Convicted Driver Insurance Quotes

Convicted Driver Insurance Quoteline
Convicted driver insurance quote line owned and operated by MCE Insurance

Follow Drinkdriving.org on:


Follow Drinkdriving.org on Facebook Follow Drinkdriving.org on Google+ Follow Drinkdriving.org on Twitter
Compare SR22 Auto Insurance Rates and Save $$$'s
SR22 Insurance Quotes



Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Grand Rapids Effects

  1. #1
    jacobisrael is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5

    Default Grand Rapids Effects

    All of your grief was caused by the worst "Study" ever done in human historey, and it's called the "Grand Rapids Effects" study.

    Ironically, do you know what this "study" proved anyway? That the DRINKING driver is the SAFEST driver.

  2. #2
    jacobisrael is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5

    Default Re: Grand Rapids Effects

    A great deal of manipulation of the data, and even ignoring a HUGE portion of the data which would have made the complete study worthless had the ignored data contained even a small percentage of drinking drivers, the very best science from government produces the following REMARKABLE ADMISSION:
    <<< For all BAC classes above 0%, we found 330 drivers in the accident study. Of those accidents, 213 were attributable to the effects of alcohol. By dividing those two numbers, we obtain an AR for exposed persons of 213/330=0.65 or 65%. That means, 65% of all accidents involving an intoxicated driver can be attributed to the effects of alcohol. However, in only 16.8% of all accidents (or 330 accidents) was the driver intoxicated. To determine which proportion of all accidents are attributable to the effects of alcohol, the population AR should be computed. This is done by dividing the excess accidents by the total number of all accidents, that is, 213/1968=0.108. Thus, 10.8% of all accidents may be attributed to the effects of alcohol. >>>
    In other words, the most expert government weasel wording proved that 89.2% of the fatal accidents in this study were NOT caused by alcohol, but were caused by OTHER factors. In other words, the average driver in this study was 8.3 TIMES more likely to be killed in an accident where alcohol was NOT a factor than he was to be killed in an accident where alcohol WAS a factor?
    WHAT are these other factors? Why is it assumed that these other factors which are responsible for 89.2% of the accidents are not the IDENTICAL factors involved in the fatal accidents which “may be attributed to the effects of alcohol”?

  3. #3
    jacobisrael is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5

    Default Re: Grand Rapids Effects

    Study Completed Invalidated if only ONE THIRD of those Who Refused to be Tested Would Have Tested Positive
    If we assume that the text in the study is correct, and that the actual data reported in the table is wrong, then the difference between the percent of all drivers with a positive BAC (5.5%) and the percent of drivers in fatal accidents (7.2%) is a mere 1.7%. This would not be so bad if this study had actually obeyed simple statistical methodologies--except that we have no idea what percent of the 501 or 5.2% of them who refused the test in the roadside study would have tested positive. If only a third of them would have tested positive had they not refused to be tested (a completely reasonable and probable assumption), then there would have been a higher percentage of drivers who tested positive in the roadside study than who tested positive in fatal accidents (7.3% vs. 7.2%, or 677 drivers in the roadside study versus 503 drivers in fatal accidents). THIS alone would have meant that the odds of a non-drinking driver having an accident, no matter how slight, is GREATER than the odds of a drinking driver having one.

    This is only one of many examples of how extremely shaky this study is.

    Why else, other than being guilty of the "crime" of drinking and driving, would 501 German drivers out of 9,269 of them refuse to participate in this road side study even though the police assured them that this was for science and that they would not be cited or arrested? With all the publicity about how severely drunk drivers are punished, it's actually amazing that only 501 of them refused to be tested. If this were really voluntary, if I were stopped while driving and drinking, I don't think I personally would have trusted anything the police promised in the middle of the night.

    SUMMARY OF THE DATA
    Of 6,981 drivers in accidents there were 4,681 accidents, or 1.51 drivers per accident
    5,013 or 71.8% of drivers were not responsible for causing an accident
    1,968 drivers or 28.2% of them were responsible for causing an accident of the 1,968 drivers responsible for causing an accident 330 or 16.8% had a bac > 0
    114 or 5.8% had a bac > 0 and < .08%
    152 or 7.7% had a bac > .10% and < .18%
    64 or 3.3% had a bac > .20%
    1,638 or 83.2% had a bac = 0

    330 or 4.7% of all drivers in accidents had a bac > 0
    213 or 3% of then were determined in this study to have caused an accident due to drinking alcohol
    114 drivers, or 1.6% of all drivers, had a bac between .01 and .09%
    216 or 3.1% of drivers in accidents had a BAC greater than 0.10 152 drivers, or 2.2% of all drivers, had a bac between .10% and .18%
    64 drivers, or 0.9% of all drivers, had a bac > .20%

    (The accident rate of drivers with a bac > 0 / the accident rate of drivers with bac = 0) = 1.457. 491 (1,638 x 30%) fewer nondrinking drivers would have had an accident had they had a bac = .04 which ise: 25% of drivers who caused an accident.
    10.6% of all accidents.
    7% of all drivers in accidents.

    Of 9,269 German drivers stopped in roadside study 501 or 5.4% refused to take the test
    9,128 participated in the roadside study 510 or 5.5% of them had BAC greater than 0.01 167 is one third of those who refused to be tested
    677 or 7.3% of them (167 + 510) might have actually had a BAC > 0.01
    62 or 0.67% of them had a BAC greater than 0.10
    563 or 6.2% of them (501 + 62) MIGHT have had a BAC greater than 0.10


    3.1% of German drivers in accidents had a BAC greater than 0.10, compared to 62 or 0.67% of roadside study drivers who are KNOWN to have had a BAC that high, plus an undetermined number of the 501 who refused to take the test, raising this to a minimum of 229 or 2.5% to a maximum of 563 or 6.2%.

  4. #4
    jacobisrael is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5

    Default Re: Grand Rapids Effects

    Convicted Driver Insurance Quotes
    http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...iving/s9p2.htm is where this flawed study is located.

Similar Threads

  1. The Effects of the Mel Gibson DUI Expungement - HULIQ
    By Latest News in forum Drunk Driving - DUI - Latest News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-07-2009, 08:34 PM
  2. CPRW fears effects of road safety scheme - WalesOnline
    By Latest News in forum General Motoring News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-25-2009, 04:15 PM
  3. OUR VOICE: The effects of drinking and driving - Daily Commercial
    By Latest News in forum Drink Driving News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-01-2009, 05:21 PM