> "fm" <johnknight@usa.com> wrote in message
> news:BYdf7.70613$A47.32494352@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com...
> > "thorain@my_deja.com" <james_l_powell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > Consider the difference between the following two statements:
> > > >
> > > >   http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/pdf/Alcohol99.pdf
> > > >   "Traffic fatalities in alcohol-related crashes fell by 1 percent
> from
> > 1998
> > > > to
> > > >   1999. The 15,786 alcohol-related fatalities in 1999 (38 percent of
> > total
> > > >   traffic fatalities for the year) represent a 30 percent reduction
> from
> > the
> > > >   22,404 alcohol-related fatalities reported in 1989 (49 percent of
> the
> > > > total)."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > AND
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Police reports show that drivers with a BAC equal to or greater than
> > .10
> > > > were 5.8% of all drivers and 3.3% of all people involved in fatal
> > crashes in
> > > > 1999.  NHTSA believes that police reports under-represent such drivers
> > by
> > > > 54% and uses a statistical model which estimates that 12.7% of drivers
> > and
> > > > 7.2% of all people in fatal crashes were drivers with a BAC equal to
> or
> > > > greater than .10.  NHTSA also believes that nondrivers with a BAC
> equal
> > to
> > > > or greater than .10 should be included in these estimates, raising the
> > > > percentage of all people involved in fatal crashes with a BAC equal to
> > or
> > > > greater than .10 to 9.4%. [note:  the fact that a driver has a BAC
> equal
> > to
> > > > or greater than .10 is not evidence nor proof that drinking alcohol
> was
> > the
> > > > *cause* of the accident, and nothing in this data should be construed
> to
> > > > arrive at such a conclusion]."
> > > >
> > > > Which do you think is the most accurate?  Which do you think is the
> most
> > > > honest?  Which do you think is the kind of statement that a government
> > > > bureaucracy like NHTSA SHOULD make?
> > > >
> > > > John Knight
> > >
> > > They are both accurate. Of course, you can't understand the difference
> > > between cause and related, can you? (BTW - Where was the second
> > > statement taken from? You really should give ALL references, not just
> > > those you want looked at).
> > >
> > > James Powell
> >
> > How do you know they're both accurate if you don't have the original
> > references?
> >
>
> Because I understand the meaning of the words "cause" and "related".
>
> > Did you do the calculations to determine if they were accurate all by
> > yourself?  No.  So how do you know that both of them are accurate?
> >
>
> The same way you 'know' they are inaccurate.
>
> > Why are you so willing to accept such statements without verifying the
> facts
> > first?  A little "Pavlov's Dog Syndrome", perhaps?
> >
> > John Knight
> >
>
> Because if you say that the calculations are wrong, then they HAVE to be
> right. I have the utmost faith in your inability to do simple mathematics.
>
> James Powell
>
>

 

 

This is far too funny for words.

 

This is in fact a Powell Classic (hint, hint).

 

The words you just *agreed* to are **MY** words.  These are the very same statistics which you WHIIIIIIIINED were wrong--yet here you are defending them to the death.

 

Perhaps a Christian should be honored that a "liberal" should so enamored with a truth for a change that they forgot to check the source.  But having you agree with a fact is such a switch that it's actually embarassing.

 

For those who missed the thread, "Liberal" Powell cited one of the usual NHTSA advocacy screeds that stated "38 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year" were alcohol related, which is the kind of trash that enables mediots to jack the figure all over the place until USA Today puts on its headlines "HALF OF ALL TRAFFIC DEATHS CAUSED BY DRINKING DRIVERS".

 

What this ignores, of course, and what Powell just "endorsed", is that only 5.8% of all drivers and 3.3% of all people involved in fatal crashes in 1999 were drivers with a BAC > .10.

 

But like every good "liberal", he didn't even wince when the big difference between the fact that "drinking drivers" are 3.3% of all of those involved in fatal accidents, versus 38% of all traffic fatalities are "alcohol related", was noted.

 

John Knight