click on LOGO to return to HOME page
"The whole aim of practical
politics is to keep the populace alarmed
-- and hence clamorous to be led to safety --
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."-- H.L. Mencken
A driver with a Blood alcohol level (BAC) above zero-zero. (The states legal BAC levels are .08 or .10. Any reading above .00 becomes a drunk driving statistic.) OR
A sober driver who hits
a pedestrian becomes a drunk driver if the pedestrian
was drinking. OR
A sober designated driver becomes a drunk driver, since his passengers have been drinking. OR
A driver or passenger using illegal drugs and possibly prescription drugs, cough syrup or breath fresheners becomes a drunk driver. OR
A driver profiled using the New Methodology*, which includes up to 60% of the drivers who were not tested for alcohol. Many of these also become drunk drivers.
Who is at fault? A drinking driver who is crashed into by a sober driver
becomes the at-fault drunk driver. The NHTSA
bias is this: In all accidents where alcohol is present or
assumed to be present, the alcohol caused the accident. Never
the other driver. Never suicide. Never speeding. Never fog, ice or other weather
*New Methodology, formerly called Multiple Imputation Method. In the 60% of the accident reports where alcohol involvement is unknown, they make an assumption. They assume that alcohol was involved if the driver fits a certain profile. Similar to racial profiling. They also admit that the New Methodology results in figures 1 or 2% higher than the "Old Methodology." They don't use this fill-in-the-blanks method for statistics on speeding or any other deaths--only for alcohol.
Common sense dictates that some of the profiled drivers were drunk, just as some Blacks stopped by the N.J. police were guilty of some crime. But how many? It is very easy for a cop to put a check in the little box labeled "alcohol" on the accident form. Why do an average of 60%* of the accident reports not list alcohol as a possible factor? Possibly because it wasn't! Racial profiling is illegal, but it's OK for the NHTSA to profile drivers--accusing them of DUI and vehicular homicide.
*(The percentage of missing information varies from 25-73%, depending on the individual State, according to the NHTSA).
"Despite the tireless efforts of thousands of advocates, impaired drivers continue to kill someone every 30 minutes, nearly 50 people a day, and almost 18,000 citizens a year. NHTSA and its partners are working together to put a stop to these deadly statistics."---NHTSA website, July, 2003.
NHTSA definition: "Impaired driving can be defined as a reduction in the performance of critical driving tasks due to the effects of alcohol or other drugs. It is a serious crime that kills every 30 minutes."---NHTSA website.
revved up speed limits nearly three years ago, critics predicted highway carnage as
drivers sped past the new 65 mph signs -- and into trouble.
Just in case you have forgotten, here are TWO other NHTSA campaigns proven to be lies:
In 1977, the Transportation Department announced that air bags "protect automobile occupants from collision injuries automatically, without the need to fasten belts or take any other action."
...in 1983, the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Joan Claybrook said, "Because air bags are hidden away in dashboards, they work automatically when a crash occurs. ... They fit all different sizes of people from little children up to 95 percent of males, very large males. And I think that that gives more freedom and liberty than being forced to wear a seatbelt. ..."---From an article by Walter Williams, 2001, WorldNetDaily Commentary
In 1996, the same Claybrook said, "The bags are designed to stop a 160 pound man going 30 miles an hour. . . The auto makers have known since 1978 that the explosive force needed to stop a man can snap the neck or injure the brain of a child."
In 1995 the Republican Congress repealed the 55-mile-per-hour federal speed limit law. At the time, the highway safety lobby [including the NHTSA] and consumer advocacy groups made apocalyptic predictions about 6,400 increased deaths and a million additional injuries if posted speed limits were raised. Ralph Nader even said that "history will never forgive Congress for this assault on the sanctity of human life."
But almost all measures of highway safety show improvement, not more deaths and injuries since 1995. Despite the fact that 33 states raised their speed limits immediately after the repeal of the mandatory federal speed limit, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported last October that "the traffic death rate dropped to a record low level in 1997." Moreover, the average fatality rate even fell in the states that raised their speed limits.---Stephen Moore, Cato Institute.
CLICK HERE for the complete article. <> If you have more time, CLICK HERE for the entire report
It didn't happen. Fewer people died in California auto wrecks last year than in any year in the past four decades, despite a doubled state population and triple the number of vehicles on the road.
A total of 3,671 people died, far below the peak of 5,503 in 1979 and 5,500 as recently as 1987. This year, the death toll is running nearly 300 lower than the same period last year, California Highway Patrol Commissioner D.O. Helmick said.
``I for one am not going to tell you that raising speed limits in California has created a major problem,'' he said. ``We have never seen this kind of reduction in my 30 years on the highway patrol.''
The reduction is part of a
nationwide phenomenon. As Congress debated ending the national 55 mph limit on most
freeways in 1995, the Center for Auto Safety predicted an extra 6,400 people a year
nationwide would die in addition to the 41,000 killed in 1994. Instead, the federal
government reported last week that the death rate on the nation's roads fell to a record
low in 1997. And California's death rate is even lower."---San Francisco Chronicle
CLICK HERE to see Fatalities Comparison Chart
"Government seems to operate on the principle that if even one individual is incapable of using his freedom competently, no one can be allowed to be free."--Harry Browne