Transportation Research Board Reports that US Lags Way Behind Other Nations in Safety
11-19-10, 10:06 AM
#76
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.
One of the prices one pays for preserving one's own liberty is that your neighbor may be a stupid f%&^ who does things that place you in danger.
BTW, the study doesn't support that those countries have better safety records. It supports that they had a greater degree of improvement. Which in due to the fact that they used to be so much worse than we were. In essence, all they have done is caught up.
11-19-10, 10:14 AM
#77
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Currently such studies are rare and small, and as such there is a much greater margin of error (compared to studies of motor vehicles) when using them to infer characteristics about the whole population.
11-19-10, 10:15 AM
#78
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Since the report mentioned that several of those other nations institute blanket drug and alcohol screenings at checkpoints and such behavior is unconstitutional in the US (as opposed to screenings based upon impairment) they are more draconian. In general none of the nations studied place the same degree of respect for individual liberty that the US does.
One of the prices one pays for preserving one's own liberty is that your neighbor may be a stupid f%&^ who does things that place you in danger.
BTW, the study doesn't support that those countries have better safety records. It supports that they had a greater degree of improvement. Which in due to the fact that they used to be so much worse than we were. In essence, all they have done is caught up.
One of the prices one pays for preserving one's own liberty is that your neighbor may be a stupid f%&^ who does things that place you in danger.
BTW, the study doesn't support that those countries have better safety records. It supports that they had a greater degree of improvement. Which in due to the fact that they used to be so much worse than we were. In essence, all they have done is caught up.
BTW I was always taught that my freedom ends at the next guys nose... therefore if my neighbor is "a stupid f%&^ who does things that place me in danger" he has overstepped his bounds of freedom.
11-19-10, 10:18 AM
#79
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
11-19-10, 01:03 PM
#80
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,040
Bikes: Bacchetta Giro, Strada
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
There's nothing wrong with drum brakes -- they work. Disc brakes may provide more braking for a brake of a given size and may be easier to work on (in my limited experience), but since ultimately your braking is limited by your tire's traction on the road, I don't think disc brakes qualify as an innovation that has made roads safer.
And besides, my 2010 Honda Fit has rear drum brakes! (No idea why. Perhaps to save some money? The rear brakes are less important, granted, but I'd think the logistical benefit to having four matching brakes would be more important than a small amount of money saved.)
Rare? Really? It seems to me that over 50% of the cars on the road have them nowadays.
And besides, my 2010 Honda Fit has rear drum brakes! (No idea why. Perhaps to save some money? The rear brakes are less important, granted, but I'd think the logistical benefit to having four matching brakes would be more important than a small amount of money saved.)
Daytime running lights are a joke; the touted benefit comes from their status as a rarity. Make them ubiquitous, and the benefit will evaporate.
11-19-10, 01:15 PM
#81
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Of course in any set of numbers, one can skew them anyway they want to get the results you want... for instance: typically cycling in the US is declared safe as there are fewer deaths per cycling hour than there are deaths per motoring hour, but what about if we compare mileage, oops cyclists don't fare so well. But what if we look at general health... do cyclists tend to be healthier than motorists?
So there are a variety of ways to view the data...
11-19-10, 01:37 PM
#82
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Oh so there are more cyclist deaths by automobile collision, per capita, in the countries mentioned, than in the US?
Of course in any set of numbers, one can skew them anyway they want to get the results you want... for instance: typically cycling in the US is declared safe as there are fewer deaths per cycling hour than there are deaths per motoring hour, but what about if we compare mileage, oops cyclists don't fare so well. But what if we look at general health... do cyclists tend to be healthier than motorists?
So there are a variety of ways to view the data...
Of course in any set of numbers, one can skew them anyway they want to get the results you want... for instance: typically cycling in the US is declared safe as there are fewer deaths per cycling hour than there are deaths per motoring hour, but what about if we compare mileage, oops cyclists don't fare so well. But what if we look at general health... do cyclists tend to be healthier than motorists?
So there are a variety of ways to view the data...
referenced study wasn't about just cyclists deaths. It was concerning all highway fatalities.
Frankly, given the information available in the report I have no idea if these other countries are safer for cyclists--and frankly neither do you.
Since there is no US information available with reliable (statistically reliable means the data is sufficient to infer population stats with a degree of confidence) data of the number of cycling trips nor the mileage of those trips it is impossible to adjust the deaths by those values to determine such death rates in a statistically valid manner.
11-19-10, 02:01 PM
#83
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
referenced study wasn't about just cyclists deaths. It was concerning all highway fatalities.
Frankly, given the information available in the report I have no idea if these other countries are safer for cyclists--and frankly neither do you.
Since there is no US information available with reliable (statistically reliable means the data is sufficient to infer population stats with a degree of confidence) data of the number of cycling trips nor the mileage of those trips it is impossible to adjust the deaths by those values to determine such death rates in a statistically valid manner.
Frankly, given the information available in the report I have no idea if these other countries are safer for cyclists--and frankly neither do you.
