Fatal Accident Reporting System
Proof That You Are 20 TIMES More Likely to be Killed by a Sober Driver than a Drinking Driver
Forty Eight Million DUI Arrests And Half a $TRILLION Did Not Even "Save" 5,400 Lives
Total Number of Lives "Saved" Is 0.01% of the Number of DUI Arrests
0.1% of Those Arrested For DUI Were *Involved* in a Fatal Accident
0.01% of those Arrested Might Have *Caused" a Fatal Accident
"The analysis by
Connolly, Kimball, and Moulton (1989) mentioned above suggests that
female drivers have both a higher overall crash risk and a higher
alcohol-related fatal-crash risk. Combined data from FARS and the 1986
National Roadside Breathtesting Survey suggest that the relative
fatal-crash risk of a female driver with a BAC of 0.10% or more could be
of the order of 50% higher than it is for a male driver at the same BAC.
Of course, estimates based on these two unmatched data sets are, as
indicated above, are only very rough, but they are consistent with prior
case-control studies (see Jones and Joscelyn 1978). "
The FARS database itself proves thata the second statement above is an egregious misrepresentation of the data. Researching a number of different years in this database indicates that the general trend of drinking and driving is that about ten percent of the more than 100,000 people involved in fatal accidents each year are reported by the police as alcohol involved.
This is 147% of all the people involved in fatal accidents who police report each year are alcohol involved. So where is the drunk driver who the above statement implies is the one who allegedly causes 38-49% of all fatal accidents each year, or as Justice Roberts puts it, 14,000 accidents annually? And what about the role of women drivers who NHTSA claims are 50% more likely to have a fatal accident than men drivers, versus drinking men drivers with a BAC of 0.12 who are only 30% more? Or Hispanic drivers whose brethren in Mexico are, according to the World Health Organization, 5 TIMES more likely per car than the average American driver to have a fatal accident, or Blacks whose brethren in the Central African Republic who are 590 TIMES as likely?
There is some overlap between these various factors which is why they add up to 147% of the Police Reported Alcohol Involvement. For example, if 2% of the drowsy drivers were also young drivers, then the total would be only 145%. And if half of those who were not a fatality were also passengers or pedestrians, then the total would be only 127.5%. And if the 1% who are drug involved were also young drivers, then the total would be only 126.5%.
How many fatal accidents are left over to be blamed on drunk drivers as the cause of (not just involved in) these accidents? None?
Is it even remotely possible in your mind that drunk drivers are the SAFEST drivers?
Research it yourself. There are many different ways to view it and you might get a more accurate reading, or discover other factors that have been overlooked. If you do, please let us know so it can be included on the above list.
Of Ten Thousand Police Reported Alcohol Involvement Cases Annually
In 2008, there were 1,799 drivers whose accidents the NHTSA attributed to drowsy driving, which is 2.7% of the 66,244 drivers who were involved in fatal accidents. 87 of the accidents involving the 2,247 drivers with a BAC > .10 or 4% of them were attributed to drowsy driving. However, this is not a fair assessment of the real effects of drowsy driving. If NHTSA is willing to admit that drowsy driving was the REASON that 2,660 SOBER drivers had a fatal accident, for what reason would they not notice that most of the fatal accidents involving drinking drivers occur at a time when THESE drivers are also drowsy? For example, they estimate that only 4 of the drivers with a BAC = 0.20 were driving drowsy and that 434 were NOT.
Can you imagine having 15 drinks and NOT appearing drowsy to at least SOME of these experts? I cannot, and believe that attributing 17% of police reported alcohol involvement to drowsy driving is extremely conservative.
Women and Black Drivers
Because women are 50% to four times more likely per mile driven to have fatal accidents than men, and because the United Nations reports that Black drivers are 100 to one THOUSAND more time per car to have a fatal accident than White drivers, failing to take these vast differences in driving ability into account greatly skews the data.When counted by race, of 84,026 persons involved in fatal accidents in 2008, 46,669 were not a fatality, 7,763 were marked "blank", and 2,966 were marked "unknown". Of the 26,628 fatalities whose race was known or specified, 21,939 or 82.4% were White,13.4% were Black, 23,355 or 87.7% were non-Hispanic, and 2,241 or 8.4% were Hispanic.
