I just don’t understand drinking and driving

@firefly,

Quote:

All about her????????

firefly wrote:

Yup, you've already asked for my family history, marital history, educational history, and work history--so far.

True, you haven't asked for my shoe size, the type of car I drive, or my social security number yet.

You assume I'm interested in that personal info about yourself that you chose to share--I couldn't be less interested.
In fact, I wish you were better able to look beyond your own immediate limited experience when discussing a topic.

This isn't match.com, I can't think of a single logical or legitimate reason I have to satisfy your insatiable curiosity about me.
Go fixate on someone else.

This forum is ANONYMOUS.
Its members have the right to remain anonymous.
No one has any obligation to reveal more about himself than he wants.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

This forum is ANONYMOUS.
Its members have the right to remain anonymous.
No one has any obligation to reveal more about himself than he wants.

ANONYMOUS that is true and unless someone wish to spend a large amount of resources even with all I had reveal about myself it would be hard to track me down so why in the hell does Firefly fear telling us what her career happen to had been or if she had been married or a million and one facts that leak out of all our postings your and mine and everyone else but for her?

There is something very odd about this lady to say the least.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

and if you are found guilt we will throw away the key for daring to demand your constitution rights to a trial.

firefly wrote:

People should think about that before they drink and drive.

Let 's back up on this.
Not focusing so much on DUI, in particular, the topic immediately at hand,
as focusing upon crimes in general: people can be and have been abruptly involved
in alleged crimes that thay did not expect.

That can happen to ANYONE.

Such a person will lament and bemoan degeneration of the American justice system
and disregard for his Constitutional rights.

Time is a factor in fixing the situation b4 it falls on U.

David

0 Replies

@BillRM,

It gotten so bad that states are beginning to have two levels for DUI the .08 limit and a limit set must must higher where you are for real drunk and get must harsher punishments.

Now if we tied in DUI manslaughter into this second level the problem of unfair charges would go away for the most part.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

DAVID wrote:

This forum is ANONYMOUS.
Its members have the right to remain anonymous.
No one has any obligation to reveal more about himself than he wants.

BillRM wrote:

ANONYMOUS that is true and unless someone wish to spend a large amount of resources even with all I had reveal about myself it would be hard to track me down so why in the hell does Firefly fear telling us what her career happen to had been or if she had been married or a million and one facts that leak out of all our postings your and mine and everyone else but for her?

There is something very odd about this lady to say the least.

Your post assumes that she is motivatied by FEAR.
That is not necessarily true.
Each person has a right to privacy for any reason, or for NO reason.

Some of the posters in this forum are very odd,
with several of them openly admitting to being
afflicted by multiple mental disturbances.
One poster even built his screename around it.
Others don't admit it, but it shows conspicuously.

I 'm sure that I 'm considered odd with my demonstrated quest
for fonetic spelling and my former use of a lot of color
and different sizes of font in my expression,
to say nothing of my purist application of the 2nd Amendment
which many people do not accept,
my point being that Firefly is not among odd posters of A2K, in my opinion.

No one shud reveal more about himself than he wants to reveal.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

The right not to reveal anything have nothing to do with how very very odd so doing happen to be.

How hard it must be to filter out all personal information in postings that cover all possible subjects and for any of the major posters here we are talking about tens of thousands of posts.

Given the large efforts involved there must be an overwhelming reasons/needs that seems not to be share with any other poster here.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

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

the question I asked was:

Quote:

You wouldn't be willing to not have a drink with dinner one night?

So your answer is that you are unwilling to skip a drink with dinner for one evening.

Fascinating.

1 Reply

Sorry, I was ruminating on another thread, posted here, and deleted it.

0 Replies

@jcboy,

http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws

Consider the 2000 federal law that pressured states to lower their BAC standards to 0.08 from 0.10. At the time, the average BAC in alcohol-related fatal accidents was 0.17, and two-thirds of such accidents involved drivers with BACs of 0.14 or higher. In fact, drivers with BACs between 0.01 and 0.03 were involved in more fatal accidents than drivers with BACs between 0.08 and 0.10. (The federal government classifies a fatal accident as "alcohol-related" if it involved a driver, a biker, or a pedestrian with a BAC of 0.01 or more, whether or not drinking actually contributed to the accident.) In 1995 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studied traffic data in 30 safety categories from the first five states to adopt the new DWI standard. In 21 of the 30 categories, those states were either no different from or less safe than the rest of the country.Once the 0.08 standard took effect nationwide in 2000, a curious thing happened: Alcohol-related traffic fatalities increased, following a 20-year decline. Critics of the 0.08 standard predicted this would happen. The problem is that most people with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10 don't drive erratically enough to be noticed by police officers in patrol cars. So police began setting up roadblocks to catch them. But every cop manning a roadblock aimed at catching motorists violating the new law is a cop not on the highways looking for more seriously impaired motorists. By 2004 alcohol-related fatalities went down again, but only because the decrease in states that don't use roadblocks compensated for a slight but continuing increase in the states that use them.

