There is a huge difference between driving while impaired and being
overly aggressive in traffic.
A drunk driver (repeat offender, hereafter referred to as buttwipe) hit
a telephone pole. When the wire crossed (the high-voltage wires (I think
around 11,000 V) crossed the low voltage wires (110 V), things didn't go
well for two of the houses that were normally fed 110 V lines. The
wiring for both houses had to be totally redone. And one of the houses
caught fire, resulting in much loss. The buttwipe didn't got little or
no jail time. He disrupted the lives of two families, one for many months.
True, but in all cases, one of two things is true:
1) Driver knows the risks, but takes them anyway. That's intent. Too bad the
law doesn't define it that way.
2) Driver does NOT know or acknowledge the risks, in which case, it never
should've gotten a license to drive. That's the government's fault.
Unfortunately, 90% of drivers fall into this category. My son, who's been
driving for about 2 years, says the number's more like 95%. He's probably
That's nothing. Back in the late 1970s, a friend of mine, a highway cop, was
writing a ticket and got hit by a drunk driver. Actually hit , then snagged.
The cop's belt became entangled somehow on the car's bumper and he was
dragged for a couple of miles until a bunch of people with CB radios rounded
him up in a parking lot. It was definitely a closed casket funeral. The
murderer was sentenced to community service, working in a hospital ER, if I
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:43:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
The person who said the following needs to be put in jail for a LONG
time for driving under the influence!
I used to commute from Riverhead to Great Neck. There was a coffee
truck at most exits, and stopping for 20 minutes to shmooze with
people was a real social event. And, we really didn't lose much
progress by stopping, since we only would've travelled about 2 miles
in that time. I got to know the cops pretty well because listening
to them on the CB was a way of testing our installations.
They were truly bored, though. One day, I started razzing one of
them about how he must be getting moldy sitting in his car praying
for something interesting to happen. So, I told him that if he could
bust me for ANYTHING, I'd buy him a cup of coffee every day for a
month. There was the occasional joint in my car, but other than
that, what could I do? Change lanes without signalling? There was so
much traffic that there was no way they could get near you. If you
needed a tow truck, two birthdays would go by before it got there.
Two months passed. One day, this cop was at our store getting some
work done on his CB. At closing time, me and two other guys jumped
in my car to vanish into a nearby neighborhood and partake of one of
mother nature's leafy treats before heading back to the store to get
our individual cars. Out of nowhere comes this cop. We didn't even
have time to open the windows and air out the car. He walks up to
the car and says "You didn't signal when you pulled out of the
parking lot. Black, sugar, no cream, see ya at exit 48,
7:15 AM every day, wise guy. And by the way (he leans into the car
and sniffs), burning leaves is illegal around here, Clean air laws,
Walks away laughing his ass off.
While agree that things should be called correctly, e.g., motor vehicle
crashes, I don't see that this would change things much. It does help
change attitudes that crashes are accident, which implies they can't be
prevented or helped.
I don't know what is the appropriate penalty in a crash where people are
killed. It depends on the circumstances.
I am a bleeding heart liberal, but I agree with you on this subject. I
have done R&D on Driver distraction for the past 10 years and have
reached the same conclusion for car crashes. Each year in the US there
are approx 43,000 deaths and about 3,000,000 reported crashes. M'gawd
the sky is falling and we must do something about this overwhelming
But let's take a look at the HUGH total of miles driven or hours on the
road for ALL the drivers. The % is something like 1 crash /10000 hours
of driving or .00001%. Every driver considers him/herself a superior
driver, and probably should, because they have VERY few crashes over
their lifetime of driving. No matter how much we improve the safety of
the car ($) or the roads ($$$) or the infrastructure ($$$$$$) there will
always be a very small percentage of crashes due to distraction or
drinking or mere wrong place, wrong time circumstances.
Yes, when there are crashes they are horrendous, the victims are in need
of emergency help, and it makes the evening news, but consider the vast
majority that are home safely and watching the evening news.
I do think that repeat traffic offenders that have much higher than
average crashes should be denied any access to drivable cars, however.
