Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 

xmas3.gif (5351 bytes)

 

 

 

"As of November 1995, 27 states and the District of Columbia had established a BAC of less than or equal to 0.02 g/dL as the legal limit for intoxication for drivers aged less than 21 years."

Yet forty years of advocacy research has proven just the OPPOSITE of what the advocates wanted to prove--the amount of alcohol that 90% of Americans normally consume IMPROVES their ability to drive.

  1. "According to the Borkenstein data, regular drinkers at our legal limit are nearly twice as safe as sober teetotallers."
  2. "A feature of these figures that has intrigued statisticians is the reduction in accident risk between 10 mg and 40 mg, sometimes referred to as the "Borkenstein dip". This is certainly valid, not just a statistical quirk, and has been reinforced by other studies."
  3. H. P. Krueger duplicated Borkenstein's observations in W�rzburg, Germany in 1995, finding that drivers with a bac between .02 and .06 were one third to one half as likely to have a fatal accident than teetotalers.

This German study also found that between 6.7% to 12% of Germans drink and drive, and that of those who do drink and drive, 90% of them have a BAC lower than 0.10 and 10% have a BAC greater than 0.10.

"If you take a breath test and you register a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or higher, you are operating above the legal limit. For drivers under 21, Massachusetts has a "zero-tolerance" law. This means a blood alcohol content of 0.02 is above the legal limit if you are under 21."

The safest American drivers are thus prohibited from driving.

How many fewer fatal accidents would there be if everyone, even the dirvers who don't drink at all, had an accident rate equivalent to the German drivers with a BAC between 0.02 and 0.08?  Even if we used the most conservative estimate that their accident rate is one third lower than non-drinking drivers, with 42,000 traffic fatalities every year, a one third reduction would save 14,000 lives per year.

How many lives are lost because DUI laws discourage American drivers from drinking and driving?  If three times as many people would drink and drive if the DUI laws didn't exist, we could assume that there would be three times as many safer drivers with a BAC less than 1.0, as well as three times as many dangerous drivers with a BAC greater than 1.0.

Using round numbers, if this proportionately   increased the percentage of drinking drivers to 30%, the percentage of drinking drivers with a BAC less than 1.0 to 27%, and the percentage of drinking drivers with a BAC greater than 1.0 to 3%, the tradeoff would be as follows:

BAC < 1.0:

27% less 9% who currently drink and drive = 18% increase in drivers with a 33% lower accident rate = 18% x 33% = 6% reduction in fatalities.

BAC > 1.0

3% less 1% who currently drink and drive = 2% increase in drivers with a 60% higher accident rate = 2% x 60% = 1.2% increase in fatalities (6.9% of the drivers have a BAC greater than 1.0 and have 11% of the accidents,   11% / 6.9% = 1.6).

The net effect would be a 4.4% reduction in fatal traffic accidents, saving 1,848 lives per year.

 

 

horizontal rule

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Borkenstein&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=7&ic=1&selm=82jnq1%24d5a%241%40galileo.mostlylinux.ab.ca

On Tue, 07 Dec 1999 16:11:22 GMT, Jim HANDS &/or Sarah CURRAN <jgh*slc@home.com> wrote: > Primarily because to do so ties up a Doctor or a Doctor and a Nurse (Person > Qualified to take Samples of Blood) for a few hours, and ties up our > hospital system unnecessarily.

That is convenient, but not a worthy excuse to deny someone the ability to prove their innocence.

> Calgary hasn't used the Borkenstein Breathalyzer for years; it was quite > subject to variations in readings from Interferents such as mouthwash; the > digitized and self- contained BAC Datamaster C screens for interferents and > can recognize them as such; besides, mouth alcohol (such as mouthwash)

Assuming this new breathalyzer has been scientifically proven successful at accurate readings, I imagine it is the old Borkenstein Breathalyzer which was the subject of the case in Ontario. If it was known to be inaccurate, then a blood test would be the only way to verify blood alcohol content.

> dissipates quite quickly (usually less than 15 minutes) and the investigator > has to wait at least 20 minutes (it generally takes a lot longer than that) > between when the Driver is first stopped and performs the first test.

Is this a new proceedure? My friend was pulled over once for a breathalyzer at a checkstop, and I waited no more than 5 minutes before he returned to the car and we drove off. This was approximately 5 years ago.

