Robin Garr wrote:Bill P wrote:A Food Forum: The best place on the internet to do interpretation of statistical data. But that's what make this a great place.
9 grad credits in stats and research methodology here. You?
JustinHammond wrote:
I just figured the older people had more practice driving drunk.
Bill P wrote: It's funny that this conversation reminded me of an AGW discussion with one of our mutual "friends".
John S wrote:Robin Garr wrote:How many accidents in recent years, nationwide, have involved drivers with BAC between .05 and .08.
The NY Times has this graphic that helps answer your question:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/27/science/drunk-driving-2011.html
Paul S wrote:John S wrote:Robin Garr wrote:How many accidents in recent years, nationwide, have involved drivers with BAC between .05 and .08.
The NY Times has this graphic that helps answer your question:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/27/science/drunk-driving-2011.html
Based on that graph, I'd say they may be able justify a level of .06% or .07%, but .05% seems like a reach.
Mark R. wrote:You are certainly doing a lot better than most of us if you can make any sense of that graph! It looks like one of the ones you can use to justify or shoot down anything anyone proposes.
Margie L wrote:Mark R. wrote:You are certainly doing a lot better than most of us if you can make any sense of that graph! It looks like one of the ones you can use to justify or shoot down anything anyone proposes.
Exactly.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 31 guests