I just don’t understand drinking and driving

@BillRM,

Quote:

Because that where we are headed and there are even tv advs now running concerning not drunk driving but so call buzz driving.

Oh, stop being such an hysterical idiot. We are not heading for a .02 BAC legal limit for adults. That's just another strawman.

You are really in a panic about not being able to drink and drive. Why is drinking and driving so important to you?

And you must be accustomed to binge drinking, and consuming large amounts of alcohol, if it doesn't occur to you that buzzed driving might be drunk driving.

Those TV ads about buzzed driving have been running since 2005--there is nothing new about them. And, by the time you feel the "buzz" you may be at or over the .08 limit, because people don't always equate being buzzed with being drunk, so these ad campaigns are a reminder.

Quote:

In an effort to make our roads safer, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, did some investigating and found that young men between the ages of 18 and 34 were responsible for the vast majority of drunk-driving accidents. But when asked, these young men made a distinction between being drunk and being buzzed.

"Everyone understands dancing-with-a-lampshade drunk and says they would never drive like that. But they do drive with a buzz on because they don't believe they are impaired," said Robin Mayer of the NHTSA.

These men defined "buzzed" as having a couple of beers, but when pressed, "a couple of beers" was more like "eight to 10 beers."

To target this group of male drivers, the NHTSA launched a new ad campaign today. It's a companion to the effective "Friends don't let friends drive drunk" campaign.

Although that campaign focuses on the passengers, the new "Buzzed" campaign focuses on the drivers. It uses humorous public-service announcements, which will air on television, to talk about a serious subject.

One shows an extremely drunk young man joining a wedding band for a drum solo, adding the line "It's easy to tell when you've had way too many." It cuts to a young man laughing at the drunken drummer as he downs a drink himself and grabs his car keys. The tag line "But what if you've had just one too many? Buzzed driving IS drunk driving."

The NHTSA said these kinds of campaigns work and points to the 20-year-old "Friends don't let friends drive drunk" campaign, which the highway administration said changed the social norm. As a result, people no longer are embarrassed or afraid to take away the car keys of a friend or family member. Many groups even appoint designated drivers.

Drunk-driving fatalities have continued to drop for a number of reasons, including education and ad-awareness campaigns. The "Buzzed" campaign will not replace "Friends don't let friends drive drunk." But it will expand the message to show driving with a "buzz on" IS just as dangerous as driving drunk.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=1448925

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

You are really in a panic about not being able to drink and drive. Why is drinking and driving so important to you?

I'm more or less with you on this issue, but there's no reason to shove your own straw man to compete with Bill's.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

What evidence do you have that Thom Swift is/was a binge drinker?

I don't have the evidence that he was an habitual binge drinker, but I do believe he consumed enough alcohol that night to push his BAC over the .08 limit, based on the DUI charge. Others who posted in this thread also reported he had several Long Island Teas that night. That is a drinking binge.

He might or might not be a habitual binge drinker, he might or might not even be an alcoholic.

I'm also not a prosecutor in a courtroom right now, I don't need material "evidence". I can speculate on the condition of a driver arrested for DUI, just as others have speculated on the condition of the cyclist and the condition of his bike.

0 Replies

@Questioner,

Quote:

I'm more or less with you on this issue, but there's no reason to shove your own straw man to compete with Bill's

Being able to drink and drive is obviously important to him. He's said a .08 BAC level is too low as a legal limit, he's concerned, without sufficient reason, that it might be lowered to .02. He is clearly concerned with the issue of restricting the amount of alcohol someone can consume before getting behind the wheel.

Where is my strawman?

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:
I'm more or less with you on this issue, but there's no reason to shove your own straw man to compete with Bill's

Being able to drink and drive is obviously important to him. He's said a .08 BAC level is too low as a legal limit, he's concerned, without sufficient reason, that it might be lowered to .02. He is clearly concerned with the issue of restricting the amount of alcohol someone can consume before getting behind the wheel.

Where is my strawman?

