I just don’t understand drinking and driving

@ehBeth,

Quote:

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.

An at the same time we had full our prisons to overflowing as no other country in the world had done.

I am beginning to think that complaining to our special interests control legislatures is for the most part pointless and about as useful as for a Roman citizen to had complained to the Roman senate in the last days of the Roman Republic.

Anyone for a second American revolution?

Come to think of it I would make one hell of a good first Emperor/ruler for the American Empire.............. Wink

Now who should I appoint to be the head of my secret police?

David or Hawkeye both come to mind. Drunk

3 Replies

@BillRM,

I can't quickly find the free version of the research I was looking for.

I recall it's in this journal

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/accident-analysis-and-prevention/

but not the edition.

Hopefully, someone's keen enough to do the search Very Happy

If not, I'll look into it later.

In any case, I think the journal has lots of good information for people interested in mva analysis and prevention factors.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

Hopefully, someone's keen enough to do the search If not, I'll look into it later.

In any case, I think the journal has lots of good information for people interested in mva analysis and prevention factors.

I could access this information at the University of Miami library I am fairly sure but life it too short.

Your link does look interesting however.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

that has Come to think of it I would make one hell of a good first Emperor/ruler for the American Empire..............

Tiberius, Nero and Caligula were all monumental perverts, you should fit right in.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

another journal with good research articles - you're right that you can probably get free access through a library (most likely a university or medical library will have best access)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/aip/13698478

you can use the dropdown under articles in press to check each issue out - some articles are excerpted elsewhere if you google them

Traffic and transportation psychology is an interesting 'new' specialty area.

http://www.iaapsy.org/division13/

If I had money, I'd love to go to one of their conferences.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

BillRM wrote:

that has Come to think of it I would make one hell of a good first Emperor/ruler for the American Empire..............

izzythepush wrote:

Tiberius, Nero and Caligula were all monumental perverts, you should fit right in.

Thay were NOT Americans.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

An at the same time we had full our prisons to overflowing as no other country in the world had done.

And, if it were a crime to mangle the English language, you'd be sitting in one of them doing a life sentence.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

An at the same time we had full our prisons to overflowing
as no other country in the world had done.

firefly wrote:

And, if it were a crime to mangle the English language,
you'd be sitting in one of them doing a life sentence.

(A sentence for bad sentences ?)
It is very worth noticing that our prisons r filled as Bill said because
of a deeply unAmerican, unConstitutional statutory scheme of USURPING
power to tell Americans putatively in the LAND OF THE FREE what thay cannot ingest.
We citizens tolerate that and by passively doing so we r complicit
in the betrayal of simple Original Americanism.
The central concept is that government was NEVER granted authority
to interfere in self destructive conduct. THAT is none of government's business.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

(A sentence for bad sentences ?)

You got it. Smile

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

(A sentence for bad sentences ?)

firefly wrote:

You got it.

Then that elevates my MOOD !

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

The central concept is that government was NEVER granted authority
to interfere in self destructive conduct

Beside the fact that you can not interfere with such behaviors you can only increase the harm done instead.

For all the tens of billions of dollars a year spend on the so call war on drugs there is no question that even an old non-drug user like me could go out my front door and within a few hours return with any drug you could name.

Fulling the prisons with those who are willing to supply the desire for illegal drugs serve no useful purpose that I can see.

1 Reply

@cpguy,

Nice try cpgirl but it's public record and will be posted.

2 Replies

@Wildhourses,

I was not trying anything eventually we will all know the facts but until then ..... all of the facts have not been presented. There are too many unknown. Everyone will know everything.

0 Replies

@Wildhourses,

I'm just saying right now it should be private while the collection of facts are happening.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

DAVID wrote:

The central concept is that government was NEVER granted authority
to interfere in self destructive conduct

BillRM wrote:

Beside the fact that you can not interfere with such behaviors
you can only increase the harm done instead.

A man is within his natural, Individual rights to end his human life, if such be his choice.
He has NO duty to the collective to remain humanly alive.
His life belongs to HIM, not to the damn collective.

That principle applies to all lesser forms of self destructive behavior,
including all vices.

Drunken driving is distinct from that,
because the drunk exposes his fellow innocent citizens to danger.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Drunken driving is distinct from that,
because the drunk exposes his fellow innocent citizens to danger.

True however the devil as always is in the details as in the UK a BAC of .05 is drunken driving and that is beyond silliness.

We all had placed our fellow men and women at added risk by driving from time to time slightly impaired and not at our peak for one reason or another.