The roadblocks are also constitutionally problematic. In the 1990 decision Michigan v. Sitz ,the Supreme Court acknowledged that stops at sobriety checkpoints constitute "seizures" under the Fourth Amendment but ruled that the public safety threat posed by drunk driving made them "reasonable." In the years since, the checkpoints have become little more than revenue generators for local governments. When local newspapers inquire about specific roadblocks after the fact, they inevitably find lots of citations for seat belt offenses, broken headlights, driving with an expired license, and other minor infractions. But the checkpoints rarely catch seriously impaired drivers. In 2009, according to a recent study by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, 1,600 sobriety checkpoints in California generated $40 million in fines, $30 million in overtime pay for cops, 24,000 vehicle confiscations, and just 3,200 arrests for drunk driving. A typical checkpoint would consist of 20 or more cops, yield a dozen or more vehicle confiscations, but around three drunk driving arrests

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

So your answer is that you are unwilling to skip a drink with dinner for one evening.

The issue is not if I am willing to skip one night as I am more then willing never to drink one glass of wine ever again in a restaurant if the society go that insane.

I am not always in the mood to have a glass of wine however if I am in the mood there should be a reason that have some connection to the real universe not to drive with a .02 or so level BAC if I am in the mood for that wine.

The average driver who have an fatal accident due to BAC is not at .02 or .08 or .1 but 1.7 level.

Second the relationship is non linear and a driver in this 30s or older at .08 is a safer driver then an 18 years old driver with zero BAC.

If the society wish to go crazy over this to the point that a .02 or so is not allow I will skip the wine completely as I am fairly sure that 90 percents will do so and the hell with the fate of the businesses that loss that income stream.

No one is going to have a designated driver if he is planning on having one drink of wine he or she is just going to say the hell with it.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

No one is going to have a designated driver if he is planning on having one drink of wine he or she is just going to say the hell with it.

And no one that has one drink is in danger of reaching .08 BAC. So what's your point?

1 Reply

@Questioner,

Quote:

And no one that has one drink is in danger of reaching .08 BAC. So what's your point?

The point is that there is now a strong movement to lower the BAC down to at least .05 nationwide.

0 Replies

This is how mad MADD happen to be. There is no good idea or goal that in the end is not taken to extremes it would seems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving

Additionally, MADD has proposed that breath alcohol ignition interlock devices should be installed in all new cars. Tom Incantalupo wrote:[35] "Ultimately, the group said yesterday, it wants so-called alcohol interlock devices factory-installed in all new cars. "The main reason why people continue to drive drunk today is because they can," MADD president Glynn Birch said at a news teleconference from Washington, D.C."

Sarah Longwell, a spokeswoman for the American Beverage Institute, responded to MADD's desire to legislate breathalyzers into every vehicle in America by stating "This interlock campaign is not about eliminating drunk driving, it is about eliminating all moderate drinking prior to driving. The 40 million Americans who drink and drive responsibly should be outraged." She also points out that "Many states have laws that set the presumptive level of intoxication at .05% and you can't adjust your interlock depending on which state you're driving in. Moreover, once you factor in liability issues and sharing vehicles with underage drivers you have pushed the preset limit down to about .02%. It will be a de facto zero tolerance policy."[citation needed]

Some point out that the policy assumes that citizens are guilty of drunkenness and requires them to prove themselves innocent not only before they drive but repeatedly while they drive.[36]

A review of devices concluded, "The results of the study show that interlock works for some offenders in some contexts, but not for all offenders in all situations. More specifically, ignition interlock devices work best when they are installed, although there is also some evidence that judicial orders to install an interlock are effective for repeat DUI offenders, even when not all offenders comply and install a device. California's administrative program, where repeat DUI offenders install an interlock device in order to obtain restricted driving privileges, is also associated with reductions in subsequent DUI incidents. One group for whom ignition interlock orders do not appear effective is first DUI offenders with high blood alcohol levels."[37]

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

The issue is not if I am willing to skip one night as I am more then willing never to drink one glass of wine ever again in a restaurant if the society go that insane.

I am not always in the mood to have a glass of wine however if I am in the mood there should be a reason that have some connection to the real universe not to drive with a .02 or so level BAC if I am in the mood for that wine.

The average driver who have an fatal accident due to BAC is not at .02 or .08 or .1 but 1.7 level.

Second the relationship is non linear and a driver in this 30s or older at .08 is a safer driver then an 18 years old driver with zero BAC.

If the society wish to go crazy over this to the point that a .02 or so is not allow I will skip the wine completely as I am fairly sure that 90 percents will do so and the hell with the fate of the businesses that loss that income stream.

No one is going to have a designated driver if he is planning on having one drink of wine he or she is just going to say the hell with it.

My BillRM, your written form of expression has shown sudden dramatic improvement. You're clear and coherent and actually sound like English is your native language. What's accounted for the change?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

A review of devices concluded, "The results of the study show that interlock works for some offenders in some contexts, but not for all offenders in all situations."

