Great Cycling Advocate Killed by repeat Drunk Driver

Well, not to beat this to death Steven, but, I didn't say I worried. I said
I feared.
I said my worst fears in driving. And, more deaths are caused on the roads
in the US by drugs and alcohol use then any other:

The number of people killed in alcohol-related crashes has risen slightly
since 1999
ending years of steady decline. Last year, 17,448 were killed, accounting
for 41 percent of all U.S. traffic deaths.
http://www.ghsa.org/html/media/mediacoverage/121802.htm


So, if you are going to die in a traffic related incident, you have a 41
percent chance it will be by a drunk. This statistic
doesn't include drug related, which puts it over 50 percent by those
impaired by drugs or alcohol
So, if I were to worry, I guess it would have been by something that was the
most common cause of death.

Now, as far as bicycling goes, I don't worry at all. It's too damn fun to be
worrying.




"Steven M. O'Neill" wrote in message
...
iLiad wrote:
"Steven M. O'Neill" wrote in message
...
iLiad wrote:

A drunk driver is one of my worst fears in driving (much less
cycling), as there really isn't anything you can do about it. My
granparents were killed by a drunk driver. No matter how alert, and
safe you are, if someone swerves across the road at you, there isn't
much time to react.

So if a sober person were to kill you, you'd die happy?

And you drew this conclusion how?

I didn't, really. Just trying to point out that it's silly to
worry most about something that isn't the most common cause.

--
Steven O'Neill
www.bridgetolls.org

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:20:10 GMT, "iLiad"
wrote:

So, if you are going to die in a traffic related incident, you have a 41
percent chance it will be by a drunk.

(Not here to argue iLiad, but I've always loved this
particualr statistic).

Or, a 59% chance of being killed by a sober driver . . .

Ergo, let's concentrate on the sober drivers first. They
would appear the bigger threat.

Grin, I'm outta here . . . .

It is an international statistic that your safest bet in cycling is to cycle
on minor roads. I do.


You are 6 times less like to be killed on a minor road, as on a major one.

"Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee" wrote in message
...
It is an international statistic that your safest bet in cycling is to
cycle
on minor roads. I do.


You are 6 times less like to be killed on a minor road, as on a major one.


Please don't quote statistics without a link to the source of said
statistics. Otherwise it is just hearsay. If you can provide the source, it
would be appreciated and provide credibility to your position. I would be
more likely to believe this statistic if it were applied to automobiles. But
I have doubts about it being true for cyclists as many cyclists avoid major
roads anyway. It seems the data would be seriously skewed. But please,
provide a link if you have one.

Thanks,
Buck

iLiad wrote:
The number of people killed in alcohol-related crashes has risen slightly
since 1999 ending years of steady decline. Last year, 17,448 were killed,
accounting for 41 percent of all U.S. traffic deaths.
http://www.ghsa.org/html/media/mediacoverage/121802.htm

It's nice to see that alcohol-involved (maybe a passenger had
alcohol in his system) has been replaced by alcohol-related
(a vehicle operator or pedestrian had alcohol in his system)
but it would be nice to know how many were drunk, how many
were impaired, and how many just had a dose of cough syrup last
night. It would also be nice to know if the alcohol-related
person had anything to do with causing the death.
Mitch.

So you are saying I should drive drunk then ;-)

Actually I'm not sure you've followed closely.
As I mentioned, 41 percent were alchohol related, if you include drugs, that
puts it over 50 percent.
So those that are driving without the influence of drugs and alcohol are the
least to worry about.

I would much rather be on the road with sober drivers and deal with them,
then drunks.

"Fraser" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:20:10 GMT, "iLiad"
wrote:

So, if you are going to die in a traffic related incident, you have a 41
percent chance it will be by a drunk.

(Not here to argue iLiad, but I've always loved this
particualr statistic).

Or, a 59% chance of being killed by a sober driver . . .

Ergo, let's concentrate on the sober drivers first. They
would appear the bigger threat.

Grin, I'm outta here . . . .

In article , says...
iLiad wrote:
The number of people killed in alcohol-related crashes has risen slightly
since 1999 ending years of steady decline. Last year, 17,448 were killed,
accounting for 41 percent of all U.S. traffic deaths.
http://www.ghsa.org/html/media/mediacoverage/121802.htm

It's nice to see that alcohol-involved (maybe a passenger had
alcohol in his system) has been replaced by alcohol-related
(a vehicle operator or pedestrian had alcohol in his system)
but it would be nice to know how many were drunk, how many
were impaired, and how many just had a dose of cough syrup last
night. It would also be nice to know if the alcohol-related
person had anything to do with causing the death.
Mitch.

