Drinking and Driving

Off Topic
81

[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:
This has nothing to do with people’s right to put things in their own bodies. People can drink as much as they want.

Drunk driving regulations relate to operating a motor vehicle - which is NOT a right. Drink all you want, just don’t drive afterwards.

There is absolutely no need to drink and drive. Putting the safety of other people at risk for a little buzz is extremely selfish and should be punished severly.[/quote]

Did you even read what I posted there?[/quote]

Uh yeah. I quoted it.
Here it is again:

[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:

I can understand general reluctance to have more numerous and severe government-imposed regulations about what one chooses to put into their body, but the fact is that most Canadians and Americans are too fucking stupid to self-regulate and take any personal responsibility in regards to drinking and driving, and I firmly believe that if we removed any BAC guidelines that we’d see an exponential increase in alcohol-related fatalities.
[/quote]

The key part I was referring to was:

[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:

I can understand general reluctance to have more numerous and severe government-imposed regulations about what one chooses to put into their body,[/quote]

My point was simple: there should be no reluctance as this has nothing to do with regulating what people put in their bodies.

82

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
Lets face it people drive safely over .08 all the time. Booze cruising is a way of life in rural america. Certain people who drink too much or are just plain stupid are the problem.
[/quote]

So if I’m reading correctly here, your stance is that 0.08 BAC should be permissible, but harsh penalties should be placed on people who wind up causing alcohol-related accidents?

I don’t disagree that some people can drive safely at 0.08 or above - in my younger and stupider days we’d call them DDD’s (designated drunk drivers) - but I do think that for the overwhelming majority of the population, motor skills and reaction time are affected substantially after a few drinks…to the point that it could be considered a danger to others and that they have no business behind the wheel of a car.

I can understand general reluctance to have more numerous and severe government-imposed regulations about what one chooses to put into their body, but the fact is that most Canadians and Americans are too fucking stupid to self-regulate and take any personal responsibility in regards to drinking and driving, and I firmly believe that if we removed any BAC guidelines that we’d see an exponential increase in alcohol-related fatalities.

These days we call it “drunk driving” and refer to “drunk drivers”. Prior to the early 70’s in Canada, when drunk driving was very loosely enforced, the term was “driving after being over-served”. I found this funny but sad, as the blame seems to have been put on the bartender or drinking establishment. There was little accountability to the shithead who got wasted and decided to go for a drive.

You had mentioned that driving while speaking on a cell phone wasn’t as strictly enforced as drunk driving. You’re right, but in Ontario anyway the cops are out in full force looking for distracted drivers. Cell phone use is an automatic $155 fine, and will soon earn you 2 demerit points. They can also extend this to people fiddling too long with their radio dials, doing their eyeliner in the mirror, eating a subway sandwich, etc. Any kind of distraction makes you a danger on the road to yourself and others, and you should be penalized for it.

The elderly is a real issue. My dad is 81 and has no business behind the wheel (he has red/green colour-blindness and sometimes gets double vision) but insists on driving. When you turn 80 in Canada you have to re-do a written test, but they’re planning to change this into a comprehensive road/vision/reaction time test that will have to be completed every 2 years.

Bottom line…we NEED BAC standards. It’s not a conspiracy from MADD - alcohol is correlated to road fatalities.

[/quote]

Well written, honestly we are on polar ends of the spectrum when it comes to regulation. There are enough laws that regulate personal freedom.

I’m guessing your Canadian? There are many places in america where people drive around with open beers and loaded handguns. I have no problem with that.

BTW. I don’t drink and drive. I have way too much to lose.
[/quote]

A law regulating your personal freedoms would be a law that prohibits you from consuming alcohol. I don’t think even under the most liberal interpretation of “personal freedom” could you justify an action that causes thousands of deaths per year.

[/quote]

Is alcohol with out a doubt the causative agent in those crashes? I’d argue that’s its just a factor not the sole cause.[/quote]

What are the other factors?

In some cases it could be, in others it could just be the catalyst. It’s hard to generalize with automobile accidents.