Be that reason s few drinks or having one hell of a fight with our mates or deciding as I did once to work all night and then start right away on an attempted 1200 mile straight through road trip without sleep in between.

The theory and the reasoning behind a law can be without question and the end results can still end up doing more harm then good when the Fireflies of the world get the lawmakers to go to extremes and throw out all commonsense when applying the idea and the law.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

in the UK a BAC of .05 is drunken driving and that is beyond silliness.

I believe the legal limit in the UK is .08, just as it is in the U.S.

But, the fact that you would even consider a legal BAC of .05 "beyond silliness" reflects the fact that you do not understand the effects of alcohol on driving abilities, as well as suggesting that heavy drinking is important to you and you don't want to have limits imposed on your driving even though you might be impaired. It would apparently be "beyond silliness" to expect you to get into a car with a BAC level of only .05. Rolling Eyes

You want to see the legal limit raised to .15 or .16.--which, of course, would put even more drivers on the road in even more significantly impaired states.

By your reasoning, a great many countries in the world are "beyond silliness" because their legal BAC limit is below .08.

Quote:

International Blood Alcohol Limits

Zero
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Hungary, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Romania, Slovak Republic, (Uzbekistan) (10 countries)

0.01%
Albania

0.02%
Estonia*, Norway, Poland, (Sudan), Sweden (5)

0.03%
China, Georgia*, India, Japan, Moldova, Turkmenistan (6)

0.04%
Belarus, Lithuania* (2)

0.05%

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Macedonia, Monaco, Namibia, Netherlands, Portugal*, Russia*, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Yugoslavia (35)

0.06%
Peru
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/articles%20and%20topics/drunk%20driving/artcl--drunk-driving-0005--global-BAC-limits.htm

Quote:

We all had placed our fellow men and women at added risk by driving from time to time slightly impaired and not at our peak for one reason or another.

Be that reason s few drinks or having one hell of a fight with our mates or deciding as I did once to work all night and then start right away on an attempted 1200 mile straight through road trip without sleep in between.

Because you may have behaved irresponsibly in your driving behaviors is hardly a reason to question the need for drunk driving laws. It simply affirms that you may not care whether you endanger yourself or others when you operate a motor vehicle that can easily become a lethal weapon.

That you are arguing against drunk driving laws in a thread about an individual who allegedly drove drunk and killed someone reflects not only a lack of logic and common sense on your part, but also your preoccupation with the possibilities of punishment for such acts rather than any understanding of the needless tragedies that result from drunk driving.

If you don't drive drunk you don't have to worry about being charged with DUI manslaughter. That simple fact eludes you.

1 Reply

@cpguy,

cpguy wrote:

I'm just saying right now it should be private while the collection of facts are happening.

That ship sailed when the state put out a press release with its version of events, and his name address and car tag number.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

"beyond silliness" reflects the fact that you do not understand the effects of alcohol on driving abilities, as well as suggesting that heavy drinking is important to you and you don't want to have limits imposed on your driving even though you might be impaired. It would apparently be "beyond silliness" to expect you to get into a car with a BAC level of only .05.

LOL and because I think along with 80 percents of Federal judges that the minimum guideline punishment in the Federal system of five years for having child porn is far to harsh I must have child porn!!!!!!!!! Oh and because I have computers systems no one can access without my permission.

Oh and because I think that marijuana should be legal I must be a pot smoker and because..............

So you are still under the impression that you are discrediting anyone with that kind of silliness Firefly??????

For the record once more I do not have child porn or even seen it, I do not drive with more then one repeat one mixed drink in my system and rarely drink except on vacations going months without any alcohol consumption at all and the last time I smoke any pot was around 1983 or so and then my total lifetime consumption of weed amount to a dozen or two dozen cigarettes.

What else oh because I think that Hawkeye have every right with willing partners to be into the S&M lifestyle does not mean that I am also a part of that scene.

Firefly I am not sure whether I should have complete contempt for you or feel for sorry for you or both at the same time.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I repeat...

That you are arguing against drunk driving laws in a thread about an individual who allegedly drove drunk and killed someone reflects not only a lack of logic and common sense on your part, but also your preoccupation with the possibilities of punishment for such acts rather than any understanding of the needless tragedies that result from drunk driving.

If you don't drive drunk, with a BAC .08+, you don't have to worry about being charged with DUI manslaughter. That simple fact eludes you.

1 Reply

I just don’t understand drinking and driving

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know