I just don’t understand drinking and driving

@Rockhead,

Sorry but the FAA allow your pilot to be at .04........................

By the way do you have a problem with a pilot being sleep deprivated as that had been a factor in planes crashes and is far more likely to be the case then a pilot having even a .04 BAC.

Howabout flying after just receiving divorce papers? Somehow knowing that would concern me far more then knowing that the pilot had just have a beer.

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Remember those preachers who used to slam the Bible down and yell at us that we were not to touch drink, dance, listen to unwholesome music or enjoy our sex? Firefly is a carbon copy of them only she does not have a Bible banging habbit.

Tell me again why so many of this crowd around A2K takes her seriously...

The preachers I get, they don't like people much because they are all about sucking up to a vengefull God. Why Firefly dislikes us so I would be interested to know.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

So how far does he want to go???

He's quite clear about that and also clear about the fact he enjoys drinking.

Quote:

So what to do? Well, I truly believe the legal limit should be knocked down to at least .05. I’m not alone in that either, as .05 is supported by the World Medical Association, the American and British Medical Associations, the European Commission, the European Transport Safety Council, the World Health Organization and the American College of Emergency Physicians. It’s also the limit in numerous other countries, including Belgium, Germany and France.
http://www.pottsmerc.com/article/20120713/OPINION03/120719740/our-drunk-driving-laws-are-a-joke

Quote:

but it will not be the lest turn unless the zealots are not stopped

You are back in full tilt Chicken Little mode. Laughing

Quote:

Remember those preachers who used to slam the Bible down and yell at us that we were not to touch drink, dance, listen to unwholesome music or enjoy our sex? Firefly is a carbon copy of them only she does not have a Bible banging habbit.

You have quite a knack for writing fiction. Laughing

Too bad you are substituting your hysteria for facts and sounding your false alarms rather than addressing the facts. No one is taking your booze away, or even threatening to do that. We're talking about drunk driving.

What do you think an appropriate BAC limit should be for a school bus driver?

1 Reply

@firefly,

He enjoy drinking and yet claimed that you are totally blitzed at a BAC of .08.......

Sure he had consume alcohol in his life....NOT

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

He enjoy drinking and yet claimed that you are totally blitzed at a BAC of .08.......

Sure he had consume alcohol in his life....NOT

Science should be able to tell us exactly how much more likely we are to make injurous mistakes while driving at .08 and .05 and .03 than at .00...show me the data before you talk to me about changing the law. Driving is usually very safe so even ten times more likely might not mean much in lives, so show me that too. These "if it saves one life we must do it" nuts can go **** themselves so far as I am concerned.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

He enjoy drinking and yet claimed that you are totally blitzed at a BAC of .08.......

Sure he had consume alcohol in his life....NOT

He didn't say he was totally blitzed at .08, he said if he consumes the amount of alcohol within the timeframe to get him to that limit, he doesn't feel he's in any condition to drive--he recognizes that he's impaired as far as driving is concerned.

So, I'll ask you again, how much alcohol does it take you to get to your idea of blitized/impaired, to a point where you realize you shouldn't drive. You seem to be afraid to answer that question, because you've repeatedly dodged it, but it's quite relevant to the frame of reference you're using in judging intoxication.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Science should be able to tell us exactly how much more likely we are to make injurous mistakes while driving at .08 and .05 and .03 than at .00...

That data has already been posted in this thread.

You can easily find it yourself.

I'm not going to keep re-posting the same info over and over because you and BillRM have selective amnesia when it comes to the facts that have already been posted. You two keep re-hashing the same things over and over and over.

1 Reply

@firefly,

The data I have seen does not measure injurous errors, it os stuff this response times and ability to measure distance ect....all of which will get to be a problem at some point but there is no help in figuring out what that point is. I submit that it is bacause those who fund the studies know before they started that they wanted to push the BAC, they have decided first and then set to work to create the "science" to back up their goals.