-- Scott Barker scott@mostlylinux.ab.ca Linux Consultant http://www.mostlylinux.ab.ca/scott

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Borkenstein&start=20&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=26&ic=1&selm=8htgdt%24otr%241%40lure.pipex.net

From: Patrick Parslow (patrick.parslow@virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Is it police policy to harrass car drivers?

Newsgroups: uk.legal, alt.uk.law, uk.transport
Date: 2000/06/10

"Mudge" <NOSPAMcurmudgeon@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
news:8htgdt$otr$1@lure.pipex.net...
> Patrick Parslow wrote in message
> <6or05.4350$fu1.62938@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>...
>
> >
> >Well actually Tim, I think I was saying that I had seen some research which
> >indicated that you are less likely to cause an accident when drunk, although
> >I think it also fell into categories of drunkness (well, levels of
> >intoxication).  I just can't falmin' remember where it was.  If it is the
> >case, I can see a  possibility for why - people who are intoxicated but not
> >grossly so will tend to drive very carefully in order not to get stopped.
> >NOT that I am suggesting it should be done - merely reporting that somewhere
> >sometime ago, I remember seeing the research.
> >
> The research which served as the basis for the 1967 breathalyser law (R F
> Borkenstein et al: The Role of the Drinking Driver in Traffic Accidents
> (Bloomington, Indiana University, Department of Police Administration, 1964)
> did actually show that there was a small reduction in accident risk between
> blood alcohol levels of 10 and 40 mg, as compared with zero.

Ah good I am not going mad - although the research I remember was in the 70s
(or I wouldn't remember it  :-)

>
> However, it is unlikely really to indicate that consuming a small amount of
> alcohol will make you a slightly better driver. It is probably a combination
> of the fact that people driving after one or two small drinks are likely to
> be driving at times when the roads are quieter than average, and that they
> may try to compensate for the alcohol by making an effort to drive more
> carefully than usual.

IME most seem to drive when the roads are busy - pub kicking out time.

I don't think my driving improves with alcohol, but I do know that my darts
playing and my ability to do multi-choice tests do, up to about the three
pint mark...

>
> Mudge
>
> --
> "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
> ...Edmund Burke
> http://members.tripod.co.uk/Curmudgeon/
> (Remove "NOSPAM" to reply)
>
>
>

Pat

horizontal rule

From: R. Mark Clayton (MClayton@btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Is it police policy to harrass car drivers?

Newsgroups: uk.legal, alt.uk.law, uk.transport
Date: 2000/06/14

It is true that alcohol improves coordination in small doses.  This is why
it is banned in certain Olympic events like shooting.

I noticed a slight improvement when I played pub darts when younger,
although if you carry on your aim gets much worse.

--

R. Mark Clayton

MClayton@btinternet.com

horizontal rule

Message 139 in thread

From: Marc Living (blackstone@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net)
Subject: Re: Is it police policy to harrass car drivers?

View this article only

Newsgroups: uk.legal, alt.uk.law, uk.transport
Date: 2000/06/08

On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:11:33 +0100, "JNugent"
<JNugent@AC30.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>On that basis, you *could* argue that the law should *encourage* drivers to drink before driving.
>When we arrive at such a position, it is reasonable to suspect that we may have gone wrong with our
>reasoning somewhere along the line.

Indeed. Said reasoning being that the law has both the ability and the
duty to micro-manage people's lives - reasoning which is derived from
the implicit assumption that the only reason anything ever goes wrong
is because the state hasn't taken sufficient control over people's
lives.


-- 
Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK" to reply)
***********************************************
Nor shall we proceed against a freeman, nor 
condemn him but by lawful judgment of his peers 
or by the law of the land.
http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk
************************************************

Message 140 in thread

From: Danny Halamish (dny@pixelfusion.com)
Subject: Re: Is it police policy to harrass car drivers?

View this article only

Newsgroups: uk.legal, alt.uk.law, uk.transport
Date: 2000/06/09

JNugent wrote:
> 
> >As more accidents are caused by sober drivers than drunk drivers, 
> >it's a silly argument anyway.
> 
> On that basis, you *could* argue that the law should *encourage* 
> drivers to drink before driving.
> When we arrive at such a position, it is reasonable to suspect that 
> we may have gone wrong with our reasoning somewhere along the line.

Indeed. And this shows how easy it is to go astray with careless 
application of statistics - EITHER way.

       Danny
       dny@pixelfusion.com

horizontal rule

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Borkenstein&start=40&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=42&ic=1&selm=713hr8%24c75%241%40news.iinet.net.au

"Zaccary Charlesworth" <sales@zcs.net.au> wrote: >ray johnstone <ray@iinet.com.au> wrote in message >7127g8$bei$1@news.iinet.net.au...