Since there is no US information available with reliable (statistically reliable means the data is sufficient to infer population stats with a degree of confidence) data of the number of cycling trips nor the mileage of those trips it is impossible to adjust the deaths by those values to determine such death rates in a statistically valid manner.
Gets right back to my other statement: I was always taught that my freedom ends at the next guys nose... therefore if my neighbor is "a stupid f%&^ who does things that place me in danger" he has overstepped his bounds of freedom.
11-19-10, 02:37 PM
#84
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
And to use your analogy, just because your neighbor might someday punch you in your nose, doesn't mean you can put him in jail for assault before he does. In other words, the possibility of a crime is not justification for violating human rights (for instance, protection from unreasonable search and seizure) to prevent the crime.
11-19-10, 03:12 PM
#85
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
I'm not denying it, I'm stating that you are making an assumption based solely on your personal prejudices. You have no data to support your statement. Its purely an opinion. And therefore has no value in the discussion at hand, which was discussing the comparative safety of the roads in the studied nations.
And to use your analogy, just because your neighbor might someday punch you in your nose, doesn't mean you can put him in jail for assault before he does. In other words, the possibility of a crime is not justification for violating human rights (for instance, protection from unreasonable search and seizure) to prevent the crime.
And to use your analogy, just because your neighbor might someday punch you in your nose, doesn't mean you can put him in jail for assault before he does. In other words, the possibility of a crime is not justification for violating human rights (for instance, protection from unreasonable search and seizure) to prevent the crime.
Regarding my neighbor, I may indeed be able to put him in jail before he actually throws a punch... as assault is defined as:
1. An intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force;
2. Under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril;
3. Where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented.
11-19-10, 03:20 PM
#86
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Regarding my neighbor, I may indeed be able to put him in jail before he actually throws a punch... as assault is defined as:
1. An intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force;
2. Under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril;
3. Where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented.
1. An intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force;
2. Under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril;
3. Where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented.
11-19-10, 03:32 PM
#87
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
So you decide to defend your analogy rather than realized that I was in fact referring to the original point. In the US, the police can not perform blanket drug or alcohol testing simply because some of the drivers may be violating the law. You know one of those "draconian" measures other countries in the study do allow?
11-19-10, 03:49 PM
#88
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I have already explained the difference several times. I am incapable of making it any clearer. Perhaps you should work on comprehension. The bottom line is that even in Kalifornia you can refuse such a test and avoid any criminal liability without due process, that is not the case in some of the referenced countries.
11-19-10, 04:09 PM
#89
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
I have already explained the difference several times. I am incapable of making it any clearer. Perhaps you should work on comprehension. The bottom line is that even in Kalifornia you can refuse such a test and avoid any criminal liability without due process, that is not the case in some of the referenced countries.
(D) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, and (i) the suspension of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of one year, (ii) the revocation of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of two years if the refusal occurs within 10 years of a separate violation of Section 23103 as specified in Section 23103.5, or of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, or of Section 191.5 or subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code that resulted in a conviction, or if the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle has been suspended or revoked pursuant to Section 13353, 13353.1, or 13353.2 for an offense that occurred on a separate occasion, or (iii) the revocation of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of three years if the refusal occurs within 10 years of two or more separate violations of Section 23103 as specified in Section 23103.5, or of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, or of Section 191.5 or subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code, or any combination thereof, that resulted in convictions, or if the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle has been suspended or revoked two or more times pursuant to Section 13353, 13353.1, or 13353.2 for offenses that occurred on separate occasions, or if there is any combination of those convictions or administrative suspensions or revocations.
"Due process" here is the administrative removal of your license. How is this different from the laws of the countries we are discussing.
11-19-10, 04:16 PM
#90
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
23612. (a) (1) (A) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153. If a blood or breath test, or both, are unavailable, then paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) applies.
(D) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, and (i) the suspension of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of one year, (ii) the revocation of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of two years if the refusal occurs within 10 years of a separate violation of Section 23103 as specified in Section 23103.5, or of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, or of Section 191.5 or subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code that resulted in a conviction, or if the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle has been suspended or revoked pursuant to Section 13353, 13353.1, or 13353.2 for an offense that occurred on a separate occasion, or (iii) the revocation of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of three years if the refusal occurs within 10 years of two or more separate violations of Section 23103 as specified in Section 23103.5, or of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, or of Section 191.5 or subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code, or any combination thereof, that resulted in convictions, or if the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle has been suspended or revoked two or more times pursuant to Section 13353, 13353.1, or 13353.2 for offenses that occurred on separate occasions, or if there is any combination of those convictions or administrative suspensions or revocations.
Due process here is the administrative removal of your license. How is this different from the laws of the countries we are discussing.
