I just don’t understand drinking and driving

@firefly,

Thom’s court date has been kept quiet. I thought it would all be public record howeverI tried doing a search without any luck.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

I would imagine the prevalence of such behaviors is what determines why they are targeted.

I know that commercial drivers have regulations on how much rest they have to take, so I'm not sure what, exactly, your beef is here.

.08 decreases driving skills, and it is a common thing for people to have a few drinks and head out on the road. A lot more people do that on a nightly basis than drive while emotionally upset.

0 Replies

@EqualityFLSTPete,

As it should be.

1 Reply

@EqualityFLSTPete,

I think the last court date was 1/26 in traffic court. They seem to have transferred the Careless Driving citation from traffic court to the criminal division as a companion to the DUI manslaughter charge, and a transcript of his driving record was obtained on 1/23.
Part of the case involves administration action by the DMV in the event of a conviction on the DUI manslaughter charge because that results in a permanent revocation of his driver's license. So, that's also why traffic court gets involved.

I don't think there was a criminal court hearing on 1/30. Did you hear that there actually was a court appearance on that date? I think that what had been originally scheduled for 1/30 was what took place on 1/26 in traffic court. But, as you say, there isn't a lot of info to be found, so I'm not sure. The last hearing in criminal court seems to have been on 1/10 to discuss the conditions of his bond, and I think they granted the defense motion to delete the requirement that he wear a SCRAM monitor to make sure he consumes no alcohol.

I also don't think these things move all that quickly. And it's only been a month and a half since the accident and his arrest. They are likely still gathering evidence, looking at evidence, before trying to get evidence excluded or included, etc.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

I think the last court date was 1/26 in traffic court.
They seem to have transferred the Careless Driving citation from traffic court
to the criminal division as a companion to the DUI manslaughter charge,
and a transcript of his driving record was obtained on 1/23.
Part of the case involves administration action by the DMV in the event
of a conviction on the DUI manslaughter charge because that results
in a permanent revocation of his driver's license.

Just speaking as an ordinary citizen, I don't think that it is morally right nor wise
to create a hell for someone in Tom's position to live in.
Its too ez for one of the rest of us to fall into. If I remember accurately,
the President of the National Safety Council himself was arrested for DUI,
while he was driving home from some public function. (I Googled that, but did not find the incident.)
This is too close to what human nature is itself.
I might add that over the years, decades n centuries, I have been hit by drunken drivers quite a few times.
The last time, the drunken woman who hit me totaled out one of my cars. I liked that car.

firefly wrote:

So, that's also why traffic court gets involved.

I don't think there was a criminal court hearing on 1/30. Did you hear that there actually was a court appearance on that date? I think that what had been originally scheduled for 1/30 was what took place on 1/26 in traffic court. But, as you say, there isn't a lot of info to be found, so I'm not sure. The last hearing in criminal court seems to have been on 1/10 to discuss the conditions of his bond, and I think they granted the defense motion to delete the requirement that he wear a SCRAM monitor to make sure he consumes no alcohol.

It says something negative about how life in America
has been affected by the judiciary that the court tells a citizen
(who has the right to be deemed INNOCENT until he is convicted of a crime)
what he can't ingest. Some nerve!
The counter-argument is that the court can keep him in jail,
pending trial, but let's not forget his Constitutional Right to bail,
if he is not a flight risk.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." 8th Amendment US Constitution, Supreme Law of the Land

David

0 Replies

Well cell phones use, as in talking not texting, when driving is as bad a driving at .08 BAC and that amusingly should tell people with an non alcohol affected brain cell working not so must that cell phones use is so bad but that the DUI standard is now set so low that most any kind of behaviors when driving is as bad as having a .08 blood level.

Of course that is not what the conclusion that will be drawn as most people do not think for themselves and we are now getting a drive to ban cell phone use when driving.

http://unews.utah.edu/old/p/062206-1.html

June 29, 2006 -- Three years after the preliminary results first were presented at a scientific meeting and drew wide attention, University of Utah psychologists have published a study showing that motorists who talk on handheld or hands-free cellular phones are as impaired as drunken drivers.

"We found that people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit” of 0.08 percent, which is the minimum level that defines illegal drunken driving in most U.S. states, says study co-author Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology

2 Replies

@BillRM,

In the UK only hands free mobiles are allowed. Texting while driving is illegal.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

The fact that we actually have to be told not to do something stupid that competes with our attention while driving gives me second thoughts about whether our best days are ahead as a species.