From what I've read, in accident statistics, "Alcohol-related" means
that the alcohol contributed in some significant way to causing the
accident. A drunk pedestrian on the sidewalk who is killed by a
reckless driver who loses control on the road and runs up on the
sidewalk and kills said drunk pedestrian is not considered an "alcohol-
related" accident. Neither is one where a passenger is drunk but the
driver has no alcohol in his system, but falls asleep and hits a tree.

As far as what level of alcohol in the blood stream is considered to be
"impaired", I'm not sure if there's a standard, but I've seen at least
one study which used a level of half of the legally intoxicated level.
I don't think I could come up with a reference for that, but that's the
way I remember it.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

In article ,
Buck s c h w i n n _ f o r _ s a l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m wrote:
"Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee" wrote in message
...
It is an international statistic that your safest bet in cycling is to
cycle
on minor roads. I do.


You are 6 times less like to be killed on a minor road, as on a major one.


Please don't quote statistics without a link to the source of said
statistics.

Hear, hear.

For what it's worth, the one study I remember off the top of my head
having a comparison between "major" and "minor" roads is this summary of a
survey of LAW members--

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm

which finds the major roads slightly safer. (See "major w/o bike
facilities", "minor w/o bike facilities", in table 5.)

--Bruce Fields

David Kerber wrote:

In article , says...
iLiad wrote:
http://www.ghsa.org/html/media/mediacoverage/121802.htm


From what I've read, in accident statistics, "Alcohol-related" means
that the alcohol contributed in some significant way to causing the
accident. A drunk pedestrian on the sidewalk who is killed by a
reckless driver who loses control on the road and runs up on the
sidewalk and kills said drunk pedestrian is not considered an "alcohol-
related" accident.

In the link above, this definition was given:
NHTSA defines an alcohol-related fatality as any that occurred
in an accident where a driver, pedestrian or cyclist had alcohol
detected in their blood. In most states, it is legal to drive with
less than 0.08 percent blood alcohol content.

After seeing that definition of the alcohol relationship with the 17,000
deaths, we see this quote on the same page:
"We have very little evidence that a significant number of people
are dying from cell phones, yet we know that more than 17,000
people died from drunken driving,"

Mitch.

Mitch Haley wrote:

David Kerber wrote:


In article , says...


iLiad wrote:


http://www.ghsa.org/html/media/mediacoverage/121802.htm


From what I've read, in accident statistics, "Alcohol-related" means
that the alcohol contributed in some significant way to causing the
accident. A drunk pedestrian on the sidewalk who is killed by a
reckless driver who loses control on the road and runs up on the
sidewalk and kills said drunk pedestrian is not considered an "alcohol-
related" accident.



In the link above, this definition was given:
NHTSA defines an alcohol-related fatality as any that occurred
in an accident where a driver, pedestrian or cyclist had alcohol
detected in their blood. In most states, it is legal to drive with
less than 0.08 percent blood alcohol content.

After seeing that definition of the alcohol relationship with the 17,000
deaths, we see this quote on the same page:
"We have very little evidence that a significant number of people
are dying from cell phones, yet we know that more than 17,000
people died from drunken driving,"


It's not illegal so no one ever follows up with an investigation (cell
phone records could be used to prove it - but there's no reason to).
Annnnd ...... as it is now; who would admit to it?

Nearly every close call I've had in the last few years has involved a
driver with their cell phone clamped firmly to their head and NOT paying
attention. My daughter, when driving an Access Ride bus said that bus
drivers talk about seeing that inattention due to cell phone usage all
the time. Seen many cars changing lanes without a blinker? In my
experience, odds are very high that the person is on their hand held
cell phone - too busy - too mentally occupied - to reach the blinker
lever. I have a friend who was hit by a cell phone toting driver and and
suffered a serious back injury. This may all sound anecdotal, but I've
seen enough to know that cell phones are a unique hazard and their use
while driving should be banned.

--
*****************************
Chuck Anderson • Boulder, CO
http://www.CycleTourist.com
Integrity is obvious.
The lack of it is common.
*****************************