FARS 1999

Christian Party

xmas3.gif (5351 bytes)

FARS 1999

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/pdf/Alcohol99.pdf
"Traffic fatalities in alcohol-related crashes fell by 1 percent from 1998 to
1999. The 15,786 alcohol-related fatalities in 1999 (38 percent of total
traffic fatalities for the year) represent a 30 percent reduction from the
22,404 alcohol-related fatalities reported in 1989 (49 percent of the total)."

While the facts in this paragraph may be correct, this language is misleading, insulting, inflammatory, and unacceptable to a just nation. The following statement would be far more accurate, honest, and credible, and far less inflammatory:

"Police reports show that drivers with a BAC equal to or greater than .10 were 5.8% of all drivers and 3.3% of all people involved in fatal crashes in 1999. NHTSA believes that actual police reports under-represent "alcohol involved accidents" and uses a statistical model which more than doubles these figures to12.7% of all drivers and 7.2% of all people in fatal crashes. NHTSA also believes that nondrivers with a BAC equal to or greater than .10 should be included in these estimates, raising the percentage of all people involved in fatal crashes with a BAC equal to or greater than .10 to 9.4%. [note: the fact that a driver has a BAC equal to or greater than .10 is not evidence nor proof that drinking alcohol was the *cause* of the accident, and nothing in this data should be construed to arrive at such a conclusion]."

For each woman who had a fatal accident in 1999 while drinking and driving [read: had a blood alcohol content greater than 0.10%], 10 nondrinking women drivers had a fatal accident. For each man who had a fatal accident while drinking and driving:

	17 others were involved in a fatal accident.
	10 nondrinking drivers had a fatal accident.
	3 nondrinking women drivers had a fatal accident.

In 1999, NHTSA reported that 12,304 of the 100,666 people involved in fatal accidents (which includes 56,820 drivers involved in 41,611 fatalities) "involved" people with a BAC > .10%, which is 12.2% of all of those involved in fatal accidents. Of these, 3,263 or 3.2% of them had a BAC less than .10 and 9,041 or 9% of them had a BAC greater than .10.

Of the 9,041 with a BAC greater than 0.10,a total of 918 or 0.9% were passengers, 1,126 or 1.1% were pedestrians, and 107 were cyclists, leaving 6,891 or 6.8% (5,826 men and 1,062 women) who were drivers with a BAC > 0.10.

fars1999.gif (27353 bytes)

The method by which NHTSA presumes that such accidents involved someone with a BAC > .10 involves a mysterious "statistical model" about which little information is available. Without making these presumptions under the NHTSA's statistical model, only 5,112 or 5.1% of all of those involved in fatal accidents were KNOWN by police to have been involved in an accident which involved someone who had a BAC > .10. Only 56.5% of those the NHTSA presumes to have had a BAC > .10 were KNOWN by the police to have been in this category, and the other 43.5% are based on speculation by a known advocacy group which starts with a cynical hypothesis, tailors its presumptions to fit its agenda, and claims to be presenting facts. It's bad science, at best, but more accurately characterized as witchcraft.

The police have been under heavy political pressure for several decades now to set up roadblocks, identify, test and arrest drinking drivers, so it's not merely bad science to include as "drinking drivers" all of those whom the police have already excluded--it's treason. It's now obvious that this government bureaucracy misrepresented, and continues to misrepresent, valid and credible police data, proof that it has outlived its usefulness.

An important point which NHTSA fails to make clear is that their data does not at all imply that consuming alcohol *caused* the accident--only that drivers with a BAC > .10 were 6.8% of all of those involved in fatal accidents. If 93.2% of all drivers who had accidents had a BAC < .10 [read: were "nondrinking drivers"] for what reason would we just presume that the 2,911 drinking drivers didn't have an accident for exactly the same reasons that the other 49,929 nondrinking drivers had accidents? What is it about drinking drivers that they're so special that the reasons other drivers had accidents didn't apply to them, and why does NHTSA's statistical model not take that into account?

1999 Fatal Crashes	Men	Women	Un known	Total	Men	Women	Un known	Total
BAC = 0 or blank	13,794	6,705	6	20,505	13.7%	6.7%	0.0%	20.4%
BAC Unknown	40,970	25,542	1,345	67,857	40.7%	25.4%	1.3%	67.4%
BAC Not Greater 0.10	57,389	32,884	1,351	91,624	57.0%	32.7%	1.3%	91.0%
TOTAL ALCOHOL INVOLVED	10,270	2,030		12,304	10.2%	2.0%	0.0%	12.2%
BAC 0.01 to 0.10	2,625	637	0	3,262	2.6%	0.6%	0.0%	3.2%
BAC Greater 0.10	7,645	1,393	3	9,042	7.6%	1.4%	0.0%	9.0%
Passenger	578	340		918	0.6%	0.3%	0.0%	0.9%
Pedestrian	709	417		1,126	0.7%	0.4%	0.0%	1.1%
Cyclist	67	40		107	0.1%	0.0%	0.0%	0.1%
Auto Driver	5,826	1,062		6,891	5.8%	1.1%	0.0%	6.8%
Total	65,034	34,277	1,354	100,666	64.6%	34.1%	1.3%	100.0%

The most important point which NHTSA consciously overlooks is that this does not even begin to constitute proof that alcohol was a *factor* in these accidents. The simple fact that such a small percentage of drinking drivers were involved in fatal accidents implies just the opposite. The question is not why there were so many drinking drivers involved in fatal accident--the question is why NHTSA doesn't broadcast from the rooftops that fatal accidents in 1999 involved 17 other traffic victims, 9 non-drinking drivers, and 6 non-drinking women drivers, for each one drinking driver.

In other words, what is it about non-drinking women drivers that they're involved in six times as many fatal accidents as drinking men drivers.