My suggestion is ...
whether in a car, or on a bike, or motorcycle,or even walking..
to wear a custom helmet made from a walmart battery.
Simply cut open the top of the battery with your exacto knife or shrub
trimmer and dump the contents and top out.
Attach a strap to the bottom box shell, and place on head.
Always wear your helmet!
I'd also like to see the original data. He doesn't cite it. Very bad
and doesn't allow anyone to check his numbers.
AND that is not what the article says. It says that any given person
has a 1 in 88 chance of dying due to a car crash, not that 1 in 88
people will die in a car crash. BIG difference. In any given year there
are about 43000 deaths from car crashes in the US. There are
190,625,023 (data from 2000)licensed drivers in the US. You do the
math. Hint- about .0002%
Read an article headed- "Cellphone dangerous for young drivers,
especially those with ADHD". Seems he found an old 1997 study long
discredited for bad science on cellphones and driving crashes. Remember
the size of the 1995 (when the data was collected)cellphones- the Brick.
Then he found another study that showed that "Youths with ADHD had 4X
as many accidents as those without" THEN he combined these two studies
that didn't have anything to do with each other and came to the
conclusion that youthful drivers with ADHD who use a cell phone were
especially dangerous. Maybe, but there has NEVER been a study to test that.
On 10/19/2007 7:52 PM Chip spake these words of knowledge:
First, when the original article states that any given person has a 1 in
88 chance of dying due to a car crash, it does mean, specifically, that
1 in 88 people will die due to a car crash. No difference, when you are
talking about statistical probabilities.
.0002 is (roughly) the ratio. Expressed as a percentage, the figure is
100 times that size - .02255%, in fact. You made the most common error
when trying to express your figure as a percentage. More to the point,
your number represents a per annum figure rather than an estimate over
the average lifetime of the average driver; for example, if the average
driver drives for an average of 40 years, and we posited that the ratio
of deaths to the number of drivers did not significantly change, you
would multiply that single annual figure by 40 to get the number
representing what any given person's lifetime chance of dying in a car
crash is. In my example, that number is .90229% - very nearly 1%, or 1
out of 100. If the average driver drove 50 years, the percentage is
1.1278; the chance of dying is 1 out of 88.66.
I'm not trying to argue the originator's point, only fix your math
Brian Kernighan wrote, "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code
in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as
On 10/20/2007 2:56 PM Larry in AZ spake these words of knowledge:
Let me say this again; try reading it slowly. It's not per annum; it's
lifetime. At 43 thousand a year, your number of deaths would happen in
under 80 years. (Even for your usage, your number is wrong, because
it's based on the entire population rather than the driving population.
But it would still happen.)
Rather than say, "Nope, can't be", perhaps you will provide some basis
for why it can't be.
(Hint: you need a basic understanding of mathematics to participate
meaningfully in the discussion.)
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact,
every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god;
If I'm thinking per annum, then perhaps I'm wrong. You're also wrong
assuming it's based on the driving population. The article talks about an
American's chances of dying due to the charted reasons. It never says
"licensed" or "driving" population. IOW, it's based on the entire
population, as are the rest of the listed causes of death.
Read it again yourself.
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
"A lack of common sense is now considered a disability,
43,000 or so have died annually in auto related accidents in 2005 and 2006,
you do the math.
Here is a more alarming static. Far more young men, between the ages of 18
and 25, have been murdered in US cities, then have been killed in our war
with the radical Islamic terrorist around the world, since 9/11 2001
Sorry to disappoint, but it was something I found online two years ago
when I was doing fatal accident statistic research for another reason -
electrocution, actually. I no longer have the source. It was based on
fatal accidents per mile driven -- obviously a low number -- and then
superimposed on the average driver's lifetime mileage.
I did not do the math, so if there was an error in math or logic, it was
not mine. The actual figure, I'm certain, was 1.8%. That is, as I said,
"approximately" one in fifty. More closely, one in 56.
I applaud you for asking for the citation. I'm not going to argue the
point, so feel free to disbelieve.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.