Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

"C.H." > wrote in message
...

> I have seen too many people die on
> the road under the influence of alcohol, a lot of them thinking they were
> sober enough to drive (in fact most of them). If you can't tell this from
> 'prohibition' it's your problem.

Who are you, Calamity Jane? I've never seen anyone die on the road under
the influence of alcohol.

John Mara

"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?

DVR lists the references that it uses. They do little to no core
research themselves but instead review and reference primary
research as well as other secondary references.

>The law needs to be consistent, not dependent on the whim of some
>cop or judge.

The law doesn't define impairment. It only defines "arbitrary"
numbers to quantify intoxication.

>What would you base your impairment rules on? BAC is bad enough because
>people have no way of checking whether they are below the limit and the
>BAC may even climb after getting in the car as more alcohol is drawn from
>your stomach, so with drinking you can never be quite sure whether you are
>still legal or not.

If the legal BAC limit is too low, then you would be correct.

You may be in the habit of out-drinking your sensibility. Probably
not a difficult task.

Others are not necessarily afflicted by the same.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"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?

DVR lists the references that it uses. They do little to no core
research themselves but instead review and reference primary
research as well as other secondary references.

>The law needs to be consistent, not dependent on the whim of some
>cop or judge.

The law doesn't define impairment. It only defines "arbitrary"
numbers to quantify intoxication.

>What would you base your impairment rules on? BAC is bad enough because
>people have no way of checking whether they are below the limit and the
>BAC may even climb after getting in the car as more alcohol is drawn from
>your stomach, so with drinking you can never be quite sure whether you are
>still legal or not.

If the legal BAC limit is too low, then you would be correct.

You may be in the habit of out-drinking your sensibility. Probably
not a difficult task.

Others are not necessarily afflicted by the same.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"C.H." > wrote:
>
> Olaf Gustafson wrote:
> > "C.H." > wrote:
> >
> >>> You think you can diagnose alcoholism that easily?
> >>
> >>No, you can't, because even people who may be able to refrain from
> >>drinking in certain situations can be alcoholics.
> >
> > Are you sure you're not drunk right now?
>
> Yes. However, I am by no means sure that you are not drunk.

Chris, are you sure that you are not arguing with a bunch of drunks? :-]

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

"C.H." > wrote:
>
> Olaf Gustafson wrote:
> > "C.H." > wrote:
> >
> >>> You think you can diagnose alcoholism that easily?
> >>
> >>No, you can't, because even people who may be able to refrain from
> >>drinking in certain situations can be alcoholics.
> >
> > Are you sure you're not drunk right now?
>
> Yes. However, I am by no means sure that you are not drunk.

Chris, are you sure that you are not arguing with a bunch of drunks? :-]

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

"C.H." > writes:

>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:38:58 +0800, Bernd Felsche wrote:

>> John David Galt > writes:
>>
>>>Sounds like another statistic that lumps together those slightly over
>>>the limit with those way over, and is therefore worthless. (But not
>>>as bad as the US-NHTSA practice of labeling a wreck alcohol-related if
>>>any participant -- even a passenger or pedestrian -- has had a drink.
>>>That's truly dishonest, and the MADD types eat it right up.)

>> Chris's comment is misleading, to say the least.
>>
>> The document he cited states a doubled risk of crashing (not
>> necessarily *fatal*) for over 0.05, a quadrupled risk over 0.08 and
>> a ten-fold risk over 0.11. (Table Page 141)

>These are the official numbers. Most scientists assert, though,

"Most scientists assert". Care to _cite_?

>that there is a very high number of alcohol influenced accidents,
>where the driver doesn't appear to be drunk and thus is not tested,
>especially during the day.

You're turning the argument upside-down. You're saying that because
a proportion of crashes have alcohol as a factor, then it follow
that there's an equal likelihood of somebody "under the unfluence"
will be involved in a _fatal_ crash.

There is nothing in the real world that shows that.

You've not only extrapolated crashes to mean fatal crashes, you're
using rotten apples as to be the same as the number of all apples.

That is either deliberately deceptive or simply acting from
ignorance.

>> The document he cites also shows some of the social effects of
>> unreasonaly low allowable BAC; with Sweden and Poland's allowed
>> 0.02 (page 156); reflected in above-average rates of alcoholism.

>Where on page 156 does it say that the low allowed BAC in
>Scandinavia and Poland lead to alcoholism?

Try looking elsewhere on the WWW. The table on that page shows on
BAC limits. The publication rightly only looks at the direct road
safety perspective.

It is up to the intelligent reader to look at the consequences in a
whole world.

>The reverse is true, Sweden, Finland and also Poland have a long history
>of alcoholism dating back to times long before cars were invented. The

Is that so? Would yopu like to cite something other than your
opinion?

>reasons quoted are mostly the lack of daylight during winter and the
>depression this causes as well as hopelessness, specifically in Poland,
>where for decades the communist government managed to take away any fun in
>life and any type of personal safety, except for alcohol (which the
>leaders liked because a drunk person is much less likely to revolt).

>The reason why Sweden, Poland and Finland have very low BAC limits is
>because of the widespread alcoholism.

Finland has BAC same as Germany. Check the table. It was right in
front of you. Finnland is in the middle of the page. Norway is in
the same grouping.

Lowering allowable BAC below 0.08 isn't going to do anything
beneficial about alcoholism.

>> This may well be due to binge-drinking (IMHO). People drink to
>> deep intoxication on occasions when they don't have to drive.

>People binge drink in Scandinavia because the sale of alcohol is
>only legal on certain days ('Spiritustage'). In Poland binge

That's plainly ludicrous. Plenty of people binge-drink, even on
other days.

Do you have a reference for 'Spiritustage'? Google has ZERO.

