faileddui.gif (61639 bytes)

sponsored by

MADD & The Blind, Deaf, & Dumb Feminist US Education System

Women drive only 30% of miles driven but are in 37% of the fatal accidents


FRAUD from the NHTSA:   Police report that 4% of all accidents are "alcohol related", but after pedestrians, passengers, bicyclists, and other nondrivers who are the reason for an accident being classified as "alcohol involved" are removed, only 1.25% of all accidents involved a driver with a bac greater than .10%.


A German study confirms the "Grand Rapids Effects":  if all drivers had a safety record equivalent to drivers with a bac = 0.04 ('The Gold Standard'), the US would have 17,670 fewer traffic fatalities each year.


While MADD publicly proclaims that they "saved 67,000 lives since our program began", the loss to society due to their program exceeds the benefit by 135 times.


Outlawing women drivers would save 11 times as many lives than if MADD's campaign could be 100% successful.


The accident rate of sober women drivers is equivalent to that of men drivers with a BAC between 0.12 and 0.14.


Fatalities classified by NHTSA as "alcohol involved" decreased 7,452 over a decade, but non-alcohol-related fatalities increased 3,029.


The number of lives that advocacy groups claim they saved exceeded the actual reduction of 4,423 fatalities by five fold.


We have a motor vehicle fatality rate 45% higher than Germany where speeds on the autobahn of 140 mph are common and where more than 70% of drivers admit that they drink and drive.


The 136 million Americans who drink consume enough alcohol to keep their bac above zero for up to 6 hours or 40% of their waking day, each and every day of the year.


Sixty percent of college students drink and drive.


DUI laws put more Americans in prison than Japan has in prison for all crimes combined.


Former deputy attorney general on the fraud of DUI laws.


The most liberal interpretation of NHTSA data is that DUI laws save 400 lives per year, a cost per life saved of $30.5 million, compared to cancer research which is less than $200 per life lost to cancer.


Decreased alcohol consumption increased cardio-related fatalities by 35,000 per year, which is more than 87 times greater than the number of lives saved by the most liberal MADD estimate.


David MacRae:   "I have long known that the furor over drinking and driving was overblown.""


"I'd rather not wind up on the losing end of an obvious lawsuit, thanks."

Me neither.
And not Trump whose Muslim ban was just legalized.
And not the Supreme Court which just upheld it.

See, you, I, Trump, and Sessions CAN agree on the most important issue of the century, if not since 1776

No matter how you slice this data, it's the driver with a BAC of 0.001% who seems to be over-represented in crashes. For example, in 2015, when there were 73,390 people involoved in fatal crashes, 23 of them were at this BAC level. This is:

Twice as many as at 0.002%, or 10
Ditto for 0.003%, at 11
Four times as many as at 0.004%, at 5
Eight times as many at 0.005%, or 3
11 times as many at 0.006%, or 2
Eight times as many at 0.007%, or 3
Six times as many at 0.008%, or 4
21 times as many at 0.009%, or 1

Ironically, even though there's a huge (and as yet unexplained) jump to 76, 3 times as many, at 0.01%, ALL of the data between 0.011% and 0.019% is LOWER than this group.

Ditto for 0.02% and all of the data in the next 9 groupings, AND all the way up to ".9% or greater". Other than these as yet unexplained bumps, NONE of the drivers at ANY BAC level are equally as represented as the driver with a BAC = 0.001%.

Ethiopia, India, and Angola, who the WHO estimates to have one fatal accident per 400 cars, making them 35 TIMES more deadly than drivers from Switzerland, Japan, and the Netherlands who have one fatal accident per 14,000 cars in

"Furthermore, even IF they had not fluffed the data, if 25% of college students in THEIR own survey admit they drink and drive, but only 15% are involved in accidents, then which driver do YOU believe is the safest driver, and by how much?"

I don't even believe the following from the NHTSA itself, as 100% of my fellow Alumni agree that 100% of them DID drink and drive:

"Alcohol-impaired driving and associated motor-vehicle accidents are a major public-health problem. National studies have shown that approximately 25 percent of college students report that they have driven while intoxicated in the past month, and an even greater percentage report having driven after having any amount of alcohol and/or ridden with a driver believed intoxicated. A new study on how these behaviors may change as students move through their college years has found that prevalence and frequency of alcohol-related traffic-risk behaviors took a significant upturn when students turned 21 years old."