This author was involved in a minor accident in the middle of nowhere, in the
middle of the night, with only one witness--a police officer who clearly saw
that the reason for the accident was the other driver failing to stop for a stop
sign until he was in the middle of the road and slammed on his brakes way too
late. The officer asked "have you been drinking", and being young and naive I
acknowledged that I had had a glass of wine with lunch, 11 hours earlier. He
wrote "HBD" on the ticket, which is the only comment he wrote about this
accident. When my insurance company heard this, no explanation was needed--they
were going to pay for the accident no matter who was at fault because it was ME
who "had been drinking".
ARREST, TRY, CONVICT, IMPRISON THE MADDMADD mania was started by the most irresponsible parents imaginable, people who always blame society for all their problems and NEVER take responsibility for their own mistakes, failures, and bad parental decisions. It was their own STUPID parental decisions which caused all their own grief, and now the grief of 48 million Americans who've been arrested for DUI, NOT for making bad parental decisions (as they have), NOT because they committed a "crime", but because they MIGHT have had enough to drink to MAYBE increase their probability of having an ACCIDENT that the FARS database proves that the VAST MAJORITY of them NEVER even had. Over the last three decades, the MAXIMUM number of drivers who MIGHT have been responsible for CAUSING a fatal accident is (45,000/year x 30 years x 4% = ) 54,000, with SOBER drivers ONE HUNDRED RESPONSIBLE for the other 1,296,000 fatal accidents.
Had we NOT arrested FORTY EIGHT MILLION AMERICAN CITIZENS for DUI, is it even remotely possible that MORE than 54,000 drinking drivers would have been *responsible* for causing a fatal accident? Most emphatically NOT. But just for grins, let's make the HUGE leap of faith that this figure would have been DOUBLE that, and that this massive witch hunt actually SAVED 54,000 lives.
Is it even close to being worth THIS MUCH to save so few lives? This would STILL mean that (48,000,000 - 108,000 / 48,000,000) = 99.775% of those ARRESTED were ARRESTED for a "crime" [read: accident] they NEVER committed [read: for you liberals out there, this means that the DAMAGE that all 47,892,000 of these drivers arrested for drinking and driving, COMBINED, inflicted on society was ZERO], and who we know with absolute, utter mathematical certainty never will have a fatal accident.
Add to that the fact that every other country which outlawed random alcohol breath testing actually saw their fatality rates drop, some by as much as two thirds. Countries like England now have ONE THIRD the fatal accident rate per car that we do, and we have a huge amount of evidence that the PRIMARY CAUSE of our very high fatality rate is random alcohol breath testing itself.
Cost per Life "Saved"
How Else Could $89 Million Be Spent To Save Just One Life?
It's known by instructor pilots that garlic slows down reaction times
so much that they order student pilots not to eat garlic for lunch. Might we be
more successful at saving lives from traffic accidents by simply ARRESTING 48
million putative garlic eaters simply on the suspicion that they might
have an accident which could be considered a future "crime"?
JUSTICE DEMANDS THAT THEY *EACH* BE PUNISHED ONE BILLION TIMES MORE SEVERLY THAN THEIR 59,892,000 INNOCENT VICTIMS WERE
The following is a detailed breakdown the number of PEOPLE with a BAC (blood alcohol content) greater than 0.10 according to the 2009 FARS database:
Police reported alcohol involved = 8,791
Costly BAC analysis proved more than ONE THIRD (39.4%) did NOT have a BAC greater than 0.10 = 3,459
Confirmed by costly BAC analysis to have a BAC greater than 0.10 = 5,332
- 874 Motorcycles = 4,458
-710 Passengers = 3,488
-978 Pedestrians = 2,770
-675 Police reported drugs were a factor = 2,095
-800 cell phones a factor = 1,295
- 13 Mopeds, 3 small ATVs, 10 Off-road vehicles, = 1,121
17 snow mobiles, 4 farm equipment, 14 golf carts
9 unknown, 10 personal conveyances, and 94 bicycles
-2,265 not wearing a seat belt was a factor = -1,144
-2,374 young drivers = -3,515
-1,494 drowsy drivers = -5,009
Unfortunately, the remainder were intentionally killed by the legendary, maniacal, suicidal, anti-social drunk driver.
Ignoring the above facts, and ASSUMING that 10% of all fatal accidents involve a driver with a BAC greater than 0.10 (drunk drivers), that 90% involve only drivers with a BAC < 0.10 (sober drivers), and that only 30% of all drivers IN GENERAL have a BAC greater than 0.10:
Modified Sunday, October 24, 2010
Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party