that you all are spouting off your "this makes me sick" platitudes about are not nearly as extensive as the special interest groups would have us believe.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Linflas
MADD Flunks the Honesty Test

The NHTSA defines a fatal traffic crash as being alcohol-related if either a driver or a non-occupant (e.g., pedestrian) has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater in a police-reported traffic crash. To put 0.01 g/dl in perspective, ten times that amount is required to achieve a BAC of 0.10 g/dl, which is the legal limit of intoxication in most states. Yet MADD continues to mislead America by allowing the public to believe that there were 17,448 victims of drunk drivers in 2001.

In laymen terms, if a legally sober driver is involved in a traffic accident in which another legally sober person is killed, and the person killed happened to drink one beer 30 minutes prior to the accident, the NHTSA will classify that fatality as alcohol-related, and MADD will use that particular fatality to bolster its numbers in an effort to persuade the legislature to enact tougher laws to curb drunk driving.

you don't get any sympathy from me. i don't care that Madd lies. the fact is people who drive while under the influence are a menace to society.

So that justifies trumping up the statistics to make the issue seem much more extensive than it really is? :roll: I am not looking for any sympathy from you, I have driven for 32 years and never once had a DWI.

That is like bragging about being married for 30 years and never ONCE having killed your wife.

There should be bullet money on drunk drivers, 100$ for everyone you kill.

What the heck are you talking about? You people are trying to make it out that I am defending drunk driving when all I am doing is pointing out that the statistics that you all are spouting off your "this makes me sick" platitudes about are not nearly as extensive as the special interest groups would have us believe.

No, my point is that DUI is a HUGE problem and a problem we have to deal with, If there are 5000 or 10000 drunk drivers does not really matter, as long as there is more than 0 there are too many.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Linflas
MADD Flunks the Honesty Test

The NHTSA defines a fatal traffic crash as being alcohol-related if either a driver or a non-occupant (e.g., pedestrian) has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater in a police-reported traffic crash. To put 0.01 g/dl in perspective, ten times that amount is required to achieve a BAC of 0.10 g/dl, which is the legal limit of intoxication in most states. Yet MADD continues to mislead America by allowing the public to believe that there were 17,448 victims of drunk drivers in 2001.

In laymen terms, if a legally sober driver is involved in a traffic accident in which another legally sober person is killed, and the person killed happened to drink one beer 30 minutes prior to the accident, the NHTSA will classify that fatality as alcohol-related, and MADD will use that particular fatality to bolster its numbers in an effort to persuade the legislature to enact tougher laws to curb drunk driving.

you don't get any sympathy from me. i don't care that Madd lies. the fact is people who drive while under the influence are a menace to society.

So that justifies trumping up the statistics to make the issue seem much more extensive than it really is? :roll: I am not looking for any sympathy from you, I have driven for 32 years and never once had a DWI.

That is like bragging about being married for 30 years and never ONCE having killed your wife.

There should be bullet money on drunk drivers, 100$ for everyone you kill.

What the heck are you talking about? You people are trying to make it out that I am defending drunk driving when all I am doing is pointing out that the statistics that you all are spouting off your "this makes me sick" platitudes about are not nearly as extensive as the special interest groups would have us believe.

No, my point is that DUI is a HUGE problem and a problem we have to deal with, If there are 5000 or 10000 drunk drivers does not really matter, as long as there is more than 0 there are too many.

thank you. i thought thats what i tried to say, apparently i didn't do a good job of it.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Linflas
MADD Flunks the Honesty Test

The NHTSA defines a fatal traffic crash as being alcohol-related if either a driver or a non-occupant (e.g., pedestrian) has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater in a police-reported traffic crash. To put 0.01 g/dl in perspective, ten times that amount is required to achieve a BAC of 0.10 g/dl, which is the legal limit of intoxication in most states. Yet MADD continues to mislead America by allowing the public to believe that there were 17,448 victims of drunk drivers in 2001.

In laymen terms, if a legally sober driver is involved in a traffic accident in which another legally sober person is killed, and the person killed happened to drink one beer 30 minutes prior to the accident, the NHTSA will classify that fatality as alcohol-related, and MADD will use that particular fatality to bolster its numbers in an effort to persuade the legislature to enact tougher laws to curb drunk driving.

you don't get any sympathy from me. i don't care that Madd lies. the fact is people who drive while under the influence are a menace to society.

So that justifies trumping up the statistics to make the issue seem much more extensive than it really is? :roll: I am not looking for any sympathy from you, I have driven for 32 years and never once had a DWI.

That is like bragging about being married for 30 years and never ONCE having killed your wife.

There should be bullet money on drunk drivers, 100$ for everyone you kill.

What the heck are you talking about? You people are trying to make it out that I am defending drunk driving when all I am doing is pointing out that the statistics that you all are spouting off your "this makes me sick" platitudes about are not nearly as extensive as the special interest groups would have us believe.