BUT, let's use their own numbers to analyze their own CLAIM.

25% Drink and Drive
75% don't drink and drive (sober drivers)

15% of accidents involve drinking drivers
85% of accidents do NOT involve drinking drivers (sober drivers)

Odds ratio

Drinking drivers 0.6
Sober drivers 1.13

The odds of a sober driver having an accident are 1.89 greater than the odds that a drinking driver will.

"Drunk Driving: A 2009 study by Hingson et al. published that 3,360,000 students aged 18 to 24 drive under influence."
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

18.2 million college students in the US

18.7% of college students drink and drive, but only 9% of accidents involve drivers who are drunk
81.3% of college students don't drink and drive, and they are 91% of the accidents

odds ratio

drinking diver = 0.481
non drinking driver = 1.119

a non drinking driver is 2.3 times more likely to have an accident than a drinking driver

"Alcohol-impaired driving and associated motor-vehicle accidents are a major public-health problem. National studies have shown that approximately 25 percent of college students report that they have driven while intoxicated in the past month, and an even greater percentage report having driven after having any amount of alcohol and/or ridden with a driver believed intoxicated. A new study on how these behaviors may change as students move through their college years has found that prevalence and frequency of alcohol-related traffic-risk behaviors took a significant upturn when students turned 21 years old."

25% drink and drive and cause 9% of the accidents
75% don't drink and drive and cause 91% of the accidents

odds ratio

drinking driver = 0.36
non-drinking driver = 1.23

A non-drinking driver is 3.37 times more likely to have an accident than a drinking driver

48,767 total drivers
24,106 bac unknown
17,113 bac = 0
62 bac between .001 to .010
7,486 above 0.010, or 15.4%

43,351 total accidents
18,210 unknown bac
14,595 bac = 0
63 = BAC .001 to 001
10,483= 25% bac over 0.10

"Thanks, but I prefer to focus above 0.08 or 0.10 the legal DUI level in most states."

The following is straight from the FARS database which is SUPPOSED to be the BAC level of drivers involved in accidents. This is called the "Grand Rapids Paradox", where drivers with a BAC between 0.003 and 0.10 have a LOW accident rate.

0.000 % BAC 16026
0.001 % BAC 24
0.002 % BAC 12
0.003 % BAC 11
0.004 % BAC 5
0.005 % BAC 3
0.006 % BAC 2
0.007 % BAC 4
0.008 % BAC 4
0.009 % BAC 1
0.010 % BAC 85
0.011 % BAC 15
0.012 % BAC 15
0.013 % BAC 19
0.014 % BAC 19
0.015 % BAC 25
0.016 % BAC 22
0.017 % BAC 16
0.018 % BAC 13
0.019 % BAC 15
0.020 % BAC 116
0.021 % BAC 11
0.022 % BAC 15

"I wonder if there are any Asian kids of any sex or economic stratum who aren?t fabulous in math."

If by "Asian", you include India, then there isn't a single one in the entire country who has the math skills of Highland Park. Of course the entire country of China is at the opposite end of the spectrum, which is why so many of them are the ones designing OUR semiconductors. In the last round of TIMSS, Shanghai scored even higher than Singapore, who already had scored higher than both Korea and Japan. The difference between West Asia and East Asia is like the difference between life and death.

In one year:
There were 37,043 fatal accidents
7,846, were "alcohol involved"
609 were Cycles, dune buggies, other non-highway vehicles
816 were drunk pedestrians
3,101 were drunk passengers
3,320 or 9% were drinking drivers

10 - 6 = 4 liters
62 - 10 = 52 fatalities

13 fewer fatalities per 100,000 vehicles, per 1 liter increase in alcohol consumption per capita

IF alcohol consumption is a factor in the increased likelihood of having a traffic accident, you would expect there to be a positive correlation between alcohol consumption and traffic fatalities.

INSTEAD, according to a World Health Organization study, there is a NEGATIVE correlation, with the countries with the highest rates of alcohol consumption haveing the safest roads, and those which consume the least having record high traffic fatality rates.

