Watchman

Gaelic

TRAITORS

Medicine?

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 

• Drivers in England With NO Roadblocks Are THREE TIMES Safer Than Ours.
• World Health Organization: Each One Point Increase in IQ Saves 9 Lives per 100,000 Vehicles.
• Highly Publicized Ancient Roadside Study is Wrong: 24%, not 4%, drink and drive.
• Police Reported Alcohol Involvement LESS THAN FOUR PERCENT!
• Why We MUST Crack Down on Teetotalers.
• FARS 1998 Database, Drunk Drivers are at MOST Seven Percent.
• FARS 1999 Database, Drunk Drivers Are 6.8 Percent to at most 7 Percent.
• FARS 2001 Database, Drunk Drivers are at MOST Three Percent.
• FARS 2008 Database, Drunk Drivers "Cause" 2% of Fatal Crashes.
• Study of Thousands of College Students: 49-59% Drink & Drive.
• Age Versus Time of Day of Accident: Young Drivers More Dangerous than Drunk Drivers.
• Excellent Critique of MADD's DUI Campaign.
• Why Do We Still Have a Motor Vehicle Fatality Rate 3 Times Higher Than Countries Who Never Benefitted from MADD's Wisdom?

"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)."

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)."

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.

However:

• 37% are determined by blood alcohol testing to not have had a bac > .10%, relegating ONE THIRD of these to false arrests

• 33% are "Not a Fatality"

• 32% are not drivers of motor vehicles: they are passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, etc.

• 27% are young drivers who NHTSA reports have such a high fatality rate that drinking and driving has negligible [read: zero] impact on their already high accident rate

• 17% SHOULD be attributed to drowsy driving even though NHTSA estimates only 4% are

• 1% are attributed to drug involvement

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

• 33% Are "Not A Fatality"
• 43% are Non-Hispanic
• 42.5% are White
• 5.2% are Hispanic
• 5.2% are Black

Drowsy Driving

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.

HBD 

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".

This accident became one of the 4% which was counted as "police reported alcohol involvement" even though alcohol clearly had nothing to do with it.  But in searching the FARS database, there's no way to establish how many accidents are mis-reported like this because there is no option for the police to report the TRUTH about what they actually witnessed. This is a KEY factor which could be as much if not more than fifty percent of all of these types of reports.

ARREST, TRY, CONVICT, IMPRISON THE MADD

Cost per Life "Saved"

Each one of these DUI arrests is estimated to have cost the arrestee at LEAST $10,000 when all factors are combined (PLUS 90,000 suicides motivated by DUI arrests), making the combined costs of this colossal hoax more than $480 BILLION. How many lives were ACTUALLY saved? The most optimistic estimate, even if we did not KNOW that this program INCREASED rather than reduced our motor vehicle fatality rate, is 10% of the 54,000 lives, or 5,400 lives. This is an average of $89 MILLION per live "saved" ($480 billion / 5,400 lives "saved") making this not only an extreme violation of basic civil and constitutional rights, but a HUGE waste of money as well. The MAXIMUM contribution of MADD per 100,000 of the arrested population is that 11 WERE prevented from being involved in (not necessarily CAUSING) a fatal accident which means conversely that 99,989 per 100,000 were NOT involved AND could NEVER have been involved no matter how many might be arrested. 

How Else Could $89 Million Be Spent To Save Just One Life?

How smart can our rulers be to spend $89 BILLION per life "saved" based solely on the assumption that they know precisely how much EACH of us must drink to raise our BAC level to *exactly* 0.10, and that at that level EACH of us have precisely the same increased risk of *causing* a fatal accident, and that there are NO other factors responsible, not even those numerous factors which drove SOBER drivers to cause the other 96% of all accidents? How else could we the people (and taxpayers) apply $89 million to save ONE life? What other group per 100,000 people should we arrest based on the *presumption* that they are equipped to commit a future crime which we know with absolute mathematical certainty that 99.775% DID not commit and WILL not ever commit, not even over the next 3 DECADES?

Where else is it recorded in human history that so many were arrested for a victimless "crime" based on a *presumption* that they might have increased their odds of having an *accident* simply by their dietary choices?  Our Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they got wind of this--it would make King George look like a pussy cay by comparison.

 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"?

The FBI tells us that they know with absolute certainty based on PAST performance that black male youths between the age of 16 to 24 WILL commit homicide at a rate of 300 per 100,000 making them FAR MORE deadly than drinking drivers. Why not arrest ALL blacks right out of the box based on the CERTAINTY that they are 27 TIMES more likely to murder someone than a drunk driver is to cause a fatal accident? At the moment of the formation of MADD, had we instead redirected this half a TRILLION DOLLARS towards segregating the 1% of the population who are black male youths from everyone else, 51% of the murders committed since 1980 would not have taken place, which we know with absolute certainty would have saved 367,200 American lives.

JUSTICE DEMANDS THAT THEY *EACH* BE PUNISHED ONE BILLION TIMES MORE SEVERLY THAN THEIR 59,892,000 INNOCENT VICTIMS WERE

Bottom Line

Quiz

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:

1. Which driver are you most likely to be killed by?  A drunk driver or a sober driver?
2. By how much?
3. Per mile, which is the most dangerous driver?
4. By how much?

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party