83

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]bond james bond wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ Here is the caveat to your argument, though when the rights of the individual effect the rights of the masses we have a problem.

I really dont care if DB drinks, snorts coke off a hooker, while another one shots heroin in his dick. To me that is his right, HOWEVER the moment he gets in his car to go buy cigarettes he could kill multiple people. This is why we have laws and regulations, it is not a freedom to drive on a road that I also paid for with my taxes. [/quote]

Now that’s a slippery slope. There is an inherent level of risk when living in today’s society. I’m okay with a higher level of risk in some instances.

Maybe we should outlaw lifted trucks due to their high risk for roll over…:smiley: Or maybe handguns, fried food, etc…

Cities and rural american are almost like two different countries. I don’t believe these viewpoints will ever be reconciled. [/quote]

I could see the argument for the lifted truck because technically it could roll over and kill someone besides myself. However most states have regulations and the Govt has regulations on what is considered street legal.

Other arguments again are the fact harming yourself is one thing when you infringe on others is where we need some type of standard.

Now I was born and raised in rural America, and now live in the City. (Beverly Hillbilly’s IRL) Yes there are differences that will never be reconciled, however the fundamental truth of the matter is harm to others not yourself.[/quote]

SUVs and trucks in general have much higher roll over rates.

I get what your saying, but that comes back to my philosophy of greater punishment for personal injury or damage of property. And I’m not saying their shouldn’t be some type of punishment for people that are all over the place on the road. Our current laws are over the top imo.

I’ve seen a lot of people get DUI’s. I think the punishment often times exacerbates their alcoholism or spurs it on.
[/quote]

Alcoholism is a progressive disease, meaning that it gets worse and worse. The exacerbation of it that you see occurs independent of any outside factors. There are certainly some things that can accelerate it, but it’s something that is already accelerating anyways.

This is probably a totally biased statement, given that most people I know who have received DUIs I have met in a 12-step program and given that I’ve lost 5 friends and one family member to drunk driving, but I think that pretty much anyone who gets a DUI is an alcoholic. Those that aren’t are irresponsible to the point where they are dangerous.

You see, if you drive somewhere you are driving away from that place as well. If you KNOW ahead of time that it is illegal to drive drunk, what else could cause someone to take that risk and drive drunk? What else would explain why someone would drink, knowing that they have to drive later? Why else would they risk death or arrest for a few drinks?[/quote]

The guys I mentioned who drive drunk are what I consider weekend-a-holics, different breed of cat don’t you think?

Sometimes I wonder which is more dangerous on the road. The weekend binger or the full blown functioning alcoholic.
[/quote]
Not all alcoholics are the same. The weekend binger IS your fullblown functioning alcoholic. Look, it’s simple. If you want to know if someone is an alcoholic there’s a test. Have a drink or two, then stop. That’s it for the night. Do it again tomorrow and the next day and so forth. If you can drink this way and be fine with having a drink or two and can continue to drink this way, you are probably not an alcoholic. But if you CANNOT drink successfully in this manner, you probably have a problem. One drink is too much, two isn’t enough.

You don’t have to start every day with a couple of stiff drinks to get you going in order to be an alcoholic. [/quote]

Most of my friends will have a ‘few’ over the course of the weekdays and then get absolutely plastered at least once on the weekend, sometimes twice. I wouldn’t really consider them alcoholics, I think it’s just part of being 25.

84

They don’t drink every weekday but most will have 1-3 drinks a couple weekdays a week. I recognize it can be a slippery slope for a person with an addictive personality.

85

This article is just stupid. It gives absolutely no information about the study other than random percentages telling people how dangerous alcohol is while driving. "little as one alcoholic beverage were 37 per cent more likely to get into a car accident than sober drivers. " Thats just ridiculous. One drink and you still are sober, unless maybe your a seven year old girl.

Not saying drunk driving is a good thing, but a 0.08 is still kind of low. 95% of people would be able to drive just fine.

Some idiot who gets drunk and goes flying around as fast as they can is the same person thats gonna drive around as fast as they can sober. there gonna be causing accidents and killing people with or without the help of alcohol.

