Bent Something (oops)

[island911]

First, I think we all know what Jim is talking about. . .it's nothing new.

On this:

Originally posted by MMARSH
. . . but not being legally drunk, does not mean your decision making and hand/eye coordination are not impaired enough to effect your ability to control your vehicle when faced with an unusual or extreme situation.. . .

Ummm . . . BEING COMPLETELY SOBER "does not mean your decision making and hand/eye coordination are not impaired. . . "

People have "impairment" for a varity of reasons; sleepy, distraught, stupid, treated flu symptoms, tennis elbow, talking on cell phones, eating chinese food (w/ sticks), watching DVD's. . ..

So. . . the idea was (some time back) def'n a point where impairment due to alcohol is a serious problem. Now, we have the 'one-upsmenship' of who can make a bigger deal out of it.

Meanwhile, we still have sleepy, distraught, stupid, treated flu symptoms, w/tennis elbow, talking on cell phones, eating chinese food (w/ sticks), watching DVD's --morons out there driving.
. . .and making up the much larger part of the problem.

[kristian85]

Originally posted by island911
No kidding. These MADD people try to come-off as "couragously" telling the world about the downside of drinking and driving. (as if DD is a tough thing to be against, or people need to have their eyes opened)

If anything, these MADD people need to have their eyes opened.
Most accidents happen due to a combination of sleepiness, intoxication, inattentiveness, and DWRTIQ (Driving with a Room Temperature IQ)

It doesn't take much "driver involvement" to safely get from point A to B. . . .even with one of the above limitation.
However, if that one is DWI --look out. The "DrunK" is the easiest political pinyata next to the "Dead-Beat-Dad."

The .10 , or .08 rule *is* an arbitrary number. it keeps getting lower, as the political correct try to one-up each other. It's also good for the police dept's that get to impound and confiscate personal property for resale.

Good lord, there's truly some flat-headed nonsense in there. Drunk drivers are demonized precisely because the drunken driving is entirely voluntary and the result of a person's decision to have alcohol and then drive. That is, the drunk who killed/maimed someone considered the choice of having just one more vs. driving drunk knowing well the potential consequences. That drunk elevated his/her desire to drink over the possibility of maiming/killing someone later.

You're not both a habitual drunken driver AND a dead-beat dad, are you? You seem sensitive to these issues.....

[beepbeep]

Sorry to hear about the car.

I dunno about your laws but if that happened here in sweden, your driving license would be taken for a quite long time (over a year), you would pay hefty penalty and probably be forced to do community work. Frankly, i find it perfectly OK. (Legal limit is 0.02)

Drinking and driving is idiotic...

But hey...what do we know, we just have lowest car-accident death-rate in the world.

[MMARSH]

Originally posted by island911
First, I think we all know what Jim is talking about. . .it's nothing new.

On this:
Ummm . . . BEING COMPLETELY SOBER "does not mean your decision making and hand/eye coordination are not impaired. . . "

People have "impairment" for a varity of reasons; . . ..

I agree with you. But Alot more people are in accidents because of alcohol, then being sleepy, distraught, stupid, treated flu symptoms, tennis elbow, talking on cell phones, eating chinese food (w/ sticks), watching DVD's.

In this case, Jim didnt say he was talking on his cell phone while putting a CD in his stereo. He said alcohol was involved, he was impaired and that was a factor. The point I was making was directed at those who suggested or stupidly think that one or two beers will not impair them. Noah clarified his earlier post regarding drinking a few beers (or maybe I just understood what he meant this time) and I agree with him.

[tsniu]

A timely topic as we all approach New Year. As we all sit here sipping the egg nog or the decaf espresso, I focus on the following factors:

1. No police action.
2. The incident occurred on what appears to be an empty or deserted road, not the high school parking lot at lunch.

The driver risked his well being, and his wallet. If he did so knowingly, this is a choice that we all make while either driving or in many, many other activities.

[island911]

Originally posted by kristian85
Good lord, there's truly some flat-headed nonsense in there. Drunk drivers are demonized precisely because the drunken driving is entirely voluntary and the result of a person's decision to have alcohol and then drive. That is, the drunk who killed/maimed someone considered the choice of having just one more vs. driving drunk knowing well the potential consequences. That drunk elevated his/her desire to drink over the possibility of maiming/killing someone later.

You're not both a habitual drunken driver AND a dead-beat dad, are you? You seem sensitive to these issues.....

"flat-headed nonsense . . etal" hmmm, you've hardly supported any argument with your plea of compassion. Nor has your simpleton tacked of character assassination helped your position.

Because I *knew*some righteous genius would conclude that because I've taken the position that the drunk driving laws/cultutre have gone too far, that I must be a drunk; I posted early in this thread this is far from the case. It's there; didn't you read it? . . .you wouldn't happen to be illiterate, would you!?

BTW- the "dead-beat dad" issue is just another observation (from a completely outside perspective) . . but thanks for throwing mudd and calling names.

I've really enjoyed your perspective and input; until that post.

[island911]

Originally posted by MMARSH
I agree with you. But Alot more people are in accidents because of alcohol, then being sleepy, distraught, stupid, treated flu symptoms, tennis elbow, talking on cell phones, eating chinese food (w/ sticks), watching DVD's.

In this case, Jim didnt say he was talking on his cell phone while putting a CD in his stereo. He said alcohol was involved, he was impaired and that was a factor. The point I was making was directed at those who suggested or stupidly think that one or two beers will not impair them. Noah clarified his earlier post regarding drinking a few beers (or maybe I just understood what he meant this time) and I agree with him.

I know what your saying countering the "one or two beers will not impair them" argument; --but-- I have seen people who can drink a 6-pack and still drive more safely and under control than some I've seen whom are "sober." Could the 6pack guy drive even better w/o the impairment? -- absolutely.

My point is there is a standard of keeeping the control of a vehical. It is demonizing to lable someone like Vic Elford "a Drunk Driver" should he get caught driving with a .02. If someone is in control of their vehical -- end of story.

As it is now, drunks try to "fit in" by driving with the fast pace of traffic --bad. Where as crusty old folks drive at the speed that matches their reation time. (they haven't been hyper-demonized . . .yet.)

(righteous genius disclaimer: Vic Elford's name was used only as an example of a driver who would out drive any of us, even if he had a few. Nothing ill is implied about Vic or his family)