User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
Subject: Re: Defeating Breathalyzer Ignition Interlocks
References: <3E160F0D.B23A8BE5@sympatico.ca> <3E15ED10.firstname.lastname@example.org> <9zoR9.6018$Sa3.email@example.com> <3E161FF0.firstname.lastname@example.org> <0ryocPAJxpF+EwdE@jmwa.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 17:23:47 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 12:23:47 EST
John Woodgate wrote:
> I read in sci.electronics.design that NoBodyInParticular
> wrote (in <3E161FF0.email@example.com>) about
> 'Defeating Breathalyzer Ignition Interlocks', on Fri, 3 Jan 2003:
>>On a side
>>note, I always hear reps from MADD talking about 20,000+
>>people killed in "alcohol related accidents". What the hell
>>is an "alcohol related accident"? If we have 20,000+ being
>>killed by drunk drivers, then say so!
> It's called 'weasel wording', and the police and road safety people do
> it in UK as well. If a drunken pedestrian falls in front of your car,
> that's an 'alcohol-related accident'.
But at least there is a drunk there. If I have an accident
in the same town as a liquor store, and you are running an
organization trying to bring back prohibition, it will be
counted. There are lies, big lies and statistics.
> It's the same with 'accidents in which speed was a factor'. This applies
> to ALL accidents - stationary vehicles don't collide with each other or
> with stationary people. But the *implication* is 'speed in excess of the
> speed limit'.