Comments on: It’s Just A Decimal Point: The Dirty Secret Behind Breathalyzers

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:03:29 +0000

Wow, Becky, I havent seen someone make that big a fool of herself in a long time. In Arizona, 1 in 3 officers are trained to do a blood draw on the street, the rest are done at the station. The only time a hospital is ever used is during instances of alcohol poisoning. Do you realize how crowded a hospital would be if every drunk pulled over were taken to one? Idiot!!

By: Phil Mckrackin

Phil Mckrackin — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:00:34 +0000

Before you take this idiotic rant as gospel read what else the NMA provides for us on this subject.

In the editorial entitled “9 Ways To Improve Traffic Safety That The Government Will Ignore Because They Are Too Busy Ticketing You” look at way #6:

6) Turning Lanes at Stop-Controlled Intersections
At intersections with significant turning volume, turning lanes for right and left turns on major road approaches can dramatically reduce crashes — in some cases, by as much as 55 percent.

Then look at # 3 in the editorial entitled “6 Dumb Traffic Laws That Should Be Repealed” by By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist:

3) No Left At Light
Cousin to the no-right-on-red rule, this is the one where you find yourself at an intersection wanting to make a left turn across an opposing lane of traffic onto a sidestreet. But instead of a “yield to oncoming traffic” green light – sensible policy – you’re stuck with a red light made just for you – on the assumption you’ve got inch-thick cataracts and the ability to judge the speed and distance of oncoming traffic of Mr. Magoo. You’re supposed to wait patiently for the green arrow — even when there’s no oncoming traffic at all and you could literally get out and push the car safely across the intersection. Like no right on red, it’s a well-intended law designed to protect the worst drivers out there from their own marginal skills and poor judgment — at the expense of everyone else.

Do they want the crash reduction of upto 55% or the ability to choose when to cross by themselves. Before eric Peters went off on his rant did he read the other editorial that would have told him that having the left turn lane and arrow would decrease his risk of crash by as much as 55% in some cases, apparently not. These are the things I get annoyed at on the website both are presented as fact but they contradict each other. Additionally the 1st editorial says that the turning lanes will improve traffic safety but the government refuses to initiate them because the government is corrupt and would rather ticket you instead of impliment this intersection feature. Apparently the author of that article has no clue what he is talking about based upon Eric peters rant because he is complaining that this feature is implimented way too often and is an annoyance to him. So is it safer and not implimented enough because the venues are greedy and want to ticket drivers or is it implimented way too often in an attempt by the government to dumb down the traffic control. This is the kind of crap the NMA provides for us. They obviously both can’t be correct so which one should we believe? If we can’t count on the NMA to verify that content is correct can we trust any of thier editorials to provide us with useful information?

By: Phil Mckrackin

Phil Mckrackin — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 02:12:58 +0000

Yes Ben In my state they issue what is called a conditional license which is primarily so that you don’t lose your emloyment and is restricted so that you can drive to and from work/school and to accomplish necessary functions of your life. Get caught outside those restrictions and you risk getting you permanent driver’s license back for a long time. It is my understanding that other states have similar provisions

By: Ben Cantrall

Ben Cantrall — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:25:33 +0000

I was recently convicted on a DUII charge in the state of Oregon. They took my drivers licsense for 1 year, resulting in the loss of my employment. I was told that there are a few states in the country that are considered “right to drive” states that will issue a drivers licsense even after conviction. is this true? and if it is, what states are they?

By: Phil Mckrackin

Phil Mckrackin — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:45:06 +0000

the 2007 NHTSA safety facts overview. Most current I have, I am not sure if the 2008 figures are available yet or when they will be.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:21:42 +0000

Phil,
What is the source of your numbers on alcohol impaired fatalities?