Relative to the US, many countries, like Germany, Japan, England, Wales, Finland, Spain, San Marino, Belgium, and Ireland, consume almost twice as much alchol per capita per year than us, yet our fatality rate is almost double theirs (17 deaths per 100,000 vehicles per year, versus 8).

Conversely, almost all the countries which consume LESS one tenth as much alcohol as us, at 1 liter per capita per year, like Afghanistan, Guinea, Kenya, Angola, Egypt, Gambia, Tanzania, Niger, Uganda, Ethiopia, and the Central African Republic, have fatality rates more than one order of magnitude higher than us, with the rate in Ethiopia being ONE HUNDRED times higher, and in the Central African Republic being 600 TIMES higher.

Again, a key outlier here is Russia, whose fatality rate of 93.3 (5 times higher than ours), can only be explained if their alcohol consumption rate is 2.91, one third of ours, and one fifth as much as the BBC estimate.

YOU are the first to hear this, but since you asked about Putin, you deserve to hear this.

Do you know who is Putin's role model? I JUST NOW learned this.

Chung He Park, whose role model was Thomas Jefferson, who was my fathers counterpart in Korea, whose life my mom traveled through a violent coup de' etat to save his, and who was president of Korea for 19 years after I was forced to leave Korea, only to meet my parents two months later when they were able to return.

It was rumored that Lee Kuan Yew, past president of Singapore, also viewed Chung Hee Park as his role model. I confirmed this in an hour long meeting with him in Las Vegas at a semiconductor industry conference where he was the guest speaker. He openly admitted that it was Jefferson who set the pace for his country which has been very successful in this industry.

Xi Jinping, current president of China, and Hu Jintao, former President of China BOTH cite Chung Hee Park Thomas Jefferson as their role model, whihc is the ONLY explanation for how fast China was able to throw off the yoke of Communism.

Quietly, behind the scenes, communists have again taken over South Korea with theircurrent COMMUNIST president Moon. But the South Koreans are openly overthrowing communism with record crowds showing upo to support Hong.

Why do you think that is?

"Here's to your immediately going on the wagon."

Isn't it funny that every time you're presented with a mathematical FACT which disputes your old wives' tales, your only recourse is always some irrelevant, infantile character assassination?
Why do you do that? Please tell us. How is this relevant?

Since Megan Kelly, Fox has been on my no fly list. But as you may know it's impossible to walk down the street without having it thrown in your face. So while "watching" hurricane coverage in Orlando, it was impossible for me to realize that Bill Hemmer, whose face was covered during most of the storm, is a member of my club where he is such an excellent, expert racquetball player, that he durn near beat me. Once the winds stopped blowing and he took the hood off his face, I realied that it IS him.

Not even that will bring me back to Fox.

"There's a way to follow specific threads and the posts of specific people. Is there one that allows us to IGNORE the posts of specific people? Even better, one that blocks both specific people's posts and responses to those posts. I can see absolutely no reason to further risk brain damage by reading utterly contradictory, self-reversing, illogical, and fact-free nonsense trying to pass itself off as profound insight. Nietzsche used contradiction productively, but this malarkey ain't Nietzschean."

But it is YOU whose anti-math posts need to be ignored on this putative math forum, who thinks CNN or BBC are gods, who judges Russians without even meeting a single one, and who ignores that a main reason Russian men (but not Russian women) have a life expectancy equivalent to Indonesia and Uzbekistan is their LOW alcohol consumption.
It is NOT open to question that multiple nations with the highest rates of alcohol consumption have life expectancies 3 and 4 and 5 years LONGER than ours, and almost all of those with life expectancies 15 YEARS shorter than us, consume an order of magnitude less than us.

"8.4? Was that the first half of 1984 or the 2nd half?"

As you might suspect, there's a direct correlation between alcohol consumption and life expectancy, with countries like Korea at the high end of the spectrum at 15 liters per capita and 79 years, and countries like Indonesia and Uzbekistan at the low end at 1 to 3 liters per capita and 65 years. In general, with few exceptions like Russia, each one liter per capita per year consumption of alcohol equals a 1 year increase in life expectancy.

This correlation would suggest that even the moderate estimate for Russia of 8.4 liters is way too high, and is most likely in the range of Indonesia and Uzbekistan of 2 to 4 liters.

The other factor is that even two decades after the fall of Communism in Russia, free enterprise has not kicked in, and the average family CANNOT afford to buy more vodka than that.