No, my point is that DUI is a HUGE problem and a problem we have to deal with, If there are 5000 or 10000 drunk drivers does not really matter, as long as there is more than 0 there are too many.

thank you. i thought thats what i tried to say, apparently i didn't do a good job of it.

:beer: as long as you aren't driving anywhere.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Linflas
MADD Flunks the Honesty Test

The NHTSA defines a fatal traffic crash as being alcohol-related if either a driver or a non-occupant (e.g., pedestrian) has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater in a police-reported traffic crash. To put 0.01 g/dl in perspective, ten times that amount is required to achieve a BAC of 0.10 g/dl, which is the legal limit of intoxication in most states. Yet MADD continues to mislead America by allowing the public to believe that there were 17,448 victims of drunk drivers in 2001.

In laymen terms, if a legally sober driver is involved in a traffic accident in which another legally sober person is killed, and the person killed happened to drink one beer 30 minutes prior to the accident, the NHTSA will classify that fatality as alcohol-related, and MADD will use that particular fatality to bolster its numbers in an effort to persuade the legislature to enact tougher laws to curb drunk driving.

Nevertheless, there are thousands upon thousands of traffice fatalities in which alcohol DID play a major causitive role. Problem drunks who habitually get behind the wheel are killers waiting to happen. The carnage they wreak is inexcusable.

One of the major problems, as I see it, are the hard core recidivists -- those with an uncontrollable (or uncontrolled) alcohol problem who never learn their lesson despite repeated DUI's. Because of the way our infrastructure is set up, and because they don't care, they continue to drive everywhere on revoked licenses without effective oversight.

These hard core drunks should have not only their licenses, but their cars taken away from them. Family members should be warned they will be held equally responsible if they allow them access to their cars. These are wholly preventable tragedies that everyone involved can see coming down the block.

 

[ElFenix]

in the very least they should strip out drunk pedestrians

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Linflas
MADD Flunks the Honesty Test

The NHTSA defines a fatal traffic crash as being alcohol-related if either a driver or a non-occupant (e.g., pedestrian) has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater in a police-reported traffic crash. To put 0.01 g/dl in perspective, ten times that amount is required to achieve a BAC of 0.10 g/dl, which is the legal limit of intoxication in most states. Yet MADD continues to mislead America by allowing the public to believe that there were 17,448 victims of drunk drivers in 2001.

In laymen terms, if a legally sober driver is involved in a traffic accident in which another legally sober person is killed, and the person killed happened to drink one beer 30 minutes prior to the accident, the NHTSA will classify that fatality as alcohol-related, and MADD will use that particular fatality to bolster its numbers in an effort to persuade the legislature to enact tougher laws to curb drunk driving.

Nevertheless, there are thousands upon thousands of traffice fatalities in which alcohol DID play a major causitive role. Problem drunks who habitually get behind the wheel are killers waiting to happen. The carnage they wreak is inexcusable.

One of the major problems, as I see it, are the hard core recidivists -- those with an uncontrollable (or uncontrolled) alcohol problem who never learn their lesson despite repeated DUI's. Because of the way our infrastructure is set up, and because they don't care, they continue to drive everywhere on revoked licenses without effective oversight.

These hard core drunks should have not only their licenses, but their cars taken away from them. Family members should be warned they will be held equally responsible if they allow them access to their cars. These are wholly preventable tragedies that everyone involved can see coming down the block.

The problem is they are not going to get these people by playing games with the BAC and roadblocks. You can lower the BAC to .00 and the habitual drunk will still be out there while you have now criminalized having a glass of wine with your meal while out for supper. If the statistics were done properly they would show that there has been a very large change in the way we as a society view this problem and that we have in fact made quite a difference in removing a lot of non-habitual drinkers from the highways. If MADD admitted to that though then the funding would slow down, jobs at the HQ would be lost etc. etc. etc.

 

[chess9]

Bringing back the bicycle would have three salutory effects:
1. Lower obesity rates;
2. Lower gas consumption and the attendant evils;
3. Reduce traffic on our clogged highways;

Of course, it wouldn't be a benefit, probably, if more drunk bikers died. Happens all the time here in FLorida, which is one of the reasons Florida has, on average, twice the bike fatalities of any other state in the union.

Anyway, nice post.

-Robert

 

[sumrtym]

I think there should be "news" bars. Instead of ordering a beer of the world, you get a news story from that country instead.

Imagine....using those brain cells instead of destroying them.

Oh, btw, 30 and never had a drink here, so yes, call me blatantly biased. 10 minutes in any bar district is all you need to know how many people are driving intoxicated.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Linflas
MADD Flunks the Honesty Test

The NHTSA defines a fatal traffic crash as being alcohol-related if either a driver or a non-occupant (e.g., pedestrian) has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater in a police-reported traffic crash. To put 0.01 g/dl in perspective, ten times that amount is required to achieve a BAC of 0.10 g/dl, which is the legal limit of intoxication in most states. Yet MADD continues to mislead America by allowing the public to believe that there were 17,448 victims of drunk drivers in 2001.

