Yep.

Your first link is to the American Psychological Association, and only a 9very) brief abstract. I searched and did not find the paper anywhere that wasn't paywalled. So this doesn't really say anything. It said "evidence of impairment" at ridiculously low concentrations of 0.015% (15 mg/dl), but doesn't say anything about at what point they consider "significant", or how how impairment was measured. What was the methodology? Without that information this is meaningless. It says exactly nothing about the subject under discussion.

Your second link is just a straw-man. Quote:

This says nothing about the effects of alcohol. I has to do with the effects of the law, and the behavior of people in states which passed those laws. While it might be reasonable to think there is some relationship between the two, that's not what the study shows. Further, the numbers given are of drivers who killed themselves, not of drivers who were endangering others. The whole point of the law was supposed to be about endangering others. I have zero respect for laws that try to protect me from myself.

Your third link:

Another straw-man. I don't dispute this, but it's irrelevant. The whole subject here was the point at which impairment is significant enough to endanger others. That is supposed to be the point of the law.

All of these are rather vague conclusions which skirt the real issue (which does not surprise me in the least... it is rather typical of "studies" that attempt to support a forgone conclusion).

My main point though is: even if these studies validly contradicted the ones I mentioned (they don't), that doesn't mean the ones I mentioned don't exist. Contradictory studies happen all the time. It doesn't prove me wrong, it just implies that there is controversy.

Because if you aren't in danger of causing death or serious injury, then you aren't significantly endangering anyone. So why make it against the law?

A world that is 100% safe for children would also be suitable for nobody but children. I, for one, don't want to live in that world.

I don't have the citations at hand, though I've posted them here on Slashdot at various times in the past.

The State of Idaho did its own study, in which it concluded that the driving of most people is NOT significantly impaired at 0.1% BAC. Of course, that didn't stop them, some years later, from changing the law to 0.08% anyway. Which just illustrates my point.

Over 40 years ago, the national government of Canada did a very comprehensive study involving hundreds of people, which among other things compared the effects of marijuana in various doses to the effects of alcohol in various doses. That study reached similar conclusions.

If you would care to make specific accusations about the things you think I said which were wrong, I would be happy to prove otherwise.

Unless or until you do, you are just blowing hot air. I cite sources for my information, demonstrating that I am neither ignorant or lying. You have provided no information at all, much less citations. All you're doing is calling names.

Calling me ignorant doesn't faze me at all, because I know otherwise and I regularly demonstrate otherwise. If you show that I was wrong or ignorant of some subject, I'll happily admit it and correct myself. But calling names doesn't cut it, and I doubt you can do the other.

Because the language of the bill says nothing about requiring any kind of personal details, or anything else that the alarmists claim it is aimed at.

If by that you mean: "Rulemaking should not have to be based on sound science," then I agree: it would appear to prevent that situation.

I, for one, think that's great.

No, it is NOT about climate science "denial". At all. It was a series of factual statements about actions by the EPA.

I did NOT say "EPA's science is bad". What I wrote was that EPA has refused to produce any actual science at all in support of its rulemaking. Good, bad, or otherwise. It wasn't a judgment about the state of climate science in any way.

You are a fool to believe that's what I believe.

That isn't what I said, and it isn't what I meant.

Sorry, you're out-of-date. Federal Appeals Court last year ruled that border guards DO need probable cause to search such things as computers and phones under most circumstances. The only exceptions are circumstances which would also be exceptions away from the border.

What's funny is this whole bit about "Where is my flying car?" when realistically it won't happen in any quantity until personal flying is almost completely automated. And I don't see that happening until we CAN, at least, make reliable automated cars.

The collision-avoidance problem, in some ways, is multiplied in the air. At least on the ground you have specific lanes with traffic control devices on them (lights, etc.).

We don't deal with these problems, because we have bad laws. We have bad laws because politicians want to please lobbyists, and don't want to seem "soft" on crime or negligence. As a result, they pass laws that are too strict (DUI laws being a classic example: studies show the majority of people are NOT significantly impaired at 0.08%).

When unreasonable laws are passed which victimize pretty much "innocent" people, people lose respect for the law. Not just DUI but also (former or at least getting there) marijuana laws are great examples.

Nope. Based on past advances in automobiles (ABS, airbags, power steering, computer throttle control), what will happen is that they will get released, and they will have some major screwups (or public perception of screwups anyway), and there will be a flurry of very heavy-duty lawsuits, and it will go away for a while. Then they'll come back in new and improved form. Then there will be a couple of more lawsuits, and some recalls. Sales will go down a bit and improve again. And it will gradually smooth out. Probably.

It's a bit like the "ringing" effect in some kinds of oscillators.

To whoever marked my comment "troll":

A, B, and C are demonstrably true, in regard to this EPA rulemaking. I wasn't making a general statement about science.

EPA has consistently refused requests for the science and data behind this specific proposed rulemaking. That is a simple statement of fact. They claim there is some, but they won't show it.

And in just the last couple of days, EPA director Gina McCarthy, in testimony before Congress, demonstrated complete ignorance of even the most elementary knowledge of the science.

He's wrong. Well, maybe, maybe not. Before anybody jumps on me for saying that: this is a legal principle that has been around for hundreds of years, and it's big part of what our whole legal system is based on.

Having said that, there IS one way, and only one, he could get around that: if the language of the law is clear and unambiguous, but Congress' intent was really something else, he probably has to rule on the language, not intent. The whole thing about "intent" is really for when the language of the law is ambiguous. Otherwise, why would you need to decide at all?

I don't know what the real dispute is. If you look around here you will find where I (later) posted the actual language of the relevant part of the bill. It is really pretty benign.

So what is the real issue here? Hard to say for sure, but I suspect that in part it's political.

No, it isn't. That is, it isn't something that "should be", it's the actual rule U.S. courts are bound to follow.

And elsewhere in this topic I've posted the actual language of the bill. These alarmist scenarios I have seen under this topic today have pretty much nothing to do with what the bill actually says. It's pretty darned "reasonable".

Where do you get the idea it changes nothing?

The current proposed rulemaking by the EPA, regarding CO2 emissions, is based on claimed "science" which ISN'T:

(A) identified AT ALL, much less specifically,

(B) "publicly available"

(C) available AT ALL for independent analysis, much less attempts to reproduce.

There is an actual reason the bill is titled "secret science". Because that's what EPA has been doing. And which does, in reality, have to stop. This bill is a direct reaction to EPA's unilateral actions which it is not able or willing to show are based on ANY actual science.