They like soju much better than vodka, that that is even more expensive.

13 - 1 = 12
79 - 65 = 12



Police Reports Alcohol Involved 1994

2% of 16 to 20 year olds

5% of 25 to 34 year olds






The MADD, dui, anti-drinking, anti-alcohol, anti-Christian campaign is based on the cynical hypothesis that American citizens are too stupid to make proper personal choices for themselves, but that a disinterested judge sitting on a wooden bench miles away could or would care to make those choices for them for them, and could do a better job of it.  The government's own studies and statistics prove otherwise.  This is why an exact copy of this cynical hypothesis, Prohibition, was thankfully ended with certainty early in the Twentieth Century.


By padding the data more than three fold, police departments take accidents which involve [not are "caused by"] at most 1.25% of the drivers accross the country who have a bac > .10 and report that 4% of all accidents are "alcohol involved".  They do this by adding any and everybody who was at the scene of the accident who had "been drinking".  This means that 69% of the accidents which were classified as "alcohol involved" didn't even involve a driver with a bac > .10.  NHTSA compounds the error another ten fold with a "statistical model" that is the dream of every bureaucrat--they don't need to tell you how they do this, they get to spend billions of dollars to "solve" the "problem" without ever telling you exactly what they solved.  Their budget continues to grow geometrically while the rest of the economy takes a tail spin, partially because of precisely this cynical hypothesis that justifies its micromanagement of American's personal lives.  The NHTSA data shows specifically the following regarding "drinking drivers" involved in fatal accidents in 1999:

bullet100,666 people and 56,820 drivers were involved in fatal accidents.
bullet41,611 people were killed.
bullet12,304 or 12.2% of all of those involved in fatal accidents were classified by the NHTSA as "alcohol involved".
bullet2,872 or 2.9% of them had a BAC < .10.
bulletOf the 9,432 or 9.4% of them with a BAC of .10+:
bullet3,929 or 3.9% of them were not reported by the police to have had a BAC of .10+
bullet564 or 0.56% of them were reported by the police to be "Not alcohol involved".
bullet1,464 or 1.5% were not reported by the police to be "alcohol involved".
bullet1,901 or 1.9% were "Unknown" to the police.
bullet2,201 or 2.2% of them were not drivers:
bullet918 or 0.9% were passengers.
bullet1,123 or 1.1% were pedestrians.
bullet107 or 0.1% were bicyclists.
bullet53 or 0.05% were other non-drivers.
bullet647 or 0.6% were operating farm machinery, ATVs, snowmobiles, mopeds, motorcycles, or non-highway vehicles.
bullet310 or 0.3% were drivers whom NHTSA claims had accidents because of drowsy driving rather than drinking alcohol.
bullet2,345 or 2.3% were KNOWN by police to have been drivers of trucks or automobiles with a BAC of .10+ whose accident was not caused by drowsy driving, which is:
bullet2.3% of all of those involved in fatal accidents.
bullet4.1% of all drivers involved in fatal accidents.
bullet5.6% of all fatalities.
bulletNO percentage of those drivers are KNOWN to have had an accident BECAUSE they were drinking alcohol.

While there may be some overlap between these figures, it's unlikely, given that the objective of the statistical model is to compensate for drivers who may have had a high BAC level but whom the police didn't test for or detect alcohol.  It's possible, for example, that some of the 918 passengers who caused an accident to be classified as alcohol-involved were also included in the 564 people who were reported by the police to be "Not alcohol involved".  Some number of the 1,123 passengers who caused an accident to be classified as alcohol-involved may have also been included in the category "Unknown to the police".    But the statistical model is not intended to be applied to passengers or pedestrians who may have been under-reported by the police, so this overlap is only a remote possibility.


The following statement from NHTSA is accurate, but it's intentionally misleading:
  "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)."

Newspaper headlines misinterpret such statements, pad it a little bit more, change the wording around, and the final message is:


You might view this as the classic case of mass hysteria--if it weren't for the fact that it's become obvious that this is a carefuly orchestrated plan to destroy the country.  This mass hysteria isn't spreading by itself--it's being promoted by our own government under the guidance of anti-Christian forces. 