One the other hand we do have data from fatal events which shows that it is BAC of .15 and above which kills most of the time. This indicates to me that working at the extreme low end of the BAC scale as the fanatics are now doing is idiotic.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

One the other hand we do have data from fatal events which shows that it is BAC of .15 and above which kills most of the time.

No, half of the fatalities involve BAC levels below .15.

And that info was also posted in this thread--very recently.

Look, alcohol is a central nervous system depressant--increasing amounts of alcohol adversely influence the functions of the CNS in more and more drastic ways as alcohol intake continues. If you continue drinking, you pass out. If you drink enough, fast enough, you can die. There is no mystery or lack of data about this.

If you're unconvinced, and you don't want to educate yourself, remain unconvinced.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Firefly..always the lier. 56% are above .15BAC with the most common reading in fatal crashes is .17. I am on my phone so I will link later...but go to duijusticelink.aaa.com/facts.

BTW they also say that 67% of those killed are the drivers themselves, which again brings up the question of why we should care very much.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

BTW they also say that 67% of those killed are the drivers themselves, which again brings up the question of why we should care very much.

There is his idiocy logic once again. So 67% killed are the drunks, more then the sober innocent victims. Where does this clown come up with this ****?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Firefly..always the lier. 56% are above .15BAC

Stop with the gratuitous insults. I am not a liar. You want to make a big deal of 50% vs 56%, go right ahead.

So, in 44% of the fatal accidents, a BAC level of less than .15 was involved.

But we aren't just talking about numbers, those numbers represent human lives--and I'm not as indifferent to the value of life as you seem to be.

And you're overlooking the fact that over a quarter of a million people a year are injured in alcohol related auto accidents in the U.S.--many of them quite severely injured. Like my friend's 8 year old son who was hit by a drunk driver and sustained significant permanent brain injuries. And I was seriously injured when a drunk driver smashed into the rear end of my car while I was stopped for a red light. And like many of the surviving victims in the news stories about drunk drivers that you don't like reading, because they bring home the awareness that these accidents involve real people and not abstract numbers.

Quote:

BTW they also say that 67% of those killed are the drivers themselves, which again brings up the question of why we should care very much.

Because those drivers also kill and injure other innocent people, as well as themselves? Because that's a senseless loss of life we should try to prevent?

Look, if you don't want to believe that drunk driving is a significant problem, fine. Don't believe it.

If you don't want to believe that at a BAC level of .08 a driver is significantly impaired, fine. Don't believe it.

If you don't believe it is important to reduce the problem of drunk driving, fine. Don't believe it.

I hate to put a dent in your narcissism, but I really don't care what you, in particular, believe, or care about how you, in particular, feel about the drunk driving laws.

You seem to exist in your own little close-minded, egocentric world. I hope you're happy there.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

These "if it saves one life we must do it" nuts can go **** themselves so far as I am concerned.

It not just lives but if we can save one child life we should do it.................

No end to that road up to 24/7 monitoring of any home with children in it by the state.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

One the other hand we do have data from fatal events which shows that it is BAC of .15 and above which kills most of the time. This indicates to me that working at the extreme low end of the BAC scale as the fanatics are now doing is idiotic

.

Agree and one wonder if we will start taking away driver licenses at age 50 or so when the normla aging process sloe w reaction times to the same level as a BAC of .08 slow down a 30 something driver.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Fair is fair....if we are going to get so anal about relatively slight BAC imparement then we certainly should put old people on a simulator before renewing them.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

BTW they also say that 67% of those killed are the drivers themselves, which again brings up the question of why we should care very much.

I thought you'd miss BillRM.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

I thought you'd miss BillRM.

Just reverse and have another go.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

ha!

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Has it been established that Bill is a drunk? I know that Firefly says so but she can never be trusted to present fact and I think I remember Bill denying the charge.

Yes, I would miss Bill. If there were more fact based and open minded liberals like him I might still be a liberal.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

go back about 80 pages

2 Replies

I just don’t understand drinking and driving

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know