>>drivers were middle-aged white men who drank (alcohol) every day.

>Which means that it's safe to drink and drive ?

Yes. According to the Borkenstein data, regular drinkers at our legal limit are nearly twice as safe as sober teetotallers.Removing them and replacing them with TTs will make the roads more dangerous. I have personal knowledge of two deaths that occurred when an inexperienced sober driver took the wheel in place of a drinker. See the link at my home page or read my book for more details. J.R.Johnstone (Ray Johnstone) ray@iinet.com.au www.iinet.com.au/~ray

horizontal rule

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+bac&start=10&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=16&ic=1&selm=F8p1yL.2Hx%40quest1.questconsult.com

In article <jlower-1603990727440001@192.168.117.2>, J. Lower <jlower@home.com> wrote:

>Good grief! I have to suspect these numbers. If I ever drink 10 beers in

Well, you can't expect a group like MADD to have much in the scientific credibility department, now can you? Kind of like our resident expert witness loon.

>2 hours you'd better hope I don't get behind the wheel of a car.

Well, assuming that you are a 170 male who had 3550 ml of typical, OTC beer that runs about 2.7 weight % alcohol (~3.2 by volume), I show the following: tavern:~/bac$ baccalc usage: baccalc weight(lb) sex(0=m/1=f) volume_drunk(ml) v%EtOH time(hours) tavern:~/bac$ baccalc 170 0 3550 3.2 2 Instantaneous BAC: 0.16176 (g/100 ml) BAC after 2 hours: 0.12776 (g/100 ml) So, you'd be illegal to drive after 2 hours. Now, let's look at Joe Sixpack. He gets his real 3.2 weight % beer (nothing light for him) which is about 4% by volume. Let's look at his BAC assuming that he chugs the 6 pack very quickly (in say 15 minutes): tavern:~/bac$ baccalc 220 0 2130 4.0 1 Instantaneous BAC: 0.0937475 (g/100 ml) BAC after 1 hours: 0.0767475 (g/100 ml) BAC after 2 hours: 0.0597475 (g/100 ml) BAC after 3 hours: 0.0427475 (g/100 ml) BAC after 4 hours: 0.0257475 (g/100 ml) BAC after 5 hours: 0.00874749 (g/100 ml) BAC after 6 hours: 0 (g/100 ml) Yea, Joe's a bit tubby. But all of this assumes that he metabolizes the EtOH at the average rate of 0.017 g EtOH/hr/100 ml. Some folks and ethnicities have higher and lower metabolisms. There are a plethora of good references on the web. Try: http://www.intox.com/Drink_Wheel.html as a start and browse around some. If anyone is interested, I could make the source code to baccalc available. Tim -- Tim Melton tam@questconsult.com Quest Consultants Inc. http://www.questconsult.com/~tam P.O. Box 721387 (405) 329-7475 Norman, OK 73070-8069 Fax: (405) 329-7734

horizontal rule


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=borkenstein&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=6dpp1ukq4o894km2eo9q183fbps6e04agd%404ax.com&rnum=9

Search Result 9

From: Mark Goodge (mark@good-stuff.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Got breathalysed today

View: Complete Thread (96 articles)
Original Format

Newsgroups: uk.local.east-anglia
Date: 2001-12-16 11:02:16 PST

On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 17:48:38 -0000, Brian Watson put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>
>"Mark Goodge" <mark@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:nk7p1u4g0qs425pf4a4lo3ulusfafe0ane@4ax.com...
>
>> Apparently, people with a small amount of alcohol in their blood are
>> actually less likely to have an accident than those with none.
>
>(Quote source, please - that sounds like bollocks)

Quoted in the Sunday Times today. It's online at
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/article/0,,9017-2001581058,00.html, but
you'll need to register. I was surprised by it, so I looked up a few
sources via Google, which confirmed it. Here are a couple of relevent
qotes:

  The study?s most surprising finding was that there is 
  actually a decrease in the risk of suffering a serious 
  or fatal accident with a low level of alcohol in the 
  blood (up to 40mg per 100ml of blood ? the UK limit is 
  80mg).
  (Sunday Times)

  For drivers with blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) up 
  to 0.04%, the alcohol-related accident risk is nearly 
  identical to or even less than that for sober drivers.
  (Quoted from research carried out by the University of 
  Wuerzburg, Germany)

The original data refered to in both the ST and UW quotes is from 
"The Role of the Drinking Driver in Traffic Accidents" by R F
Borkenstein et al. This is the definitive research into drinking and
driving, and has been confirmed as accurate by subsequent studies.
Unfortunately, I can't find an online copy of the original, but I did
find http://members.tripod.co.uk/ukdd/danger.html which quotes some of
Borkenstein's figures.