In laymen terms, if a legally sober driver is involved in a traffic accident in which another legally sober person is killed, and the person killed happened to drink one beer 30 minutes prior to the accident, the NHTSA will classify that fatality as alcohol-related, and MADD will use that particular fatality to bolster its numbers in an effort to persuade the legislature to enact tougher laws to curb drunk driving.

you don't get any sympathy from me. i don't care that Madd lies. the fact is people who drive while under the influence are a menace to society.

So that justifies trumping up the statistics to make the issue seem much more extensive than it really is? :roll: I am not looking for any sympathy from you, I have driven for 32 years and never once had a DWI.

That is like bragging about being married for 30 years and never ONCE having killed your wife.

There should be bullet money on drunk drivers, 100$ for everyone you kill.

What the heck are you talking about? You people are trying to make it out that I am defending drunk driving when all I am doing is pointing out that the statistics that you all are spouting off your "this makes me sick" platitudes about are not nearly as extensive as the special interest groups would have us believe.

You are defending DRUNK DRIVERS

ALCOHOLICS SUCK - Alcoholics try to distort the facts to gain sypmathy by calling their ADDICTION a disease... If they want to quit being selfish and hurting others then they can do it.. but they fall back on the crutch of it being a "disease"
:disgust:

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&u=/nm/20040428/us_nm/transport_deaths_dc_2&printer=1

You bunch of evil car mongers.....I advocate we bring back the bicycle.

OMG, we should declare all cars as WMDs and bomb all car manufacturing companies. Shock and Awe, baby, shock and awe. :beer:

 

[chrisms]

Driving is bad. Stop it.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Linflas
MADD Flunks the Honesty Test

The NHTSA defines a fatal traffic crash as being alcohol-related if either a driver or a non-occupant (e.g., pedestrian) has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater in a police-reported traffic crash. To put 0.01 g/dl in perspective, ten times that amount is required to achieve a BAC of 0.10 g/dl, which is the legal limit of intoxication in most states. Yet MADD continues to mislead America by allowing the public to believe that there were 17,448 victims of drunk drivers in 2001.

In laymen terms, if a legally sober driver is involved in a traffic accident in which another legally sober person is killed, and the person killed happened to drink one beer 30 minutes prior to the accident, the NHTSA will classify that fatality as alcohol-related, and MADD will use that particular fatality to bolster its numbers in an effort to persuade the legislature to enact tougher laws to curb drunk driving.

Nevertheless, there are thousands upon thousands of traffice fatalities in which alcohol DID play a major causitive role. Problem drunks who habitually get behind the wheel are killers waiting to happen. The carnage they wreak is inexcusable.

One of the major problems, as I see it, are the hard core recidivists -- those with an uncontrollable (or uncontrolled) alcohol problem who never learn their lesson despite repeated DUI's. Because of the way our infrastructure is set up, and because they don't care, they continue to drive everywhere on revoked licenses without effective oversight.

These hard core drunks should have not only their licenses, but their cars taken away from them. Family members should be warned they will be held equally responsible if they allow them access to their cars. These are wholly preventable tragedies that everyone involved can see coming down the block.

The problem is they are not going to get these people by playing games with the BAC and roadblocks. You can lower the BAC to .00 and the habitual drunk will still be out there while you have now criminalized having a glass of wine with your meal while out for supper. If the statistics were done properly they would show that there has been a very large change in the way we as a society view this problem and that we have in fact made quite a difference in removing a lot of non-habitual drinkers from the highways. If MADD admitted to that though then the funding would slow down, jobs at the HQ would be lost etc. etc. etc.

The limit SHOULD be .00 and if you are going to have a glass of wine, just don't drive, or have a glass of water instead, then you can drive home.

There are busses, cabs, subways that are there for a purpose, there is no NEED to drive if you are going to drink.

A .00 limit is the best one, it is the least confusing limit, if you have been drinking, no matter how little you have been drinking, you are not driving, it doesn't get much simpler than that.

Those who drive drunk should be severely punished, first time, take their car, their license, second one, lock them up for life, they obviously can't adapt to society.

 

[chess9]

Klixxer:

I agree with you. This issue should be black and white, not grey.

-Robert

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: chess9
Bringing back the bicycle would have three salutory effects:
1. Lower obesity rates;
2. Lower gas consumption and the attendant evils;
3. Reduce traffic on our clogged highways;

Of course, it wouldn't be a benefit, probably, if more drunk bikers died. Happens all the time here in FLorida, which is one of the reasons Florida has, on average, twice the bike fatalities of any other state in the union.

Anyway, nice post.

-Robert

How does one die from a bicycling accident? I don't think there are too many cliffs in Florida...