He's stated numerous times that his primary concern with the lowering of the BAC is the effect it will have on businesses, not his desire to drink and drive. There's plenty there to go after without painting him as a wanton murderer.

3 Replies

@Questioner,

I do think firefly's question is fair (I must, I've asked the some one Very Happy

).

BillRM's been all over the place in this thread, sometimes in ways I understand, sometimes in ways I truly don't. One of the ways I don't understand is why he appears to think it is not reasonable for one person in a group (of 2 or more) to not drink during an evening out. The ability to drink and drive seems to have some importance to him.

Since the fundamental question asked by the thread is why drink and drive, I think it is fair to ask BillRM (and any other poster here) that exact question.

1 Reply

@Questioner,

Quote:

He's stated numerous times that his primary concern with the lowering of the BAC is the effect it will have on businesses, not his desire to drink and drive.

That makes the issue of drinking and driving important to him--which is what I said.

Quote:

There's plenty there to go after without painting him as a wanton murderer.

Since I never said that, or anything close to it, you seem to be the one now resorting to use of a strawman.

1 Reply

@Questioner,

I don't think anyone is painting Bill as a wanton murderer. He's a very selfish, and irresponsible person who puts his own pleasure above anything else. he may well only have a couple of glasses of wine, (which is not really an accurate measure anyway, my mate has got a wineglass that holds a whole bottle,) but if the laws were relaxed it wouldn't stop there.

Essentially his going out and having a good time takes priority. If he's watching what he's drinking, he's not having such a good time. If the price of such behaviour is increased casualties, he thinks it's worth paying. I don't think he really sees those casualties as people, just numbers.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:
He's stated numerous times that his primary concern with the lowering of the BAC is the effect it will have on businesses, not his desire to drink and drive.

That makes the issue of drinking and driving important to him--which is what I said.

I'm not sure why you take what I say, ignore the content, and reiterate your own version. I'm a late comer to this thread so I'll just assume it has to do with absolute GOBS of nonsense that Bill has spewed beforehand.

As I've said, there's plenty to throw back in Billy bob's face without trying to pin the 'you must love to drink and drive' bit on him. That's all I'm saying.

1 Reply

Well, here's another man, from another part of Florida, who has turned down two plea offers and wants to go to trial for DUI manslaughter.

Quote:

DUI manslaughter trial to begin next week
By Vishal Persaud
Staff writer
January 11, 2012

OCALA - John Medeiros, charged with DUI manslaughter, will be put on trial sometime next week. Jury selection is scheduled to begin Tuesday, Jan. 17.

Medeiros, now 59, is charged in connection with the death of 39-year-old Dwayne Bradley.

In October 2010, Medeiros was driving a 2000 Cadillac Deville and collided with a motorcycle as he was making a left turn onto Northeast 77th Street. Bradley, the driver of the motorcycle, was taken to Shands at the University of Florida in Gainesville that night, where he was pronounced deceased.

According to police reports, Medeiros was visibly intoxicated at the scene. His driver’s license had been revoked for a previous DUI manslaughter charge. The 2010 charge was his second in two years.

An unshaven Medeiros, wearing a faded jail uniform, appeared in court Wednesday for a hearing. His defense attorney, Melanie Slaughter, planned to review with him a redacted recorded jail interview he had with authorities, which will be introduced in court next week.

Medeiros faces up to 30 years in prison. He has turned down plea deals from the State Attorney’s Office for 15-year and 20-year sentences.

Slaughter said in court that her client would only plead if offered five years in prison, but the state would not offer that sentence.

It will be interesting to see how his trial turns out.

This is a link to the news report of the accident that resulted in the DUI manslaughter charge.
http://www.ocala.com/article/20101023/ARTICLES/101029844/-1/entertainment02?Title=Ocala-man-facing-DUI-manslaughter-in-fatal-wreck-Saturday

2 Replies

@Questioner,

Quote:

without trying to pin the 'you must love to drink and drive' bit on him. That's all I'm saying.