>However ... "and people casually driving at just over the legal speed limit
>may be marginally less likely to knock people over than people who are
>over-attentive to staying just within the limit."

Indeed, and much the same factors are possibly responsible for the
"Borkenstein Dip" - the fact that drivers with a small amount of
alcohol are likely to be taking more care about their driving in order
to compensate for their perceived impaired ability. Even small amounts
of alcohol in the blood (under 40mg) impair reaction times, but
there's more to being a safe driver than pure mental quickness. At
lower alcohol levels, the relatively minor impairment in reaction time
can easily be overruled by other factors. The danger comes at higher
levels, when drivers may be under the mistaken impression that they
can continue to compensate for their impaired ability.

Mark

horizontal rule

http://members.lycos.co.uk/ukdd/danger.html

The Dangers of Drinking and Driving

It is not the aim of this site to play down the risks of drinking and driving. Alcohol and motor vehicles represent a dangerous and potentially lethal cocktail. Although the figures have been falling steadily in recent years, each year in Britain over 400 people are killed in road accidents where excess alcohol is a factor. Thousands more are seriously injured. Being below the legal alcohol limit is no guarantee that your driving ability will not be impaired. At 50% above the limit, your chances of being involved in a fatal or serious injury accident are five times higher than those of a completely sober driver. Twice the legal limit, and that figure rises to twenty times. (See the table below)

Once you have had a few drinks, the only thing that will reduce your alcohol level is time, and plenty of time at that. Your body can only metabolise one unit of alcohol per hour (the equivalent of a half-pint of ordinary strength beer). After a heavy drinking session, you could still be over the limit the following morning, or even much later in the day. There are cases of people being convicted of drink-driving when they had not had a drink for twenty-four hours. Black coffee or hangover medicines might make you feel better, but they will not bring your alcohol level down any quicker.

And if you are so arrogant and thoughtless that you couldn't care less about endangering the lives of others, bear in mind that 60% of the deaths in drink-related accidents are of the drinking driver himself. Drinking and driving really does wreck lives, and the life it is most likely to wreck is your own.

Stay low - stay safe!

If anyone is in any doubt about the potential consequences of driving when drunk, please read this article or this one.

Statistics on Drink-Driving Risk

The principal source of data on alcohol and accident risk is a study carried out by R F Borkenstein and others in the US State of Indiana in 1964 �. This was used as the basis for the original UK breathalyser legislation in 1967. The table below is an interpretation of Borkenstein's findings which shows the risk of a fatal or serious injury accident at various levels of blood-alcohol concentration, as compared to the risk for a completely sober driver. This needs to be seen in the context of the fact that the accident risk for a sober driver doing an average daily mileage on one particular day is less than one-sixth the chance of winning the jackpot on the National Lottery, in other words absolutely infinitesimal.

 

BAC Range
(mg)
Relative
Accident Risk
0-9 1.00
10-19 0.92
20-29 0.96
30-39 0.80
40-49 1.08
50-59 1.21
60-69 1.41
70-79 1.52
80-89 1.88
90-99 1.95
100-119 4.94
120-139 5.93
140-159 10.44
160 and over 21.38

A feature of these figures that has intrigued statisticians is the reduction in accident risk between 10 mg and 40 mg, sometimes referred to as the "Borkenstein dip". This is certainly valid, not just a statistical quirk, and has been reinforced by other studies. However, it is unlikely really to indicate that consuming a small amount of alcohol will make you a slightly better driver. It is probably a combination of the fact that people driving after one or two small drinks are likely to be driving at times when the roads are quieter than average, and that they may try to compensate for the alcohol by making an effort to drive more carefully than usual. But this underlines the fact that, at these low levels, alcohol does not impair driving ability at all.

