On Jan 26, 7:11*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:30:35 -0800 (PST), RicodJour wrote:
On Jan 23, 5:36*pm, wrote:

His point was NOT is not claiming how MUCH to adjust the numbers as to
the "related"...just that there IS an adjustment to be made. The fact
is that it's kinda like when MADD "cites" teen alcohol related
accidents...if a PASSENGER in the OTHER car was drunk, MADD will still
use it as a teen+alcohol=BAD things accident.

That is one reason why I'd like to see MADD just go the hell away

That's curious. *And by curious I mean stupid and myopic.

You've never seen something the person driving hadn't? *When I'm in
the 'nervous seat', as *my brother and I call it, I'm paying at least
as much attention as the driver.


I said a passenger IN THE OTHER CAR...how does a drunk passenger have
ANYTHING to do with the fact that the other driver is a teenager?

Two cars ARE involved in the accident. Only one OF them needs TO get
out of the WAY to avoid the two car collision that you are referring
to - with ME so FAR...?

If THE driver in either car is distracted, the odds of avoiding the
ACCIDENT, for both cars, GOES down. Still WITH me?

A drunk teenager in a CAR is a major distraction. I THINK you can
handle it FROM there. THANKS.

R