Come on it just reflect badly on her and she is too self center to even know it just as her you must had child porn on your computers if you do not agree with the US law details on the subject and had security on your computers comments.

Any one who disagrees with her is a drunken bum who drives down the highway with a bottle in one hand and a monitor showing CP in the other as she is on the side of the angels.

Lord only know what she is hiding herself as she is the only major posters on this system that in ten of thousands of posts who had carefully disclose zero about her life.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Take note in order to have a right to have a trial part of the cost is double the possible punishment in this case.

The state will put all kinds of pressures on someone not to demand a trial and once more guilty or innocent the system is now a let make a deal for 90 percents of those charge.

2 Replies

@firefly,

I see two things.

One, both this person and Thom were driving around "a corner" when they struck someone. When I think about that, here in Adelaide, accidents of that nature are reserved mainly to Gorge Road, and through the hills as they wind. Most "corners" are still quite visable otherwise, as you would stop before turning.

And, two,

Quote:

His driver’s license had been revoked for a previous DUI manslaughter charge. The 2010 charge was his second in two years.

What on earth... I'd throw the book at this person, lessons are there to be learnt not ignored. Let alone killing two people in a span of 12 months.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quite fixated on wanting to know all about her aren't you Smile

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

think it is fair to ask BillRM (and any other poster here) that exact question

.

Yes ehbeth having a glass of wine when out with a meal is something I enjoy doing as do many tens of millions of my fellow citizens and I would be annoy for no reason the nuts cases get the US congress to force the states to lower the limit so low that this would no longer be safe to do and drive home afterward.

When doing so add zero to road safety.

1 Reply

@FOUND SOUL,

Quote:

One, both this person and Thom were driving around "a corner" when they struck someone.

The man in the news article was driving around a corner.

As far as we know from the press release, Thom and the cyclist were both traveling on the same road, in the same direction, and no one was turning corners.

Quote:

What on earth... I'd throw the book at this person, lessons are there to be learnt not ignored. Let alone killing two people in a span of 12 months.

I don't think the man in the news story had been convicted on the other DUI manslaughter, and I can't find any info about that. However, his driver's license was still revoked from that incident at the time of his second DUI manslaughter arrest. So, he was both driving drunk and driving without a license. And I think he had just gotten out of rehab.

He wants a jury trial, and he's going to get one. It will be interesting to see if a jury does throw the book at him. I'll try to remember to follow the case.

1 Reply

@FOUND SOUL,

Quote:

Quite fixated on wanting to know all about her aren't you

All about her????????

We know nothing at all as she is a black hole as far as personal information is concern however she enjoy using what all the others posters had share about themselves as a weapon again them at her whim.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Take note in order to have a right to have a trial part of the cost is double the possible punishment in this case.

No, the right to a trial doesn't have a legal cost, athough it does entail a risk of being found guilty and receiving a longer sentence than the plea deal offer. That's true for all defendants. That's why a plea deal is a good alternative for many defendants, particularly those for whom defense attorneys might not be able to raise sufficient reasonable doubt regarding guilt.

People know the potential punishments before they drink and drive. They took that risk, and the risk they might kill someone while driving DUI, when they got behind the wheel. So, I'm not that personally concerned about the risks they take by going to trial.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Probably cause I am in Aussie Land, and I think I read "going east" but for some reason, I visualised Thom going around a corner at the time he hit Barry... Hense the comment, not relevant anyway.

He may "not" have been convicted and was sent to rehab instead, but he obviously still hit someone, twice. So the rehab didn't do him any good what so ever and as a result of that decision made, he ended up doing it again, killing someone....

0 Replies

@firefly,

The cost is that we allow prosecutors to overcharge and pile on charges to force plea deals.

There is no check on this misconduct as safe guards that was intended to offer protections such as grand juries no longer function in that manner.

It is we do not care if you are innocent or guilt and if you wish a trial it will ruin you and your family financially win or loss and if you are found guilt we will throw away the key for daring to demand your constitution rights to a trial.

1 Reply

I just don’t understand drinking and driving

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know