randya

sorry, but you don't need a driver's license to die in a car or from a car crash.

randya

what about veggie warrants?

myrridin

Statistics are a numerical analysis of data to derive information... VMT adjustment is a good means to allow for an apples to apples comparison of death rates. It seems that your problem with the analysis is simply that it doesn't support your desired conclusion.

I suspect you mean that fewer miles driven would result in fewer traffic related deaths. And all other factors being kept the same that would be true. However, that is not something the folks who wrote the referenced report considered as a solution. Which was ignored for a very good reason.

The single most relevant recommendation from the report and the easiest means to significantly reduce the number of deaths from traffic accidents in the US, would be to strictly enforce the current traffic laws. We don't need more laws. We don't need more bureaucracies. Just enforce what is currently on the books and hold people accountable for their actions.

myrridin

No, but number of licenses is a direct relationship to the number of cars on the road. Someone needs to be driving at least one vehicle for car accident to occur. That is why the licensed population would make another good adjustment factor to compare apples to apples. It is essentially the same as saying the number of vehicles on the road--in other words it defines the total population of the data set.

myrridin

Did a search and can't find the term. What is a veggie warrant?

myrridin

By your own admission if you refuse you lose your license. I believe I already mentioned that as a consequence of refusal. I also mentioned that you can then go to court and petition to have your license reinstated--something that appears to be very successful in at least reducing the length of time your revocation lasts.

DUI is a criminal charge. The simple fact is that you can (and should) refuse consent when asked to submit to such tests when you are under the influence. It is your best bet at avoiding consequences. One of the consequences of living with a system that places individual rights above the wants of society. While unfortunate, it is better than the alternative.

randya

what is a meat warrant?

genec

It's for people, ("meat sacks") vice property... GRIN

myrridin

Ah I understand, your simply being snarky because I mistyped meat instead of meet.

randya

SCROUDS

I am all ears. What's the very good reason they ignored a possible solution to their traffic death dilema?

myrridin

Well its only supposition but here are a few possible reasons.

1. Their agenda was a desire to create a new agency for some bureaucrat to build a petty kingdom. (Based upon their recommendation for just that)
2. Significant negative economic impact of any major change in our car based economy.
3. The likely outcome for any elected official (or the bureaucrats they appoint) if they push programs that will force people to use something other than their car.


And of course there is the simple fact that the single easiest option would be to enforce the current traffic laws for all infractions and hold people accountable for their actions.

crhilton

Sure, but a court issued warrant guarantees a clean blow through the breathalyser, especially at 2AM; or 2PM the next day when they can get the warrant.

crhilton

This is probably someone's point. One way to reduce traffic deaths is to reduce the vehicles which tend to kill people. Sure, you aren't making roads any safer for cars, but you're still reducing death. And if you're doing that without reducing people's ability to go where they like/need then I think you've achieved your goal.

Assuming that the only solution is to make roads safer for cars is in error in my opinion. It's a fine thing to try and do (make things safer for cars), but focusing solely on that seems a bit odd given that the drivers of the vast majority of the death is those cars. And there are other transportation solutions.


Seeing as how you're a traffic engineer, this is what we call "thinking outside of the box"

myrridin

Yep, that is why most politicians and lawyers refuse the test. By the time the warrant arrives they stand a much better chance of avoiding the charge... It is the price we pay for a free society.

myrridin

It may be what some on this thread would like to see; however, it is a policy issue and ultimately the decision of the voters. It is not something bureaucrats (or the engineers that work for them) can (or should) attempt to force on the populace. As an industry we have been trying to get Americans to use Public Transit systems for decades. By and large people seem to prefer private motorized transport. Sit through one public involvement meeting discussing the tolling of a new road to ease congestion and you might understand why I sincerely doubt any politician is going to survive any attempt to wean these folks from their cars...

It is why I keep mentioning that the best means of reducing traffic related deaths is simply to enforce existing traffic laws and then hold people accountable for their infractions.

mikeybikes

We 'Merikans love our cars.

dougmc

Sounds good, but the police have sped the process up. At least in Texas, when they have their "no refusal weekends" they have a judge on call and give him the details and he gives the warrant over the phone. Only takes a few minutes.

myrridin is correct -- if you're actually drunk, it's generally in your best interests to refuse the test. They may get a warrant and take your blood -- but they may not, and even if they do, it gives you a little time for your liver to work. If you're found guilty, you lose your license anyways -- but you also get fines, jail time and all sorts of other trouble.

Without a breathalyzer or blood test, all a jury has to work on is the belief of a cop that you were drunk and any slurring or stumbling you do on any dashboard camera he has. I was on the jury for such a case -- we acquitted the guy because while the cop said he seemed drunk (and had just had an accident), all we had was his belief. The guy interacted with the cop as little as possible on the video and we couldn't really hear any slurring. Ultimately, we thought he was drunk, but not "beyond a reasonable doubt". It was pretty close, however -- any additional evidence, or even a better job by the prosecutor could have convinced us, I think.

I should also mention that the guy had two previous DWI convictions (and who knows how many arrests) -- but we were not allowed to use that information in our determination of guilt (not that they would know, but we did try to follow the rules). The only reason we were even told about it was that it was what made it from a class B misdemeanor into a felony.

closetbiker

On occasion, I've used comparisons of exposure to risk by time or distance and often have been met with protests that such figures are unreliable because it's next to impossible to accurately gauge either exposure time or distance for cyclists.

DX-MAN

Just a little nitpick, but...

What can you get ANYwhere except radials? Haven't seen a bias-ply tire since before my time in the service, twenty-plus years ago.
Disc brakes started appearing on most cars in '70-71; my old '71 Monte Carlo had 'em, as did every '70-or-later vehicle I owned subsequent to that.
Daytime running lights are a joke; the touted benefit comes from their status as a rarity. Make them ubiquitous, and the benefit will evaporate.

myrridin

Determining exposure time or distance for cyclists is not impossible. It simply isn't data that is normally collected. Unfortunately, virtually no data is collected on the bicycle mode of transport. In my case I have GPS tracks for all of my recent rides, and I suspect a fair number of cyclists also have such data. Collection of either GPS or cyclocomputer data would easily allow for the collection of useful sample data.

Vehicle miles traveled is a routine measure is a standard and reliable value used in the industry. In addition to standard direct measurement methods and sampling it can be estimated from external factors such as fuel consumption data.

The accuracy from these methods are in the same range as population estimates on non-census years.

genec

But where this whole subdiscussion fails is that it is based on the thinking that our laws are not as draconian as the laws in Europe... and yet here we have a examples of the hoops one has to jump through to avoid alcohol screening, and the fact that attempting to avoid such screening can have your license pulled.

The bottom line is that laws with regard to alcohol stops are not to be trifled with.

Folks, don't drive drunk. Now let's move away from subtopic. If anything, "proving" that our alcohol laws are less restrictive merely "proves" that indeed the US Lags Way Behind Other Nations in Safety.

closetbiker

I believe FARS supplies information on cycle fatalities per exposure hours.

Wouldn't you say FARS is a responsible and reliable agency of transportation information? Could you say their figures are reliable?

myrridin

I have never had reason to look at FARS data for bicycle fatalities. I wasn't refering to accident data but to general transportation data. Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier statement, but I thought you were referring to accidents rates adjusted for relative trip distances and frequency. It is the latter data that is lacking, though non-fatality data is severely under reported for bicycle mode as well.

closetbiker

but the question is the general reliability of information FARS provides. AFAIK, FARS is a reliable supplier of information. Is there any reason to assume FARS would be off base with some information while being a reliable source for other information?