These forces even managed to suppress the truth about multiple studies which proved that, if all drivers in the country had the track record of the safest driver, the driver with a bac = .04, the driver whom this program hopes to drive into extinction, we would have 12,865 fewer traffic deaths annually. 

duialcoholwomen.gif (22496 bytes)

They managed to suppress the data that shows that women are much less coordinated than men, that women pilots have four times as many accidents per hour flown than men pilots, that women drivers have 70% more accidents per mile driven than men drivers, that the distinct differences in their cranial capacities is proof of a distinctly different design criteria.  You might even claim that men and women are different--wow!  They suppress the data that shows that if women didn't drive, there would be 10,311 fewer highway fatalities each year.

They managed to suppress studies by numerous doctors from around the world that our current level of alcohol consumption prevents 80,000 heart disease fatalities annually, that increasing alcohol consumption would save 150,000 lives/year from heart disease, and that the recent decrease in alcohol consumption costs us an additional 35,000 heart disease deaths/year. 


What is the total cost of this criminal conspiracy referred to as "MADD"?  Not counting our loss of Constitutional rights, which is priceless, the bottom line price in dollars is $121.9 billion per year, or $1.8 trillion in current dollars over the last  15 years.  And what was the benefit again?

Do you realize that the government can't even estimate a benefit?  As hard as they try, as effectively as they've suppressed the studies which show that the driver they eliminated from the roads is the very driver who is 31% less likely to have an accident, regardless of how well they've concealed how much more dangerous a woman driver is than a drinking driver, their data still shows one thing:  THERE WAS NO BENEFIT!

Annual Cost of MADD's DUI Campaign

Per Year
Lives saved if all drivers had the track record of drivers with a bac = .04


Lives saved if women didn't drive


Lives lost to heart disease due to reduced alcohol consumption


Potential lives saved from heart disease if alcohol consumption increased


Total lives lost due directly to MADD's campaign


Maximum number of lives MADD can claim to have saved


Net loss of life to MADD's campaign




Net economic loss at $1 million per life

$92.8 Billion

Cost to incarcerate 58,000 violators of dui laws, at $200,000 each

$11.6 Billion

Cost to administer the program

$18.0 Billion

Total cost (excluding loss of Constitutional rights)

$121.9 Billion

Total benefit--400  lives at $1 million each

$.4 Billion

Cost/benefit ratio


Cost per life saved

$30.5 Million


New Federally Sponsored Laws

Lives Allegedly Saved Each Year
Drinking & Driving Laws


Safety Belts Laws


Minimum Age Drinking Laws


Motorcycle Helmet Laws


Administrative License Revocation Laws


Open Container Laws


Repeat Intoxicated  Driver Laws


Bicycle Helmet Laws


Air Bags Laws


Child Passenger Safety Laws


Lives/year NHTSA Press Releases Claim Are Saved


Actual Lives Saved 1987 and 1997 (18.9 to 15.9 fatalities per 100k population)






In the same year that "liberals" "think" that mad idiots from MADD et. al. "saved" 1,100 lives, other causes of mortality in this country of 284 million people (and 264 million Christians) took far more lives and received far less media coverage:

bullet667 TIMES as many Americans died of Heart disease
bullet491 TIMES as many Americans died of Cancer
bullet145 TIMES as many died of Cerebrovascular disease
bullet96 TIMES as many died Pulmonary disease
bullet86 TIMES as many died in Accidents
bullet76  TIMES as many died of the Pneumonia and flu
bullet56 TIMES as many died of Diabetes
bullet28 TIMES as many died of HIV
bullet28 TIMES as many committed Suicide
bullet23 TIMES as many died of Cirrhosis
bullet19 TIMES as many were Homicide victims

Without even considering the fact that these laws themselves probably caused more than 1,100 people to commit suicide, or themselves cause the stress which caused an extra 30,000 heard disease deaths, you have not a shred of justification for permitting jewish judges and lawyers to ROB Christians of $20 billion per year for such a program  It costs at least $18.2 million per life allegedly saved, which ismoney that might have increased cancer research which currently amounts to only $200 per life lost to cancer.

On top of that, the reduction in alcohol consumption in the country that followed this campaign is estimated to have caused an extra 33,000 heart disease deaths each year, which is 30 TIMES as many lives lost as MADD claims that it "saved".