AFAICT, Sweden restricts the retail sale of alcohol on Saturdays and
Sundays... but not over the bar except through opening times.

>drinking is not that common, but heavy drinking around the year is.

The same used to be true for the USSR and Eastern Europe.

Norway, Sweden and Finland (AFAIK) have government-controlled liquor
marketing. The government actually sells the stuff.

One paper (*)says that:
The aim was to reduce the harm from alcohol not by totally
cutting off the legal supply, but rather by offering a
limited legal supply in controlled circumstances which would
minimize the harm. Temperance organizations were often
deeply opposed to monopoly proposals, which were seen as a
technocratic and tepid response to more thoroughgoing
proposals for prohibition. Prohibitionists were well aware
how dependent governments could become on alcohol revenues,
and detested the respectability potentially conferred on the
trade by the state's involvement.

(*) Contemporary Drug Problems 20:169-187, 1993. Also published in The
Journal (Toronto) 21(6):13-15, 1992, and in French in Quebec, 1994.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"C.H." > writes:

>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:38:58 +0800, Bernd Felsche wrote:

>> John David Galt > writes:
>>
>>>Sounds like another statistic that lumps together those slightly over
>>>the limit with those way over, and is therefore worthless. (But not
>>>as bad as the US-NHTSA practice of labeling a wreck alcohol-related if
>>>any participant -- even a passenger or pedestrian -- has had a drink.
>>>That's truly dishonest, and the MADD types eat it right up.)

>> Chris's comment is misleading, to say the least.
>>
>> The document he cited states a doubled risk of crashing (not
>> necessarily *fatal*) for over 0.05, a quadrupled risk over 0.08 and
>> a ten-fold risk over 0.11. (Table Page 141)

>These are the official numbers. Most scientists assert, though,

"Most scientists assert". Care to _cite_?

>that there is a very high number of alcohol influenced accidents,
>where the driver doesn't appear to be drunk and thus is not tested,
>especially during the day.

You're turning the argument upside-down. You're saying that because
a proportion of crashes have alcohol as a factor, then it follow
that there's an equal likelihood of somebody "under the unfluence"
will be involved in a _fatal_ crash.

There is nothing in the real world that shows that.

You've not only extrapolated crashes to mean fatal crashes, you're
using rotten apples as to be the same as the number of all apples.

That is either deliberately deceptive or simply acting from
ignorance.

>> The document he cites also shows some of the social effects of
>> unreasonaly low allowable BAC; with Sweden and Poland's allowed
>> 0.02 (page 156); reflected in above-average rates of alcoholism.

>Where on page 156 does it say that the low allowed BAC in
>Scandinavia and Poland lead to alcoholism?

Try looking elsewhere on the WWW. The table on that page shows on
BAC limits. The publication rightly only looks at the direct road
safety perspective.

It is up to the intelligent reader to look at the consequences in a
whole world.

>The reverse is true, Sweden, Finland and also Poland have a long history
>of alcoholism dating back to times long before cars were invented. The

Is that so? Would yopu like to cite something other than your
opinion?

>reasons quoted are mostly the lack of daylight during winter and the
>depression this causes as well as hopelessness, specifically in Poland,
>where for decades the communist government managed to take away any fun in
>life and any type of personal safety, except for alcohol (which the
>leaders liked because a drunk person is much less likely to revolt).

>The reason why Sweden, Poland and Finland have very low BAC limits is
>because of the widespread alcoholism.

Finland has BAC same as Germany. Check the table. It was right in
front of you. Finnland is in the middle of the page. Norway is in
the same grouping.

Lowering allowable BAC below 0.08 isn't going to do anything
beneficial about alcoholism.

>> This may well be due to binge-drinking (IMHO). People drink to
>> deep intoxication on occasions when they don't have to drive.

>People binge drink in Scandinavia because the sale of alcohol is
>only legal on certain days ('Spiritustage'). In Poland binge

That's plainly ludicrous. Plenty of people binge-drink, even on
other days.

Do you have a reference for 'Spiritustage'? Google has ZERO.

AFAICT, Sweden restricts the retail sale of alcohol on Saturdays and
Sundays... but not over the bar except through opening times.

>drinking is not that common, but heavy drinking around the year is.

The same used to be true for the USSR and Eastern Europe.

Norway, Sweden and Finland (AFAIK) have government-controlled liquor
marketing. The government actually sells the stuff.

One paper (*)says that:
The aim was to reduce the harm from alcohol not by totally
cutting off the legal supply, but rather by offering a
limited legal supply in controlled circumstances which would
minimize the harm. Temperance organizations were often
deeply opposed to monopoly proposals, which were seen as a
technocratic and tepid response to more thoroughgoing
proposals for prohibition. Prohibitionists were well aware
how dependent governments could become on alcohol revenues,
and detested the respectability potentially conferred on the
trade by the state's involvement.

(*) Contemporary Drug Problems 20:169-187, 1993. Also published in The
Journal (Toronto) 21(6):13-15, 1992, and in French in Quebec, 1994.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"C.H." > writes:

>I have a problem with bull****ters and liars like you.

You simply appear to have a problem with _everybody_.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"C.H." > writes:

>I have a problem with bull****ters and liars like you.

You simply appear to have a problem with _everybody_.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:19:34 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
>

>"C.H." > wrote:
>>
>> Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>> > "C.H." > wrote:
>> >
>> >>> You think you can diagnose alcoholism that easily?
>> >>
>> >>No, you can't, because even people who may be able to refrain from
>> >>drinking in certain situations can be alcoholics.
>> >
>> > Are you sure you're not drunk right now?
>>
>> Yes. However, I am by no means sure that you are not drunk.
>
>Chris, are you sure that you are not arguing with a bunch of drunks? :-]

Well, you know what they say about arguing on usenet