"I didnt see the stop sign and I hit the pedestrians because I was texting the bar to tell them that I just finished my six pack"

2 Replies

@farmerman,

In fact hands free mobiles aren't really any safer than standard phones, but intuitively they seem safer. If you want to make a phone call/send a text, pull over.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

The false belief that"multi tasking" is an acquired skill is just bullshit. STudies have shown that, at all levels, where multi tasking is being done, neither of the tasks are being done to peak efficiency and the tasks that require concentration and paying attention are those that need exclusivity and that the task performer is just dangerous to those around him or her.

We had a drunk guy on a smart phone kill an AMish horse two weeks ago. He hit a buggy going flat out along the shoulder on Rt 340 near the town of "Intercourse". The buggy got flattened and the horse killed. The family in the buggy was banged up and injured but nobody was killed this time.

We have a major problem with texting drivers killing our Amish during tourist season (April to October). Consequently, Amish buggies have , in the last twenty years , been redesigned by a firm owned by a race driver who now owns a major car leasing business. The guy, named Roger PEnsky, had set some "Tub" designers to make AMish buggies "safe" using the same principles as an Indy race car. The new Amish buggies are now made of a Titanium skin with a rigid metal framed "Tub" in which the passengers sit. They dont look any differently and are, actually much lighter than the steel framed wooden buggies of old. Now, the Amish kids, when theyre in "Rumspringe", will decorate these buggies with neat mint green or light blue thin stripes and John Deere reflectors
All this technology was developed as a necessity because of the rise of cell phones and the resignation to the fact that many people are just idiots

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I can see how texting can be a problem in taking your eyes and attentions off the roadway but not talking on a cell phone in most traffic/driving situtations.

To state that a cell phone conversation is a problem also imply that talking to a passenger or even listening to the car radio is a problem.

There got to be some commonsense on the whole subject of driving is concern that is sadly missing here.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Well cell phones use, as in talking not texting, when driving is as bad a driving at .08 BAC

and that's why in many jurisdictions there are separate charges for texting/dialing while driving - and there can be separate charges for distracted driving - and there can also be separate charges for inattentive driving

in a case of vehicular manslaughter, the distracted/inattentive/texting/dialing charges can be layered on top of the manslaughter charges

many legal regimes are already dealing with your concern about other factors which impact the ability of drivers to concentrate. There is significant research in the area and a number of specialized publications exist which present the state of the art literature.

It could be an interesting matter for another thread, much as your general concerns about the American justice and prison systems could make interesting thread topics of their own.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

and there can be separate charges for distracted driving - and there can also be separate charges for inattentive driving

Ehbeth even if there is nothing at all allow in a car such as even a car radio and no passenger allow human nature is such that when there seems no need for full attention on driving the mind of the driver will wander.

Only where there is a clear need for full attention do human beings give full attention to driving.

So to begin to punish people criminally for not granting full attention to driving at all times is in fact punishing people for being human.

This once more is an example of taking a good concept IE you should paid attention to driving in a car to such an extreme that it become counterproductive and turn every one into a criminal when they are driving.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

So to begin to punish people criminally for not granting full attention to driving at all times

that has been the direction of the law in North America for at least the last twenty years.

If you have an argument with it, you should direct it to your legislators.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

To state that a cell phone conversation is a problem also imply that talking to a passenger or even listening to the car radio is a problem.

Not at all, listening is passive, having a conversation on a mobile phone isn't, you're a lot more distracted. This has been researched.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

There are some really interesting studies on that phenomenon. As I recall, it has something to do with your visual focus. I'll have to see if I can find a source that has general access.

edit: this one is free to read

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081201081917.htm

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

In fact hands free mobiles aren't really any safer than standard phones, but intuitively they seem safer.
If you want to make a phone call/send a text, pull over.

OK. We know that, applying that reasoning,
whenever Izzy wants to speak to any of his passengers,
he will pull over. ( I 've heard rumors that its not even safe
to drive on the right side of the road where u r; doubtless there is no merit in such defamations.)

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

We know that, applying that reasoning,
whenever Izzy wants to speak to any of his passengers,
he will pull over.

the research doesn't support this - drivers are less distracted with passengers in the car than while on phone or texting (see the link in my post above)

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

the axis of defensive driving is to not be involved with any (ANY) istractions. If you wih to list them David, feel free, but talking to passengers while driving can be such a distraction. I often miss my turns when Im in the mioddle of a conversation with my wife. SO, while you are indeed correct, here we are , merely itemizing all the ways that we can become dangerous missiles by sheer distraction.

Swatting a bumble bee on the interstate

looking at the GPS alot
etc etc

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

I'm trying to find a free source for the research behind this piece of information.

Quote:

Researchers estimate that cell phone users fail to see up to half of the visual cues in front of them.

0 Replies

I just don’t understand drinking and driving

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know