Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

In article >,
Bernd Felsche > wrote:
>"C.H." > writes:
>
>>Apparently some people need a flamewar to prove themselves. I just
>>read the last 10 messages and there is nothing but insults, flames
>>and attempts to prove you guys are better than I.
>
>And there was me thinking you don't read what you post.
>Apologies.
>
>>I don't see any point in continuing.
>
>You want to stop digging just because your spade's melting in the
>magma?

If he keeps digging from where he is, he's going to be posting from
your neck of the woods soon enough.

C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:22:06 +0800, Bernd Felsche wrote:
>
> > "C.H." > writes:
> >>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:06:21 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
> >>> C.H. wrote:
> >
> >>>>
http://www.dvr.de/download/aaba3fa8-...c374c02148.pdf
> >
> >>Then deliver the primary reference. Secondary references by sources
> >>on the web are about as accurate as tarot.
> >
> > Why are you so anxious to discredit your own references?
>
> I didn't discredit anything.
>
> > DVR lists the references that it uses.
>
> As does any scientific study. The web sites gcsmchemist suggested to
> support his swedish 'study' on the other hand didn't list any
references,
> but just claim to have read it somewhere.

I thought you didn't like "gossipping?"

What a hypocrite.

Here's a reference for you (not the original, but a more general one):
http://books.nap.edu/books/030904885...4.html#pagetop

E.P.

C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:22:06 +0800, Bernd Felsche wrote:
>
> > "C.H." > writes:
> >>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:06:21 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
> >>> C.H. wrote:
> >
> >>>>
http://www.dvr.de/download/aaba3fa8-...c374c02148.pdf
> >
> >>Then deliver the primary reference. Secondary references by sources
> >>on the web are about as accurate as tarot.
> >
> > Why are you so anxious to discredit your own references?
>
> I didn't discredit anything.
>
> > DVR lists the references that it uses.
>
> As does any scientific study. The web sites gcsmchemist suggested to
> support his swedish 'study' on the other hand didn't list any
references,
> but just claim to have read it somewhere.

I thought you didn't like "gossipping?"

What a hypocrite.

Here's a reference for you (not the original, but a more general one):
http://books.nap.edu/books/030904885...4.html#pagetop

E.P.

Olaf Gustafson wrote:
> I suppose you think it was a good thing that the guy who told his
> doctor he drank a 6-pack a day lost his license.

I hope he sues and wins. Two wrongs happened in that case:

1) The law giving doctors immunity for reporting to DMV medical conditions
that make it dangerous to drive (such as epilepsy) was cited in the news
story, but that law can't validly apply because the fact that a person
drinks X number of beers/day is not a medical condition. If the doctor had
diagnosed the man as an alcoholic he could rightfully report that, but no
such diagnosis was made. This is grounds for a lawsuit for violating
medical privacy, with damages in eight or nine figures.

2) The law allowing the DMV to "exercise judgment" in such cases is wrong
and opens the door to denying people the right to drive for political
reasons, which must not be allowed. The decision to deny should be made
by a doctor; under rigid fixed standards; and be subject to challenge if
those standards haven't been met. This is a problem with the law.

Olaf Gustafson wrote:
> I suppose you think it was a good thing that the guy who told his
> doctor he drank a 6-pack a day lost his license.

I hope he sues and wins. Two wrongs happened in that case:

1) The law giving doctors immunity for reporting to DMV medical conditions
that make it dangerous to drive (such as epilepsy) was cited in the news
story, but that law can't validly apply because the fact that a person
drinks X number of beers/day is not a medical condition. If the doctor had
diagnosed the man as an alcoholic he could rightfully report that, but no
such diagnosis was made. This is grounds for a lawsuit for violating
medical privacy, with damages in eight or nine figures.

2) The law allowing the DMV to "exercise judgment" in such cases is wrong
and opens the door to denying people the right to drive for political
reasons, which must not be allowed. The decision to deny should be made
by a doctor; under rigid fixed standards; and be subject to challenge if
those standards haven't been met. This is a problem with the law.

Scott M. Kozel wrote:


> Uh-huh. Your barrages of postarrhea, which you have been spraying all
> over this newsgroup, speaks for itself.
>
> Are you sure you're not drunk right now?

Beware of the toxins

Scott M. Kozel wrote:


> Uh-huh. Your barrages of postarrhea, which you have been spraying all
> over this newsgroup, speaks for itself.
>
> Are you sure you're not drunk right now?

Beware of the toxins

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>
> All the car loons think speed limits should be treated as "suggestions"
> and the driver free to do whatever speed he thinks he can handle.
> Should we take the same attitude wrt drunk-driving?

No. The NHTSA has demonstrated that there is a statistical correlation
between BAC and the probability of being involved in an accident whereas
they have demonstrated that the correlation* between speed and accidents
occurring is very weak.

*Note: This correlation is for the probability of an accident occurring,
not its severity. This is the source of quite a bit of controversy
involved with minimizing the overall costs of motor vehicle accidents to
society. Those that have a vested interest in keeping certain classes of
drivers on the road (old people, drunks, generally incompetent drivers,
etc.) in order to maximize the market for auto related products seek to
minimize the cost per occurrence. On the other hand, there is a group
that seeks to maximize the efficiency and utility of the road system by
minimizing these occurrences (by removing the bad drivers as a first
step) rather than assuming that accidents are inevitable.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
professor; n, One who talks in someone else's sleep.

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>
> All the car loons think speed limits should be treated as "suggestions"
> and the driver free to do whatever speed he thinks he can handle.
> Should we take the same attitude wrt drunk-driving?

No. The NHTSA has demonstrated that there is a statistical correlation
between BAC and the probability of being involved in an accident whereas
they have demonstrated that the correlation* between speed and accidents
occurring is very weak.

*Note: This correlation is for the probability of an accident occurring,
not its severity. This is the source of quite a bit of controversy
involved with minimizing the overall costs of motor vehicle accidents to
society. Those that have a vested interest in keeping certain classes of
drivers on the road (old people, drunks, generally incompetent drivers,
etc.) in order to maximize the market for auto related products seek to
minimize the cost per occurrence. On the other hand, there is a group
that seeks to maximize the efficiency and utility of the road system by
minimizing these occurrences (by removing the bad drivers as a first
step) rather than assuming that accidents are inevitable.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
professor; n, One who talks in someone else's sleep.

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Mike Z. Helm > wrote:
>>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:18:23 -0800, "C.H." >
>>
>>>
>>>> But it IS okay to drink a few.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately yes - and a lot of people die because of this.
>>
>>Maybe they should do some cocaine to keep them alert when they hit the
>>road after a few drinks.
>
> Probably would work, but caffeine is more readily available. To most
> people, anyway :-).
>
>
It depends on the bar you go to.