Let's just pause on this for a second. Yes, I'm pulling it out from the broader picture that you obviously copy/pasted in. . . but I find it amusing that this sentence was in this particular posting.

Part of the reason that this device doesn't work for all offenders in all situations is that everyone has a different physiology. The .08 BAC limit is based on the 'averages', which need to be accounted for. As I stated before, you set the bar towards the lowest common denominator, not the highest.

Also, that graph you posted earlier by the nhtsa (that was pulled out and posted on a anti .08 bac website) was apparently either in error or forged.

Here's a posting from the NHTSA which actually supports the .08 rating with several factoids, points/counterpoints that I think you might find interesting if you bother reading it.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/new-fact-sheet03/fact-sheets04/Laws-08BAC.pdf

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

The right not to reveal anything has nothing to do
with how very very odd so doing happens to be.

I disagree.
If a poster were not within his rights to withhold information
and he did it ANYWAY, that 'd seem more ODD (unless everyone else did the same thing).

BillRM wrote:

How hard it must be to filter out all personal information in postings that cover all possible subjects
and for any of the major posters here we are talking about tens of thousands of posts.

Its not hard. While posting on Abuzz and here,
I held a public office (that I will not identify)
and I withheld personal information from both Abuzz
and here which woud have been awkward, tho legal.
It was ez; I just did not raise the subjects thereof.

BillRM wrote:

Given the large efforts involved there must be
overwhelming reasons/needs that seems not to be share with any other poster here.

I don 't c it that way.
Efforts to maintain someone 's privacy need not be "large".
For instance, suppose that I had been divorced and I was ashamed of it.
( I have never been married ); it 'd have been ez for me to just
not bring up the subject of matrimonial relations; not hard.

In the 1960s or 1970s, I was target practicing with a .38 revolver.
I got an idea to do something for fun. I decided that it was a BAD idea; too risky.
I did nothing about it; I said nothing about it at the time.
As it turned out: IF I had implimented that idea,
it woud have had a bad result. I 'd not bring that up here,
in explicit terms, as I 'd be condemned for considering that;
so I posted nothing about it; not hard.

I don 't want A2Kers alleging that: "David is not safe in his gunnery practice."

David

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

The issue is not if I am willing to skip one night as I am more then willing never to drink one glass of wine ever again in a restaurant if the society go that insane.

I am not always in the mood to have a glass of wine however if I am in the mood there should be a reason that have some connection to the real universe not to drive with a .02 or so level BAC if I am in the mood for that wine.

The average driver who have an fatal accident due to BAC is not at .02 or .08 or .1 but 1.7 level.

Second the relationship is non linear and a driver in this 30s or older at .08 is a safer driver then an 18 years old driver with zero BAC.

If the society wish to go crazy over this to the point that a .02 or so is not allow I will skip the wine completely as I am fairly sure that 90 percents will do so and the hell with the fate of the businesses that loss that income stream.

No one is going to have a designated driver if he is planning on having one drink of wine he or she is just going to say the hell with it.

firefly wrote:

My BillRM, your written form of expression has shown sudden dramatic improvement.
You're clear and coherent and actually sound like English is your native language.
What's accounted for the change?

U think he had a few drinks ?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Its not hard. While posting on Abuzz and here,
I held a public office (that I will not identify)
and I withheld personal information from both Abuzz
and here which woud have been awkward, tho legal.
It was ez; I just did not raise the subjects thereof.

David we are not talking about one little bit of information or one narrow area of her life we are talking about all repeat all personal information in tens of thousands of postings.

She is hiding something that is deep and very dark in my opinion to go to that level of trouble.

2 Replies

@Questioner,

Sorry I had done research and the graph is correct the problem is that you can draw all kind of graphs by picking the population you choose to graph along with some other factors.

The different in age groups and sex and a number of other factors are larger then the affect of BAC at the level of .08.

Once more an older driver is safer driver at .08 then a teen is at BAC of 00.

By adjusting the filtering and playing games with some of the other factors you can get almost any graph you could care for.

The average BAC for an accident with a death cause by the driver with the high DAC is 1.7 repeat 1.7 not anywhere near .08.

The average police DUI stop that is not a road block but the police stopping a driver because of his driving happen to be also 1.7 not .08.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

DAVID wrote:

Its not hard. While posting on Abuzz and here,
I held a public office (that I will not identify)
and I withheld personal information from both Abuzz
and here which woud have been awkward, tho legal.
It was ez; I just did not raise the subjects thereof.

BillRM wrote:

David we are not talking about one little bit of information or one
narrow area of her life we are talking about all repeat all personal
information in tens of thousands of postings.

She is hiding something that is deep and very dark in my opinion
to go to that level of trouble.

Assuming that to be true (just assuming): SO WHAT???????

This forum is equally as open to people who hide things
that r deep n very dark as to anyone else.

I suspect that the members hereof r revealing exactly as much
of their personal lives as thay wanna, and if that be "odd":
"let us make the most of it" (with apologies to Patrick Henry).

David

1 Reply

I just don’t understand drinking and driving

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know