By: Phil Mckrackin

Phil Mckrackin — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:40:18 +0000

Bryan,
The advice I would give you is to not believe much of what you are told here. Instead gather information and then check the facts that are reported to you by NMA members. I am not a member, but I would expect that you check anything I write to you also.
Lets examine what Mr Young has tried to lead you to believe. That NHTSA has an overly broad definition of “speed-related” crashes and therefore the data that they report must be skewed to over represent crashes that are “speed-related”.
“NHTSA considers a crash to be speeding-related if the driver was charged with a speeding-related offense or if an officer indicated that racing, driving too fast for conditions, or exceeding the posted speed limit was a contributing factor in the crash.” Quoted directly from the 2007 NHTSA safety facts overview.(note they call it “speeding-related” not “speed-related”)
As you can see there is already a difference in what Mr Young told you to be fact and what is fact. Mr Young uses the term “speed-related” so that he can decieve you into believing that anything related to speed such as speed too slow for conditions would be lumped into this category, while NHTSA is quite clear when they say “speeding-related”. Mr You would even have you believe that an unsafe lane change would fall under NHTSA definition of “speed-related” Read the definition again does it?

“In 2007, speeding(as per NHTSA’s definition) was a contributing factor in 31 percent of all fatal crashes, and 13,040 lives were lost in speeding-related crashes.”

“In 2007, 39 percent of the 15-to 20-year-old male drivers who were involved in fatal crashes were speeding at the time of the crash.”

“In 2007, there were 12,998 alcohol-impaired-driving fatalities. This is a decrease of 4 percent compared to 2006 (13,491 fatalities), and it represents an average of one alcohol-related fatality every 40 minutes.”
“The 12,998 alcohol-impaired-driving fatalities in 2007 (32% of total traffic fatalities for the year) represent a 2-percent increase from the 12,757 alcohol-impaired-driving fatalities reported in 1997 (30% of the total)”

With regards to your post. According to the data that NHTSA is reporting 31% of all fatal crashes are speeding-related(refer to thier definition). Also according to NHTSA 32% of all fatal crashes involved alcohol-impaired-driving. Speeding related fatalities is second only to DUI fatalities. If you had specifically asked only about the alcohol-impaired-driving fatalities Mr Young would have told you that NHTSA over defines that category to over represent how many people actually die as a result of DUIs also.
I don’t want you to believe me I want you to check the facts google NHTSA 2007 traffic safety facts and read for yourself.Then ask yourself why Mr Young would decieve you in such a manner. Mr Young is a member of the NMA and you’d also have to consider that if he will decieve you so too will the NMA just read some of thier articles and check the reported facts in each and make that determination yourself but by all means don’t be a sheep and just believe what they tell you.

By: James Young

James Young — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 04:30:27 +0000

{My girlfriend did a report in college and tells me speeding is involved in more accidents and death than DWI’s. What kind of scum is involved in acting like their trying to protect people if this is true.}

That’s not even close to true. Even using the bizarre definitions used by NHTSA, where “speed-related” includes any involved driver over a posted limit, too slow for conditions, too fast for conditions and unsafe lane changes, speed as a cause of crashes is about 5%-7%.

{Can we get somebody on this, surly the Department Transportation would get this right, wouldn’t they?}

No. Their goal is not always public safety.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 04:17:36 +0000

My girlfriend did a report in college and tells me speeding is involved in more accidents and death than DWI’s. What kind of scum is involved in acting like their trying to protect people if this is true. After speeding or before, ? was, inattention. Then, maybe even, something else before DWI’s. Can we get somebody on this, surly the Department Transportation would get this right, wouldn’t they? If the economy goes bust will DWI’s stay as huge?

By: Phil Mckrackin

Phil Mckrackin — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:44:39 +0000

Jim Collins would have you believe that simply walking around absorbing minute amounts of chemicals in the air would cause everyone to test positive for alcohol in thier system. Not only does he believe that you’d be positive but that you could be labeled intoxicated by the results. This is simply untrue and I believe his anecdotal evidence to be fabricated along the lines of what he believes to be true. I have several rebuttals to his theory:
1) Most mechanics wear latex or other protective gloves while working with any of these chemicals to avoid absorbing them through thier skin and masks to prevent from inhaling the vapors. Actaully most hobby mecahnics also do the very same thing which causes me to question how you could have absorbed enough, while working around a gas tank to create a high positive reaction with the Breathalyzer, If you were wearing protective gear. If the answer is you weren’t wearing protective gear I question your ability to make good decisions.
2) If there is enough ethanol based chemical absorbed through the skin, by failure to wear protective gear, to cause a B.A.C. reading high enough for you to be considered intoxicated aren’t you intoxicated even though you had no intent on being intoxicated?