� R F Borkenstein et al: The Role of the Drinking Driver in Traffic Accidents (Bloomington, Indiana University, Department of Police Administration, 1964)

horizontal rule

Robert F. Borkenstein, Inventor of the Breathalyzer, Dies at 89
By DOUGLAS MARTIN
Robert F. Borkenstein, who revolutionized enforcement of drunken driving
laws by inventing the Breathalyzer to measure alcohol in the blood, died
last Saturday at his home in Bloomington, Ind. He was 89.
The Breathalyzer is a portable device that can determine whether the person
being tested is legally drunk. It measures the proportion of alcohol vapors
in exhaled air, a proportion that reflects the content of alcohol in the
blood.
Before widespread use of the device, police officers investigating an
accident or noticing a weaving car looked for symptoms like a flushed face,
slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. If the suspect then went to sleep in the
police station, they might have sufficient basis for charges.
Getting a conviction was harder still. Defense lawyers might say the suspect
had been staggering because of the long hours he worked, and bring in
friends to say he had had no more than two beers. The defendant might
maintain that his eyes had been red as a result of allergies.
But the Breathalyzer provided scientific evidence of intoxication.
"This technological innovation enabled traffic enforcement authorities to
determine and quantify blood alcohol concentrations with sufficient accuracy
to meet the demands of legal evidence," the National Safety Council said in
naming Mr. Borkenstein to its Safety and Health Hall of Fame International
in 1988.
The ratio of breath alcohol to blood alcohol is 2,100 to 1, meaning that
2,100 milliliters of exhaled air will contain the same amount of alcohol as
one milliliter of blood.
For many years the typical legal standard for drunkenness across the United
States was 0.10, meaning 0.10 gram of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood.
Many states have now adopted 0.08 as a standard, and the federal government
has pushed others to do so.
Robert Frank Borkenstein was born in Fort Wayne, Ind., on Aug. 31, 1912. His
youthful passion was science experiments, and he went to work in a
photography shop after graduating from high school. He developed a new color
printing process, which was sold to other businesses.
He started working for the Indiana state police in 1936, did early research
on the development of the lie detector and rose to captain in charge of
laboratory services.
He collaborated with Dr. R. N. Harger of the Indiana School of Medicine to
develop the Drunkometer, one of the first instruments that accurately
measured blood alcohol. This led to Mr. Borkenstein's independent invention
of the smaller, easier-to-use Breathalyzer in 1953. Subsequent, even more
accurate devices to detect drunkenness use infrared radiation, among other
means.
Mr. Borkenstein received a bachelor's degree in forensic sciences from
Indiana University in 1958 and then joined the faculty there as chairman of
a newly formed department of police administration.
Over the years he was chairman of the National Safety Council, consultant to
the President's Task Force on Highway Safety, president of the International
Committee on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, and president of the Academy
of Criminal Justice Sciences.
His wife, the former Marjorie K. Buchanan, died in 1999. He had no immediate
survivors.
In 1981, Mr. Borkenstein supervised a study, financed by the liquor
industry, whose findings suggested that a driver who had had less than two
ounces of alcohol might be less dangerous than one who had had none. He
theorized that some alcohol might help a driver's performance behind the
wheel by relaxing him.
Nonetheless, Mr. Borkenstein continued to advocate abstinence before
driving. He also lamented the effects of alcohol consumption on the job,
which in 1995 he estimated cost American employers $115 billion a year.
"One way to keep from sacrificing our standard of living is to keep our
people sober at work," he told The Associated Press. "If we can make life
better simply by controlling alcohol, that's a very small price to pay."

horizontal rule

http://www.indiana.edu/~crimjust/faculty/Borkenstein.htm

Robert Borkenstein

Professor Emeritus

LL.D., Indiana University; D. Sci., Wittenberg University

Prof. Robert F. Borkenstein began his career with the Indiana State Police in 1936. He invented the Breathalyzer in 1953 and retired in 1958 as captain in charge of Laboratory Services.

His academic career began in 1958 when he received an A.B. degree from Indiana University. Also in 1958, he became a professor at Indiana University's Department of Forensic Studies.

In 1963, Prof. Borkenstein received an honorary D.Sc. degree from Wittenberg Univesity. He became chairman of the Department of Forensic Studies. In 1971 Prof. Borkenstein became director of Indiana University's Center for Studies of Law in Action.

In 1987, he received an LL.D., or honorary doctor of laws, degree from Indiana. Such an honor for a working professor is extremely rare.

Prof. Borkenstein's awards, honors and memberships are too numerous to mention. He is known worldwide for his contribution to the field of chemical tests for blood and breath alcohol.

Intensely curious about the human condition, Prof. Borkenstein inspires others to higher levels of achievement. His beloved wife, Marjorie, died in 1998.

 

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Hit Counter

 

Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party