(D) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, and (i) the suspension of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of one year, (ii) the revocation of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of two years if the refusal occurs within 10 years of a separate violation of Section 23103 as specified in Section 23103.5, or of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, or of Section 191.5 or subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code that resulted in a conviction, or if the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle has been suspended or revoked pursuant to Section 13353, 13353.1, or 13353.2 for an offense that occurred on a separate occasion, or (iii) the revocation of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of three years if the refusal occurs within 10 years of two or more separate violations of Section 23103 as specified in Section 23103.5, or of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, or of Section 191.5 or subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code, or any combination thereof, that resulted in convictions, or if the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle has been suspended or revoked two or more times pursuant to Section 13353, 13353.1, or 13353.2 for offenses that occurred on separate occasions, or if there is any combination of those convictions or administrative suspensions or revocations.
Due process here is the administrative removal of your license. How is this different from the laws of the countries we are discussing.
You do have a reading comprehension problem don't you?
Simply refusing the test is not a criminal violation. They can revoke the license because there is case law establishing that a driver's license is a privilege not a right. They can only compel the tests when there is probable cause and that usually requires a warrant issued by a judge. That is what is meant by due process. There is sufficient legal precedent that sobriety checkpoints do not allow the cops to compel the tests without some reasonable suspicion of intoxication. Simply refusing the test is not a sufficient cause. Of course, the officer can confiscate your DL, but even then most folks who have their licensed revoked using that basis, get it reinstated when they take their case to court.
11-19-10, 04:45 PM
#91
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
You do have a reading comprehension problem don't you?
Simply refusing the test is not a criminal violation. They can revoke the license because there is case law establishing that a driver's license is a privilege not a right. They can only compel the tests when there is probable cause and that usually requires a warrant issued by a judge. That is what is meant by due process. There is sufficient legal precedent that sobriety checkpoints do not allow the cops to compel the tests without some reasonable suspicion of intoxication. Simply refusing the test is not a sufficient cause. Of course, the officer can confiscate your DL, but even then most folks who have their licensed revoked using that basis, get it reinstated when they take their case to court.
Simply refusing the test is not a criminal violation. They can revoke the license because there is case law establishing that a driver's license is a privilege not a right. They can only compel the tests when there is probable cause and that usually requires a warrant issued by a judge. That is what is meant by due process. There is sufficient legal precedent that sobriety checkpoints do not allow the cops to compel the tests without some reasonable suspicion of intoxication. Simply refusing the test is not a sufficient cause. Of course, the officer can confiscate your DL, but even then most folks who have their licensed revoked using that basis, get it reinstated when they take their case to court.
Thanks for admitting that They can revoke the license because there is case law establishing that a driver's license is a privilege not a right.
BTW I like your conditional "usually requires a warrant;" that is not the case in implied consent states. You have already given permission to the drug test by driving on the roads. Try not to haphazardly mix up the laws of different states in your rebuttals.
Now how exactly is that any "less draconian" than what you might encounter in other countries?
11-19-10, 04:52 PM
#92
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You have a reality problem don't you.
Thanks for admitting that They can revoke the license because there is case law establishing that a driver's license is a privilege not a right.
BTW I like your conditional "usually requires a warrant;" that is not the case in implied consent states. You have already given permission to the drug test by driving on the roads. Try not to haphazardly mix up the laws of different states in your rebuttals.
Now how exactly is that any "less draconian" than what you might encounter in other countries?
Thanks for admitting that They can revoke the license because there is case law establishing that a driver's license is a privilege not a right.
BTW I like your conditional "usually requires a warrant;" that is not the case in implied consent states. You have already given permission to the drug test by driving on the roads. Try not to haphazardly mix up the laws of different states in your rebuttals.
Now how exactly is that any "less draconian" than what you might encounter in other countries?
The loss of a license is by no means the same as being forcibly subjected to a medical test, nor the same as being thrown in jail.. You know those draconian measures I referenced.
I said usually requires a warrant since there are occasional exigent circumstances that allow them to compel such testing. Typically being involved in a accident where the officer has a reasonable suspicion that alcohol was involved. Not the same as a random/blanket road stop.
Anyway, I am done trying to discuss this with you. Have fun in your delusions!
11-19-10, 05:14 PM
#93
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Implied consent does not prevent a citizen from revoking the consent and refusing the test. Again you seem to be unable to understand even the law cites you posted.
The loss of a license is by no means the same as being forcibly subjected to a medical test, nor the same as being thrown in jail.. You know those draconian measures I referenced.
I said usually requires a warrant since there are occasional exigent circumstances that allow them to compel such testing. Typically being involved in a accident where the officer has a reasonable suspicion that alcohol was involved. Not the same as a random/blanket road stop.
Anyway, I am done trying to discuss this with you. Have fun in your delusions!
The loss of a license is by no means the same as being forcibly subjected to a medical test, nor the same as being thrown in jail.. You know those draconian measures I referenced.
I said usually requires a warrant since there are occasional exigent circumstances that allow them to compel such testing. Typically being involved in a accident where the officer has a reasonable suspicion that alcohol was involved. Not the same as a random/blanket road stop.
Anyway, I am done trying to discuss this with you. Have fun in your delusions!
Thanks for playing.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
The Human Car
Advocacy & Safety
3
05-02-11 03:53 PM
Bekologist
Advocacy & Safety
264
02-27-11 08:11 AM
