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

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?

By: Phil Mckrackin

Phil Mckrackin — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:25:11 +0000

To all those who read these blogs. I am YOUR advocate and I am only correcting the misinformation that is being given to you by the NMA and James Baxter. Read his article up there and then google Dr Simpson and read some of the transcripts or summaries of testimony that come up. Pay special attention to the following issues:
1) The 2.3% vs 23% that James Baxter has asserted was Dr Dubowski lying on the stand. What those two numbers represent are two entirely different things that any reasonably educated person can discern simply by reading the testimony.
2) Dr Simpson’s field of expertises is something other than Blood Alcohol Content or breath testing as it relates to Blood Alcohol Content. Note that Dr Simpson although, a physical chemist was retired when he became interested in B.A.C. and Breath testing for B.A.C.
3) Dr Simpson Regarded Dr Dubowski as a leader in the field of Breath testing. Dr Simpson did write articles on this subject but performed NO ORIGINAL EXPERIMENTS in this field but rather relied on other researchers data for his analysis. One of those researchers just happen to be Dr Dubowski.
4) Take note of the breathalyzer actually has a tendency to underestimate B.A.C. some 11%
5) Take note that in the case cited by Mr Baxter there is testimony about the alternatives to testing the Breath to determine B.A.C. They discuss drawing blood because they point out how logistically it could not be done in the field. If Mr Baxter read this testimony, as he would have you believe, He wouldn’t say anything like “This has lead authorities to resort to more invasive measures, including letting officers perform blood draws with very little training.”
6) To address the issue of Mr Baxter’s assertion that “The court largely disregarded his testimony(Dr Simpson) in favor of the assured endorsement of breath analysis offered by Dr. Dubowski.” Dr Dubowski’s testimony was corroborated by the testimony of both defense and prosecution witnesses. Dr Simpson himself testified that Dr Dubowski was a leading authority in this field.
7) Also take note that there is a difference between the forensic science community which has different standards of scientific rigor than “mainstream” scientists.
8) Simpson in his testimony estimated that about 90% of the
total uncertainty of testing B.A.C. through the use of breath came from biological factors associated with the blood-breath ratio not the instrument. Wjile Mr Baxter would lead you to believe that it is the instrument that is faulty that creates variations in tests.

Now all those reading this far should ask themselves some important questions:
1) Do you want to be a follower and simply believe what Mr Baxter is telling you without checking any facts? It didn’t take me long at all to verify that Mr Baxter was mis-informing his readers.
2) Why is Mr Baxter referencing a case from the early 1990s when there are more recent cases that deals with this very same issue? As recent as the decision date of January 2007? I’ll tell you why he wouldn’t use a case that new. Because by using the 1990 case it makes it look as if the science is old and that the Courts only decided in favor of the Breath testing because they are corrupt.
3) How do you feel being lied to by Mr Baxter and being used as a pawn like Surftrunks in Mr Baxter’s personal agenda?

I don’t expect you to believe me and all I really want is for you to check the facts that Mr Baxter is using as evidence this method of testing intoxication is “horrendously flawed”. Then ask yourself after you see that Mr Baxter has lied to you if you can trust anything he writes on any subject here, if you can trust the NMA to be what they claim to be or are you just pawns in thier grand scheme to accomplish an angenda?

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:14:29 +0000

Hell, given the amount of these type chemicals in use in the average garage, the girl who answers the phone would blow a false positive on a cool day with limited ventilation.