NHTSA admits their data is misinterpreted

[jeanne_pruett]

http://www.muckraker-report.org/id36.html

NHTSA admits Misinterpretation of Alcohol-Related Traffic
Fatality Statistics by some Data Users

August 17, 2004 In a letter I received on August 15, 2004, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has admitted that the statistics compiled by NHTSA under the heading of alcohol-related traffic fatality are on occasion, being misinterpreted by data users. This wasn't news to me, but still, it's nice to finally get some of my arguments validated. Although NHTSA did try to minimize the frequency of the misinterpretation of their statistics, I am of the belief that once is enough, especially if the misinterpretation becomes misrepresentation to our lawmakers.

I challenged NHTSA to prove that they were not in violation of the Data Quality Act. The Data Quality Act establishes guidelines designed to maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information that federal agencies disseminate to the public.

Responding to my challenge, Susan White, Chief Information Officer for NHTSA offered the following thoughtful comments.

"NHTSA uses the term alcohol-related as a term of art (underline added) in reporting of data for use in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)."

"Alcohol-related is a convenient term (underline added) used to categorize the incidence of alcohol presence from reviewing law enforcement crash reports either from known alcohol test results or from an imputation method when reports fail to contain the necessary data. NHTSA does not collect information to determine the actual cause of the crash or the fatality (underline added)."

Even in plain-English, use of the term related is not translated to mean cause (underline added)."

"In addition, the panel noted that the term alcohol-related is occasionally misinterpreted (underline added) by data users."

"Acknowledging this occasional misinterpretation (underline added), NHTSA plans to take further actions to educate users and clarify NHTSA's use of the term alcohol-related. Among these actions will be the introduction of a new fact sheet in the near future that will detail the roles and BAC levels of those killed in alcohol-related crashes."

"We appreciate your attention to the accuracy of data regarding alcohol-related crashes. We agree that the information of this importance needs to be communicated as clearly as possible (underline added)."

So who are these data users that might be misinterpreting the alcohol-related traffic fatality statistics? They are members of MADD, police departments, highway patrol, and insurance companies, along with some attorneys, politicians, and newspaper editors. What troubles me most about some of these data users is their apparent lack of interest in any statistical evidence that might weaken their chances of convincing lawmakers to pass even harsher DUI laws. Isn't it the primary goal of DUI laws to reduce drunk driving traffic fatalities in the United States? If so, then why is there any need whatsoever to work with questionable, misleading, misinterpreted, or misrepresented statistics? Why are some of these data users angered by the idea that drunk driving might not be responsible for as many deaths as they once thought? What if it were to be discovered that of the approximately 17,500 alcohol-related traffic fatalities reported in 2003, only half actually were caused by a confirmed, legally intoxicated driver?

I can see the headlines now - Drunk Driving Traffic Fatalities Plummet 50% Overnight! Of course on page A-16 between the horoscopes and weather map would be this headline - 1.5 Million People Arrested for DUI in 2003 Demand a Recount!

[Micky Dee]

I can see the headlines now - Drunk Driving Traffic Fatalities Plummet 50% Overnight! Of course on page A-16 between the horoscopes and weather map would be this headline - 1.5 Million People Arrested for DUI in 2003 Demand a Recount!

Yeah! And of course the MADD stooges in the media would credit MADD for it and MADD would happily accept.

[Micky Dee]

"NHTSA uses the term alcohol-related as a term of art.."

Fiction

Fiction is largely perceived as a form of ARTor entertainment, although not all fiction is necessarily artistic.


http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Fiction

Fiction is the term used to describe works of information created from the imagination. This is in contrast to non-fiction, which makes factual claims about reality. Fictional works—books, pictures, stories, fairy tales, fables, films, comics, interactive fiction——may be partly based on factual occurrences but always contain some imaginary content.



Fiction may be created for the purpose of educating, such as fictional examples used in school textbooks.

Fiction is also frequently instrumentalized by propaganda and advertising. Fiction may be propagated by parents to their children out of tradition (e.g. Santa Claus) or as a form of control (cf. fairy tales). Frequently fiction is deliberately created with a moral goal in mind; such fables are not necessarily targeted at children.

Fiction may over time blend with factual accounts and develop into mythology....


..

[jeanne_pruett]

Oh, I love this one...

Alcohol-related is a convenient term

How conveeeeeenient!!!! Yeah, for them!!! It conveniently allows MADD and other "data users" to misinterpret their numbers to mean "drunk driver caused".

Again....how cconveeeeeenient!!!!

[jeanne_pruett]

NHTSA does not collect information to determine the actual cause of the crash or the fatality

Would someone please tell this to MADD???

[jeanne_pruett]

Hey all,

Remember this?

"In addition, the panel noted that the term alcohol-related is occasionally misinterpreted (underline added) by data users."

"Acknowledging this occasional misinterpretation (underline added), NHTSA plans to take further actions to educate users and clarify NHTSA's use of the term alcohol-related.

Look at what a good job NHTSA is doing helping people to be better educated about "alcohol-related":

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ ... pImpaired/

Despite the tireless efforts of thousands of advocates, impaired drivers continue to kill someone every 30 minutes, nearly 50 people a day, and almost 18,000 citizens a year. NHTSA and its partners are working together to put a stop to these deadly statistics.

Yeah, they're REALLY following through with what they promised, aren't they?

[jscott64]

Probably the most dispicalable thing at this website, is the Zero Tolerance aspect.

Despite the efforts of numerous advocacy groups and highway safety organizations, each year
hundreds - no thousands - of families are destroyed by the
injuries or death caused by underage drinking and impaired driving.

So it's not working, but let's spend millions, and ruin millions of people's lives. But it's OK, if we just save one life. (Makes me want to puke)

[Micky Dee]

I'm putting this here because I can never seem to find it when I 'm trying to give it to some one. I should have put it here in the first place.

The truth? NEVER !
http://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=754

[judy247]

When I first started "investigating" MADDs Stats, I was horrified and terrified, all those drunk drivers hiding behind every signpost waiting to me....
But, liking thing to ADD up, I went to FARS (back in 1990's) I finally figured out how they were getting their stats..... they were "throwing away" a percentage of the drivers....
example: 50,000 Drivers/Vehicles involved in fatal crashes. 35,000 fatalies. 10,000 "estimated" drunk drivers.....
Their figuring: 10,000 drunks killed 35,000 people =35% alcohol related.....
Truth 50,000 drivers, killed 35,000 people and 10,000 of them were "estimated" to be with some alcohol in their system = 20% estimated....
But of course Alaska is 50% most of the time,,,,, there are only two fatal crashes per year....

LOVE their Percentages....

[jeanne_pruett]

I'm with you on that. They mix apples and oranges. The only true way to judge the problem is to look at the total number of drivers involved that had alcohol in their system. That's why I always focus on number of drivers involved as opposed to "alcohol-related" fatalities. The numbers get skewed if you do it their way. But then again, they KNOW THAT!!!

[judy247]

I haven't checked recently but if memory serves:
Accidents fall into fifth place on ten leading causes of death. (Dr. being among first).
Auto accidents amount for a small percentage of Accidents Catagory.
Alcohol related are a smaller percentage of that..... So, why is all the money spent on the smallest group of the fifth cause of death.... Couldn't we use some of it to re-train our doctors????

[LibertarianMac]

You know Judy, what really chaps my ass about this whole thing: Lets suppose you go to a friends house to watch a game and drink a couple beers. On your way home a guy in front of you gets in a accident. You stop to help. Big Mistake. Now the police come and lock your ass up. Well I guess I could have just let the guy bleed to death.