86

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[Correction: people value the lives of celebrities infinitely more than the average man. Ryan Dunn gets sauced up and kills himself driving 130 and it’s termed a “tragedy.”[/quote]

Well, he wrecked a nice Porsche. That is a tragedy.

87

[quote]BobParr wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Edevus wrote:
One famous “torero” was drunk driving (and over speed limit) last month and killed a guy. He may just face 6 months of jail. Long live Spanish laws.

Want to kill someone? Don’t bother with a gun, that will be 10 years. Just get drunk and crush them with your car.[/quote]

I know a guy who did that. He served 18 months.
[/quote]

Kid I went to highschool with, loose acquaintance, did 1 year for each innocent life he took. 5 people in his car, one in the other, and he was the only one out of the 6 who survived.

The father of one of the girls in the car did time after beating this kid within an inch of his life when he got out I hear. Although this is just rumor to me, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was true. I guess he has a droopy eye now from the beating.

[/quote]

The girl’s father should have been rewarded, or at least have had any charges dismissed.

A pharmacist I used to work for did a similar thing. He and his wife and young son were about to cross a street when some drunk driver came careening down the road and swerved within inches of the young boy before crashing into a parked car on the other side of the street. The pharmacist ran over, helped the drunk out from behind the wheel, and gave him a good beat down.
[/quote]

That was me at the end of my road the other night, except there were 5 of them. And 8 squad cars when all said and done.

88

I agree with Utah if you pass a field test and then blow over the limit you should be let go. In my experience a normal man knows when he is drunk and hands the keys over or passes out in the car.
It must be because I grew up in Texas where it was common to drive and drink out here. Cops pull you over and the beer was in your lap it was really no big deal as long as you werent acting stupid, but know its different. But even then we can still get away with some things.
There is a point of no return and like someone mentioned I think its the weekend binger who does not know how to control himself after so many drinks.
I can remember when we would drive around drinking and hollering here in Texas as a young kid and my pops had a beer out the window and his other hand on the steering wheel. It was a common sight back then.

89

[quote]meat1wad wrote:
This article is just stupid. It gives absolutely no information about the study other than random percentages telling people how dangerous alcohol is while driving. "little as one alcoholic beverage were 37 per cent more likely to get into a car accident than sober drivers. " Thats just ridiculous. One drink and you still are sober, unless maybe your a seven year old girl.

Not saying drunk driving is a good thing, but a 0.08 is still kind of low. 95% of people would be able to drive just fine.

Some idiot who gets drunk and goes flying around as fast as they can is the same person thats gonna drive around as fast as they can sober. there gonna be causing accidents and killing people with or without the help of alcohol.[/quote]

I wouldn’t want to live nearby you. It’s obvious that you drink and drive and don’t have an issue with it. First of all, the article is based on an study and throwing more numbers wouldn’t really help that much. The original is from a monthly scientific publication and they have taken data from the last 20 years.

YOU, from nowhere, say that 95% of population could drink normally with 0.08, yet it seems the numbers show the opposite. Even very little alcohol has its effects on reflexes and behaviour. Those issues get multiplied when driving, since it requires lots of attention and the consequences of any mistakes can be fatal.

I’ll reply to your last paragraph with a paragraph of a short version of the original article :
â??Compared with sober drivers, buzzed drivers are more likely to speed, more likely to be improperly seat-belted and more likely to drive the striking vehicle, all of which are associated with greater severity.â??

http://www.addictionjournal.org/viewpressrelease.asp?pr=151

Next time you just have few drinks and you feel “fine”, try to think about how maybe next time you’re having your drinks, you will be staring at your amputated legs while remembering about that family you just sent straight to the morgue.

90

If you think one drink doesn’t impair you at all (I admit, I kinda think being impaired by one drink is something that only applies to 95lb women) slam a shot of whiskey to your face every time you get to the gym and try to hit 95% your 1rm on an Olympic lift for a few sets of one rep. I guarantee you that you’ll consistently miss on that lift but will hit it with regularity when you don’t have a shot beforehand.