By definition, driving isn't safe. Anything that distracts you makes it even less safe. If you're going to be driving, it would be smart to reduce all distractions - and avoid any drinking at all.
But that's not the point of the article. The point of the article is that "Phillips says that this is because buzzed drivers are more likely to speed, not wear their seat belt, and attempt to drive as if they were sober." But that's not what the study examined. He made that part up. His study ran the statistics, but the statistics don't prove causality.
Here's an equally valid (meaning not at all) hypothesis: "People with just a little alcohol in their system are speeding to get someplace. Either to the store to buy more alcohol because they ran out, or to get home before they have too much to drink at the party." The issue, therefore, becomes a matter of speeding and the alcohol is incidental.
Here's another: "Due to this study, researchers are recommending that the legal limits be increased!"
Personally, I don't trust any study where the researchers try to claim more than their data supports. It suggests that they are driven by some sort of agenda, or simply the need to get published, and accuracy or relevance may be lacking.
After reviewing the full document (look h...
But that's not the point of the article. The point of the article is that "Phillips says that this is because buzzed drivers are more likely to speed, not wear their seat belt, and attempt to drive as if they were sober." But that's not what the study examined. He made that part up. His study ran the statistics, but the statistics don't prove causality.
Here's an equally valid (meaning not at all) hypothesis: "People with just a little alcohol in their system are speeding to get someplace. Either to the store to buy more alcohol because they ran out, or to get home before they have too much to drink at the party." The issue, therefore, becomes a matter of speeding and the alcohol is incidental.
Here's another: "Due to this study, researchers are recommending that the legal limits be increased!"
Personally, I don't trust any study where the researchers try to claim more than their data supports. It suggests that they are driven by some sort of agenda, or simply the need to get published, and accuracy or relevance may be lacking.
After reviewing the full document (look h...
By definition, driving isn't safe. Anything that distracts you makes it even less safe. If you're going to be driving, it would be smart to reduce all distractions - and avoid any drinking at all.
But that's not the point of the article. The point of the article is that "Phillips says that this is because buzzed drivers are more likely to speed, not wear their seat belt, and attempt to drive as if they were sober." But that's not what the study examined. He made that part up. His study ran the statistics, but the statistics don't prove causality.
Here's an equally valid (meaning not at all) hypothesis: "People with just a little alcohol in their system are speeding to get someplace. Either to the store to buy more alcohol because they ran out, or to get home before they have too much to drink at the party." The issue, therefore, becomes a matter of speeding and the alcohol is incidental.
Here's another: "Due to this study, researchers are recommending that the legal limits be increased!"
Personally, I don't trust any study where the researchers try to claim more than their data supports. It suggests that they are driven by some sort of agenda, or simply the need to get published, and accuracy or relevance may be lacking.
After reviewing the full document (look here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.co... ), I'm convinced that this was bad research. It would be a mistake to take much if anything from this.
(more)But that's not the point of the article. The point of the article is that "Phillips says that this is because buzzed drivers are more likely to speed, not wear their seat belt, and attempt to drive as if they were sober." But that's not what the study examined. He made that part up. His study ran the statistics, but the statistics don't prove causality.
Here's an equally valid (meaning not at all) hypothesis: "People with just a little alcohol in their system are speeding to get someplace. Either to the store to buy more alcohol because they ran out, or to get home before they have too much to drink at the party." The issue, therefore, becomes a matter of speeding and the alcohol is incidental.
Here's another: "Due to this study, researchers are recommending that the legal limits be increased!"
Personally, I don't trust any study where the researchers try to claim more than their data supports. It suggests that they are driven by some sort of agenda, or simply the need to get published, and accuracy or relevance may be lacking.
After reviewing the full document (look here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.co... ), I'm convinced that this was bad research. It would be a mistake to take much if anything from this.
But I think its unsafe personally.
I want texting while driving that causes a crash to be an automatic attempted murder felony.
How was the data collected? Where were they driving? What about time if day vs. night? I'd not be surprised if these accidents happened at night.
Did you also know that stork populations in Europe are declining, and so are birth rates. Coincidence? I think not!
The one who kills, condemns like Satan, and incarcerates spiting up families, gives evil for evil, and is not merciful, and not forgiving, and does not repent is the one in danger of being turned to dust around the city of God at the second resurrection. Have Jesus in you now,and be safe, but don't have not the non stone throwing non condemning Jesus in you now will be the worst mistake anyone could ever make. Revelation 20,9, no eternal burning because there will not be an ever burning moat of fire around the city of God on the new earth. Condemners will be condemned. Idol worshipers who oppress the sexualities, nudist, whoever will not be in heaven either. That is why the legal system is foolish to God. The maker of life thinks differently from man who kills life to make things,and when he eats things.